AHC/WI: No Mexican-American War

You mean that force of less than a thousand revolters? If the Federales didn't have a fuck ton of domestic issues flaring I doubt that would ultimately be an issue. Sure, it'd be costly and the Gov. is perpetually broke, but that wouldn't stop a Santa Anna figure or any man determined enough to stop that/

But they did have a nearly never ending number of issue flaring up across the country. I wrote that statement under the impression that PoD, as implied by the OP, was that the was simply that the Mexican-American War doesn't occur, Soverihn was able to understand that, so I'm not sure why you weren't. I freely acknowledged in my reply to Soverihn that an earlier PoD that has Santa Anna killed raises the possibility of Mexico holding onto the region. Another possibility would be to go further back a shorter war for Independence would do the country good as well.

Ok, again with the historical determinism, I must say, I love it! If I didn't know any better I'd say you don't know about the (failed) attempt by Gomez Farias to send up a few hundred educators and craftsmen to the distant province. It faltered from two major reasons. The more important one was Santa Anna being, well, Santa Anna and revolting against his own government... The other posing issue was that the Federales had decreed the incoming colonists had the authority to secularise the valuable missions of Alta California, properties long coveted by the Californios.

It's funny because we actually just went over Farias' reforms in my History of California class last Friday, which is why I stated that the attempts by the Mexican government had been a failure and that the Californios strongly resisted any imposition on them. All of this is moot though because my initial statement was made under the impression that we were dealing with a much later PoD.

Ahaha, so the Mexican nationals weren't whites to you? I can see this is going to be fruitful discussion.

I should have used Anglo-settlers and it's my own fault for not, but I resent the implications of your statement.
 
Last edited:
Just saying, but if you really think a group of settlers that didn't number above 10,000 and were plagued with cattle raiders by Coastal Miwok bands for decades... Perhaps that group wouldn't be a major issue in controlling by a military force that is properly funded, with a naval supply chain. I'd say even with a POD in the 1840s this self entitled group of people could be controlled.

Now that this is done can we get to some actual butterflies?
 
Just saying, but if you really think a group of settlers that didn't number above 10,000 and were plagued with cattle raiders by Coastal Miwok bands for decades... Perhaps that group wouldn't be a major issue in controlling by a military force that is properly funded, with a naval supply chain. I'd say even with a POD in the 1840s this self entitled group of people could be controlled.

Now that this is done can we get to some actual butterflies?

Well the big butterflies for me are how the lack of Western territory affects slavery, and what a successful Whig administration (since that seems to be an agreed upon POD) would do to American politics. Would the Whig's be able to stick around, instead of being folded into the Republican party a generation later?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
There is the reality, however, that population and geography

Just saying, but if you really think a group of settlers that didn't number above 10,000 and were plagued with cattle raiders by Coastal Miwok bands for decades... Perhaps that group wouldn't be a major issue in controlling by a military force that is properly funded, with a naval supply chain. I'd say even with a POD in the 1840s this self entitled group of people could be controlled. Now that this is done can we get to some actual butterflies?

There is the reality, however, that population and geography favored the US in any contest for the (current) US Pacific Coast/Southwest (or the "northwest" of New Spain/Mexico) in the Nineteenth Century.

In 1790 the population of Mexico was (roughly) 5 million, that of the United States 4 million; but in 1830 it was, respectively, 6 million to 13 million. These are rough numbers (I’ve seen estimates regarding Mexico of up to 6.4 million), because the census process in Mexico differed significantly from that in the US. Still, it is an interesting point of comparison. 2-1 odds remain 2-1 odds...

As an aside, the earliest census data for the state of Mexico I’m aware of is 1895, which gave the state a population of ~840,000 and the DF one of ~475,000, for a total of ~1.3 million. The population of the US state of Missouri in 1890 (historically) was ~2.7 million; the city of St. Louis alone numbered 451,000. FWIW, St. Louis had 5,000 people in 1830, while Missouri had 140,000 the same year. Even in 1830, travel from St. Louis eastwards was (relatively) straightforward, because of the Mississippi River, Ohio River, Great Lakes, and the upstate NY canal system. Travel by sea from the US east coast to what is today the Gulf Coast was fairly straightforward as well, and certainly simpler than maritime travel from anywhere on the east coast(s) of the Americas to the Pacific and California.

Interesting point, also, on overland distances; even setting aside the traveling conditions and climate, today, road mileage from San Francisco to Mexico City is 2,200 miles+; from St. Louis to San Francisco is ~2,100 miles, whether one uses Interstate 80 or Interstate 40.

Given the US had gained its independence in 1783 and Mexico was still fighting off the Spanish as late as 1829, the realities in terms of nation-building are that the US had a lead of more than four decades in consolidation and the construction of national institutions, which - simply in a sense of opportunity - is a tremendous advantage. The US, for example, had fought two major wars against peer competitors by the 1840s, as well as a series of naval/expeditionary conflicts as far afield as the Mediterranean. Mexico had fought a lengthy series of revolutionary and internal conflicts, but the difference between the experiences of the US and Mexican armed forces by 1840 is pretty stark.

Bottom line, absent a sort of pacifism that was pretty rare in the Western World/Americas in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries, there would be conflict over the future of the continent between the US and Mexico, just as there had been between the British, Spanish, and French in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth centuries. Given that, and a Western Hemisphere that is essentially as it as historically until the Nineteenth Century, it is undeniable that in the great contest over dominance of the North American continent, the US began with significant advantages that only grew in the following decades, and ultimately would be likely to prevail in any military trial with Mexico in the 1800s.

Best,
 
Best Bet

I think that if Mexico had a stable independent government, they would have had a lot more clout and been able to defend their interests more than before. It would also do a lot for morale as well as having more assets to work with, i.e. better infrastructure, economy, etc......

Definitely not Santa Anna, as previously stated he will drive the country to failure no matter the circumstance.

The question is then, who.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Hildago? Allende? Aldama?

I think that if Mexico had a stable independent government, they would have had a lot more clout and been able to defend their interests more than before. It would also do a lot for morale as well as having more assets to work with, i.e. better infrastructure, economy, etc......Definitely not Santa Anna, as previously stated he will drive the country to failure no matter the circumstance. The question is then, who.

Hildago? Allende? Aldama? Dominguez?

Any of them would have been better than Iturbide, Santa Anna, et al...had to be worse, but still.;)

Best,
 
Yes, Unless Mexico gets their shit straight before the 1830s. I do not see the holding the american west.

Maybe Iturbide is able to stay as emperor and build a decent central royal army.

Or maybe Vicente Guerrero surviving the coup or being able to maneuver politically to avoid it.

No Texas or western expansion may had put more pressure on the southern states to split.

They would know it would be just a matter of time before the north and the new states in the Midwest started really out voting them.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Something to keep in mind in all this:

Yes, Unless Mexico gets their shit straight before the 1830s. I do not see the holding the american west. - snip - .

Something to keep in mind in all this ... the Americans (as in the people of the 13 colonies that became the original United States) had been on the front lines of the Anglo-French (Franco-British?) confrontation over (eastern) North America since the 1600s; the Hudson and the Saint Lawrence were well within striking distance of each other, and the local tribal peoples provided a number of third forces, that shifted alliances as necessary, and so made the conflict even more intense.

After 1760, of course, that was past, and "colonial" troops and the colonial economy had made a undeniable difference in terms of which of the European powers triumphed in that contest; given that reality, discontent in the colonies over how London made decisions during and after the last Anglo-French war had a significant amount to do with the Revolution. In a lot of ways, the French and Indian war(s), as an outgrowth of European power politics, were the incubator of "American" nationalism.

Once the US was independent and into the national consolidation phase, the realities of the strategic position in North America was never far from the minds of the elites, political and economic, in the US.

The Spanish/Mexicans really had not had the same experience, not in terms of New Spain-turned-Mexico (it was different in the Spanish Caribbean colonies, which had been bitterly contested between Spain, France, and Britain since the Sixteenth Century), but New Spain didn't really have a "Western Hemisphere" threat - the British, French, and Portuguese were all too far away, and even the remaining independent actors among the native American societies (Comanche, etc) were not in a position to threaten the "heartland" of New Spain-turned-Mexico.

The point being, in the aftermath of the American (US) war of independence, there was political consensus across the spectrum the most important strategic need for the new nation was to grow as much as possible - the treaties with the British regarding the Old Northwest and Old Southwest, the northern borders, the Lousiana Purchase in 1803 (two decades before Mexico could claim independence) all point to a reality that the US elite had set out to ensure their new nation's dominance on the continent, and the reality of the Nineteenth Century can be read as just that; the rise of the United States.

The takeaway being that despite the twists and turns of the century, any single point of departure is unlikely to make the end result significantly different, and, in fact, one probably had to go to the 1700s to set up the conditions for a sucessor state to New Spain that can maintain its position as of 1800.

What that point could be is challenging; New Spain-turned-Mexico was a different type of society than New England & etc.-turned-United States, and trying to find a departure point for New Spain-to-become-Mexico in (say) the late 1600s to early 1700s is not a simple thing.

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
More that the US had a four-decade-long head start,

The "US is the only nation that can conquer the continent because Mexico has a plethora of ingrown issues" mantra strikes again.

More that the US had a four-decade-long head start, don't you think?

Come up with a point of departure that equalizes that, and guess what? You've still only "equalized" the contest...

Best,
 
Top