Could Mexico have won the Mexican-American War?
- Thread starter Yelnoc
- Start date
Clay was a Whig, and as such pledged to one term.
How? From Oregon? Overland through Utah and Nevada? The Mormons will have something to say about that.
It depends who is President. Webster was IIRC the designated next Whig candidate. He wouldn't be interested in a war either.
A Democrat could be; and now that I think about it, squashing the Mormons could be an added attraction.
However - once the Gold Rush starts, California will be overrun by migrants from all over. Mexican rule can't be sustained by the handful of Californios. Britain may put in its oar: assisting the miners to throw off Mexican control, and becoming the protector of the new Republic, with obvious economic benefits.
If Mexico had played it more as a war of attrition -as in, Santa Anna moving its capital further south, and organized the Mexican army into guerrilla units-, it would have done well. Specially with people such as Miguel Miramón being quite proficient on guerrilla and defensive warfare, as his later adventures on the Reform War can attest. Or Porfirio Díaz, who joined the army as a volunteer during the invasion, but never got to see the frontlines, I can see him really pulling off some interesting early career moves.
The American invaders were not used to the tropical diseases, and many American soldiers fell like flies because of it, and given enough time, and pissing enough people off due to disrespect to their traditions (specially the Catholics, something the Americans avoided to do OTL), the whole thing would have turned into a quite bloody stalemate, eventually getting New England to get a bit rebellious towards Washington, dragging more Irishmen (and a few Gringos, if some reports are to be believed) into desertion, and there you have, Mexico "winning" the war due to the fact the Americans are too exhausted about sending people to die in some worthless piece of land without making any more gains. Mexico would still have lost some land, but it would be less than it was OTL.
Ah, the Guerra de Castas. Though, the Mayans were never fond of anyone due to some bizarre religious beliefs they had. But that's a story for another day.
The American invaders were not used to the tropical diseases, and many American soldiers fell like flies because of it, and given enough time, and pissing enough people off due to disrespect to their traditions (specially the Catholics, something the Americans avoided to do OTL), the whole thing would have turned into a quite bloody stalemate, eventually getting New England to get a bit rebellious towards Washington, dragging more Irishmen (and a few Gringos, if some reports are to be believed) into desertion, and there you have, Mexico "winning" the war due to the fact the Americans are too exhausted about sending people to die in some worthless piece of land without making any more gains. Mexico would still have lost some land, but it would be less than it was OTL.
Ah, the Guerra de Castas. Though, the Mayans were never fond of anyone due to some bizarre religious beliefs they had. But that's a story for another day.
I would say no without significant butterflies. Really one has to butterfly away the long Liberal vs. Conservative wars on more accurately the numerous wars. Mexico was at this time too weak from fighting between each other to really stand up to the Americans. While they might have reversed the Americans in key areas eventually superior American might and disunity of Mexico would prevail
Good to know!
Yeah, prosecuting such a war would be difficult. I just can't imagine the US not trying to make a play for all of that gold. As you point out, the British will likely involve themselves also, considering how weak Mexican control of California was.
What I really want to write is an independent California, but I haven't worked out how it gets to be so.
Very good point.
I wonder how Mexico might develop without any American war, at least none in the 1840s or 1850s?
It is hard to say. With less political war Mexico could at least begin to settle the Western territories of Alta Mexico probably starting with Texas. After all I doubt Mexico would have much population to settle extensively all of the Western territories but it could hold on to more territory then it did provided the United States follows more or less OTL. Mexico was especially interested in allying with the Cherokee but all the Texas tribes were on the verge of extinction as all the local game had been hunted to extinction to satisfy the fur trade.
Really if Mexico was doing better I doubt they would have let Austin in to begin with do to the whole slavery thing