Development of Tejas and Alta California

Economically, demographically & otherwise, how would (what became) California and Texas have developed if Mexico had retained them post-1848?
 
Last edited:
I would consider that, at least for California, development would be slow and most of the region remaining agrarian well into the 1870s at least. Mexico had enough on its plate much closer to Mexico City to worry about. The Californios unfortunately were tired of being ignored by the capital and were prepared to rise in rebellion and seek the protection and annexation by another power, Britain or the United States.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
I would consider that, at least for California, development would be slow and most of the region remaining agrarian well into the 1870s at least. Mexico had enough on its plate much closer to Mexico City to worry about. The Californios unfortunately were tired of being ignored by the capital and were prepared to rise in rebellion and seek the protection and annexation by another power, Britain or the United States.

That would be OTL then, as California was relatively agrarian and underdeveloped until the new deal :p
 
I would consider that, at least for California, development would be slow and most of the region remaining agrarian well into the 1870s at least. Mexico had enough on its plate much closer to Mexico City to worry about. The Californios unfortunately were tired of being ignored by the capital and were prepared to rise in rebellion and seek the protection and annexation by another power, Britain or the United States.

I can imagine a breakaway California Republic not too dissimilar from the one in Wilcoxchar's TL. Don't know about Texas, though; if Mexico were to lose it, it'd probably just go straight to the U.S., I'd think.
 
Anglo-American settlers are going to continue moving east into Mexican territory. Mexico is therefore only going to hang on to its northern territories as long as it has military superiority or parity with the USA (without which this entire scenario is impossible). That in itself poses a significant challenge, but supposing for a moment that a strong Mexico does emerge, it will have to work hard to integrate the north economically and culturally or else as soon as Mexican power wanes they will lose it to independence movements and/or the United States.

Another possibility for Mexico is countering the wave of settlement from the American East with its own settlers - this will require an earlier POD to increase prosperity and political stability in the Mexican heartland.
 
Except for the Gold Rush of course.

So-bad news for Mexico; winning or avoiding the war with the USA only postpones the day California secedes, to become independent, seek British protection, or join the USA.

If that is, Mexico remains as limited, with a government combining short-sightedness with an insightful realization of just how limited their reach and control was. Clearly to retain these territories the POD has to be well before 1847.

Since after all Texas had been independent some 20 years by that date!

Clearly to ask this question is to propose a POD such that the Texas Secession movement either never got going or got defeated; it would take an even stronger Mexico than needed merely to discourage and prevent secession to let Texas slip, only to recover it later.

So the ball is back in the court of "what would Mexico do with these border territories if they were stronger?" Not what would the Mexico that failed to keep Texas and was on the point of losing California to a largely domestic sedition anyway do.

So anyhow, a stronger Mexico would be able to persuade more Mexicans, of a type more strongly loyal to Mexico too, to settle in both California and Texas. And with more Mexicans there, it would be Mexicans who discover gold near Sacramento.

Still, a stronger Mexico might still not be strong enough to hold the province once word gets out and a miscellaneous mob of foreigners invades willy-nilly. That part will be touch-and-go. But the gold rush is also an opportunity, to persuade even more Mexicans to settle California. It could be they lose the demographic race and California is only minority-Mexican when the dust settles, but between the loyalty of the Mexicans present and the legality of Mexico's claim on the territory, it stays in Mexico. And that opens up the question again.
 
Would it be impossible for Mexico to do what other countries have done, and use the immigrants to strengthen itself, thereby making these provinces both more developed and more firmly held?

(Compare with the strength of the US, had no immigration post 1783 happened.)
 
Would it be impossible for Mexico to do what other countries have done, and use the immigrants to strengthen itself, thereby making these provinces both more developed and more firmly held?

I don't see why not - Welsh and German immigrants made Chile and Argentina stronger

Mexico also retains strong ties to Spain so could encourage immigration from that direction, tho it might take Spain having a more realistic attitude to losing its American colonies

I think the Catholic element that Mexico required, at least on paper, of its settlers would need to go - I'm sure Argentina did not require its Welsh settlers convert to Catholicism!

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Top