Effects of no Mexican-American War?

PoeFacedKilla · Mar 2, 2012

If their is never a war between the two countries what would mexico be like today?

Even if Texas still succeeds California is twice the size alone; this could add a huge population lift to mexico leaving it (judging by todays standards) with almost 200 million men.

How powerful would this country be by say, 1900?
What would the world be like today with a much larger and powerful Mexico (assuming the states they retain turn out in some way similar to OTL?)

snerfuplz · Mar 2, 2012

The population would be more diffused and I would say that the Northern territories would remain underpopulated. After all Mexico still will be a battleground between Liberals and Conservatives fraught with coup and civil war. Eventually the USA will get into a civil war and an imperialistic European power would love the opportunity to expand its influence into the New World but butterflies will probably change when and who

historyfelon · Mar 2, 2012

It ends up the same...

Even without a war California would fall into the lap of the norteamericanos. California was already filling with anglos..Sutter's Creek, site of the gold discovery, was owned by an American. Once the gold is discovered the land will go the way of Florida, Oregon, and Texas..or perhaps Louisiana. The US may buy it, absorb it with population, or invade it at a later date..perhaps, to put off the coming Civil War. There is no way a weak and unstable country like Mexico is going to hold on to those underpopulated and resource rich lands.
"Poor Mexico, so far from God, and so close to the United States."

teg · Mar 2, 2012

I actually read a very interesting counter-factual on this subject (I don't think the general public can access it however, as it is on JSTOR). The PoD was Clay being elected president and Texas remaining an independent state, along with California becoming independent. It then goes on to suppouse that no Mexican-American War would lead to slavery surviving effectively indefenitely and there being no civil war. I don't particuarly agree with the last bit (I reckon a civil war was inevitable by the 1840s) but it is a very interesting article none the less.

snerfuplz · Mar 2, 2012

historyfelon said:
Even without a war California would fall into the lap of the norteamericanos. California was already filling with anglos..Sutter's Creek, site of the gold discovery, was owned by an American. Once the gold is discovered the land will go the way of Florida, Oregon, and Texas..or perhaps Louisiana. The US may buy it, absorb it with population, or invade it at a later date..perhaps, to put off the coming Civil War. There is no way a weak and unstable country like Mexico is going to hold on to those underpopulated and resource rich lands.
"Poor Mexico, so far from God, and so close to the United States."

Especially since Mexico doesn't have the population to hold onto California. I can imagine Mexico hanging onto parts are all of what is now Arizona and New Mexico because the USA really just wanted California

PoeFacedKilla · Mar 2, 2012

what do you have to do to make northern Mexico not so underpopulated?

LSCatilina · Mar 2, 2012

PoeFacedKilla said:
what do you have to do to make northern Mexico not so underpopulated?

A far less space-filling Spanish America. It would really help to concentrate settlements.

Furthermore, try to have french colonisation being less busy by making a junction between Canada and Louisiana, and make them settleing OTL Texas.
You'll have probably a not-spanish population there, but it would be easily mergeable into a less-hispanic Mexican identity.

snerfuplz · Mar 2, 2012

PoeFacedKilla said:
what do you have to do to make northern Mexico not so underpopulated?

Really probably avoid a couple wars and increase immigration. I know there was a plan to settle Blacks in Texas before the war but the plan ran into too much resistance (have the guy who proposed it not kill himself would help too). The Mexicans would also probably have to relax their immigration laws and allow for dual citizenship and non-Catholic immigrants etc. It would be difficult to do needless to say

historyfelon · Mar 2, 2012

snerfuplz said:
Really probably avoid a couple wars and increase immigration. I know there was a plan to settle Blacks in Texas before the war but the plan ran into too much resistance (have the guy who proposed it not kill himself would help too). The Mexicans would also probably have to relax their immigration laws and allow for dual citizenship and non-Catholic immigrants etc. It would be difficult to do needless to say

Add to that building more telegraph lines, a change in policy in Mexico City having to do with economics and politics...and you border on, or crash over into ASB Land. The Spanish had over 200 years to formulate a sensible colonial policy, one closer to the British, or even the French..and they didn't. It's one of the reasons Mexico is the wreck it is today (even if it had been able to keep California).

jycee · Mar 2, 2012

With something like a Clay Presidency, were Texas manages to stay independent (though heavily reliant on the US), it is likely that Mexico will be able to hold on to large chunks of California. But not all.

Utah has largely been filled by Mormons and as many pointed out Northern California has been also receiving steady immigration from the US. Since Mexico is still caught up with large internal disputes, you could see these areas break off ala Texas. However most of Southern California, Arizona and New Mexico would remain Mexican.

Wolfpaw · Mar 2, 2012

Wilcoxchar's excellent Union and Liberty features an America that never fought the Mexican-American War.

Wolfpaw · Mar 2, 2012

teg said:
I actually read a very interesting counter-factual on this subject (I don't think the general public can access it however, as it is on JSTOR). The PoD was Clay being elected president and Texas remaining an independent state, along with California becoming independent. It then goes on to suppouse that no Mexican-American War would lead to slavery surviving effectively indefenitely and there being no civil war. I don't particuarly agree with the last bit (I reckon a civil war was inevitable by the 1840s) but it is a very interesting article none the less.

Link, please. I have access to JSTOR

EWHM · Mar 2, 2012

Before the Mexican-American war, the US was negotiating to buy most of the area that they took after the war. What if instead of a fight, Mexico sold the territory (the US paid them a slightly smaller amount than the original offer as part of the peace treaty, a weird diplomatic thing that I understand but don't really grok)?

jycee · Mar 2, 2012

EWHM said:
Before the Mexican-American war, the US was negotiating to buy most of the area that they took after the war. What if instead of a fight, Mexico sold the territory (the US paid them a slightly smaller amount than the original offer as part of the peace treaty, a weird diplomatic thing that I understand but don't really grok)?

The original offer was essentially twice the money, for about half the territory. 30 million dollars for a border from the Rio Bravo to the Pacific at the 37th parallel (that is roughly Arizona's and New Mexico's Northern Border). Mexico would have also preferred to keep the Nueces Strip in Tamaulipas.

So it makes sense that after a war the US gets a better deal, more territory for less money.

GeorgeUK · Mar 2, 2012

The Union Pacific, ATSF and Southern Pacific don't get built. (All three built track in California, two in Arizona and New Mexico, and SP built in Texas as well)

teg · Mar 2, 2012

Wolfpaw said:
Link, please. I have access to JSTOR

Here you go:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3659792...m=2&ttl=634&returnArticleService=showFullText

SlideAway · Mar 2, 2012

Matt Yglesias linked to that article last spring, and even posted a map from it. (The map, though included in that JSTOR-linked piece, was actually originally from a different piece.)

This map supposes an independent California, an independent "Deseret," and for some reason (not mentioned in the article) leaves more of Oregon Country (what's now Washington State and northern Idaho) under British control.

Yglesias also noted that if this butterflies away the Civil War, that might prevent Canadian Confederation, so you might have multiple English speaking Republics in North America. I could envision the U.S.A., Texas, California, Deseret, "Canada" (Ontario and Western Canada), Quebec, "New Ireland" (A Maritimes Union), and Newfoundland.