Peter Parker
Banned
I think America will try to get Western Canada to make up and get more pacific coast
I think America will try to get Western Canada to make up and get more pacific coast
If the US cannot expand Westward there will be no immigration, leading to less innovation because the crazier and more innovative elements would stay in Europe.
That way you have a stronger Europe, a US which can easily become some kind of backwater without the rise of big robber baron like capitalists which led to big companies and cartels which themselves led to innovation (General Electric for example).
To sum it up, without the siphoning westward expansion, the US stays agricultural and less technological, maybe turns into a vassal state of Mexico to evade British influence. Europe goes stronger and pours more people into the colonies. With the resources of California, Mexico pushes for more influence in Southern America, becomes main American power.
Prevent breakdown of relations with Commanche and that'll fix itself. The Mexican population in the north shrank by over 1/2 during the 1820s-40s and that number shrank again in half after the US conquest.There are several important things that need to be considered.
1) Mexican control of this area was very weak. There were established communities, but they were few for such a large area and the population low. This was mainly Indian territory.
Prevent and/or lessen the civil wars; not too hard if the Constitution of 1824 still has power, or better yet, the Empire was still around as the conservatives would feel much more secure.2) Mexico had ongoing and severe political problems that resulted in ongoing civil wars. This political crisis is going to continue. Since the fighting mainly happens in the Mexican heartland, this part of Mexican territory is going to get very used to governing themselves and simply accepting whoever ends up winning these civil wars. Loyalty to the central government is likely to be weak.
Would France even want to intervene if Mexico is nice and stable and paying its debt? The main reason they didn't IOTL is due to spending obscene amounts of money in wars and not being able to collect revenue due to the destruction of investments and infrastructure in said wars.3)Chances of something similar to the French intervention in Mexico could still happen. All the ingredients are there except for the US to be pre-occupied by the Civil War. Some kind of payments default that lead to OTL's intervention is likely to happen. If the French (or anyone else) can't outright invade because of a US response, they could still do something that they think could get them some financial return.
What exactly stops America from leasing the land or a port or two? Or offering to buy the North? Why do they need war?4) The US was very keen on getting a port in the Bay Area of California. US interest in getting such a port will be persistent and ongoing.
What prevents the Mexican army from marching in and stomping that rebellion to the ground? Why would the North want to leave in the first place? What benefit do they obtain? Why the 1860s-70s?I suspect there would be some kind of crisis in the 1860s-1870s period that sees this part of Mexico secede from the rest of the country.
Its not a Mexico thread without someone suggesting dismembering the country. You know this explicitly goes against the OP and the entire point of this thread right?While the rest of Mexico won't take kindly to it, secession might work if some things happen. If it occurs during one of Mexico's bout of civil wars, then it might work be default as no one is able to stop them. By the time the winner is ready to move, he may be too poor to do so. If the new country is supported by the US and/or France, it might be too dangerous to do so lest those countries go to war with Mexico. If that happens, let's call the new country "California."
of course, Mexico might hold together, but I think it's important to note the extreme political instability of the country and the lack of effective central control over this territory by the Mexican government.
There are several important things that need to be considered.
1) Mexican control of this area was very weak. There were established communities, but they were few for such a large area and the population low. This was mainly Indian territory.
2) Mexico had ongoing and severe political problems that resulted in ongoing civil wars. This political crisis is going to continue. Since the fighting mainly happens in the Mexican heartland, this part of Mexican territory is going to get very used to governing themselves and simply accepting whoever ends up winning these civil wars. Loyalty to the central government is likely to be weak.
3)Chances of something similar to the French intervention in Mexico could still happen. All the ingredients are there except for the US to be pre-occupied by the Civil War. Some kind of payments default that lead to OTL's intervention is likely to happen. If the French (or anyone else) can't outright invade because of a US response, they could still do something that they think could get them some financial return.
4) The US was very keen on getting a port in the Bay Area of California. US interest in getting such a port will be persistent and ongoing.
I suspect there would be some kind of crisis in the 1860s-1870s period that sees this part of Mexico secede from the rest of the country. Perhaps under French influence or even US pressure. Not only might it be the territory that became part of the US, but could also include other outlying areas like the Baja Peninsula or the strip of desert states that mark OTL's Mexico's northern border along California, Arizona, and New Mexico.
The payoff for US and/or French support would be to sell the US the northern slice of the territory so it can get its Bay Area port., and to open up the rest of the country to US and/or French investment.
While the rest of Mexico won't take kindly to it, secession might work if some things happen. If it occurs during one of Mexico's bout of civil wars, then it might work be default as no one is able to stop them. By the time the winner is ready to move, he may be too poor to do so. If the new country is supported by the US and/or France, it might be too dangerous to do so lest those countries go to war with Mexico. If that happens, let's call the new country "California."
of course, Mexico might hold together, but I think it's important to note the extreme political instability of the country and the lack of effective central control over this territory by the Mexican government.
So because its new it doesn't have legitimacy nor will it ever get any? You know there was a huge amount of support by the criollos for a monarchy right?Yes, very good. That area was held weakly, few "Mexicans' were among the population. California was inhabited by Natives and "Californios" who deeply resented "Mexican" interference. Remember, the Mexican empire was new.
And that's impossible to change?Many locals considered themselves Spanish, not Mexican.
You know, if Santa Anna doesn't get in power those states aren't likely to leave. He and his crew are the ones who tried to overly centralize and raise taxes to support his wars.Mexico itself was bankrupt, and in constant turmoil. The Central American part seceded early, but other parts tried to- Republic of the Rio Grande, The Republic of Yucatán, Soconusco, Free State of Chiapas, Coahuila y Tejas, and so forth. One reason why Texas was able to break free.
Why?Still, Mexico would have crumbled.
How?No War, and no Treaty?- the over-extended and bankrupt Mexico would dissolve into anarchy.
What exactly makes any future rebellion any more successful than the others? Why would they want to join the US? What prevents Mexico from coming back and conquering the rebels?More States would declare independance. Some might even join the USA.
The Central American part seceded early, but other parts tried to- Republic of the Rio Grande, The Republic of Yucatán, Soconusco, Free State of Chiapas, Coahuila y Tejas, and so forth. One reason why Texas was able to break free.
No War, and no Treaty?- the over-extended and bankrupt Mexico would dissolve into anarchy. More States would declare independance. Some might even join the USA.
Or actually, white and European-looking mestizo majority states.
Casta may be dissapear, but not the tendency (or temptation) that some Spaniards will fell in love and intermarry with Native American (e.g Ute, Navajo) women, and consequently, their children will intermarry other mestizo offspring, or even a European.Didnt the casta system dissapear in the 1700s? What makes you think that most of the people in states like Utah and California wouldve be European looking mestizos, if Mexico still owned those states?.