If the West was still part of Mexico.

I think America will try to get Western Canada to make up and get more pacific coast

They might try it but there's no reason for Pendulum Fallacy to work. When the US is weaker than the Mexicans their most certainly weaker than the british empire.
 
Ok so i figure there are plenty of butterflies just getting to the point where the US doesn't take California. Heres what ive got:

The Goldrush happens far earlier. By the 1820s, California is a decently sized province, perhaps its even been divided into smaller pieces. In OTL, the combined GDPs of Texas and California are the same as Mexico and Canada, and their population is roughly a fifth of the United States (60 mil). Now this is being populated mostly by Europeans, in the ATL it could be central Americans, Chinese, who knows. Who knows if they would remain within Mexico, although i could see Mexico just orienting itself as a North-South country. The United States, however, i do know enough about to speculate. With OTL Washington/Portland, i figure it will likely be what the previous posters said, enormous portland and such. But lets say that the Oregon country dispute turns nasty, and its contested to the point where it can't develop properly (with a simmering, multisided conflict between Americans, Brits, Native Americans and stateless immigrants. Now, if the west is no longer appealing, would America turn to find another outlet? I could see filibustering taking on an entirely new meaning, with the government turning a blind eye to Americans carving out miniature states all over South America and perhaps the world. This is assuming that the US still draws immigrants.

Also, if you butterfly the Mexican War, you take away the Civil war in its OTL form. Without the question of "where can slavery go?" you would see perhaps gradual emancipation, perhaps an uprising, perhaps a series of insurrections in the south that destroys the Union. Mexico prospers, perhaps they debate in 2014 whether or not to recognize English as an official language.
 
With a presumably weaker US that is not in the possession of the Southwest, I can see the Oregon Treaty never happening and the US not having a Pacific seaboard. The butterflies are immense, of course. Different Civil War, British Hawaii, virtually no US presence in Asia (Philippines, especially), and no open door policy. The US might either be more involved in Atlantic power politics or be more isolationist than ever.

Oh yeah, Panama Canal might also not be the same as we know it.
 
The Panama Canal might be French, Mexican or non-existent.

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 mope up the population surplus in Europe you might get more populated colonies, leading also to a bigger push for colonies by the Prussian. Depending on POD you might get a very bloody independence war way earlier in Ireland too.




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.
 
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.

Dont think so. Northeast and Midwest US still industrializes on schedule. Most of those immigrants didnt go straight to the West. They went to Boston, Philly, New York, Chicago, Milwaukee etc. And Harvard, Penn and the other schools are still pumping out plenty of people.
 
Slavery issue might not lead to Civil War. Much of the tension was driven by western expansion and slave states vs. free states. There's little option of slavery expansion here, at least south of the Mason Dixon line heading west. Slavery might do the slow die off that many of the founding fathers expected/hoped.

It's hard to nerf the US without an additional exogenous event - perhaps the articles of confederation remain in existence or something. So the alternative is a POD that strengthen's Mexico political and economic system. Very hard to do - probably need a "Great Man" event like a Washington or Bismarck.
 
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.
 

Deleted member 67076

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 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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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 exactly stops America from leasing the land or a port or two? Or offering to buy the North? Why do they need war?

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.
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?

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.
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?
 
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.

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. Many locals considered themselves Spanish, not Mexican.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Mexico

True, it's possible that the Mexican-American war might never have happened, along with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Still, Mexico would have crumbled. The funds Mexico got from the USA staved off complete financial collapse.

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.
 

Deleted member 67076

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.
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?

Many locals considered themselves Spanish, not Mexican.
And that's impossible to change?

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.
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.

Second, if the Civil wars are prevented, Mexico won't be bankrupt nor in turmoil. The dissolution of the Empire set the precedence for coups and instability.

Still, Mexico would have crumbled.
Why?

No War, and no Treaty?- the over-extended and bankrupt Mexico would dissolve into anarchy.
How?

More States would declare independance. Some might even join the USA.
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?

Jesus Christ you guys are pessimistic. The demise of the first Mexican Empire was not destined to happen, nor are the 5 civil wars that plagued Mexico prior to the Mexican-American war.
 
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.

I wonder how often it must be pointed out on this board that all secessionist movements in Mexico during this period were aimed against the Centralists and Santa Anna. Texas and Yucatan were the only lasting two, and both dropped the rhetoric of the Federalists in favor of permanent Independence.

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.

This is a dreary picture, what books or scholarly articles led you to think Mexico dissolve into anarchy? Mexico and Latin America were rife with debts for a variety of reasons I feel an amatuer such as myself could not cover fully. But your position appears to be giving far too much undue weight upon the effects of America payments on bolstering the Mexican economy. It wasn't an equivalent to French payments after the foundation of the German Empire.
 

SpamBotSam

Banned
Or actually, white and European-looking mestizo majority states.

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? In my opinion, the demographics of those states would stay the same as what they are now.
 
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?.
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.
 
Top