If there's no Mexican-American War, what happens to the American west?

Zioneer

Banned
Basically as the title says. If Henry Clay instead of James K Polk is elected in 1844 or some other thing happens to halt American expansionism/Manifest Destiny for a time (you decide), what happens to the territories that would have become the American West in OTL? Specifically Texas (if it is kept from annexation), the Four Corner States (Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah), Oregon, and California?
 
Last edited:
Changing a few politicians wont halt the tidal wave in migrants. There were many efforts to keep them out of one area or another, which routinely failed. The Tejas region turned into independant Texas & given the developing situation in California or later developments elsewhere that is the likely course. To retain the northern provinces Mexico would need a better government.
 

TinyTartar

Banned
You'd likely see filibuster type movements like the Bear Flag Republic spring up and demand US annexation, which they'd likely get, and when you consider the Mormons streaming into Utah soon, which would happen war or not, I'd say Mexican hold on the region would be absurd to expect to be able to hold. There were few Mexicans moving north, but many Americans moving west. Considering the internal instability of Mexico, I see no reason why most of these migrants would want to become Mexican citizens.

The only area that I might thing could stay Mexican would be possibly the southern areas of Arizona and New Mexico not claimed by Texas.

It is very possible that Mexico holds that region, but if Texas claims it, eventually they are going to get it.
 
Changing a few politicians wont halt the tidal wave in migrants. There were many efforts to keep them out of one area or another, which routinely failed. The Tejas region turned into independant Texas & given the developing situation in California or later developments elsewhere that is the likely course. To retain the northern provinces Mexico would need a better government.

Couldn't the Mexican government just have decided to let only settlers in who are willing to accept Mexican citizenship?
 
Couldn't the Mexican government just have decided to let only settlers in who are willing to accept Mexican citizenship?


In a perfect world yes, but Mexico had little effective control over the region OTL, and the Central Government had it's hands full governing their core territories, infighting between political factions, and the southern regions of Mexico such as Yucatan & Chiapas that had a separate ethnic Identity from the rest of Mexico and have been a constant source of revolt and unrest through out Mexican history.
 

Zioneer

Banned
So there's no way for Mexico to retain those territories or for the territories to go independent, but not be annexed by the US for whatever reason? Even for just a decade or so?

My idea was to have an independent California with Utah/Deseret joining them for reasons of self-preservation from Mexico or from potentially hostile other settlers. Sort of a California-Utah (with Nevada in the mix as well) federation. Is there any possibility of this, even if only for a decade or so before annexation?
 
I agree that Mexico will lose the vast majority if not all of the land that it lost OTL. However, would any of the new entities remain independent or would they eventually become part of the US by hook or crook?
 
Somehow, I think that if there'd be no Mexican-American War and gold got discovered in California at the same time OTL, the Mexican government could have used that to help centralize its holdings.
 
Basically as the title says. If Henry Clay instead of James K Polk is elected in 1844 or some other thing happens to halt American expansionism/Manifest Destiny for a time (you decide), what happens to the territories that would have become the American West in OTL? Specifically Texas (if it is kept from annexation), the Four Corner States (Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah), Oregon, and California?

EDIT: Oops wrong forum.

I'm afraid a conflict of some sort with Mexico was almost inevitable by 1844, TBH. If Clay wins, we very well could see a delay in Texas being annexed into the Union.....but once California goes, and especially if the Mexican government ends up doing something stupid to the Americans over there, we're liable to go in regardless of what hesitations Clay may have had IOTL.
 
Somehow, I think that if there'd be no Mexican-American War and gold got discovered in California at the same time OTL, the Mexican government could have used that to help centralize its holdings.

Why? American settlers discovered the gold, and the ensuing gold rush was primarily comprised of Americans. I suspect it would have led to another Texas-type situation.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The thing one has to remember is that

Basically as the title says. If Henry Clay instead of James K Polk is elected in 1844 or some other thing happens to halt American expansionism/Manifest Destiny for a time (you decide), what happens to the territories that would have become the American West in OTL? Specifically Texas (if it is kept from annexation), the Four Corner States (Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah), Oregon, and California?

EDIT: Oops wrong forum.


The thing one has to remember that is the U.S. gained its independence in 1783 and had been building itself up, as a centralized nation state, since then; Mexico only gained its independence from Spain as such in 1821, and even, the Spanish actively attacked Mexico as late as 1829; the true national consolidation phase, in terms of government, a national economy, construction of national institutions, stability, etc began at least four decades earlier in the U.S. than in Mexico, arguably five decades.

So, when it comes to competition between the U.S. and Mexico over what was (at the time) the Mexican Northwest, which became the American Southwest, the U.S. has a lead in terms of organization and all that means in terms of political, military, and economic strength of upwards of 40 to 50 years over Mexico.

That is not a differential that is going to be negated by policy makers, per se, on either "side."

And given that the founders of the U.S. had been on the front line, so to speak, of the great conflict between Britain and France over control of North America, they knew full well what a continent without a dominant power would look like, and conducted themselves accordingly; their equivalents in Mexico, since Spain did not have a great power rival in the Western Hemisphere in the same way, did not have that sort of foundational lesson.

Best,
 
Last edited:
The thing one has to remember that is the U.S. Gained its independence in 1783 and had been building itself up, as a centralized nation state, since then; Mexico only gained its independence from Spain as such in 1821, and even, the Spanish actively attacked Mexico as late as 1829; the true national consolidation phase, in terms of government. The national economy, construction of national institutions, stability, etc began at least four decades earlier in the U.S. Than Mexico, arguably five decades.

So, when it comes to completion between the U.S. and Mexico over what was ( at the time) the Mexican Northwest, which became the American Southwest, the U.S. has a lead in terms of organization and all that means in terms of political, military, and economic strength of upwards of 40 to 50 years over Mexico.

The other issue is that the Spanish-speaking populations of California, New Mexico and Texas did not necessarily identify as Mexicans. They came under Mexican rule as the spoils of the war of independence and the government in Mexico City could never be certain of their loyalty.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Very true...

The other issue is that the Spanish-speaking populations of California, New Mexico and Texas did not necessarily identify as Mexicans. They came under Mexican rule as the spoils of the war of independence and the government in Mexico City could never be certain of their loyalty.

Mexico was more divided in the 1830s and 1840s than the US was, certainly; the sectional crisis was perceived, but it was a ways away, obviously.

Best,
 
Top