Jackson goes to war for Texas

So what if President Andrew Jackson declares war on Mexico in support of the Texan seccessionists ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

Jasen777

Donor
Presidents' don't declare war, and Congress was dead set against war to support the Texians.

But if war did break out, it's likely that the U.S. gains will be limited to Texas (perhaps the borders Texas claimed for itself in otl), possibly butterflying away the U.S. acquisition of the rest of the Southwest.
 
Last edited:
On the other hand, the Mexicans and Texians never agreed on the borders. So we may have another shooting incident where "American blood is sheed on American soil", and a war for the southwest and the Texan boundary. If that is the case, then the US may take some of the northernmost provences of OTL Mexico.
 

Jasen777

Donor
You're right. He was probably think about secessionists wanting out of the U.S. (Confederates) and not those wanting out of Mexico earlier.
 
Well, texas wasnt annex to the US till 1845
I dont knowthat much about what happened before, but, upon closer look, I belive you original post was correct:eek:
 
Hrm.... Putting aside the issue of the peace treaty for a moment, can we look at the nature of the war itself?

In order to give Jackson the chance to push for such a war, public opinion would have to be shifted quite a bit. Anything less and Congress wouldn't budge. I think at minimum you probably need to have the Texans solidly defeated. What's left of the rebellious Texans will likely end up fleeing across the American border, and it's almost a given that the Mexicans will be seen as "evil occupiers" in the US, so it's not too much of a stretch. The Mexican army will commit some minor atrocity or other (heck, the Alamo could do the job) and the American press will blow it out of proportion. From there.... it's concievable.

As to how the war would transpire, I don't think we can expect much difference from the Mexican-American War of OTL. The Mexicans are still using a Napoleonic style army, and the Americans still have a volunteer force that actually know how to shoot. Set-piece battles will go just the one direction. What I don't know is whether the US had the capability or the motivation to make an amphibious assault on Veracruz and march on the capital. This last is the question to look at.

If the invasion occurs at OTL, there should be little obstacle. The US will win as OTL and get a huge amount of territory in the settlement. Possibly less than in OTL, possibly more. Without the occupation of Mexico City we have an entirely different story. The war will drag on in the frontier deserts for years with the Americans periodically defeating Mexican armies. The US will eventually win, and get Texas, possibly a bit more. But absent a really decisive defeat, the odds of a second war are greatly increased. And Mexico is likely to lose that one badly.
 

Jasen777

Donor
In order to give Jackson the chance to push for such a war, public opinion would have to be shifted quite a bit.

Another POD could be this: If Houston can convince his army to keep retreating (which seemed to be his plan), he may be able to get the Mexican army to follow him to Louisiana. At which case, war with the U.S. becomes likely.


What I don't know is whether the US had the capability or the motivation to make an amphibious assault on Veracruz and march on the capital. This last is the question to look at.

That's a good question. Also, Texas is less built up then it will be even ten years later, perhaps this makes suppling the U.S. army in northern Mexico harder.


If the invasion occurs at OTL, there should be little obstacle. The US will win as OTL and get a huge amount of territory in the settlement. Possibly less than in OTL, possibly more. Without the occupation of Mexico City we have an entirely different story. The war will drag on in the frontier deserts for years with the Americans periodically defeating Mexican armies. The US will eventually win, and get Texas, possibly a bit more. But absent a really decisive defeat, the odds of a second war are greatly increased. And Mexico is likely to lose that one badly.

I just think the war will be sold as a war to free Texas, and the U.S. might not ask for much more. The point about a likely second war is a good one.
 
I think the best way for this to happen is to have the Texians crushed early on and the survivors go back East. If that happens, and the Texians can drum up enough support perhaps there could be a conflict. But if there is a conflict, I have my doubts that the Americans will gain a much s in OTL. It's a lot further from the Sabine river to California than it is from the Rio Grande.
 
Another POD could be this: If Houston can convince his army to keep retreating (which seemed to be his plan), he may be able to get the Mexican army to follow him to Louisiana. At which case, war with the U.S. becomes likely.

This is a good point. Houston's strategy did seem to hinge on a lot of strategic withdrawal. However, he probably still would have fought San Jacinto. Maybe, we could POD and have Santa Anna recognize the potential trap and retreat from that encounter. But if so, I don't see why Houston would lead him into Louisiana. There's no guarantee that the US will join, given Northern feelings in Congress. Plus, the Sabine River is quite a big river to attempt fording and building rafts/pontoon bridges would have been difficult for Houston to do on the run.

Maybe he leads Santa Anna on such a wild goose chase, nipping at the flanks of the Mexican army and their supply lines, giving more provinces a chance to think about the Dictator's tactics. A more general rebellion in Mexico itself breaks out. Meanwhile Southerners, flush with news of Houston's brilliant campaign, flock across the border in droves. Maybe, just maybe, this becomes part of the Presidential Campaign of 1836. More likely given the necessary time and distances it becomes part of Congressional campaigns in 1837, since that early in the 19th century many states, though mostly Southern ones, held Congressional elections in the odd years preceding the term of a new Congress. This provides some chance for aid to Texas becoming an issue. Again, the North still has no reason to side with the nascent Lone Star Republic. Also, if Houston's tactics are proving successful, Texas may not want annexation, especially since a peace treaty that might emerge from such a campaign might actually leave Texas and Mexico at peace, as opposed to OTL when Santa Anna reneged on a treaty he agreed to at gun point after regaining power in Mexico around 1840.

Also, the main issue isn't Jackson annexing Texas/going to war for Texas, but Van Buren. By the time Jackson could consider annexing the RoT, he's a lame duck and can do little.

Perhaps you need a much earlier POD, with a more lengthy Texas Revolution. But it's still hard to find a casus belli short of outright land hunger that would see the North permit an intervention in a revolt of slave-holders against an abolitionist, central regime.

One final possibility is for Jackson to take matters into his own hands and unilaterally order US military support. I'm not sure if the military would follow such orders. But once he does, how can Congress impeach a lame duck President for starting a war once the enemy pursues the conflict in earnest? This would cause quite a stir, nonetheless, and Northern Congressmen would doubtless seek to limit potential slave holding gains as much as possible. Hence a second war would be necessary to get the rest of the Mexican Cession.

An earlier Texas/Mexican War for the US would advance the debates that caused the Civil War. OTL, the Mexican War was the first time that large scale, American expansion was opposed on the grounds that it would add slave states. Expeditions to liberate/conquer Canada in 1812 hadn't prompted fears of free state domination from the South nor had Jackson's seizure of Florida in 1819 prompted blow back from the North. The North has somewhat less to fear if gains are limited, since a smaller Texas would be hard to break into several slave states. But finding consensus on a second Mexican War might therefore be even harder. Southern Secession, if it occurs, might occur much earlier due to increased tension and feeling that the South has less room under the terms of the Missouri Compromise than the North.
 
Top