Mexican - American War AH

With a POD no earlier than 1836, what would be needed to prevent Mexico from losing its war against America in 1846, and thus losing a massive amount of its territory. Is it possible for Britain to intervene in Mexico's favour (with the potential effect of Britain obtaining concessions in Washington Territory, Oregon and British Colombia).

Is this a feasible and realistic outcome? I'm not expecting to see the Mexican army marching through Washington D.C., however, I am trying to see a scenario in which they at least get to keep the status quo (perhaps even conceding Texas). This will have major butterflies in the future, perhaps even butterflying the ACW, or altering its outcome in favor of the CSA.

Thank you for your input.

Regards,
Euromellows
 
It was not an easy war for either side. The main problem for the Mexicans seem to be a shortage of money. Their soldiers deserted in large numbers and the lack of pay was a big factor. Their equipment was also of inferior quality, in particular their field artillery. Though the American forces were superior in quality, it had serious quality problems of its own. A better funded Mexican force would tip the balance.

Certainly the British could tip the scale for Mexico. The Royal Navy could seriously impair US landing operations on the east coast. Much of Mexican army equipment also were British in origin, they could have supplied the Mexicans better. This alliance may be possible if US and Britain had not settled their Oregon Territory dispute just prior to the war. It would be interesting to see larger Irish immigration to Mexico as part of this Anglo-Mexican relationship.

It seems to me the big opportunity lost for Mexico was failing to find California gold and Nevada silver while they controlled those territories. That would immediately solve their money problems, and perhaps avoid the Pastry War with France as well.

Technologically the Minie rifle was invented before the war but not adopted by either side. All things being equal it would have advantaged the Mexicans more than the Americans due to their ability to suppress artillery at long range.
 
No sea to shining sea

It is possible that Britain could have intervened if Polk had not compromised on the 49th parallel and had stuck to 54 40 or fight in which case Britain would have allied with Mexico. As it was there were British citizens who fought for Mexico, largely merchant seamen largely from Liverpool who jumped ship to join the Mexican Army where pay and conditions were better than on board ship which doesn't say much for the conditions of merchant seamen. That is where the sea shanty "Heave away Santy Anna" comes from. The union of Britain and Mexico would probably have been too much for the United States. Britain would probably have settled for the disputed area rather than the exterme disputed area but it is possible that Mexico would have taken that.

Another scenario would be Clay Winning in 1844 but the consequences of that would probably have been no war anyway.

Grant resigns his commission? Probably a minimal effect as he was only a junior officer then but he regarded the Mexican war as laying the ground for the Civil War so a Mexican victory might have averted Civil War

"The Southern rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican war. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times."
Personal Memoirs of General U. S. Grant — Complete by Ulysses S. Grant
 
I like the idea of a lonely Mexican traveller stumbling on Californian gold in the late 1830s. A Mexican Gold Rush in 1838? I could see that as spurring American immigration into Mexico in California and even possibly staying there for the time being. (The idea of Irish immigration to Mexico is also an interesting idea...)

Texas becomes its own nation, albeit a satellite of the United States. For sake of butterflies, say Lewis Cass is elected in 1844. Texas and Mexico still have an agreement that it's independence will be respect required that Texas remains an independent state. President Cass annexes Texas, the territory between Neuces and the Rio Grande is disputed. President Cass sends troops to the territory, Mexican troops fire upon the Americans, and the war ensues.

Britain has been supplying and trading the Mexicans this whole time given Mexico's new found wealth. (For sake of argument, Santa Anna could stick to his earlier belief that he's retired unless his country needs him, so he's solely a military leader and not a quasi-European monarch) The Mexican Army sticks it out.

The war plays out very differently. As the USN sails through the Caribbean trying to land in Mexico, the British refuse to get directly involved, so Mexico enlists the help of Spain. From Cuba, the withering Spanish Navy (supplied by Britain nonetheless) manages to defeat the Americans.

On land, the efforts of John Fremont are put to rest as a counter-strike through the Rocky Mountains (with assistance of the Mormons in Utah) send him back to St. Louis. Meanwhile, Santa Anna's army runs up the Rio Grande Valley, securing the region for Mexico. Once General Scott's army is safely garrisoned in Galveston, Santa Anna strikes into the agreed border of the State of Texas, pillaging and striking down the morale of the American army before returning to Mexico.

1846. The Allies (Mexico, Spain, and Britain) are victorious. Britain, who was not technically a belligerent, manages the peace agreement in London. Spain is given assurance that Cuba's colonial status will not be violated. The Rio Grande Valley is given sovereignty to Mexico. Reparations are paid to Mexico and Spain for the damage done to Cuba and Coahuila.

As for the American political scene, two voices have been standing out strongly against the war in Mexico: the Whig Party's own Abraham Lincoln and Robert Toombs. Lincoln persistently demanded to know the exact spot where American blood was shed on American soil. Toombs quickly followed with a poorly carried out expansionist attempt by the "imperialists." In 1848, Lincoln/Toombs beat Buchanan/Polk in a landslide.

Obvious that slavery could expand no more, the Civil War is averted as Lincoln and Toombs agree to begin manumission of the slaves. This causes distress among the slave states, and a Compromise of 1850 which sets the date to begin manumission at 1860 and it's (supposing) end at 1870.

The Whig Party will most likely survive for quite sometime. The Democratic Party... I doubt it. Mexico, however, will most likely become the hot spot for further European immigration. Especially German, Italian, and maybe even Polish and Jewish immigration. The immigration, increased area, and newfound wealth will probably put Mexico ahead of the United States by 1914 as the dominant nation in North America. Maybe a Mexican superpower after that?

That's all I got.
 
A Mexican gold rush in 1838 could probably avert the Pastry War, without which Santa Ana would not have a convenient vehicle for a return to power.

How powerful was Spain by this time? My impression is after the wars of independence and the First Carlist War it was pretty much a hollow shell.

The territorial gains of the Mexican War actually delayed the American Civil War. It gave hope to the south that some of the new territories could be made future slave states to counter balance the territories of the Louisiana Purchase which heavily favored the north. After the British ceded Oregon, the south was even more anxious to gain territory.

The fight over what to do with the former Mexican lands contributed to the falling out of north and south. But without it I can't see how anyone can say the Civil War would definately be avoided. Something along the lines of Bleeding Kansas would probably be inevitable.
 
I can't see Mexico surpassing the United States, but I could certainly see the two countries operating as equals.

The United States isn't that bad off in this scenario. A Lincoln presidency that early would help prevent the rise of the nativists, which would encourage immigration, and the presence of a viable Southern wing to the Whig party would mean a heavy emphasis on internal improvements to offset the Democrats stronger pro-slavery position. While there won't be any westward expansion, railroads will arise even faster in this timeline.
 
Top