Mexican Victory in the Mexican-American War

The Mexican-American War of 1846-48 was a surprisingly one-sided affair; despite near-numerical parity and fighting occurring on mostly friendly terrain Mexico lost decisively to the USA, losing all its territory north of the Rio Grande. What does it take to change this outcome? Can it be done if Santa Anna is willing to allow his generals more operational independence, or does it take a much deeper Mexico-Wank (or US-Nerf?)? Would it be possible for a major slave uprising to begin during the war, leading to major US efforts being diverted away from Mexico? Could Britain provide military advisors, particularly if the Oregon Crisis is never resolved, negating the US' technological advantages?

What are the consequences of a Mexican victory? I would imagine that Mexico would force the US to accept Texas as part of Mexico, but would the Mexicans do any more than this? Possibly carving a Native state out of the Great Plains to act as a buffer?

Whatever the treaty, Mexico will have both great opportunities and great problems. The California Gold Rush and later Colorado Gold Rush will benefit Mexico rather than the USA, and between gold and Mexico being a Catholic nation it doesn't seem impossible that the Irish head en masse to Mexico rather than the USA. On the flip side, Mexico will still have to deal with Anglos in Texas and Alta California. Will they ever be able to reconcile the American migrants or will there be long-term civil unrest in Texas and California?
 
It would likely take a pretty big Mexi-wank admittingly (that or have some European nations willing to lend assistance to Mexico as a way to keep it in check against the USA.)

Nerfing the USA or having it undergo several problems would work. Granted, one of Mexico's problems was that they never put any real investment into the land to begin with. If they did earlier on, they might be able to better fight for it.

As for Mexican victory, it would likely be the USA recognizing the norther territory as not theirs while giving up Texas and California. Mexico would also have to put down the people there as well.

Irish catholics and Italian catholics settling into the USA would make a good deal of sense though I wonder how Mexico would treat the Chinese that would come into California. Granted, if all of them settle the north and if there is little oversight, it's liekly that the north would branch off into their own sovereign nations the USA wiould try and back up to influence.
 
By 1846 the US was way more populated and had more industry than Mexico, and that's something that you can't just solve with better leadership or more weapons, though they may win more battles. The only chance would be a Mexico-UK alliance fighting the US. Or going back as far as having a better general replacing Santa Anna in the Texan independence wars, then stabilizing Mexico somehow and restricting Yankee migration to the west.

If they manage to win, Mexico can only really aspire to status quo, then expelling as many Anglo inmigrants as possible and promote European Catholic inmigrants to California for the gold rush.
 
By 1846 the US was way more populated and had more industry than Mexico, and that's something that you can't just solve with better leadership or more weapons, though they may win more battles. The only chance would be a Mexico-UK alliance fighting the US. Or going back as far as having a better general replacing Santa Anna in the Texan independence wars, then stabilizing Mexico somehow and restricting Yankee migration to the west.

If they manage to win, Mexico can only really aspire to status quo, then expelling as many Anglo inmigrants as possible and promote European Catholic inmigrants to California for the gold rush.

Pretty much though given how Mexico is not asking for that much, then victory is hopefully easier. They would probably open their doors for Catholic immigrants (Irish and Italians come to mind) and they'd probably would be more willing to do the same for Chinese immigrants if said Catholics were a no-go
 
Scott's campaign in central Mexico could have gone very, very wrong, especially when Scott deliberately cut himself loose from his logistical tail. His diplomatic handling of occupied Mexico City was also superb. An incompetent general could have messed up both, leading to a disaster for the US Army there.

But I don't see how Mexico could have prevented the US from occupying Texas all the way to the Rio Grande. It lacked the logistical reach to do so.
 
Perhaps U.S. forces get caught in a pincer movement between General Fiebre Amarilla & General Malaria.
 
By 1846 the US was way more populated and had more industry than Mexico, and that's something that you can't just solve with better leadership or more weapons, though they may win more battles. The only chance would be a Mexico-UK alliance fighting the US. Or going back as far as having a better general replacing Santa Anna in the Texan independence wars, then stabilizing Mexico somehow and restricting Yankee migration to the west.

If they manage to win, Mexico can only really aspire to status quo, then expelling as many Anglo inmigrants as possible and promote European Catholic inmigrants to California for the gold rush.

It would be possible, though, for there to be a treaty where Mexico can claim victory if the USA recognizes the 1844 status quo with Texas as an independent republic in Washington and an unrecognized breakaway province in Mexico City. Then come the inevitable Civil War which Mexico uses to nom back up Texas without fear of US intervention.
 
It's safe to say Mexico lost the war before the war even started. But the US wasn't anywhere near the superpower status it is today even accounting for technological realities of the modern era, you don't need divine intervention to beat it. Just ask the Canadians.

Mexican artillery was severely hampered by the bad gunpowder as well as the ability of Mexican troops to shoot. The bad gunpowder forced troops to fire from the hips, which meant very few shots would ever hit their intended target. This alone could have caused a few battles to swing in Mexico's favor. Having a better president who knew how to trust his generals and not get in their way would have also been a bit more helpful, so let's pretend Santa Ana died during the pastry war when he lost his leg in the OTL. A few early victories, maybe keeping US troops north of the Rio Grande, would have gone a long way to ramp up anti-War sentiments...think Vietnam war but a hundred or so years earlier.

Eventually the US will push down south and its navy will land troops in California as it did in the OTL. Then there will be troops landing in Veracruz, maybe even earlier in the war due to the difficulty of invading from Texas. If Monterrey can beat back an American army once (or if they get lucky twice) then there is bound to be a loss for US troops in their martch to Mexico City from Veracruz, maybe a 5 de Mayo style victory for Mexico. This is enough for Mexico to sue for peace and negotiate. It's not a Mexican victory, but it wouldn't be a Mexican defeat either, and Mexico would actually be able to have a realistic say on the terms of the ensuing peace treaty.

Here's a small timeline I can think off with a POD that tries to deal with some of the problems Mexico had.
  1. Santa Ana dies, he claimed IOTL to be very sick and therefore retired from the presidency...what if he was sick and died in 1835?
  2. Texas still rebels under the liberal presidency of Valentin Gomez who manages to use the moment to rally support but a conservative coup attempt makes it possible for Texas to get independence.
  3. Gomez survives the coup attempt and uses that as an excuse to act against the centralist constitution restoring aspects of the federalist government, thus the states are now happy, especially places far away from Mexico City.
  4. Military reforms means maybe buying/producing slightly better gunpowder
  5. Miguel Barragan becomes president in 1837 and is a more moderate (OTL he was a moderately liberal VP chosen by Santa Ana to run things while he went to Mar-O-Lago...sorry, couldn't resist).
  6. Pastry War in 1838, maybe Barragan's government is able to negotiate something? Maybe butterflies changed the aspect of the conflict so that it was a bit more limited? In any case, this ruins OTL and TTL's reconquest plans for Texas.
  7. 1841-1845 A new president takes power, assuming we can keep conservatives at bay? Maybe a moderately conservative maybe deals with a few minor coup attempts that keeps the Mexican army busy.
  8. April 1845 A new president takes over. It doesn't really matter if it's a liberal or a conservative but they get into the Mexican American war before they make another state revolt.
So Mexico of this timeline has a few less revolts, a more united homefront, better gunpowder thus better guns and accuracy, a less than slezzy buthole of a president, and generals who will not be limited by a gloryhound. This allows general Pedro de Ampudia to defeat Zachary Taylor's initial advance into Monterrey (which could have been possible in the OTL) in September 1846. In the OTL Taylor's armistice with Ampudia was not very well received back in Washington DC. So in TTL it may have been a very bad mark on him. Not to mention this would have been fuel for the anti-war crowd. In the OTL, the follow up battle of Buena Vista could have easily gone in the other direction if not for Santa Ana's blunders and if Mexico had effective guns. So let's say a second round led to the capture of Monterey but then the subsequent battle at Buena Vista was a Mexican victory in Feb 1846 (also OTL date). This allowed Mexican forces to lay siege on Saltillo...maybe even push back the US into Texas. The battle of Sacramento River was one where things could have conceivably gone differently thus preventing Chihuahua from falling and keeping Zachary Taylor from getting reinforcements forcint Americans back north to Santa Fe.

The Pacific blockades would still happen the same ITTL as IOTL so the US wins California. Maybe some ports would beat back American forces? But the pacific would belong to the US due to Mexico's lack of a Pacific fleet capable of defending those ports. Enter Scott's invasion through Veracruz. If the past two Mexican presidents played their cards right, it would be harder for Scott to march through Mexico due to local resistance especially if his supply lines get cut. All it takes to push him back to Veracruz is a 5 de Mayo style defeat maybe during the battle of Japala where premature firing of artillery doesn't give Mexican positions away? In any case a prolonged campaign of a mixture of victories and defeats and getting cut off from Veracruz forces Scott to retreat to Veracruz by fall of 1847.

With fierce anti-war sentiments in the US, several defeats in northeastern and central Mexico, and accusations of a pro-slavery land grab becoming increasingly popular in the North, and Scotts army back in Veracruz with their tails between their legs Mexico sues for peace and the US accepts.

A less drastic cession happens. Maybe the US/Mexico border is set on the Nauces river and mexico keeps everything south of San Jose and for a more fair price too. It's not a victory but it's not a defeat either. For a victory you'd need an earlier POD. Give Mexico a better navy, more stability, non-US based immigration in northern territories, a more stable government. Nothing too big, and Mexico could keep the US from doing anything beyond blocading the Pacific and Veracruz and invading California.
 
A less drastic cession happens. Maybe the US/Mexico border is set on the Nauces river and mexico keeps everything south of San Jose and for a more fair price too. It's not a victory but it's not a defeat either. For a victory you'd need an earlier POD. Give Mexico a better navy, more stability, non-US based immigration in northern territories, a more stable government. Nothing too big, and Mexico could keep the US from doing anything beyond blocading the Pacific and Veracruz and invading California.

Is there any way for that border to be shifted a bit further north so the Gold Rushes benefit Mexico?
 
Is there any way for that border to be shifted a bit further north so the Gold Rushes benefit Mexico?
San Jose border would still get a few big mines but splitting the bay in two can easily be done to get more gold. Those minds went south far enough.
 
San Jose border would still get a few big mines but splitting the bay in two can easily be done to get more gold. Those minds went south far enough.

Yeah that makes sense though by victory, I suppose it's more a status quo sort of thing since here, it just feels like a lesser loss.

I do think the two Californias would be interesting, especially if the US "directs" Chinese migrants down to Mexico (who might be more inviting since they see it as a way for much needed population growth up north.)
 
Yeah that makes sense though by victory, I suppose it's more a status quo sort of thing since here, it just feels like a lesser loss.

I do think the two Californias would be interesting, especially if the US "directs" Chinese migrants down to Mexico (who might be more inviting since they see it as a way for much needed population growth up north.)
For that you would need an earlier POD, one where the centralist republic doesn't happen or managed a more stable Mexico.
 
You're going to make it far earlier, with Hidalgo taking Mexico City and overthrowing the elites, becoming a Mexican George Washington and preventing the monarchy and the chaos that followed.
 
You're going to make it far earlier, with Hidalgo taking Mexico City and overthrowing the elites, becoming a Mexican George Washington and preventing the monarchy and the chaos that followed.
at the start of the 19th century, Mexico held a lot of potential. It had a significant, varied, population, and a decent amount of wealth. The social structure had issues, but nothing insurmountable. The revolution ripped it to shreds, and the conservative/liberal divide was widened immensely. Find a way to diminish the effects of the revolution, and you likely drastically change the course of north American history.

A monarchy doesn't have to be a bad thing. In the right hands, it can be a stabilizing force.

But....IF we magically change things so that Mexico is a force that can beat the US, you likely butterfly the M-A war in any sense that we know it. The US saw the OTL situation as easy picking. If it doesn't look so easy, the US isn't going to be so belligerent. Not to mention that Texas is a whole different situation. If a war breaks out in the first half of the 19th century, it's over a border dispute far more serious, such as the Texas or Colorado border, or OTL pacific northwest. With a more capable Mexico, US is going to be far less pushy. OTL, they were greedy because they could be.
 
Top