No Mexican–American War: Effects on the Pacific and Asia

I still don't think more territory equals better Mexico, and I do think it is rather hard to fix Mexico's underlying problems. And I do think America, with its large, mobile population base and historic immigration patterns (both people going to America and Americans going west) will desire a large slice of the Pacific coast.

It really depends on how one approaches a wank- large amounts of territory or political stability and economic development. It'd be interesting to see a more radical Mexican revolution early on. While they would probably face similar instability and may (or may not) lose those northern lands to the Yanqui, the liquidation or at least castration of noble political power could help stabilize Mexico going forward.

Or, even more tantalizing- no Napoleon as an example for New World rulers to follow. Less Bonapartism, more republicanism. If the more conservative criollos lose influence, then there is that much less of a base for Maximillian-type shenanigans- and the possibility of more electoral methods for populist reformers. In addition, the weakening of early conservatism could help moderate progressive leaders- perhaps no ultra-progressive government leading to Cristero Wars? Perhaps an alt-Zapata as an elected leader and not a revolutionary?

Now, the lack of Bonaparte does not eliminate caudilloism- but it might prevent the phenomenon of Mexican empires and nouveau nobility in Mexico proper.

I think the problem is that Mexico-wanks are often born of hating Ameriwanks with full Mexican annexation, and out of a desire to see Mexico "do better" against America. If you structure a "Mexico-wank" on the premise of retaining distant but prosperous territories, then you run into problems of the kind TFSmith pointed out and the problems that Mexico faced OTL. Even today, northern Mexico is rather unruly.

If you base a "Mexico-wank" on alternate social development, then you might be able to see Mexico as more of an Argentina (hopefully without the disasters that country ended up enduring). If the US is more nativist about European immigration- not too hard- and if other South American countries are less attractive- fairly easy, just have some wars/political disasters- then a more stable Mexico could attract immigration and the better kind of industrial development. I do think the Rio Grande is a good border (although maybe alt-Mexico could retain LA and San Diego) in part because, for alt-Mexico, it gives America a Pacific coastline and therefore gives America Pacific distractions. If America is busy looking towards weaker Central American and Caribbean countries as prospects for banana republicanism, then Mexico- full of resources and, in TTL, immigrants- can develop to a point sufficient enough to blunt American economic domination. A progressive Mexican government could allow in the Chinese blocked by the American government, giving Mexico more immigration sources. Personally, I think any alt-immigration to Mexico would be of the Asian variety, because America will end up letting in a lot of Europeans despite questions of religion and ethnicity.
 

Deleted member 67076

The Yucatan was much harder to hold- I'd argue Mexico would have been better off letting them go, because they were/are really hard to bind to the national consciousness.
Agreed. It probably would have been better in the long term.

The lack of identity in the Mexican north can go both ways- it's how America assimilated those areas, after all. They flooded the era, called the American government in, and in a short amount of time erased what little existed after centuries of Spanish and then Mexican rule. The fact that the Southwest is so inhospitable doesn't help- between the valley of Mexico and California lies desert and the two horse "empires" of the Apache and the Comanche.
To be fair a large part of that is due to the already light presence of the Spanish colonial structure combined with a low initial population and the aggressive policies of the new American government. Should we have a different scenario in which one where the current government promotes a Spanish identity if only even passively, where people are encouraged to speak Spanish and what not, that will likely change.

And Yankee settlers would not be easy to assimilate- first of all, they do things like call on the USA to annex them. They are right next door to the homeland, will have constant trade relations with places like New Orleans (at least in Texas) and they aren't Catholic.
Agreed. I'd suspect initially it'll be difficult, but in the long term you'll see a creole culture of sorts form that will be distinct from either populace and allow the groups to swing either way. This isn't something quick, and I suspect even modern day you'll see a distinct "Yanqui" identity from American settlers and their descendents.

But a different culture is not a guarantee for disloyalty. As well, there are other factors that lessen that initial resistance to assimilation. One thing might be say, as time goes on, the Americans from the old country (the irony) might not see the settlers (especially their descendents) as "true Americans". These'll be people who have spent the majority of their lives and are legally the citizens from another country, which likely will cause them to be seen as 'other' or 'different' in many ways from "home grown" Americans. You see this very common in immigrant communities where the members return to their home country. They find that the immigrants are 'different' for being exposed to their new country for too long, and feel they've lose critical cultural traits and are thus separated from the group at hand and at worst ostracized for leaving. Second and third generations often have this worse especially if they've never went to their home country.

We may see this sort of thing happen in a Mexican controlled Texas or California where the relatives of a LA Anglo-American is treated differently by his cousin's community back in St Louis.

That isn't to say that non-Catholics from, say, Asia couldn't assimilate, but those Asians would be far away from where they came from. Hell, you might even get Asian Catholics- Japanese Catholics, and converts from elsewhere in Asia.
Actually, IOTL the vast majority of the Chinese and European immigrants did end up converting to Catholicism, or engaging in religious syncretism after a generation or a few.

Now, immigrants from farther away- Europe and whatnot- would probably be much, much easier to assimilate.
Agreed on this.

But I don't see American settlers assimilating easy- they'd be busy urging America to invade
This I'm a bit iffy on. This very much depends on the exact situation. For instance, we may have some settlers who prefer Mexico than the US because Mexico offers them something the US does not such as a better job opportunity that might be lost thanks to US policies, lower taxes and/or cheaper land, better connections serving as middlemen and what not, things like that.

Furthermore, war is bad for business in many cases. If anything, you might see a lobby that actively attempts to promote peace, open borders and free trade in an attempt to increase profits.

But at the same time, there might be those who simply don't want to go back to the US. Poorer immigrants that are scared of some ranching baron coming in to buy their land or eliminate their location where they've more control and or profits.

Actually, even if the immigration numbers were more balanced, who is to say that these prosperous, faraway regions in California and Texas wouldn't seek independence anyway? A bilingual Californian Republic and Texas might seek to avoid a stronger federal government.
This can be fixed by having someone off Santa Anna and avoid his centralist policies in order to placate the populace.

Regionalism was a problem in much of the New World- hence the state of Central America, the American Civil War, and the clash between states and the Mexican government in much of Mexico. Gran Colombia, Greater Peru, and to a much lesser extent Brasil also suffered these problems.
Its not insurmountable. There are quite a number of PODs to deal with all of them. Besides, Brazil dealt with it and so did America fairly well, and Gran Colombia most certainly could have dealt with them (I'd explain how but I don't want to derail the thread. PM me if you're interested)

I don't see Mexico winning a war against secessionists unless America implodes upon independence.
Why? Mexico crushed nearly all of its succession attempts IOTL, why could a stronger Mexico be any different?

And even then, you have the French, British and Native Americans making trouble.
The latter isn't much of a problem as you'd expect, and the British were for the most part on friendly terms with Mexico. France I admit is difficult, but the major reason that France intervened was that it saw weak prey. Change that, and the French are less likely to stick their noses in.

If California or Texas seceded from this alt-Mexico, what prevents America or those other powers from intervening?
A quick and brutal defeat of the secessionists, treaties and the balance of power? Or just not wanting to? Yucatan aside, Britain preferred a strong (yet pliable) Mexico in order to counterbalance the US.

I'd argue that a larger Mexico would be a bit of a white elephant. In this TL, they would have to deal with the Comanche alone (since they would control the entire Comancheria), and would have the problems both of the Americans and of the Yucatan.
I personally think in order to get a bigger Mexico you need a more competent one, which is one that can eliminate and efficiently deal with its problems.

As for the Commanche, it is worth noting that during Mexico's imperial era, relations between the two ere rather good, and their breakdown of relations could be easily fixed via treating the Commanche equally and granting them specific trade rights.

Furthermore, the state was run by criollo elites- I imagine if America had been made up of only the South, and only the planter aristocracy, that we too might have had similar problems. The particularities of Spanish colonialism- the simultaneous creation of a criollo "nobility" and the reliance on peninsulares for administration- stifled to an extent the creation of a true bourgeoisie.
This is a big, but not insurmountable problem. It is worth noting that the criollos were often a divide lot, and like the Populares in Ancient Rome, many attempted to gain support via backing the poor. Others supported a healthy middle class for the economic benefits they bring.

At independence, you had that conservative nobility, and the indigenous poor.
You also had pockets of lower nobility and a nascent middle class in the cities that was unfortunately snuffed out during the various civil wars.

[quote[Unlike America, where you had mercantile and planter interests fight until the Civil War, Mexico had a dominance of those elites through a number of governments and in society more generally. Without a stable start, the emergent state was unstable- as America almost was.[/quote]
This can be fixed, slowly yet surely, or during a round of civil war. Its a big problem, but it isn't something insurmountable. A major way to beat this however is to promote the cities and middle class, something the liberal elites always wanted to do and had plans to do this, but instability killed it.


The larger point here is that America was very lucky- years of laissez-faire colonialism allowed for the development of colonial governance to an extent unseen in peninsulare-dominated Spanish America.
Furthermore, the American revolution was lucky not to go pear-shaped, in part because the conservatives essentially overthrew the Articles of Confederation quickly enough to prevent the problems of decentralization (to an extent- that question wasn't fully resolved until Lincoln smashed the damn Dixie traitors in the Civil War).
100% Agreed. However, I must point out that up until the Bourbon restoration, Latin America had a limited degree of self governance and was fairly experienced in dealing with its own affairs. Didn't prevent power from being monopolized by the criollos and being entirely authoritarian, but it is worth noting that its not like Latin America never had experience with it.

Mexico in the 19th century suffered from predatory outside powers- America, France, Britain, from unstable governance, from an elite that needed to be purged or heavily weakened, and from years of decentralization. These can all be corrected, of course, but I think it would be harder to "fix" Mexico if it had to deal with Texas, California and the Comanche-filled Southwest.
Not necessarily. Simply being able to do such a things makes the struggle easier as time goes by. See, if Mexico has the power and cohesion to crush revolts and ensure stability, either by one side in the ideological struggle being relatively dominant, a strong and competent leader ala Juan Vincent Gomez or Rafael Trujillo that can ensure smooth and competent government or a system of government and policies that please most people, that'll ease the tension enough to make the area stronger that when the next round of revolts come, they'll be easily crushed and finally put down.

I really cannot emphasize how important stability is making a Latin American state stronger and richer. Its lack of stability and turmoil that have led to many a state to be the mess it is today.

For instance, imagine if say, Afghanistan had constant peace, stability and growth instead of 50 years of warfare.

Not a large Mexico, but rather one that has a small sphere of influence in Central America. An economy-wank, if you will, rather than a land-wank.
I'm of the opinion you need the latter to have the former.

Mijo? Seriously? What are you, my grandfather?
Its a cultural thing.

Oh wait - according to your profile, you are...a teenager.

Explains much.
Young =/= stupid.

As I said before - Buena suerte. Lo necesitaras.
Yo tengo mi informacion y hechos. Yo no necessito suerte.
 
I don't think Trujillo-style stability would be a good thing, but stability is definitely important in these contexts.

As for secessions- I know Mexico defeated some movements, but CA and TX are both faraway and have the prospect of foreign intervention. If Mexico is initially stronger, then the Brits may not be onside. The Americans certainly won't be.
 
Top