San Jacinto reversed- does that mean no Texas in the USA

In otl HOuston's victory was followed by the creation of Texas

Could Mexico have become as powerful as the USA?

If that happened might more Irish refugees from the famine have gone to Mexico?
 
one debatable thing about the war was if a SA victory might propel a US intervention... there was a US army on the border, and a lot of Americans were already irked at SA for the massacres at the Alamo, Goliad, and a couple of other places. Yet another massacre might have been one too many...
 
Something else worth remembering is that by the end of 1836 the Texian army totaled around 3,000. Before San Jacinto perhaps 500 to 1000 Americans had already slipped into Texas to aid the Revolution (speaking strictly fillibuster types... not settlers). More than 2,000 more were on the way or would soon be on the way.

Add into that mix is that there are arguments to be made that Edmund Gaines, the US commander in Louisiana, was willing to engage against Mexican forces. He actually crossed the Sabine River in the months following San Jacinto IOTL.

The only sure thing is that Houston losing at San Jacinto would result in a different Texas. Whether it would be a Mexican-Texas or American-Texas or something in-between is the question.
 
Anyone ever wonder whether a hard fight for Texas earlier on might be some kind of crucible that somehow makes the Mexican system more competent in the longer run? Say they take a hard licking in the 1820s and 30's but a generation later, Mexico is better sorted out so that when Uncle Sam comes gunning for the huge swath of land we now think of as US, the Mexican regime is much tougher, mobilizes its population better, has a stronger economic base, maybe a strong alliance with Britain, and perhaps can mobilize the Native American population in zones where they do not have strong settler presence?

Just spitballing here. What would it take, for Americans to gain a grander Texas earlier but lose the chance at owning the Pacific coast south of Oregon, and perhaps jeopardize even that, specifically because of a strong Mexico?

This is not about meeting the OP unfortunately; for that, it seems it might be a matter of chance risking the consequences people listed above--to win decisively because Mexico is strong enough to stand against the USA at this early date would require pushing my above speculations backward another generation or two.

My rather Jacobin sympathies lie with the radical democratic/Native American element of the early Mexican rising against Spain prevailing more strongly, taming the more Hispanized upper crust to be serviceable to the majority instead of relying on the majority to serve them; on such a basis perhaps a stronger Mexico from the get-go is possible.

It is also possible that in the search for "Strength" I might be pushing for the opposite of democracy, but I would not wish it so. I am very very skeptical of many ATL proposals that blithely assume less democratic norms would be better for Mexico; it seems to me Mexico's problems stem from unchecked elitism.
 
Anyone ever wonder whether a hard fight for Texas earlier on might be some kind of crucible that somehow makes the Mexican system more competent in the longer run? Say they take a hard licking in the 1820s and 30's but a generation later, Mexico is better sorted out so that when Uncle Sam comes gunning for the huge swath of land we now think of as US, the Mexican regime is much tougher, mobilizes its population better, has a stronger economic base, maybe a strong alliance with Britain, and perhaps can mobilize the Native American population in zones where they do not have strong se
well, Mexico did take a hard licking in the 1830s, mainly in TX, but it didn't seem to spur any improvements. Mexico's military problems centered around the massive corruption that pervaded nearly every level of the military; gunpowder was loaded with too much charcoal and understrength, the army was massively overcharged for everything, and there were far too many officers for an army that size. Going beyond the military, Mexico had some systemic problems that needed to be addressed... a too powerful church, a rather horrible peonage system, and, as in the military, far too much corruption. Small wonder that Mexico faced rebellions across it's provinces on a regular basis...
 
well, Mexico did take a hard licking in the 1830s, mainly in TX, but it didn't seem to spur any improvements. Mexico's military problems centered around the massive corruption that pervaded nearly every level of the military; gunpowder was loaded with too much charcoal and understrength, the army was massively overcharged for everything, and there were far too many officers for an army that size. Going beyond the military, Mexico had some systemic problems that needed to be addressed... a too powerful church, a rather horrible peonage system, and, as in the military, far too much corruption. Small wonder that Mexico faced rebellions across it's provinces on a regular basis...
The easiest way to allow Mexico to keep Texas is not to make it more like the United States, but to make the United States more like Mexico.
 
If Mexico overpowers the Texans at both the Alamo and San Jacinto, Texas remains part of Mexico and does not become more like the United States. The U.S. puts its efforts into the Louisiana Purchase Territory and eventually the Pacific Northwest. No Mexican War, no Americans to the gold rush. What happens after 1860 is anybody's guess. You butterfly history completely.

Edit:

If that happened might more Irish refugees from the famine have gone to Mexico?
An interesting POD, since the famine started around 1845. The demographic shift in Texas would be difficult to predict.
 
Last edited:
If Mexico overpowers the Texans at both the Alamo and San Jacinto, Texas remains part of Mexico and does not become more like the United States. The U.S. puts its efforts into the Louisiana Purchase Territory and eventually the Pacific Northwest. No Mexican War, no Americans to the gold rush. What happens after 1860 is anybody's guess. You butterfly history completely.

Or the two thousand or so Americans that would have joined the Texian army throughout the rest of 1836 coalesce under a new general. Maybe even Albert Sidney Johnston, and with a wink, wink from General Gaines and a couple of hundred "deserters" from the US army, they draw the Mexican army into battle in the disputed area between the Sabine and the Neches River. Come to think of it, that would make for an interesting start to a TL...

The only thing a defeat of Houston guarantees is that he's not the first president of Texas. It would help to consider how the consequences of Santa Anna's war aims would have played out in the aftermath of another massacre, this one only a 150 miles from Louisiana. Setting aside the 2000 men enroute to Texas (after all, that happened over a 6-8 month period of time). Instead, you've got General Gaines sitting with his army watching thousands and thousands of their fellow citizens streaming back through the east Texas piney woods. It is likely he might have decided to interpret his orders to allow him to support the settlers fleeing east in the Runaway Scrape. Something else to consider is that Gaines may have already been west of the Sabine. Historical records show that in the months after San Jacinto IOTL, he had troops as far west as the Neches River. It's not hard to imagine a situation in which Gaines and Santa Anna come into conflict in the region between the Neches and the Sabine.

The point being is that defeat at San Jacinto doesn't foreordain Mexico's ability to hold Texas.
 
I agree. Looking at the strength of the Mexican forces versus the Texians, San Jacinto would have been just a minor battle on both sides. A Mexican victory would just mean that the surviving Texians retreat further, raise a new army along the way and regroup to fight another day, with or without Houston. (Although my guess is that if he had survived, he would probably be dismissed by the Texian congress for being such an obvious failure...)

In retrospect, the battle of San Jacinto was so important because it was such a big upset over top-of-the-league Santa Anna.
 
Last edited:
well, Mexico did take a hard licking in the 1830s, mainly in TX, but it didn't seem to spur any improvements. Mexico's military problems centered around the massive corruption that pervaded nearly every level of the military; gunpowder was loaded with too much charcoal and understrength, the army was massively overcharged for everything, and there were far too many officers for an army that size. Going beyond the military, Mexico had some systemic problems that needed to be addressed... a too powerful church, a rather horrible peonage system, and, as in the military, far too much corruption. Small wonder that Mexico faced rebellions across it's provinces on a regular basis...

Am I crazy to think that all of that looks like a deficiency of democracy to me? That had a more populist form of revolt against Spain prevailed that threw Criollo privilege into doubt as well (with me understanding "Criollo" to mean pure-blood descendants of Castilians who unlike the people called the latter, higher title were born in Mexico--so from a peon point of view they'd be pretty much the same, though it made a huge difference to the Criollos of course; they were constantly being subordinated to some Juanie-come-lately from Spain on the theory that only Spanish born would be loyal to the crown) then perhaps, if they could pragmatically shake it down into something competent enough to hold off reconquest efforts or third party powers like Britain setting up puppet aristocracies against them, by the 1820s or so all those aspects of weakness would not hold, because the Mexican state would be resting on a solid populist base?

It may be cart before the horse because arguably certain social practices and cultural expectations must be formed before you can have a mass based democratically founded state. Well, gosh, I sure hope people arguing that here don't turn around and claim the Bolsheviks stole a perfectly good opportunity to form a civil bourgeois democracy in Russia and trashed it, since Tsarist Russia was also deficient of a developed middle class analogous to the tried and true social basis of Western European and American republics or constitutional monarchies. But that said, while a plain old bourgeois style republic on classic early 19th century lines was probably no option for Mexico, a "redder" radical populism perhaps tempered successfully by populist low ranked Catholic clergy might I think have been a possible thing, just as I might vaguely imagine a Social Revolutionary/Bolshevik alliance running post-February Revolution Russia. Surely foreigners unsympathetic would find much to shake their heads or even condemn with deeply felt horror, yet the outcome might have been an evolution toward a solider democratic, less oligarchic society and political system.

Against a Mexico like that I think the USA might prevail in extorting great conquests, but it would be costlier, and with each defeat by El Norte the Mexican society would tend to solidify. Perhaps democracy as such would go under in favor of Bonapartism of some kind, but perhaps this would serve as in France as the template for the emergence of a more modern type of republic, with similar battle lines drawn between a radical populist tradition and a more bourgeois conservatism resolving itself in a compromise Republic or three in succession. Or adoption of a monarchy that takes deep roots, either toward absolutism or towards a parliamentary system.
 
Even with a Mexican win, it would still have to deal with a Texas that is being culturally and demographically "converted", laying the seeds for future secession during political turmoil. In 1830 there were 7000 Anglos + slaves in Texas, and this was concerning enough for Mexico to abandon the empresario foreign-immigration system for Anglos. By 1835, there were 35,000 Anglos + slaves. This is not counting the Native Americans that are being driven into Texas by Andrew Jackson and Comanche expansion.

The conundrum for Mexico in Texas was this: the native 2.5k Tejanos simply could not provide basic border security from bandits, filibustering attempts, Comanche/Karankawa/Tonkawa raids etc, meaning a constant drain of dollars from other regions into this very peripheral area. If Texas was to defend itself (and Mexico) on its own dime, then some immigration had to be allowed to spur economic development - which, given the US' proximity, meant turning the region Anglo. EVEN if OTL Mexico was able to enforce its ban on US immigration, the proximity of Texas to New Orleans would have linked the former's economy with the latter anyway, creating the conditions for eventual secession.

So IMHO, the most realistic way for Mexico to keep Texas post-San Jacinto is to keep the region underdeveloped - no immigration, no economy, and the central government
 
Migrants have to be Catholics. Italian, Irish and French migrants can be a help. Ofcourse this needs to be followed by Spanish speaking population.

That could easily be done. For Cuba and Puerto Rico, as a contemporary historical parallel, in addition to encouraging Spaniards to relocate (particularly those from the poorer regions), the Royal Decree of Graces allowed immigration to those two regions as long as they were Catholic or willing to become Catholic. The internal diversity of both islands shot up, including a massive Corsican immigration to Puerto Rico. Something like that could work in Mexico if the Palacio Nacional felt that threatened.
 
Top