The US after a Mexican Victory in 1848

Dorozhand

Banned
In a world in which, for whatever reason (more stability, better artillery, Santa Anna wins San Jacinto but dies in the process, etc.) Mexico is victorious in the Mexican-American War and forces a status quo antebellum, what are the repercussions for the US afterwards?
 
My guess would be... another American-Mexican war five or so years later in which the Americans would win. Perhaps it would put off the civil war and the end of slavery by a similar amount of time as well (5 yearsish)
 
The US feels disgraced. It reforms and builds up it's army, tensions rise, and eventually the 2nd Mexican-American War breaks out when US settlers keep pushing into Mexican territory. Then the US takes California and the rest of the southwest. And I suspect the terms will be a lot harsher to Mexico this time around.

Unless you're going to hobble the US long-term I don't think you can keep Americans out of the northern Mexican territory. Texas showed that large numbers of American settlers were willing to settle in Mexico with or without Mexican permission and then totally ignore the Mexican government. I don't think that's going to change if the US loses a war, I suspect it will get worse.
 
Status quo antebellum would be really hard, almost impossible with the POD you selected.

First, The Battle of San Jacinto happened during the Texan War of Independence (not the Mexican American War). Mexico can win this war, honestly this was lost due to Santa Anna's ineptitude and not much more. But you will still have American settlers encroaching into Texas and outnumbering the Tejanos problems in the border will soon boil up again.

Second, The Pastry War is still likely to happen right after. In OTL this got Santa Anna back into power. Here you can avoid that and get someone more capable. But Mexico would still be "broken" it likely underwent "a mini-Civil War" caused by the power vacuum after Santa Anna's death. And an invasion from France, whoever replaces Santa Anna might be a better administrator and field leader but they still have an uphill battle.

Third, If Texas tries for independence again, which is very likely it will possibly the war with the US. The best result Mexico can hope for by this point is a border around the 38th or 37th parallel from the Pacific to the Rio Bravo, and then respecting the established Texan borders (Mexico keeps everything west of the Pecos and south of the Nueces).

The only alternative to the US loosing the war is if it somehow provokes Britain into war over the Oregon Border at the same time.
 

Dorozhand

Banned
Texas showed that large numbers of American settlers were willing to settle in Mexico with or without Mexican permission and then totally ignore the Mexican government. I don't think that's going to change if the US loses a war, I suspect it will get worse.

Not exactly true. The first flag used by the Texas rebels in 1836 tells you something:

1824flag-color.jpg

The Texans would have been fine with being a Mexican state if Santa Anna's centralization were reversed and the 1824 Constitution reinstated. It was Santa Anna that pissed them off, not the idea of being a part of the Mexican federation itself. Without Santa Anna's centralization, there is no reason Texas, or the Rio Grande, or Zacatecas and Yucatan would revolt.

A Mexico that has more stability early on in regards to its political system is not all that difficult, and removing Santa Anna would really help. Removing Santa Anna and the detrimental precedent of generals usurping the presidency by force every other month, as well as removing the Centralization and preventing the mass rebellion means more development, an army that modernizes at a decent pace with the rest of the world, and a Mexico that is able to look outside of itself.

Mexico is a very rich land with a lot of potential as a nation. If it can start to build up its infrastructure, it can start to look at really colonizing its northern territories. With a Mexican victory in a theoretical conflict with the US, the influx of Catholic immigrants and victorious soldiers might make this even more of a possibility.

There is no reason a better-off Mexico can't take on the US again. It was artillery and command that allowed the US victory. A Mexican Army that has developed lighter artillery, is led by capable men, and a state that isn't in turmoil can absolutely win. A Mexico that has driven off an American invasion and really mobilized on its border isn't just going to keel over and die when gold is discovered and another war erupts. Also, you're not taking into account the fact that Mexicans may also settle there during the rush, and any American invasion of Alta California from the outside to support any rebels is going to have to go all the way through the Rockies.

The US is very strong, but some people seem to think it's invincible, or that defeat would just be a temporary setback to inevitable conquest. It's an attitude that irritates me to no end.

1824flag-color.jpg
 
Last edited:
Not exactly true. The first flag used by the Texas rebels in 1836 tells you something:

*Awesome Flag*

The Texans would have been fine with being a Mexican state if Santa Anna's centralization were reversed and the 1824 Constitution reinstated. It was Santa Anna that pissed them off, not the idea of being a part of the Mexican federation itself. Without Santa Anna's centralization, there is no reason Texas, or the Rio Grande, or Zacatecas and Yucatan would revolt.

A Mexico that has more stability early on in regards to its political system is not all that difficult, and removing Santa Anna would really help. Removing Santa Anna and the detrimental precedent of generals usurping the presidency by force every other month, as well as removing the Centralization and preventing the mass rebellion means more development, an army that modernizes at a decent pace with the rest of the world, and a Mexico that is able to look outside of itself.

Mexico is a very rich land with a lot of potential as a nation. If it can start to build up its infrastructure, it can start to look at really colonizing its northern territories. With a Mexican victory in a theoretical conflict with the US, the influx of Catholic immigrants and victorious soldiers might make this even more of a possibility.

There is no reason a better-off Mexico can't take on the US again. It was artillery and command that allowed the US victory. A Mexican Army that has developed lighter artillery, is led by capable men, and a state that isn't in turmoil can absolutely win. A Mexico that has driven off an American invasion and really mobilized on its border isn't just going to keel over and die when gold is discovered and another war erupts. Also, you're not taking into account the fact that Mexicans may also settle there during the rush, and any American invasion of Alta California from the outside to support any rebels is going to have to go all the way through the Rockies.

The US is very strong, but some people seem to think it's invincible, or that defeat would just be a temporary setback to inevitable conquest. It's an attitude that irritates me to no end.

I couldn't have said it better!

If you're curious as to what kinds of things could happen to put Mexico on track to stand up against the power of the US, please feel free to check out my timeline linked in my sig. :)
 
Last edited:
There will be a second war with America taking Texas, California, New Mexico, Rio Grande, Bajo, and the rest of Northern Mexico. The Civil War is either put off or prevented. With more people alive there will be more settlers. Quicker Indian wars and more expansion. Hawii and Alaska comes in with Western Canada. Sooner Spanish American war. But these things will also be harder since America did not industrialize when it did.
 

Dorozhand

Banned
There will be a second war with America taking Texas, California, New Mexico, Rio Grande, Bajo, and the rest of Northern Mexico. The Civil War is either put off or prevented. With more people alive there will be more settlers. Quicker Indian wars and more expansion. Hawii and Alaska comes in with Western Canada. Sooner Spanish American war. But these things will also be harder since America did not industrialize when it did.

The vapidity of this statement is baffling.

Why the hell are you so sure about the US steamrolling Mexico no matter the circumstances? What is the basis for this opinion? Better leadership, better cannons, less internal conflict, and time to get industry and commerce rolling and Mexico is well capable of defeating the US. If Texas, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas, Zacatecas, Tabasco and Yucatan don't simultaneously go into revolt due to centralization, Mexico will present a united front to any American invasion. Texan and Rio Grande forces which fought Mexico will now be fighting the US, Catholics will be coming in, and serious Mexican colonization of Alta California will commence if gold is discovered, if not before. The US will have to march across the Rockies with the eastern front in east Texas rather than Mexico itself.

Mexico has a serious shot at winning, but you disregard it and say that the US is always going to defeat Mexico and take their rightful land those pesky Mexicans are living on :mad:
 
Last edited:
There's also the matter of the Comanche, who raided into northern Mexico in the the decade or so preceding the Mexican-American War. These raids caused massive damage to the infrastructure of the region, and also caused many Mexicans to abandon much of the north. Even the invading Americans noted the desolation of the place as they advanced through the same territory. Butterfly this away [shameless plug] as I do in my timeline [\shameless plug], and Mexico now has more people, and a much more intact infrastructure in place when the the yanquis come marching south.

All because the US got such a good deal out of the war doesn't mean it was a total curb stomp on Mexico. Both sides were more evenly matched than the war's outcome leads one to believe. Honestly, if Mexico is able to actually make use of it's resources for the war effort against the United States, and actually provide a united front, I doubt there will be another conflict any time soon. I'd figure the US will be much more preoccupied with slavery. If the war ends in a status quo ante bellum I could see the South causing trouble sooner, since they didn't get the land from Mexico like they wanted.
 
Last edited:

TFSmith121

Banned
Look at population and economic resources

and there is a significant difference between the US and Mexico at all times from 1824 onward to today.

The POD has to be much farther back than the Nineteenth Century.

Best,
 
I read somewhere that at the time of the war OTL that the Mexican Army, especially its cavalry were considered to be of a pretty high standard but badly led at times.

Texas remaining a state of a Mexico strikes me as an potentially interesting Thread. Has it been explored?
And I mean as part of a Greater Mexico that had either won or not been inflicted with the war.
 
Last edited:

katchen

Banned
Not exactly true. The first flag used by the Texas rebels in 1836 tells you something:

View attachment 222187

The Texans would have been fine with being a Mexican state if Santa Anna's centralization were reversed and the 1824 Constitution reinstated. It was Santa Anna that pissed them off, not the idea of being a part of the Mexican federation itself. Without Santa Anna's centralization, there is no reason Texas, or the Rio Grande, or Zacatecas and Yucatan would revolt.

A Mexico that has more stability early on in regards to its political system is not all that difficult, and removing Santa Anna would really help. Removing Santa Anna and the detrimental precedent of generals usurping the presidency by force every other month, as well as removing the Centralization and preventing the mass rebellion means more development, an army that modernizes at a decent pace with the rest of the world, and a Mexico that is able to look outside of itself.

Mexico is a very rich land with a lot of potential as a nation. If it can start to build up its infrastructure, it can start to look at really colonizing its northern territories. With a Mexican victory in a theoretical conflict with the US, the influx of Catholic immigrants and victorious soldiers might make this even more of a possibility.

There is no reason a better-off Mexico can't take on the US again. It was artillery and command that allowed the US victory. A Mexican Army that has developed lighter artillery, is led by capable men, and a state that isn't in turmoil can absolutely win. A Mexico that has driven off an American invasion and really mobilized on its border isn't just going to keel over and die when gold is discovered and another war erupts. Also, you're not taking into account the fact that Mexicans may also settle there during the rush, and any American invasion of Alta California from the outside to support any rebels is going to have to go all the way through the Rockies.

The US is very strong, but some people seem to think it's invincible, or that defeat would just be a temporary setback to inevitable conquest. It's an attitude that irritates me to no end.
Of course ironically, a decentralized Mexico is going to have the same problems with some states having legal slavery and some (or most ) states being Free Soil that the United States is having. In 1824, besides Texas, Yucatan wanted to keep slavery.
If Texas was reincorporated into Mexico, either Mexico would enforce abolition (in which case a lot of P**d off Southerners would be returning to the United States looking desperately for new land to settle (maybe in Oregon???) or Mexico's "del Norte" and possibly also Yucatan and Chiapas (del Este) would have legal slavery and this would rachet up tensions within both Mexico and the US to entirely new levels, Even if del Norte experienced a great deal of immigration and settlement from southern Mexico and Catholic Europe, it would also experience settlement by Southern Americans who would try to make certain that the Mexican frontier was a slave frontier.
And what an interesting TL that will make!
 
It would be interesting, with that scenario, for a Confederacy analogue made up of international slave states to come into being. That meaning that it starts off in the US Southern secession, and gains the slave holding Mexican states in it's membership as well.
 
Very timely since March-April 2014 strategy & Tactics magazine has an interesting article titled 'Alcohol, The Alamo and the Texas War for Independence, 1835-1836 by Wayne Austerman. An interesting sidebar provides a WI in that Santa Ana had advanced immediately after the Alamo rather than waiting about for two weeks, he may have been in a better position to have driven the Texians fast enough that they would not have been able to organize their slim advantage.

'In such a scenario, Houston's army might have been run down by the better-trained Mexicans. In that scenario, the climatic battle, fought with a greater Mexican preponderance, might have crushed the Texian bid for independence somewhere west of the Colorado, the modern border would run along the Sabine instead of the Rio Grande.' p.29
 

Deleted member 67076

It would be interesting, with that scenario, for a Confederacy analogue made up of international slave states to come into being. That meaning that it starts off in the US Southern secession, and gains the slave holding Mexican states in it's membership as well.
Err, Mexico abolished slavery in the 1820s. There were no Mexican slaves states and support for slavery was much lower in Mexico than in the US. I don't think a Confederacy including Mexican states is possible.
 
could mexico somehow get an alliance with great britain if a second war is that likely? great britain would have plenty reason to keep an expansionist power from expanding in its backyard.

the oregon treaty happened during the first war but great britain is always eager for more land and you all know how paper contracts are, valid until one side changes its mind.
 
judging from the POD in the OP (takes place during the Mexican war), the US will still have TX and OR... if they lose to Mexico, they might just settle for that; the country still stretches from sea to shining sea, after all. yet CA is going to be enormously attractive to the USA. If Mexico can't get people to settle in the northern lands, then there very well may be another war later on, once the US gets re-equipped and better organized. But if Mexico manages to heavily settle the northern lands (earlier discovery of gold?), then the US is likely to shrug and forget about it... a big reason they wanted the northern half of Mexico is that it was thinly populated...
 
judging from the POD in the OP (takes place during the Mexican war), the US will still have TX and OR... if they lose to Mexico, they might just settle for that; the country still stretches from sea to shining sea, after all. yet CA is going to be enormously attractive to the USA. If Mexico can't get people to settle in the northern lands, then there very well may be another war later on, once the US gets re-equipped and better organized. But if Mexico manages to heavily settle the northern lands (earlier discovery of gold?), then the US is likely to shrug and forget about it... a big reason they wanted the northern half of Mexico is that it was thinly populated...

A better run Mexico may be much more attractive to immigrants and European investors. Hypothetically the US might see a lot fewer Catholic immigrants as those could see Mexico as a better choice.
 
Not exactly true. The first flag used by the Texas rebels in 1836 tells you something:

View attachment 222187

The Texans would have been fine with being a Mexican state if Santa Anna's centralization were reversed and the 1824 Constitution reinstated. It was Santa Anna that pissed them off, not the idea of being a part of the Mexican federation itself. Without Santa Anna's centralization, there is no reason Texas, or the Rio Grande, or Zacatecas and Yucatan would revolt.

A Mexico that has more stability early on in regards to its political system is not all that difficult, and removing Santa Anna would really help. Removing Santa Anna and the detrimental precedent of generals usurping the presidency by force every other month, as well as removing the Centralization and preventing the mass rebellion means more development, an army that modernizes at a decent pace with the rest of the world, and a Mexico that is able to look outside of itself.

Mexico is a very rich land with a lot of potential as a nation. If it can start to build up its infrastructure, it can start to look at really colonizing its northern territories. With a Mexican victory in a theoretical conflict with the US, the influx of Catholic immigrants and victorious soldiers might make this even more of a possibility.

There is no reason a better-off Mexico can't take on the US again. It was artillery and command that allowed the US victory. A Mexican Army that has developed lighter artillery, is led by capable men, and a state that isn't in turmoil can absolutely win. A Mexico that has driven off an American invasion and really mobilized on its border isn't just going to keel over and die when gold is discovered and another war erupts. Also, you're not taking into account the fact that Mexicans may also settle there during the rush, and any American invasion of Alta California from the outside to support any rebels is going to have to go all the way through the Rockies.

The US is very strong, but some people seem to think it's invincible, or that defeat would just be a temporary setback to inevitable conquest. It's an attitude that irritates me to no end.

I'd read a timeline like this. Are there any good Mexican Empire TLs on here? I haven't seen many during my time here.
 
Top