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:
*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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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...
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.