What would happen if America acquired little territory from the Mexican-American War?

Deleted member 67076

Would Mexico be able to keep the area in question?

It's really big, far from Mexico City, and communications and effective governance would be rather difficult. Plus, Americans will be constantly pushing across the borders to settle.

Eventually I suspect we'd see either a war and annexation resulting from Mexican efforts to suppress settlement, regions breaking away from Mexico to eventually seek admission to the Union, or areas declaring themselves autonomous States which eventually become little but American satellites.

Not trying to burst any bubbles here, but that's how I see it.

Yes, send in settlers from the south and import immigrants to counter the American settlement. And crush any revolts that pop up.
 
Working on an independent California and "Arizona" TL. Got ya covered. ;) Not sure what I'll do with the American Civil War, was thinking of a longer, bloodier Reconstruction but maybe they'll stay separate.

Awesome. Gona keep an eye for it.

Yes, but as noted before the bit south of the 37th. Parallel was (and sorta is by itself, even now) useless as territory worth fighting over, whereas Monterey and San Francisco are prime agricultural territory, are climatically more pleasant, and (this is the critical part) make for outstanding sea access in a merchant/naval context. So really, not getting SoCal/Arizona/New Mexico doesn't curtail "from sea to shining sea" as a goal in any way, especially if a greater chunk of Oregon is taken along with it (again, as Polk originally wanted).

Looking forward several decades, the biggest hit this would result in is the loss of Hollywood as a cinema center; it's not like Cali's riches would be out of American hands since much of the mineral wealth of California is in the inland NorCal area more-or-less directly east of the Bay, and more towards Sacramento, and less so further nearest the Colorado River. Really, except for the entertainment industry, SoCal and the SW doesn't have much of anything the Upper West and NorCal doesn't.

EDIT: Actually I forgot there actually is some of those deposits of gold/silver in what would be Mexican California/Independent *Sonoran Republic, so acting as a possible "facilitator" of Gold-Rushers might be of benefit to them and not just folks in American California...names here selected at random, naturally.

Except the entertainment industry landing in Los Angeles is not predetermined. It can stay in New York or move elsewhere, the US would still have the talent and investment, and later the population to make it huge.

Meh, I forget what forum it was in, but somebody IIRC brought up that just having all their original territory won't mean much for Mexico in the long run insofar as being prosperous; their issues are far more systemic than that, and holding onto the entire SW would amount to a big "white elephant" that solves none of their problems with corruption, abuses of authority, lack of investment in human capital, etc. From an aesthetic point of view...I can actually understand that one. Just realize it won't make Mexico any better off in the long run without other changes to their socio-political culture.

True keeping the territory solves none of the problems (same goes for the US getting more territory where it likely increases the expansion of slavery problem). But once Mexico's problems are solved - if they are solved - it is a pretty good chunk of real estate to have.
 
Except the entertainment industry landing in Los Angeles is not predetermined. It can stay in New York or move elsewhere, the US would still have the talent and investment, and later the population to make it huge.

True keeping the territory solves none of the problems (same goes for the US getting more territory where it likely increases the expansion of slavery problem). But once Mexico's problems are solved - if they are solved - it is a pretty good chunk of real estate to have.

-Maybe I was unclear, but I was pointing out that the lack of LA would NOT be a detriment to the US entertainment industry, for exactly the reasons you've outlined; really, we're in agreement from opposite directions :p.

-That's also true, I just don't believe that having that territory first would solve anything. Now let's say that the US only takes the bit that raharris1973 illustrated on the last page, would Mexico still make use of that extra bit that America didn't take? It's not as useful (or apparently so, anyway) except IIRC for animal husbandry and some mining, but I'm none too familiar with the place. If nothing else, I suppose it's some extra face saved by not getting their northern bits torn all away in 1848.
 
-Maybe I was unclear, but I was pointing out that the lack of LA would NOT be a detriment to the US entertainment industry, for exactly the reasons you've outlined; really, we're in agreement from opposite directions :p.

Ah OK. got ya.

-That's also true, I just don't believe that having that territory first would solve anything. Now let's say that the US only takes the bit that raharris1973 illustrated on the last page, would Mexico still make use of that extra bit that America didn't take? It's not as useful (or apparently so, anyway) except IIRC for animal husbandry and some mining, but I'm none too familiar with the place. If nothing else, I suppose it's some extra face saved by not getting their northern bits torn all away in 1848.

There is no immediate use for the land besides big cattle (as you pointed out) and the immediate Souther California agriculture, since the San Joaquin valley in Southern California is very fertile. With some basic infrastructure you get more out of Southern California and the Colorado / Gila delta. New Mexico has some mining as well as some wool (sheep herding). For the territory to be of good use you need some level of infrastructure before really taking advantage of the land.

But there is the possibility of more immigration on people en route to the gold rush, Mexico is keeping some of the Sierra Nevada even if the big gold fields are on the US side of it. And Mexico would be keeping La Mesilla, which is an easy route to build a railway linking the Rio Bravo/Grande to the Pacific (this might be built sooner than the trans-continental if Mexico gets its shit together). And there is also quite a bit of oil in Southern California that is easy to access (LA was and is an oil town).

Best case scenario, Mexico gets its shit together immediately after the war and takes advantage of the land. Or Mexico looses the land down the line (independent California or US takes it). Or just as bad, Mexico keeps the land and doesn't do anything useful with it. Arizona basically becomes an extension of Sonora and California (in the wort case scenario) can end up like Sinaloa in OTL isolated and riddled in the drug war.
 
. And Mexico would be keeping La Mesilla, which is an easy route to build a railway linking the Rio Bravo/Grande to the Pacific (this might be built sooner than the trans-continental if Mexico gets its shit together). ?..

Best case scenario, Mexico gets its shit together immediately after the war and takes advantage of the land.

Once they have it together, are they using it for nitrate production? I would have thought it being dispersed in the fields to increase soil fertility would be a much better use for it.

(Can you tell I despise that modern vulgarism.)
 
Well, Mexico did also lose a lot of territory in the south quickly with all those little statelets becoming independent so it might just be an issue that their system was too weak and too corrupt to hold together such a huge territorial expanse.

The American settlers pushing the borders illegally is indeed a massive problem. Nothing would've stopped them short of a violent response by a force capable of matching their sungle-minded ruthlessness as well as operate on and occupy a border that is literally thousands of miles of inhospitable wilderness at this point.

Even ignoring the differences in technology I think the American settlers and their Frontier culture would've troubled even the Roman Empire at its peak under the Nerva-Antonine dynasty.

In fact the German tribes who destroyed the WRE (and even moreso those who invaded the British Isles after the Romans left) contain many of the American colonizers' distant ancestors! Coincidence? I think not :eek:

In the end even a Mexico wanked up into a solid, well-led superpower is in for a world of pain in the middle 19th Century...

Now that's an interesting ASB ISOT- replace Germanic tribes with American 19th century settlers with era-appriopate technology and ideals of Manifest destiny.
 
Top