WI: A different treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo

So... Based on a previous post I made, could it be possible for the US-Mexican war to have achieved a different result? Basically, the premise here is that Mexico suceeds in at least defending part of Alta California and maybe some of Nuevo Mexico. Could the US then just instead opt to "liberate" Yucatan and stir the "Rio Grande Republic" to pull another Texas, too?

Both territories, after all, seem perfect for Southron ambitions.

Is it possible to pull off?
 

jahenders

Banned
Three things could have changed the results:

1) The war goes much better for Mexico, leaving them in a much better bargaining position. Given the state of Mexico (recent regime change, confusion, internal dissent, etc) and the US' military advantages, I'm not sure that's too likely.

2) US political opposition could have hindered the war or limited what the US would 'buy'/pay for. If the opposition had gained more political traction, they might have limited how much the US would pay, which would probably affect what the US would get.

3) The bargaining could have gone either better or worse for Mexico in the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. I think this is most likely, but could have gone either way:
a) Mexico plus - might have reduced the territory lost or increased what the US paid, but I don't think a big change is likely.

b) Mexico negative -- the US could have pressed harder and potentially bent the border to go to the Gulf of California and take part of Baja California (perhaps all of Baja California Norte). This would have produced a considerably shorter US-Mexican border and avoided what are (IOTL) the biggest trouble spots. The US would likely have had to pay a few million more, but Mexico might have had little choice (US troops were IN Mexico City, held lots of Mexico, etc).


So... Based on a previous post I made, could it be possible for the US-Mexican war to have achieved a different result? Basically, the premise here is that Mexico suceeds in at least defending part of Alta California and maybe some of Nuevo Mexico. Could the US then just instead opt to "liberate" Yucatan and stir the "Rio Grande Republic" to pull another Texas, too?

Both territories, after all, seem perfect for Southron ambitions.

Is it possible to pull off?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Not really...

So... Based on a previous post I made, could it be possible for the US-Mexican war to have achieved a different result? Basically, the premise here is that Mexico suceeds in at least defending part of Alta California and maybe some of Nuevo Mexico. Could the US then just instead opt to "liberate" Yucatan and stir the "Rio Grande Republic" to pull another Texas, too? Both territories, after all, seem perfect for Southron ambitions. Is it possible to pull off?

The problem, as pointed out, is that Mexico had - essentially - lost the vast majority of what eventually became the Cession territory in 1846, and - as demonstrated by Buena Vista, in February, 1847 - even when the Mexican field forces outnumbered the available US forces by roughly 3-1, they couldn't pull off a victory in what amounted to the Mexican "northeast."

California, of course, was taken by combined operations (Army overland and Navy by sea); Mexico had no navy worth the name, and the overland route from Sonora can be interdicted in New Mexico and points west - which the Americans could get to more easily overland from their own territory than the Mexicans could; there's a reason the Santa Fe Trail began, essentially, in St. Louis.

And even if Scott's expeditionary had never been sent to "eastern/central" Mexico (for lack of a better term) by sea, the Cession was already a lost cause for the Mexicans.

The biggest "structural" problem for Mexico in comparison to the US in the first half of the Nineteenth Century was the US gained its independence in 1783; Mexico gained its in 1821, although the Spanish were still trying to intervene as late as 1829 - which was the conflict where a) Santa Anna emerged as a military hero, and b) Bustamante ended up overthrowing Guerrero with the army that had been assembled to fight the Spanish.

So, basically, the Americans have a four-decades-long lead over the Mexicans in terms of national consolidation, economic growth, creation of political stability, developing national institutions like and army and navy, absorbing immigrants, etc.

It's pretty close to impossible for Mexico to make up that gap by the time the two nations are facing off over what became the American southwest in the 1830s and 1840s, especially given the realities of Mexico's domestic politics.

Best,
 
I'll add to what TFsmith is saying, the Americans also didn't want the south bank of the Rio Grande or the jungle infested Yucatan, they wanted the great port locations and and fertile valley of Alta California. And when the knowledge that they were very easy to capture for the Americans was well known even before the war, why should the Americans give that up?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
True ... the USN captured the capital of California

I'll add to what TFsmith is saying, the Americans also didn't want the south bank of the Rio Grande or the jungle infested Yucatan, they wanted the great port locations and and fertile valley of Alta California. And when the knowledge that they were very easy to capture for the Americans was well known even before the war, why should the Americans give that up?

True ... and the USN captured the capital of California in 1842 basically by sailing a single ship into Monterey Bay and declaring it captured. The navy gave it back, but Alta California was not a particularly difficult target, in 1842 or 1846.

Or 1818, when Bouchard captured Monterey with two ships and 200 men - for Argentina!

Best,
 
Does the PoD have to be after the war started? Because otherwise, you can either make the Independence War be less devastating and quicker, or have politically united Mexico come independence.
 
Does the PoD have to be after the war started? Because otherwise, you can either make the Independence War be less devastating and quicker, or have politically united Mexico come independence.
Not really. A PoD prior to the war of Independence is fine enough... But that could actually result in the Mexicans winning, too.
 

jahenders

Banned
Does the PoD have to be after the war started? Because otherwise, you can either make the Independence War be less devastating and quicker, or have politically united Mexico come independence.

Several PODs that could help.

1) When Mexico rebels (o/a 1810), Spain doesn't fight to reclaim them, leaving Mexico to form a stable government around 1815.

2) Spain doesn't try to reconquer Mexico in the 1820s, causing confusion and economic problems.

3) Iturbide sets up a stable government instead of having himself crowned emperor which led to conflict and eventual overthrow.

4) The Mexican Republic (1824) is more stable and actually functions as a consitutional republic, without coups and counter-coups

5) Santa Anna follows the constitution and rules more stably, not continually changing his views and policies.

6) Mexico establishes a stronger military presence in New Mexico, cementing their relationship to Mexico and keeping the Commanches in check.

7) Mexico does not give land in Texas to Americans in the 1820s (or carefully limits the process) and establishes a sizable presence there to manage things.

8) Mexico maintains a stronger army to guard against US encroachment, including better leaders
 
Top