WI Mexico defeats Texas Rebellion?

To Mexico Ascendant: The Tale of a Failed Texan Revolution, you can read it here. It is because in the end of the scenario russia got obliterated to nukes and occupied by China and Japan

I dropped it after reading a couple of chapters because of how implausible it is and became. Maybe kill Santa Anna after he creates the Centralist Republic?
 
Considering the nature of the San Jacinto battle, many things can come just changing the course of battle. OTL, the Anglo-Texans won by mere chance, since they captured Santa Anna during the battle. Which led to Santa Anna himself calling off the whole war. And the Velasco Treaty.

You can easily just have the whole "They actually bother to put sentries" thing, then pull a reverse Velasco. As in, Houston is the one captured. Really, OTL he got like, shot in the leg and his horse. It could go another way. Or, in case a Second Alamo is imminent, then have Santa Anna die during the battle.
 
Considering the nature of the San Jacinto battle, many things can come just changing the course of battle. OTL, the Anglo-Texans won by mere chance, since they captured Santa Anna during the battle. Which led to Santa Anna himself calling off the whole war. And the Velasco Treaty.

You can easily just have the whole "They actually bother to put sentries" thing, then pull a reverse Velasco. As in, Houston is the one captured. Really, OTL he got like, shot in the leg and his horse. It could go another way. Or, in case a Second Alamo is imminent, then have Santa Anna die during the battle.

That could definitely work.
Though the REALISTIC consequences are what I am more interested in talking about.
 
That could definitely work.
Though the REALISTIC consequences are what I am more interested in talking about.

Well, as I see it, that's going to depend on how it happens in the first place. San Jacinto alone gives several outcomes which will have different consequences. Situation outside of it... well, admittedly, I'm less versed on that subject.
 
If you're looking for a way to get Mexico to hold onto her territory, I think you may want to look at an earlier POD than the Texas Revolution. For example, there was a governor in Santa Fe in the 1770s that actually militarily forced a treaty on the Comanche that lasted for a couple of generations. It was never replicated, but if you find a way, during the days of the height of the Spanish Empire to crush the Apache and Comanche in the Southwest then the challenges of settling Texas go way down, and you could find yourself with a situation by the 1830s where there are 50,000 Mexicans in Texas, as opposed to 3k like IOTL. In that situation, Mexico would likely have never invited the Camel into the tent, so to speak.

You don't actually need Spain to crush the Comanche. There was a deal where Spain gave the Comanche tribute in return for not raiding their towns that remained in effect right up until Mexican independence, when financial troubles meant it was no longer able to provide tribute. If Mexico kept giving the Comanche tribute, the result is no aggressive campaign of raiding Mexican settlements, meaning more Mexicans in its northern half.
 
Well, as I see it, that's going to depend on how it happens in the first place. San Jacinto alone gives several outcomes which will have different consequences. Situation outside of it... well, admittedly, I'm less versed on that subject.

Well since most scenarios lead with an exodus of American settlers, lets work with that basis.
 
Well since most scenarios lead with an exodus of American settlers, lets work with that basis.

Well, that still needs more specification. Are they expelled forcefully? Does a reverse Treaty of Velasco happens? Something other? In any case, I'm sure if someone complains, Mexico can bring up the terms of their Colonization Laws to justify them. Whether or not that point is paid attention or is ignored is going to depend on the agendas of everybody.
 
Well, that still needs more specification. Are they expelled forcefully? Does a reverse Treaty of Velasco happens? Something other? In any case, I'm sure if someone complains, Mexico can bring up the terms of their Colonization Laws to justify them. Whether or not that point is paid attention or is ignored is going to depend on the agendas of everybody.

Wasn't the centralization of Mexican administration the biggest reason for why all these rebellions happened in the first place?
 
Here is an idea that came to me: What if the Texas Republic becomes a US territory in 1836?

-News of the fall of The Battle of the Alamo was already spreading across the United States. There is also Travis' "to the people of Texas and All Americans in the World" letter making the rounds. I think public sentiment would be to have Jackson "do something" about Mexico. As mentioned by others there are plenty of volunteers headed to Texas.
-Let's say Houston in defeated at San Jacinto but breaks contact with the Mexican Army rather than being routed. Houston retreats toward the forces of General Gaines. The fledging Texas government goes there as well. The Texians as for sanctuary from their fellow Americans. Gaines establishes a defensive position. Perhaps he parlays with Santa Anna and informs the Mexican President that the American Army will protect American lives and property.
-The Texas government, out of options declares themselves Americans again. Volunteers coming down into Texas are enlisted into the United States Army. The Army then launches an expedition into Texas. Like California in the OTL Mexican War, an American military officer raises the flag over a Mexican town. This time it is San Antonio. The Territory of Texas is born.
Other random ideas:
- What if the Texas government is captured during the Mexican advance and Sam Houston becomes the de facto head of the Texians. What if it is Houston this time who offers Texas to Jackson in return for aid?
-Could Texas be split into two territories (North and South Texas)? One a free territory and the other a slave territory. We get "bleeding Texas" along with "bleeding Kansas"?
 
Wasn't the centralization of Mexican administration the biggest reason for why all these rebellions happened in the first place?

Yes, there were rebellions, but the matter of all the illegal immigrants are another matter. After all, by 1830 the Colonization Laws were modified to forbid the entry of Americans. But even before you had Americans moving over without fulfilling the terms. Best I know, the Centralization didn't modified them further much, if at all.
 
-News of the fall of The Battle of the Alamo was already spreading across the United States. There is also Travis' "to the people of Texas and All Americans in the World" letter making the rounds. I think public sentiment would be to have Jackson "do something" about Mexico. As mentioned by others there are plenty of volunteers headed to Texas.
-Let's say Houston in defeated at San Jacinto but breaks contact with the Mexican Army rather than being routed. Houston retreats toward the forces of General Gaines. The fledging Texas government goes there as well. The Texians as for sanctuary from their fellow Americans. Gaines establishes a defensive position. Perhaps he parlays with Santa Anna and informs the Mexican President that the American Army will protect American lives and property.
-The Texas government, out of options declares themselves Americans again. Volunteers coming down into Texas are enlisted into the United States Army. The Army then launches an expedition into Texas. Like California in the OTL Mexican War, an American military officer raises the flag over a Mexican town. This time it is San Antonio. The Territory of Texas is born.

Knowing Santa Anna and what he did after the Alamo, he probably would have Sam Houston and his underlings executed after winning San Jacinto.
 
Top