• Post made for three hours last night (9pm-12am EST) have been deleted. This was necessary due to some problems with server maintenance. Anyone who had problems logging into their account during this time should be fine now.

WI: Mexico on good shape during the Mexican American War

We know that Mexico's status or shape when the Mex Am war is basically... poor, in a very bad shape, So what if Mexico is basically Economically and Politically Stable, The economy on good shape, The military on good shape. Maybe after indepedence things went more smoothly than IOTL, How would it affect the war and everything if that war still happens at the same date iotl the only difference is Mexico is on good shape.
 
The thing is that if Mexico was in good shape, it would have been able to keep Texas 9 years earlier... this alone changes the entire build up to the war. The US won't have the border dispute as an excuse to start the war and it would also have to tread a lot more carefuly since the situation won't look like an assured victory. All of this - and more - would make it very dificult for the war to start on the same date.
 
A healthy Mexico is unlikely to draw American adventurism. The US likely wouldn't have left the ambiguous border with a power that it actually respected, because the border issue with Mexico (where is it anyway?) was basically an open cause for war card, playable whenever either side wants to do so.
In the 1800s, the US pretty consistently played with the algorithm as follows
If weak power on the North American mainland, try to buy it out, if not, look for a causus belli, if not available, maneuver to create one, bonus points if you can manipulate the other side into firing first. If strong power, probe for weaknesses periodically. It was a pretty successful algorithm if you look at it from a Civ-style game point of view.
 
If Mexico is in good shape then the previous 20 years will have been so different that the odds of a war are significantly diminished.
 
IMO the only way for this to happen would for Mexico to have given up its territories earlier. This would mean no Texas revolt and earlier admission of Texas as a state, but it might also mean an earlier civil war with the Southern states looking to expand slavery in the West, which was one of the war's causes.
 
A healthy Mexico is unlikely to draw American adventurism. The US likely wouldn't have left the ambiguous border with a power that it actually respected, because the border issue with Mexico (where is it anyway?) was basically an open cause for war card, playable whenever either side wants to do so.
In the 1800s, the US pretty consistently played with the algorithm as follows
If weak power on the North American mainland, try to buy it out, if not, look for a causus belli, if not available, maneuver to create one, bonus points if you can manipulate the other side into firing first. If strong power, probe for weaknesses periodically. It was a pretty successful algorithm if you look at it from a Civ-style game point of view.
The US did not leave the border ambigious (the Adams-Onis treaty in 1819 had set the border quite clearly); it was the Republic of Texas, which upon independence claimed a much larger swath of territory than what the Mexican territory of Texas encompassed. The main point of contention was the southern border, which Texas claimed upto the Rio Grance/Bravo, while Mexico asserted that the border lay at the Nueces River. When the US annexed Texas, the US was able to assert Texas claim and use a skirmish in the Nueces Strip as a causus belli because Mexico was week. The US would not have been able to do this, or it would have had a much harder time manuevering the excuse, if Mexico was stronger and stable.

1024px-Republic_of_Texas_labeled.svg.png


IMO the only way for this to happen would for Mexico to have given up its territories earlier. This would mean no Texas revolt and earlier admission of Texas as a state, but it might also mean an earlier civil war with the Southern states looking to expand slavery in the West, which was one of the war's causes.
Not neceseraly. The POD might have to be pre or during the Mexican War of Independence, but if Mexico is able to remain strong it should be able to counter the Comanchee raids which led to much of New Mexico and the Missions in Texas from being depopulated. And any wise polititian would realize that the number priority of an independent Mexico would be to improve the infrastructre on the "national highway" conecting Veracruz to Mexico City to Guadalajara to stabilize and safegaurd the core (ideally get a railroad in place there), and the number two priority should be fortifying and settling the northern frotiere ASAP. The first should prevent an invasion through Veracruz. And if the north is well fortified and settled it could be possible to incorporate a small stream of American settlers without risking secession.
 
The lead up to America declaring war on Mexico was so chaotic and (not to play great man history but it applies here) built around the dark horse victory of Polk, that it’s really difficult to see it happening here- especially if Mexico is strong enough to defeat the Texas rebels, removing the issue of Texan annexation that led to a spike of dissatisfaction at the 1844 Democratic convention. Not only were the two expected front runners of the 1844 election (Clay and Van Buren) anti-annexation, and eventually in Clay’s case, anti-war, but without Polk you wouldn’t see the vastly ambitious project of acquiring California.

A stronger Mexico likely means no Texas, and with it no war. Though if a butterfly net is thrown up for the sake of the scenario, I imagine you likely see a far smaller war, perhaps over Texas’ boundary rather than all of the southwest.
 
A stronger Mexico likely means no Texas, and with it no war. Though if a butterfly net is thrown up for the sake of the scenario, I imagine you likely see a far smaller war, perhaps over Texas’ boundary rather than all of the southwest.
Not only that, but I could see Mexico pushing for an independent Texas - made up of only the territory of Texas and not an inch more - as a buffer state if the US insists on backing Texan rebels. As in "if I can't have it, neither can you".
Mexico might allow the US to annex northern Comancheria up to the Pecos River (but that would really depend on how much help Mexico needs to control the Comanchee. This is really just getting rid of a headache to give the US a headache.

The border issue will rise up again upon the discovery of gold in California. Although a strong Mexico has likely been able to populate the area a bit more by then and has likely reigned in the rebellious governor's of the territory to some degree. But, just as importantly, there is also issue of Mormon settlers in Alta California, which is bound to create some conflict. A second buffer state is possible, but its unlikely the Mexico or the US would want that.
 
A healthy Mexico is unlikely to draw American adventurism. The US likely wouldn't have left the ambiguous border with a power that it actually respected, because the border issue with Mexico (where is it anyway?) was basically an open cause for war card, playable whenever either side wants to do so.
In the 1800s, the US pretty consistently played with the algorithm as follows
If weak power on the North American mainland, try to buy it out, if not, look for a causus belli, if not available, maneuver to create one, bonus points if you can manipulate the other side into firing first. If strong power, probe for weaknesses periodically. It was a pretty successful algorithm if you look at it from a Civ-style game point of view.

Even with Mexico in shambles, it was believed that the US was going to lose the war with Mexico by many overseas.
 
Even with Mexico in shambles, it was believed that the US was going to lose the war with Mexico by many overseas.
Yeah, they saw that the US had no army to speak of and thought that the Mexican army was a Euro army albeit maybe of low rank.
 
Not only that, but I could see Mexico pushing for an independent Texas - made up of only the territory of Texas and not an inch more - as a buffer state if the US insists on backing Texan rebels. As in "if I can't have it, neither can you".
Mexico might allow the US to annex northern Comancheria up to the Pecos River (but that would really depend on how much help Mexico needs to control the Comanchee. This is really just getting rid of a headache to give the US a headache.

The border issue will rise up again upon the discovery of gold in California. Although a strong Mexico has likely been able to populate the area a bit more by then and has likely reigned in the rebellious governor's of the territory to some degree. But, just as importantly, there is also issue of Mormon settlers in Alta California, which is bound to create some conflict. A second buffer state is possible, but its unlikely the Mexico or the US would want that.
Isn’t trying to create a Texan buffer state a recipe for disaster? The locals were American (well, the ones with political power who weren’t Natives, anyway), and would swiftly become a de facto client state of the US due to said fact. It gets re-annexed as soon as the States feel strong enough to do so. I think a demilitarized Texas is far more preferable than the inevitable humiliation of Texas simply rejoining the US.
 
A healthy Mexico is unlikely to draw American adventurism. The US likely wouldn't have left the ambiguous border with a power that it actually respected, because the border issue with Mexico (where is it anyway?) was basically an open cause for war card, playable whenever either side wants to do so.
In the 1800s, the US pretty consistently played with the algorithm as follows
If weak power on the North American mainland, try to buy it out, if not, look for a causus belli, if not available, maneuver to create one, bonus points if you can manipulate the other side into firing first. If strong power, probe for weaknesses periodically. It was a pretty successful algorithm if you look at it from a Civ-style game point of view.

There is a good chance the US still underestimates the Mexicans.
 
We know that Mexico's status or shape when the Mex Am war is basically... poor, in a very bad shape, So what if Mexico is basically Economically and Politically Stable, The economy on good shape, The military on good shape. Maybe after indepedence things went more smoothly than IOTL, How would it affect the war and everything if that war still happens at the same date iotl the only difference is Mexico is on good shape.

Someone above stated it right: A Mexico in better shape would and could keep Texas within Mexico, which renders OTL casus belli useless.

The US Army prior to the Civil War was not large so the war would be nothing more than some border skirmishers.
 
Top