WI Mexico Wins the Mexican-American War
- Thread starter Charlemane
- Start date
That's a tricky one. Apparently there were people in Mexico convinced they could attack New Orleans and other parts of the southern U.S.
Maybe if some Mexican soldiers hide in a civilian ship, sneak into the South somewhere, and kick off a huge slave revolt, that might cause problems. But Nat Turner, John Brown, etc. were quickly isolated and destroyed OTL, so easier said than done.
Maybe if some Mexican soldiers hide in a civilian ship, sneak into the South somewhere, and kick off a huge slave revolt, that might cause problems. But Nat Turner, John Brown, etc. were quickly isolated and destroyed OTL, so easier said than done.
Get better officers to lead the army, the Mexican army was at the beginning of the war larger and generally looked better on paper. Another thing is to increase guerrilla warfare as It would have been very effective against the Americans but this was discouraged by Santana as " un honourable" and "unmanly"
Kaptin Kurk
Banned
More guerrilla warfare would have helped, but first and foremost, the Mexicans probably needed better cannons and a better trained artillery corps. That probably could have turned the outcome.
Willmatron
Banned
I think if Mexico wins the war, America would still be strong enough to prevent any loses in it's own territory. If France conquers Mexico enough Americans will remember the defeat and want to aid France.
Huehuecoyotl
Monthly Donor
Would the French Intervention be likely to occur in a scenario with no defeat in the Mexican-American War?
PoeFacedKilla
Banned
Mexico doesn't need America's territory, its own is sparsely populated what it needs is to not lose that huge stretch of pacific coast we call California.
Keeping and developing its own territory would be more beneficial than going for a land grab that would turn around and bite them in the ass.
I doubt Mexico could pull off a big enough victory to reclaim Texas, especially given its large Anglo population by that time. It might've been able to secure a border at the Nuces River, though. Ultimately it likely would've lost much if not all of the territory it did OTL in the same manner it lost Texas; sparsly populated regions being flocked to by Americans. And sooner rather than later, given the Gold Rush.
PoeFacedKilla
Banned
Mexicans don't like gold? why can't a gold rush help Mexico instead of destroying it?
Mexico needed more than better leaders and cannons... #1 on the list would be a decent logistics chain, as theirs was bedeviled by massive corruption (the worst example was their gunpowder, which tended to be heavily cut with charcoal, making it much less effective). They also had trouble feeding the troops regularly, but to be fair, other armies at the time had the same issue. Mexico did have some well trained and effective troops (their cavalry was considered to be top notch, IIRC), but they also had a big number of conscripted peasants straight off the farm with minimal training and very low morale (the American militia units weren't trained much better, but they at least had volunteered to be there). The medical services were apparently almost non-existent, so any poor trooper wounded faced a dismal chance of recovering. Mexico had the raw materials to make an army that could defeat the USA, but they didn't make any real use of it.
If Mexico had defeated the USA... tough call. There were quite a few Americans who regarded the war as unjust to start with, and a defeat would probably put the brakes on any future aggression. OTOH, the USA really wanted those western lands... so I wonder if we might not see a 'softer' land grab... Americans pouring into those lands as settlers and eventually outnumbering the locals to the point where the lands will become American anyway (maybe future attempts to buy them will succeed). Or, the discovery of gold might prompt a new round of fighting (massive gold deposits is a heck of reason to go to war)...
If Mexico had defeated the USA... tough call. There were quite a few Americans who regarded the war as unjust to start with, and a defeat would probably put the brakes on any future aggression. OTOH, the USA really wanted those western lands... so I wonder if we might not see a 'softer' land grab... Americans pouring into those lands as settlers and eventually outnumbering the locals to the point where the lands will become American anyway (maybe future attempts to buy them will succeed). Or, the discovery of gold might prompt a new round of fighting (massive gold deposits is a heck of reason to go to war)...
Yeah, the gold rush is more likely to secure Mexican hold on the region by creating an influx of immigrants to Mexico which would not be Anglo or more likely to side with the us.
I can see Mexico outright forbidding future American settlement in its territories, and building a good many forts in its northern territories to enforce this ban. Especially after California gold is discovered (which might finally provide a way to increase the population of the northern territories--IOTL, only 1% of Mexico's population was annexed by the US). Which could be the spark of future wars--American settlers working their way in, Mexican troops firing on them, avenge the atrocities, blah blah blah.
A Mexico that gets at California's gold might manage to repay its European debts, butterflying the European intervention in the 1860s.
Finally, a smaller Texas and a lack of territories south of the Missouri Compromise Line might add fuel to the secessionist fire in the United States.
A Mexico that gets at California's gold might manage to repay its European debts, butterflying the European intervention in the 1860s.
Finally, a smaller Texas and a lack of territories south of the Missouri Compromise Line might add fuel to the secessionist fire in the United States.
Huehuecoyotl
Monthly Donor
So a larger, economically rising Mexico watches as the United States descends into internecine warfare even sooner than IOTL?
So a larger, economically rising Mexico watches as the United States descends into internecine warfare even sooner than IOTL?
Possibly. I think there was some hope among the slavers that the Missouri Compromise could extent to the Pacific, extending the Slave-Free parity in the Senate a few years longer. But here, that's just not possible without breaking the Missouri Compromise and accepting a Slave Kansas, which will degenerate into open warfare as IOTL.
So a Mexico that begins to repay its debt using reparations from the US and California Gold, and begins to make use of its northern economic resources, this has the makings of a stable power in the future, I think.
I have a hard time seeing how Mexico would retain California even under a scenario with an over-all repulse of American forces.
Frankly, any scenario has to deal with the fact that New Mexico, Arizona, and California will be occupied by American troops with little to no opposition. So you either need to game out a successful re-invasion by Mexican forces, or have the US agree to hand those areas back as part of any peace deal. Both are possible, but both seem unlikely.
Frankly, any scenario has to deal with the fact that New Mexico, Arizona, and California will be occupied by American troops with little to no opposition. So you either need to game out a successful re-invasion by Mexican forces, or have the US agree to hand those areas back as part of any peace deal. Both are possible, but both seem unlikely.
Grey Wolf
Donor
I can see a hand-back of a lot of the middle area, but California broke away rather than was conquered. Mexico might try to work with Britain so that California is independent and recognised, like how the compromise with Texas wa worked out too late
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
I don't remember the exact statistics, but Mexico's population was somewhere less than a third of the US' at the time, concentrated far from the North, and did not have quite the high the level of inward immigration or migration that the US had. I don't see many more Mexicans flocking to the region than did OTL even with the the region still Mexico City's control, especially since the Mexican government didn't really have the means to prevent a flood of Anglo miners.
The gold rush was precipitated by Anglo settlers as a result of the war anyhow (gold was discovered at Sutter's Mill by demobbed members of the Mormon Battallion).
I guess its possible that California could be made independent with strong British pressure, but that's by no means a given. What British squadrons were in the area?
OTL the California insurrectos were independent for all of about a month, and promptly embraced federal troops when they arrived. So Britain making the area independent means forcing the United States to disgorge an area that has already agreed to be part of the US and has been occupied by federal troops. In other words, Britain has to be willing to go to war. Which would be a cool POD but would also be pretty uncharacteristic for Britain at that time period.
I guess its possible that California could be made independent with strong British pressure, but that's by no means a given. What British squadrons were in the area?
OTL the California insurrectos were independent for all of about a month, and promptly embraced federal troops when they arrived. So Britain making the area independent means forcing the United States to disgorge an area that has already agreed to be part of the US and has been occupied by federal troops. In other words, Britain has to be willing to go to war. Which would be a cool POD but would also be pretty uncharacteristic for Britain at that time period.
Not to mention even if the British force an independent California, it's crawling with pro-American settlers who won't like that.