WI no American immigration to Mexico.

So WI after independence the Mexican government didn't ratify Stephen Austin's Empresario grant, and stopping American immigration or at least stop settlers and the Americans that came were in the country temporarily.

1. Would they still lose land to the U.S. Or would it still be "Poor Mexico, so far from God, and so close to the United States"
2. How would the demographics look in Mexico if they still have their northern lands.
3. How would the countries economics look if gold and minerals are found at the same time as otl.
 
So WI after independence the Mexican government didn't ratify Stephen Austin's Empresario grant, and stopping American immigration or at least stop settlers and the Americans that came were in the country temporarily.

1. Would they still lose land to the U.S. Or would it still be "Poor Mexico, so far from God, and so close to the United States"
2. How would the demographics look in Mexico if they still have their northern lands.
3. How would the countries economics look if gold and minerals are found at the same time as otl.

I don't think it would stop them honestly. Manifest Destiny demanded expansion 'from coast to coast' and if any Americans illegally settle and cry to the US for help when Mexico either trys to remove or tax them any American President who wants to stay in office will have invade to "protect innocent Americans". All that sparcely settled and valuble territory will be a big juicy prize I don't think they can resist taking.

It may delay the expansion though, maybe butterflying what takes place in Oregon...
 
Well... if Mexico manages to avoid destroying itself in the war of Independence and manages to stabilize, I could see them be able to ban immigration. However, to enforce that, they will have to be able to settle the North themselves (Or alternatively, be able to pull in the Native Americans of the area to their side, as they WERE Mexican citizens acording to the constituton).

Still, that won't stop the flow of US-Americans hell bent on fulfilling "muh Manifest Destineh!" and take that land for "the free White Race" (as well as expand Slavery to keep the Southrons happy). So conflict might still be inevitable.

The question is if Mexico can fend off the USA...

And the answer is right here!
 
Well... if Mexico manages to avoid destroying itself in the war of Independence and manages to stabilize, I could see them be able to ban immigration. However, to enforce that, they will have to be able to settle the North themselves (Or alternatively, be able to pull in the Native Americans of the area to their side, as they WERE Mexican citizens acording to the constituton).

Still, that won't stop the flow of US-Americans hell bent on fulfilling "muh Manifest Destineh!" and take that land for "the free White Race" (as well as expand Slavery to keep the Southrons happy). So conflict might still be inevitable.

The question is if Mexico can fend off the USA...

And the answer is right here!

Considering the way that mexico's elite governed though, Highly unlikely.
 
Considering the way that mexico's elite governed though, Highly unlikely.
Unlikely, yes. Impossible? Hell no!

If the Mexicans manage to be just a little less corrupt, they can obliterate Taylor's invading army. Afterwards, it's just a matter of wether or not Scott can conquer them.
 
Mexico faces a long term problem in that they just can't get enough settlers to go north into TX/CA/NM... it's hard to imagine the central government just allowing those lands to sit idle for decades on end. The question is how they go about fixing that... in OTL, they allowed Americans in to settle it (which turned out to be a big mistake). What else might they do? They need to encourage immigration into Mexico ASAP, which requires at the least a stable government...
 
Unlikely, yes. Impossible? Hell no!

If the Mexicans manage to be just a little less corrupt, they can obliterate Taylor's invading army. Afterwards, it's just a matter of wether or not Scott can conquer them.

Just a little? I think you're being optimistic here.

Even in this case, Mexico couldn't have reconquered Texas, and the Americans WANT San Francisco bay, there's nothing to stop them taking it like the way they did otl.
 
Mexico faces a long term problem in that they just can't get enough settlers to go north into TX/CA/NM... it's hard to imagine the central government just allowing those lands to sit idle for decades on end. The question is how they go about fixing that... in OTL, they allowed Americans in to settle it (which turned out to be a big mistake). What else might they do? They need to encourage immigration into Mexico ASAP, which requires at the least a stable government...

THIS is mexico's biggest problem by far. And by far most difficult to solve.

Even a competent Mexican government can't really solve this in the time they have.
 
Unlikely, yes. Impossible? Hell no!

If the Mexicans manage to be just a little less corrupt, they can obliterate Taylor's invading army. Afterwards, it's just a matter of wether or not Scott can conquer them.

Mexico was totally defeated during the Mexican American War. It was attacked on four fronts and was beaten on all of them. A little less corruption isn't going to change that. You need to go back a lot farther, as someone above mentioned the War of Independence most likely.
 
Just a little? I think you're being optimistic here.

Even in this case, Mexico couldn't have reconquered Texas, and the Americans WANT San Francisco bay, there's nothing to stop them taking it like the way they did otl.

The Mexicans initially outnumbered the US teoops 3-1 in rhe northern campaign. They just need a leadership that doesn't screw them up. Basically: the original revolutionaries survive and Santa Anna gets rid off.

They can at least take the Nueces strip full of Hispanics who don't want to be US-Americans. And while they may lose San Francisco, they can at least defend San Diego , Monterrey and Los Angeles enough to force a stalemate through guerrilla tactics that Santa Anna idiotically discouraged.
 
The Mexicans initially outnumbered the US teoops 3-1 in rhe northern campaign. They just need a leadership that doesn't screw them up. Basically: the original revolutionaries survive and Santa Anna gets rid off.

They can at least take the Nueces strip full of Hispanics who don't want to be US-Americans. And while they may lose San Francisco, they can at least defend San Diego , Monterrey and Los Angeles enough to force a stalemate through guerrilla tactics that Santa Anna idiotically discouraged.

That's not really the point. While the Americans can certainly be defeated in the nueces strip or in inner mexico, California and most of New mexico are basically free for the taking. even if the Mexicans win the other fronts, they can't realistically take back most of Texas, new mexico, or California, even the L.A. basin. It's too hard to get there from central mexico, the Americans CAN ACTUALLY SUPPLY IT MORE RELIABLY FROM THE SEA, and the population is quite low. Once the Americans have these territories, and by god they want them, then the Mexicans cannot recapture them, literally everything is stacked against them for that.
 
That's not really the point. While the Americans can certainly be defeated in the nueces strip or in inner mexico, California and most of New mexico are basically free for the taking.

What do you mean by 'free for the taking'? Isn't the POD a functional Mexican government? A functional government would easily avoid illegal Anglo immigrants inside Mexican territory (ironic, isn't it?), there's no causus belli.
 
Well, if Mexico is stable since the beginning it could get some inmigrants and use them to colonize those northern territories. Chile and Argentina did the same with Patagonia, which was colonized first with inmigrants. After that, Mexico has a lot of potential. As a matter of fact, I remember reading something where it said that everybody expected Mexico to win in the Mexican-American War thanks to their biggest numbers (at first, anyway).
 
The reason Mexico wanted American immigrants wasn't just because the north was sparsely inhabited and they needed settlers. Mexico lacked any effective control over the north except for a few pueblos. Indians were in charge de facto. So no American immigrants means accepting control of the northern lands by the Comanche and other Indians.

The Mexican government doesn't really have the ability to keep the Americans out anymore than it has the ability to control the Comanche or Apache. Even the US needed around 30 years to do so. Mexico will take ever longer to bring the area under control.

The US really wanted the Bay of San Francisco as a port on the Pacific. If Mexico refuses to cede the territory, some war will still likely happen in the relevant time frame, say 1840-1860.
 
...............................................

The US really wanted the Bay of San Francisco as a port on the Pacific. If Mexico refuses to cede the territory, some war will still likely happen in the relevant time frame, say 1840-1860.[/QUOTE]

...........................................


Great point!
There are precious few natural harbours on the West Coast of North America: San Diego, San Francisco, Portland, Puget Sound and only 3.5 along the Canadian Coast.
Ships have always been the least expensive way to move cargo.
Railways (the second cheapest mode of transportation) did not reach the West Coast until after the Mexican-American War.

Shortly after the Mexican-American War, the USA bought Alaska ... and after long-winded Alaska Border Dispute acquired most of the rest of the natural harbours on the West Coast of North America.
 
I
I don't think it would stop them honestly. Manifest Destiny demanded expansion 'from coast to coast' and if any Americans illegally settle and cry to the US for help when Mexico either trys to remove or tax them any American President who wants to stay in office will have invade to "protect innocent Americans". All that sparcely settled and valuble territory will be a big juicy prize I don't think they can resist taking.

It may delay the expansion though, maybe butterflying what takes place in Oregon...

No, Americans couldn't just illegally settle in Mexican territory like they could on Indian land. Mexico had the will and means to expel any unwanted settlers. The exception being on nothern territories controlled by the Apache and Comanche and only nominally governed by Mexico. Americans were able to settle in Texas in large numbers because the local authorities there allowed them to, hoping that they would be a bulwark against the native tribes in the area and would become good Mexican citizens. Even then, the Texas Revolution only occurred and succeeded because Mexico was convulsed by civil war and was unable to use its army successfully. Similarly, the Comanche were able to overrun New Mexico and parts of Chihuahua due to the paralysis of the Mexican military at the time. Once Mexico had regained a measure of stability, none of this would have been able to happen; it was a state with a regular army to protect its territory.
 
The US really wanted the Bay of San Francisco as a port on the Pacific. If Mexico refuses to cede the territory, some war will still likely happen in the relevant time frame, say 1840-1860.



Great point!
There are precious few natural harbours on the West Coast of North America: San Diego, San Francisco, Portland, Puget Sound and only 3.5 along the Canadian Coast.
Ships have always been the least expensive way to move cargo.
Railways (the second cheapest mode of transportation) did not reach the West Coast until after the Mexican-American War.

Shortly after the Mexican-American War, the USA bought Alaska ... and after long-winded Alaska Border Dispute acquired most of the rest of the natural harbours on the West Coast of North America.

And where is the causus belli? OTL chaotic Mexico ratified Adam-Onis Treaty and the United Mexico without Anglos would do the same. I doubt that the Congress would allow such a fillibustering campaign.
 
Top