WI/Plausibility Check: Mexico has more competent leadership when fighting US

Genghis Kawaii

Gone Fishin'
What I'm thinking is Morelos survives the revolution, Santa Anna dies bravely in the struggle for independence, and Augustine I dies in obscurity. While the new Mexican Republic is certainly not going to be perfect, and there is going to be a lot of economic difficulty, inequality, and corruption to deal with, it also at least has a chance to work through these issues and maintain stability. I want to take the reasonably optimistic view, and say the Republic was moderately successful in these endeavors. A quarter century down the line, however, and war with America is looming. A rebellion was quashed in Texas a little while back, and the Army, while not world class or chock full of genius generals, isn't Santa Anna's plaything, either.

What I'm wondering is whether a better led Mexican Army under a stable republic can possibly give the United States problems in a war. I'd think that if the Mexicans stay on the defensive and fight bitterly, and these soldiers are reasonably well led, America may end up bogged down. If Mexico can keep that up long enough, perhaps eventually the Americans could be forced to withdraw/negotiate. Manifest Destiny didn't have overwhelming support, so a foreign adventure that seems to be going nowhere and is costing a lot of money and lives could get to be unpopular stateside, and eventually the population may elect someone against such adventures, bringing an end to the conflict.

Does anyone want to bolster or tear down my uninformed navel gazing?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Couple of immediate responses - first, even with Santa Anna,

What I'm thinking is Morelos survives the revolution, Santa Anna dies bravely in the struggle for independence, and Augustine I dies in obscurity. While the new Mexican Republic is certainly not going to be perfect, and there is going to be a lot of economic difficulty, inequality, and corruption to deal with, it also at least has a chance to work through these issues and maintain stability. I want to take the reasonably optimistic view, and say the Republic was moderately successful in these endeavors. A quarter century down the line, however, and war with America is looming. A rebellion was quashed in Texas a little while back, and the Army, while not world class or chock full of genius generals, isn't Santa Anna's plaything, either.

What I'm wondering is whether a better led Mexican Army under a stable republic can possibly give the United States problems in a war. I'd think that if the Mexicans stay on the defensive and fight bitterly, and these soldiers are reasonably well led, America may end up bogged down. If Mexico can keep that up long enough, perhaps eventually the Americans could be forced to withdraw/negotiate. Manifest Destiny didn't have overwhelming support, so a foreign adventure that seems to be going nowhere and is costing a lot of money and lives could get to be unpopular stateside, and eventually the population may elect someone against such adventures, bringing an end to the conflict.

Does anyone want to bolster or tear down my uninformed navel gazing?

Couple of immediate responses - first, even with Santa Anna, Mexico was not a walkover; the reason Scott's offensive was undertaken was that without it, there really was not a reason for Mexico to come to terms. Even for someone as capable as Scott, and with the support of Polk (it was his war, after all), it was not a simple mission, by any stretch of the imagination.

Having said that, however, one still has to realize that Mexico was an incredibly poor and undeveloped nation state, in relation to the United States, in the 1830s and 1840s. Considering that a barely functional rebel movement was able to take Texas away from Mexico (which, remember, had a government that was so weak on the northern frontier it actually invited American settlement of Texas in the first place), you have to explain away a lot of dysfunction in Mexico after 1824.

Again, remember - the Mexican war of independence began in 1810 as a movement of the poor and (mostly indigenous); it ended in the victory of what amounted to the royalist and conservative army becoming the "nationalist" army, and it did so for the same reasons that led to criollos dominating the post-independence republics across Latin America. Those are not issues that can be rippled away, even if one inspirational leader (Morelos or Hidalgo) survives.

All of this was happening against the backdrop of the Napoleonic wars, after all; power came from the barrel of a musket...

Finally, whatever shape post-independence Mexico turns out in, the simple reality is not much north of the current border was "Mexican" in any deep way, from 1821-46, anyway; other than a very small population in southeastern Texas, a smaller one in historic New Mexico, and a tiny population along the coast in Alta California, what became the southwestern United States was still more "Indian" than "Mexican" in the quarter century between independence and the Cession.

And, meanwhile, the US has (arguably) a four decade lead on Mexico in terms of economic and population growth and national consolidation...and the US is (relatively) peaceful, is wide open to any European who can get across the Atlantic, and it is a cheaper trip. Mexico was more expensive to get to, had a lot of internal security issues, and was limiting on who was allowed to emigrate...

And that was an incredibly difficult position for Mexico to get out of, frankly, when it came to the contest over controlling what is today the US Southwest and Pacific coast.

Best,
 

Genghis Kawaii

Gone Fishin'
Well, keeping Texas and the Southwest isn't really the important part here, anyway. Neither is a Mexico that functions as well as the US. The big thing is for the Mexican Army to be able to put up a stubborn enough defense that the Americans get bogged down badly enough to not be able to force Mexico into concessions, eventually leading to a pretty big political victory for the anti-Manifest Destiny crowd and a US military that can claim a military draw at best, while the Mexicans can rightfully claim to have stopped the Americans cold. It's not going to make Mexico the next US or fix all (or many of) their problems, but it'll screw with Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctrine pretty well, which may well foster a bit better situation in the Americas in the future.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Well, okay, but my point is that the US could have

Well, keeping Texas and the Southwest isn't really the important part here, anyway. Neither is a Mexico that functions as well as the US. The big thing is for the Mexican Army to be able to put up a stubborn enough defense that the Americans get bogged down badly enough to not be able to force Mexico into concessions, eventually leading to a pretty big political victory for the anti-Manifest Destiny crowd and a US military that can claim a military draw at best, while the Mexicans can rightfully claim to have stopped the Americans cold. It's not going to make Mexico the next US or fix all (or many of) their problems, but it'll screw with Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctrine pretty well, which may well foster a bit better situation in the Americas in the future.


Well, okay, but my point is that the US could have taken Texas and the rest of the Cession territories even without Scott's invasion; it would have been nasty and probably led to a generally more unpleasant situation all around, but don't forget how far into northeastern Mexico Taylor's force was able to get, much less that New Mexico was secured overland by a tiny force and California was (essentially) an amphibious operation reinforced overland.

The Mexicans might have been able to force a Puebla type defeat of Scott's force (although Scott was not Lorencz and nobody in Mexico in 1848 was Zaragoza), but the odds - even with the distances involved - are all in the US favor in terms of the current border, event the Gadsden Purchase. There just were not that many "Mexicans" in the northern frontier territories to really make a fight of it.

Now, a Mexico that forces a draw in the Central Mexico campaign may be able to ask for more money, but there's still really no way for Mexico to avoid the Cession, given the advantages the US has economically and the political will demonstrated by Polk.

An American defeat in Central Mexico will have some real impact on the US Civil War, however, in terms of reputations of various (then) junior officers, and a more centralized and less battered Mexico may be able to avoid events like the Reform War and the French occupation; that's probably where the major impact would be...

Best,
 

Genghis Kawaii

Gone Fishin'
Well, okay, but my point is that the US could have taken Texas and the rest of the Cession territories even without Scott's invasion; it would have been nasty and probably led to a generally more unpleasant situation all around, but don't forget how far into northeastern Mexico Taylor's force was able to get, much less that New Mexico was secured overland by a tiny force and California was (essentially) an amphibious operation reinforced overland.

The Mexicans might have been able to force a Puebla type defeat of Scott's force (although Scott was not Lorencz and nobody in Mexico in 1848 was Zaragoza), but the odds - even with the distances involved - are all in the US favor in terms of the current border, event the Gadsden Purchase. There just were not that many "Mexicans" in the northern frontier territories to really make a fight of it.

Now, a Mexico that forces a draw in the Central Mexico campaign may be able to ask for more money, but there's still really no way for Mexico to avoid the Cession, given the advantages the US has economically and the political will demonstrated by Polk.

An American defeat in Central Mexico will have some real impact on the US Civil War, however, in terms of reputations of various (then) junior officers, and a more centralized and less battered Mexico may be able to avoid events like the Reform War and the French occupation; that's probably where the major impact would be...

Best,

The territory can go. I'm not so much concerned with keeping Mexico intact. What I really want is for Mexico to avoid a military defeat (and this doesn't have to be the OTL war, it can be a war that starts a bit earlier or later or under different pretexts) and bloody the US military enough to make even more people start doubting Manifest Destiny and, by extension, the Monroe Doctrine, and hopefully get an anti-Manifest Destiny president elected in the next election. If the Southwest and Texas just can't be held and aren't worth much anyway, so be it. Let those go. What is needed is to make the Americans pay a very hefty price in lives and money for that territory they gained, and make it so that they can't honestly claim a full military victory, given that they never defeated the Mexican military.

Basically, helping Mexico get better would be wonderful and I'd love to do it here, but my main goal is to fuck with Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctrine.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Well the issue there is once the Southwest is in US

Basically, helping Mexico get better would be wonderful and I'd love to do it here, but my main goal is to fuck with Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctrine.

Well the issue there is once California, Texas, and the Southwest is US territory, Manifest Destiny is pretty complete; the Oregon Treaty was signed before the Mexican-US war began, historically, and the US and Britain had every reason to negotiate there, rather than fight over it.

Alaska and Hawaii weren't really manifest destiny-type aquisitions; Alaska was because Russia needed the money, didn't want to sell to the British, and the US had the money; Hawaii was a "perimeter" for the Pacific Coast, and had more or less been under US economic control since (arguably) the 1830s...

The Monroe Doctrine actually was a benefit for the entire hemisphere; whether enforced by the USN, the RN (covertly), or both, it prevented European adventurism, which given the history of France and Spain in the Americas in the 1860s was much more than a possibility.

Now, getting rid of the Platt Amendment and the Roosevelt Corollary? Sure - both were poor decisions by TR that caused far more harm than good.

Best,
 
Hawaii was a "perimeter" for the Pacific Coast, and had more or less been under US economic control since (arguably) the 1830s..

Not trying to derail the discussion, but American economic hegemony didn't occur in Hawaii until the haole interests were allowed to control swaths of property. A few decades may not seem significant to many posters here, but it was a very dynamic era for the unified Hawaiian Monarchy. ;)
 

TFSmith121

Banned
I meant more in terms of the New England merchantile,

Not trying to derail the discussion, but American economic hegemony didn't occur in Hawaii until the haole interests were allowed to control swaths of property. A few decades may not seem significant to many posters here, but it was a very dynamic era for the unified Hawaiian Monarchy. ;)


I meant more in terms of the New England merchantile, whaling, and missionary connections - "they came to do good, and ended up doing well" - but okay, fair point.

Hawaii is still a lot closer to San Francisco in this era than anywhere else, and combine that with the existing connections, and I have a difficult time seeing Hawaii going along the lines of Tonga or Fiji or the Samoas.

Best,
 
Last edited:
Maybe the US Army encounters a nasty disease of some sort that just runs rampant.

Both sides are devastated so tie goes to those with home field advantage
 

Lateknight

Banned
Maybe the US Army encounters a nasty disease of some sort that just runs rampant.

Both sides are devastated so tie goes to those with home field advantage

Did'nt that kinda already happen though the US lost more people to disease than enemy combatants in that war .
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Yes, which is why Scott made a point of trying to get

Did'nt that kinda already happen though the US lost more people to disease than enemy combatants in that war .

Yes, which is why Scott made a point of trying to get through the coastal bottomlands and up into the plateau of Central Mexico as soon as possible; didn't prevent a fair amount of cholera and other disease hitting his army, but he did better than some other invaders did in roughly the same time period.

Best,
 
I'm not an expert of Mexico, and my opinions might not be very informed. But the idea of "let's kill Santa Anna and keep Morelos alive" reminds of the saying " you either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villian."
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Yes, there's a lot of "great man" thinking in that sort of swap.

I'm not an expert of Mexico, and my opinions might not be very informed. But the idea of "let's kill Santa Anna and keep Morelos alive" reminds of the saying " you either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villian."

Yes, there's a lot of "great man" thinking in that sort of swap.

Again, not to get all Annales, but there is something to the longue durée.

Best,
 

Deleted member 67076

Having said that, however, one still has to realize that Mexico was an incredibly poor and undeveloped nation state
This bugs me a bit. Mexico is not and has not ever been a nation state in the sense that England and much of Europe (IE, mostly Anglo and what not) is, which is what I suspect you're using it.

There was, and there still are- a number of groups that don't identify with Mexican and remain distinctly separated from the standard Mexican identity. A good example would be the various in Chiapas and the Maya for a very, very, very long time.

Hell, most of Latin America isn't nation states. But that's a topic for another thread.

Finally, whatever shape post-independence Mexico turns out in, the simple reality is not much north of the current border was "Mexican" in any deep way, from 1821-46, anyway; other than a very small population in southeastern Texas, a smaller one in historic New Mexico, and a tiny population along the coast in Alta California, what became the southwestern United States was still more "Indian" than "Mexican" in the quarter century between independence and the Cession.
This can be fixed with a more stable Mexico deciding offer land to its impoverished population in California and Texas, along with making a deal with the Comanche in the Southwest so the Mexican infrastructure remains intact, and deciding to invest in the northern territories.

The Southwest is good pastoral land, and meat, leather and milk can fetch a pretty penny.

At the same time, coastal California is very Mediterranean the land can be offered to soldiers and immigrants and what not.

San Francisco is a great natural harbor, and I foresee in a more stable and wealthier Mexico (of which the former will naturally lead to the latter, because war is really fucking expensive) will be very developed. This will in turn spur industry and infrastructure which allows Mexico to develop the region further.

And, meanwhile, the US has (arguably) a four decade lead on Mexico in terms of economic and population growth and national consolidation...and the US is (relatively) peaceful, is wide open to any European who can get across the Atlantic,
Ain't gonna argue with this, but I should note that many Catholics and Spanish/Italians in Europe would probably prefer a stable Mexico to the US for obvious reasons.

and it is a cheaper trip.
I see this thrown around alot. How much is the difference in cost in a journey from say, Spain, to the US and to Mexico?

had a lot of internal security issues, and was limiting on who was allowed to emigrate...
These can be fixed.

And that was an incredibly difficult position for Mexico to get out of, frankly, when it came to the contest over controlling what is today the US Southwest and Pacific coast.

Best,
'Nothing thing: Why does the US want the Southwest Pacific coast so much anyway when they already have a coast on both sides since (arguably) the Louisiana purchase?

With that said your real chance to keep Mexico away from the US's eyes is simply to make it look like its not worth it. Make Mexico look like a hornet's next that is just too much work to pacify.
 

Genghis Kawaii

Gone Fishin'
Snipped useful ideas

With that said your real chance to keep Mexico away from the US's eyes is simply to make it look like its not worth it. Make Mexico look like a hornet's next that is just too much work to pacify.

That's what I'd love to see happen. With proper leadership I don't see why the Mexican Army couldn't give the US Army hell, so long as the conflict remained a defensive on for Mexico. Mexico can't really mount the resources to counterattack the US, but I could see them bogging US forces into a nasty stalemate with few gains. Keep that up long enough, and the US will probably lose the political will to keep fighting. Just the threat of that kind of conflict could be enough to make sure it doesn't actually happen.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
But in terms of 1840s geography and logistics, you're

That's what I'd love to see happen. With proper leadership I don't see why the Mexican Army couldn't give the US Army hell, so long as the conflict remained a defensive on for Mexico. Mexico can't really mount the resources to counterattack the US, but I could see them bogging US forces into a nasty stalemate with few gains. Keep that up long enough, and the US will probably lose the political will to keep fighting. Just the threat of that kind of conflict could be enough to make sure it doesn't actually happen.

But in terms of 1840s geography and logistics, you're talking about (arguably) five theaters, none of which were truly contiguous in terms of operations:

Central Mexico/Gulf Coast;
Northwest Mexico;
Mexican Pacific Coast;
New Mexico;
California;

Notably, the US was able to dominate all five of these theaters militarily and the three littoral ones in naval terms, as well, in 1846-48.

I could see a (undefined) "stronger" Mexico doing better than historically against Scott's expedition into Central Mexico from the Gulf Coast (the Mexicans defeated the French at Puebla in 1862, after all) but the reality is even then, the French were able to mass enough strength to (eventually) defeat the Mexicans in 1863 and drive inland to take Mexico City, etc.

Anything beyond that, truthfully, is going to require a lot more deltas in 1821-46 than Morelos surviving, frankly. Basically, Mexico would have needed the Spanish to let it go peacefully at Hidalgo's cry, and no internal conflict between conservatives and liberals. Even then, Mexico is still three decades behind the US in terms of national consolidation and internal cohesion and economic development...

Now, one can posit anything, but getting there from reality in 1810 is quite a leap.

Best,
 

Deleted member 67076

But in terms of 1840s geography and logistics, you're talking about (arguably) five theaters, none of which were truly contiguous in terms of operations:

Central Mexico/Gulf Coast;
Northwest Mexico;
Mexican Pacific Coast;
New Mexico;
California;

Notably, the US was able to dominate all five of these theaters militarily and the three littoral ones in naval terms, as well, in 1846-48.

I could see a (undefined) "stronger" Mexico doing better than historically against Scott's expedition into Central Mexico from the Gulf Coast (the Mexicans defeated the French at Puebla in 1862, after all) but the reality is even then, the French were able to mass enough strength to (eventually) defeat the Mexicans in 1863 and drive inland to take Mexico City, etc.
How is doing poorly against the French denoting a bad thing? France was still a world power at the time are arguably one of the strongest forces at the time.


Anything beyond that, truthfully, is going to require a lot more deltas in 1821-46 than Morelos surviving, frankly. Basically, Mexico would have needed the Spanish to let it go peacefully at Hidalgo's cry, and no internal conflict between conservatives and liberals.
Why? What exactly prevents Mexico from catching up? Yeah the war devastated the infrastructure of Mexico but by 1825 or so things were repaired, which is pretty close to OP's POD.

Even then, Mexico is still three decades behind the US in terms of national consolidation and internal cohesion and economic development...
The former 2 can be fixed in a matter of years, depending on how the Mexican government decides to handle things.

As for the latter, the US will probably always have a larger economy. But the goal isn't to beat the US, its to keep up with them to the point where you're not a target.

Things can change, and fast.

For example, in 1840, the Ottoman empire hadn't started the Tanzimat and was on a pre industrial level similar to that of China. By 1870, the Turks could go toe to toe with the Russian Empire and if things had gone better (read, if their war minister wasn't assassinated) they could have won the war of 1877.

Similarly, Ethiopia from 1870-1890 managed to modernize and avoid colonization during the scramble for African.

With Japan, the Meiji Restoration speaks for itself. From approx 1870 to 1900, Japan managed to go from a pre modern, feudal state into an industrial power.

20, 30 years is a huge, huge time for improvement, if countries have the right mindset. And Mexico has been aware of the monster that was the US since the 1820s IOTL. There is no reason to assume that in a timeline where Mexico gets its shit together that they won't try as hard as they can to keep up, and make significant strides.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Scott had even fewer troops than Bazaine and

How is doing poorly against the French denoting a bad thing? France was still a world power at the time are arguably one of the strongest forces at the time.

Scott had even fewer troops than Bazaine and the Americans still won in Central Mexico.

Time is an unforgiving enemy.

All I am saying is there needs to be a lot more happening in Mexico's favor between 1810 and (roughly) 1850 for Mexico to avoid losing a war over what became the US Southwest than a "great man survives" type scenario...

Put it this way - by 1803, the US has a land frontier with Mexican territory that is (essentially) empty...and Mexico isn't even independent yet.

The population differential is already significant (7.2 million "settled" to ~5.5 million equivalent) and the numbers just got farther apart the longer the century went on...and with population came export agriculture, industrialization, functional autarky, and a constantly growing economy.

Even if Spain departs without a war in 1810, Mexico is still three decades behind the US in terms of independence and internal development, and the borderlands are, generally, easier to get to from the United States (down the Mississippi or even around the Horn) than they are from Mexico.

Anyway, good luck with the scenario and story.

Best,
 

Deleted member 67076

Scott had even fewer troops than Bazaine and the Americans still won in Central Mexico.
Mexico was in hell at the time. Now I'm not doubting Scotts ability, but tyr to reroll the dice when both sides are at their best.

Time is an unforgiving enemy.

All I am saying is there needs to be a lot more happening in Mexico's favor between 1810 and (roughly) 1850 for Mexico to avoid losing a war over what became the US Southwest than a "great man survives" type scenario...
No disagreement there. But with a great man, you can convince others to reform, change policies and then let the butterflies work their magic.

The population differential is already significant (7.2 million "settled" to ~5.5 million equivalent) and the numbers just got farther apart the longer the century went on...and with population came export agriculture, industrialization, functional autarky, and a constantly growing economy.
That doesn't necessarily translate into the US is going to just march in and take everything it can with a POD of 1824. With every extra year that Mexico is stable and improving itself, that stacks the odds more evenly.

I mean, I can't see the US at war with Mexico in every possible alternate timeline having the same exact outcome where everything north of Baja is US territory, which is what you seem to implying.

If we go with a POD of 1824 and have everything well, you can have a Californian population that numbers in the hundreds of thousands, along with a well developed *New Mexico, *Arizona and *Texas, each one with a population well above 150K or so. This makes the US ever more weary about annexing the area, as they can't just flood the place with settlers as in OTL. (Not to mention, a well populated southwest adds another layer of hell during the Civil War, where the southwest might just break off and form their own republic, or rejoin Mexico).

Mexico itself could have a population of say, 15 million as supposed to OTL's 8 million at the time of the Mexican-American war.

And a stronger Mexico will make the British more confident in investing in Mexico as a counterbalance to the US, along with the French, which can be a great boon, which makes the Mexicans ever stronger and the US less likely to attack in the first place.

Its not so much about winning the war as it is lessening the defeat.

Even if Spain departs without a war in 1810, Mexico is still three decades behind the US in terms of independence and internal development, and the borderlands are, generally, easier to get to from the United States (down the Mississippi or even around the Horn) than they are from Mexico.
That doesn't mean things are inevitable.
 
Top