WI: US-Mexican war in the 1830s

[GohanLSSJ2]

What if the Texas revolution had resulted in the US getting more directly involved, sparking a war with Mexico.

Who'd win in this scenario? Would the US, led likely by Andrew Jackson at this point in time, achieve the total humiliation of Mexico as Polk did OTL? Or can the Aztec nation at least be able to fight back, even if just enough to not lose much territory?

PS: Totally not inspired by Vicky 2!

 

[TRH]

Aztec nation? Too bewildered by that to form a response.

 

[Quimporte]

Aztec nation? Too bewildered by that to form a response.

Oh come now, I'm sure Gohan is just using poetic license. I highly doubt that was intended as a slur.

The U.S. was certainly involved in terms of its political support (though divided) and its many volunteers, not to mention the American background of Texas' founders.

I'm sure the U.S. would still win an earlier Mexican American war, especially with Santa Anna's stunning leadership on the other side. That said, I'm not sure they could replicate Polk's massive expansion just yet. There was already significant opposition in the country to annexing Texas and the expansion of slavery to the West. I can only imagine the uproar of such an extreme expansion without the support for it that would come in the next decade. Another thing to consider is the opposition of America's neighbors. In OTL, the U.S. and Britain settled their Oregonian disagreements about a month into the war. If it's coming 10 years earlier, they're still competing for the territory. Britain might not take kindly to an American war with such lofty Western designs, and the Americans would still realize the importance of remaining at least lukewarm with the mother country.

 

[TFSmith121]

Considering how the Texas Revolution worked out,

What if the Texas revolution had resulted in the US getting more directly involved, sparking a war with Mexico. Who'd win in this scenario? Would the US, led likely by Andrew Jackson at this point in time, achieve the total humiliation of Mexico as Polk did OTL? Or can the Aztec nation at least be able to fight back, even if just enough to not lose much territory? PS: Totally not inspired by Vicky 2!

Considering how the Texas Revolution worked out, seems adding the US into the mix means the territories that ended up in the Cession are going to be taken as well.

During the Texas war (October 2, 1835 – April 21, 1836, presumably the time frame of the POD) the US had 12.9 million people (~2 million enslaved), which is roughly 4 million less than in 1840 ... the population of Mexico is unknown, but as late as 1900, it was only about 13 million, so presumably it may be in the 4-6 million range in the 1830s; the economic, organizational, and political stability advantages are all in the US favor as well, of course. Western expansion does re-open the issue of the expansion of slavery, but given the general shared interest in securing the continent, that - presumably - can be dealt with in terms of domestic politics, as it was historically.

US president is Andrew Jackson; secretary of war is Lewis Cass; secretary of the navy is Levi Woodbury; commanding general is Alexander Macomb, and the two senior BGs are Scott and Edmund Gaines. USMA opened in 1802, with Sylvanus Thayer as supe from 1817 to 1833, so 21 classes had graduated by 1832. The US had, of course, engaged in campaigns against peer competitors (British in 1812-15) and irregulars (those on the old northwestern and old southwestern frontiers) as well as overseas (in North Africa, for example); the Mediterranean Squadron was formed as early as 1801, and the Pacific Squadron in 1821.

Mexico is led by Santa Anna.

One would expect the US might avoid the equivalent of Scott's expedition to Central Mexico in an 1830s war; instead, the focus would be on Texas, New Mexico, and California, and such a war would certainly would be within the capabilities of the US in the 1830s.

Best,

 

[GohanLSSJ2]

Aztec nation? Too bewildered by that to form a response.

It's how we Latin Americans ocassionally refer to each other down here. A poetic way to evoke our ancestral roots, so to speak.

For example...

Peru: Quechua nation
Bolivia: Aymara nstion
Chile: Mapuche nation
Paraguay: Guarani nation

 

[Westphalian]

Oh come now, I'm sure Gohan is just using poetic license. I highly doubt that was intended as a slur.

Well, since at the time in question the coat of arms of Mexico looked like this

associating the country with its Aztec past can hardly be a slur. (But easily confusing, yes.)

 

[GohanLSSJ2]

Well, since at the time in question the coat of arms of Mexico looked like this

associating the country with its Aztec past can hardly be a slur. (But easily confusing, yes.)

I can attest to that. Mexicans are damn proud of their ancestral cultures. As are most of us, Latin Americans. Hell. I can't conceive HOW can it be insulting, unless the implication is that our Native American heritage is somehow a negative.

 

[TinyTartar]

Logistical capabilities of the US in the 1830s are not what they were 10 years later, but the US Army could absolutely secure Texas and rout the Mexicans from New Mexico. California might be a bridge too far for actual military seizure, but only because of logistics.

A campaign into Mexico in the 1830s would be successful I think, if the US mobilizes enough militia for the job to support the army.

Mexico would not be any better militarily in this scenario, especially considering that there are probably going to be provincial revolts that they are going to be dealing with at the same time, but the US logistically will have issues forcing Mexico to a quick agreement, unless they capture Santa Anna like the Texans did OTL.

It would be interesting to see if Andrew Jackson himself would take command and be the only President besides Washington in the Whiskey Rebellion to do something similar.

 

[Umbric Man]

Logistical capabilities of the US in the 1830s are not what they were 10 years later, but the US Army could absolutely secure Texas and rout the Mexicans from New Mexico. California might be a bridge too far for actual military seizure, but only because of logistics.

Jackson DID try to purchase NorCal. I'd imagine securing Texas would be done, and the US Navy beeline to San Francisco Bay and hold it without worrying on grabbing anything else. Especially as the Northern states would howl at any extra slave territory-to-be in New Mexico and SoCal.

I'd imagine Texas to the Rio Grande, then a straight line at the 36'30 parallel to take in San Francisco as Jackson wanted.

 

[Quimporte]

I can attest to that. Mexicans are damn proud of their ancestral cultures. As are most of us, Latin Americans. Hell. I can't conceive HOW can it be insulting, unless the implication is that our Native American heritage is somehow a negative.

I was responding to the quoted poster's tone. "Aztec nation? Too bewildered by that to form a response." On this forum, bewilderment tends to follow offensive, racist, or politically incorrect commentary. I feel like my comment is being read without context. I was defending your use of the term as inoffensive. You're condemning the choir.

In any case, let the record show that I harbor no ill will towards the Aztecs, any pre-Columbian nation, or any post-Columbian nation built upon their vibrant cultures. The same goes for Saiyans, half-Saiyans, Namekians, Androids, et al., in case you were wondering.

Jeez.

Back on topic.

As far as I understand the situation on the ground, an 1830's Mexican-American war would not go well for Mexico, thanks to everyone's favorite one-legged dictator. On the other hand, I do feel the U.S. would have a lot of internal troubles taking such a large share of the Northern Mexican states so early. An unsuccessful war could mean Santa Anna leaves the picture sooner, and Mexico might end up with more territory in the end. That's definitely good news for Mexico.

 

[GohanLSSJ2]

I was responding to the quoted poster's tone. "Aztec nation? Too bewildered by that to form a response." On this forum, bewilderment tends to follow offensive, racist, or politically incorrect commentary. I feel like my comment is being read without context. I was defending your use of the term as inoffensive. You're condemning the choir.

In any case, let the record show that I harbor no ill will towards the Aztecs, any pre-Columbian nation, or any post-Columbian nation built upon their vibrant cultures. The same goes for Saiyans, half-Saiyans, Namekians, Androids, et al., in case you were wondering.

Jeez.

Back on topic.

As far as I understand the situation on the ground, an 1830's Mexican-American war would not go well for Mexico, thanks to everyone's favorite one-legged dictator. On the other hand, I do feel the U.S. would have a lot of internal troubles taking such a large share of the Northern Mexican states so early. An unsuccessful war could mean Santa Anna leaves the picture sooner, and Mexico might end up with more territory in the end. That's definitely good news for Mexico.

It's alright. My reply mostly meant to him, anyways. No issues here!

And yes, I agree it's likely to not go that well for Mexico, though, as many poster have pointed out, it seems likely that we might end with a Mexican map reminiscent of jycee's A Mexican "Victory" timeline.

That said... The main reason I wanna see this is because I can totally see BOTH Jackson and Santa Anna directly leading their forces to a headfirst crash!

A pair of crazy lunatics with a violent and (arguably on Jackson's case) authoritarian streak duking it out? Me wants!

 

[TFSmith121]

Jackson would be in Washington

It's alright. My reply mostly meant to him, anyways. No issues here!

And yes, I agree it's likely to not go that well for Mexico, though, as many poster have pointed out, it seems likely that we might end with a Mexican map reminiscent of jycee's A Mexican "Victory" timeline.

That said... The main reason I wanna see this is because I can totally see BOTH Jackson and Santa Anna directly leading their forces to a headfirst crash!

A pair of crazy lunatics with a violent and (arguably on Jackson's case) authoritarian streak duking it out? Me wants!

Jackson would be in Washington; he's not leaving the capital, and there's no need to do so...

Macomb, Scott, and Gaines were all quite capable and experienced by the 1830s.

Best,

 

[Quimporte]

It's alright. My reply mostly meant to him, anyways. No issues here!

And yes, I agree it's likely to not go that well for Mexico, though, as many poster have pointed out, it seems likely that we might end with a Mexican map reminiscent of jycee's A Mexican "Victory" timeline.

That said... The main reason I wanna see this is because I can totally see BOTH Jackson and Santa Anna directly leading their forces to a headfirst crash!

A pair of crazy lunatics with a violent and (arguably on Jackson's case) authoritarian streak duking it out? Me wants!

Sorry for being defensive! It's a bad habit and it's been a strange week.

While I would love to see Santa Anna and Jackson kill each other at the same moment – no seriously, I'd bring a lawn chair and try for a good view – TF's right that Presidents don't tend to lead the troops, even if they're Andrew Jackson (cursed be his name).

A war with him at the helm is still definitely a cool idea. [plug] Not to spoil anything, but a war like this might feature into future plans in my TL. Of course, the point of divergence comes some 50 years earlier, so the circumstances are much different. [/plug]

 

[Not Henry G.]

A war with him at the helm is still definitely a cool idea. [plug] Not to spoil anything, but a war like this might feature into future plans in my TL. Of course, the point of divergence comes some 50 years earlier, so the circumstances are much different. [/plug]

Is the TL the "Crippled History" one? If so I HAVE to read it

 

[GohanLSSJ2]

Jackson would be in Washington; he's not leaving the capital, and there's no need to do so...

Macomb, Scott, and Gaines were all quite capable and experienced by the 1830s.

Best,

Is there no way to get him to lead the troops? I mean, I dunno, Jackson strikes me as the type of guy who'd be psychotically insane enough to do that.

As Quimporte said, both killing each other in battle is something I'd pay to see.

 

[Quimporte]

Is the TL the "Crippled History" one? If so I HAVE to read it

Yeah, but I wouldn't hold your breath. I'm a bit long-winded and Jackson's War is about 40 years away.

 

[Tonifranz]

Is there no way to get him to lead the troops? I mean, I dunno, Jackson strikes me as the type of guy who'd be psychotically insane enough to do that.

As Quimporte said, both killing each other in battle is something I'd pay to see.

He is 69 in 1836, and soon would retire and hand over the reigns to Van Buren in 1837. He is sick, tired, and his body aches from bullets inside of him.

No chance of him going to lead troops in battle himself, especially in a theatre as far away from Washington as possible. He wanted to retire in 1837, so war or no war, he would sooner go back to the Hermitage than go back to his saddle. And he would not want to be a subordinate to Van Buren in any capacity, so he would not serve, I think.