Alternate History Mexico Keeps Californias

[Bear Ribs]

Around February 1821, Californios discover gold deposits in Californias. This influx of wealth and prosperity bolsters Emperor Agustín de Iturbide's rule and removes the problems with his perpetually empty treasury that doomed the Mexican Empire. His plan to remove Santa Ana from military power instead goes off without a hitch. The Mexican Empire never falls to Santa Ana, and instead keeps a great deal of the West Coast and has it heavily fortified by the time Jackson starts thinking seriously of expanding all the way to the Pacific. The Iturbide dynasty goes on for several generations. Ultimately Mexico keeps the Californias province though the US is able to take chunks of out Neuvo Mexico and Texas before a stalemate and treaty are reached.

How do things play out in the wider world over time with these borders, and the US never attaining a sea-to-sea dominion? How will Europe and the World Wars change if Mexico keeps control of the west coast?

 

[Knowledgeispower]

Pray tell how do they hold off the american settlers pulling what they did to Hawaii and Texas?

 

[raharris1973]

Around February 1821, Californios discover gold deposits in Californias. This influx of wealth and prosperity bolsters Emperor Agustín de Iturbide's rule and removes the problems with his perpetually empty treasury that doomed the Mexican Empire. His plan to remove Santa Ana from military power instead goes off without a hitch. The Mexican Empire never falls to Santa Ana, and instead keeps a great deal of the West Coast and has it heavily fortified by the time Jackson starts thinking seriously of expanding all the way to the Pacific. The Iturbide dynasty goes on for several generations. Ultimately Mexico keeps the Californias province though the US is able to take chunks of out Neuvo Mexico and Texas before a stalemate and treaty are reached.

How do things play out in the wider world over time with these borders, and the US never attaining a sea-to-sea dominion? How will Europe and the World Wars change if Mexico keeps control of the west coast?

To deny the US a west coast, the US must also be denied any share of Oregon country as well. If the USA gets a share of Oregon Country, a great deal of the investment and infrastructure and migration that OTL went to California, goes there instead.

What were you thinking in terms of US "chunks" anyway?

all of Nuevo Mexico and Texas?


all of Texas and half of Nuevo Mexico?


all of Texas and a slice of Nuevo Mexico?

 

[raharris1973]

Pray tell how do they hold off the american settlers pulling what they did to Hawaii and Texas?

Outnumbering them

 

[Bear Ribs]

Not losing somewhere in the area of half a million people, most of them military-aged and trained men, in the fighting between Santa Ana and Iturbide will help. That's an extra half-million warm bodies with rifles bloodying the US in Texas, and soon after the US is going to tear itself apart in a civil war so Mexico's extra soldiers will be particularly useful in outnumbering the battered US military. Without Santa Ana inviting them in, vast numbers of Americans will not flood into Texas and get greeted with open arms, only to promptly dig in and rebel.

Having cash supplies for better training, better equipment, typically having a better relationship with Indian tribes, and if needed cash to attract settlers themselves will do the rest. Mexico was also quite friendly to blacks, a big chunk of the Texas revolution was caused by Mexico recognizing black people as full citizens and forbidding slavery, so they might well draw large numbers of blacks from the South after the civil war, rather than whites who turned on them in the OTL.

To deny the US a west coast, the US must also be denied any share of Oregon country as well. If the USA gets a share of Oregon Country, a great deal of the investment and infrastructure and migration that OTL went to California, goes there instead.

What were you thinking in terms of US "chunks" anyway?

all of Nuevo Mexico and Texas?


all of Texas and half of Nuevo Mexico?


all of Texas and a slice of Nuevo Mexico?

I don't honestly know exactly where to draw the line, it's going to depend on a rather large number of factors and I am amenable to reason in figuring out where it's going to lay. The lines will presumably follow geographic barriers like mountain ranges or rivers rather than be straight lines, of course.

 

[Navarro]

If the USA doesn't take Mexico, it's probably Russia which was already building forts in the region, as Mexico has little effective presence to contest the claim. IF that's the case, we either have a purchase to the US ala Alaska or California becomes a White Russian "Taiwan" assuming the Bolsheviks still take over Russia.

Assuming that doesn't happen, California is just an extension of northern Mexico with all various attached dysfunctionalities.

The fundamental problems of Mexico vis a vis Alta California is that the area was simply too disconnected from the power centre in Mexico city due to the various mountains and deserts between them, not helped by the corrupt and feudalistic Mexican political culture.

 

[Skallagrim]

The whole point here is that the early discovery of Californian gold allows the Mexican Empire to stabilise its economy, and as a consequence, its political structure. The absence of civil war between would-be leaders ensures that considerably more young Mexicans are alive, and they'll have good reason to move to California (because of the gold rush).

California is no more removed from Central Mexico than it is from the USA's East Coast, and is in fact easier to reach: Mexicans can just take a ship along the West Coast, heading North, and arrive in Calfornia. They don't have to risk dangerous journeys across the Rockies!

Fact is, this POD can easily be seen to lead to a stronger, wealthier, more populous and far more functional Mexico. The USA may make some gains in the North-East, but I don't think they'd plausibly be able to take anything West of the Continental Divide.

I'd imagine a border that initially follows the Colorado, then veers off towards the Continental Divide, and follows that antil it reaches the Northern border of the greater Californian region. It might look a bit like this:

 

[raharris1973]

If the USA doesn't take Mexico, it's probably Russia which was already building forts in the region, as Mexico has little effective presence to contest the claim. IF that's the case, we either have a purchase to the US ala Alaska or California becomes a White Russian "Taiwan" assuming the Bolsheviks still take over Russia.

Assuming that doesn't happen, California is just an extension of northern Mexico with all various attached dysfunctionalities.

The fundamental problems of Mexico vis a vis Alta California is that the area was simply too disconnected from the power centre in Mexico city due to the various mountains and deserts between them, not helped by the corrupt and feudalistic Mexican political culture.

This is quite optimistic about Russian power projection (and might rest on an overestimate of how robust the pathetic outposts of Russian North America/Alaska actually were), almost insultingly under-rates the Mexicans, and ignores the very real prospect of British interference in an era that saw the Crimean War.

 

[WolfBear]

The whole point here is that the early discovery of Californian gold allows the Mexican Empire to stabilise its economy, and as a consequence, its political structure. The absence of civil war between would-be leaders ensures that considerably more young Mexicans are alive, and they'll have good reason to move to California (because of the gold rush).

California is no more removed from Central Mexico than it is from the USA's East Coast, and is in fact easier to reach: Mexicans can just take a ship along the West Coast, heading North, and arrive in Calfornia. They don't have to risk dangerous journeys across the Rockies!

Fact is, this POD can easily be seen to lead to a stronger, wealthier, more populous and far more functional Mexico. The USA may make some gains in the North-East, but I don't think they'd plausibly be able to take anything West of the Continental Divide.

I'd imagine a border that initially follows the Colorado, then veers off towards the Continental Divide, and follows that antil it reaches the Northern border of the greater Californian region. It might look a bit like this:

Wouldn't Americans still want to settle in Texas, though?

And here's a side question: Would Mexicans still be migrating en masse to the US in the 20th and 21st centuries in this TL? Because the US will still likely be wealthier than Mexico is in the long(er)-run due to its higher levels of human capital. Thus, are we going to see a "Reconquista", but of, say, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Florida, et cetera rather than of the Southwest like in real life (since the Southwest permanently remains Mexican here)?

FWIW, here is a map of real life's "Reconquista":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista_(Mexico)

For some reason, in real life, Mexicans and other Latin Americans are much less willing to settle in the Louisiana Purchase territories relative to the Southwestern US. Proximity might be a factor here, but still, the Northwest also got a lot of Mexican/Latin American immigrants even though it's more distant from Mexico but, say, Louisiana, Arkansas, et cetera haven't even though they border a US state (Texas) that borders Mexico.

 

[WolfBear]

Not losing somewhere in the area of half a million people, most of them military-aged and trained men, in the fighting between Santa Ana and Iturbide will help. That's an extra half-million warm bodies with rifles bloodying the US in Texas, and soon after the US is going to tear itself apart in a civil war so Mexico's extra soldiers will be particularly useful in outnumbering the battered US military. Without Santa Ana inviting them in, vast numbers of Americans will not flood into Texas and get greeted with open arms, only to promptly dig in and rebel.

Having cash supplies for better training, better equipment, typically having a better relationship with Indian tribes, and if needed cash to attract settlers themselves will do the rest. Mexico was also quite friendly to blacks, a big chunk of the Texas revolution was caused by Mexico recognizing black people as full citizens and forbidding slavery, so they might well draw large numbers of blacks from the South after the civil war, rather than whites who turned on them in the OTL.


I don't honestly know exactly where to draw the line, it's going to depend on a rather large number of factors and I am amenable to reason in figuring out where it's going to lay. The lines will presumably follow geographic barriers like mountain ranges or rivers rather than be straight lines, of course.

Didn't Mexico perceive value in inviting US settlers to Texas due to their value as farmers, et cetera? That, and the need to populate Texas more extensively?

I mean, in real life, the US also got some immigrants to move to Texas after it acquired it. For instance, the Texas Germans:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Texan

For what it's worth, even Karl Marx (Yes, that Karl Marx!) seriously considered personally moving to Texas:

https://soc.history.what-if.narkive.com/Hc4aDQ00/lone-star-karl-marx-becomes-a-texan

Lone Star Karl: Texas-Style Communism!

 

[raharris1973]

Wouldn't Americans still want to settle in Texas, though?

And here's a side question: Would Mexicans still be migrating en masse to the US in the 20th and 21st centuries in this TL? Because the US will still likely be wealthier than Mexico is in the long(er)-run due to its higher levels of human capital. Thus, are we going to see a "Reconquista", but of, say, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Florida, et cetera rather than of the Southwest like in real life (since the Southwest permanently remains Mexican here)?

FWIW, here is a map of real life's "Reconquista":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista_(Mexico)

For some reason, in real life, Mexicans and other Latin Americans are much less willing to settle in the Louisiana Purchase territories relative to the Southwestern US. Proximity might be a factor here, but still, the Northwest also got a lot of Mexican/Latin American immigrants even though it's more distant from Mexico but, say, Louisiana, Arkansas, et cetera haven't even though they border a US state (Texas) that borders Mexico.

It is important to note that this map represents all hispanics, not just Mexican heritage folk. Although I expect that from basically Chicago and points west, the people are overwhelmingly of Mexican and Central American heritage, with a more diverse heritage, much more Cuban, Puerto Rican, Dominican, South American, in addition to Central American and Mexican, in the east of the US.

Yes, is it notable that the Carolinas, Georgia, Virginia, and Delaware all seem to have more of their countries with higher percentages of hispanics than southern states with actual longer history of Spanish rule like Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.

 

[Skallagrim]

Wouldn't Americans still want to settle in Texas, though?

As I said, I think they'll get the (North)-Eastern section of Texas, which was the main area of initial Anglo settlement anyway. With a more powerful and affluent Mexico, "just taking more" isn't automatically a viable option. (And even if possible, it's just not very attractive.)

And here's a side question: Would Mexicans still be migrating en masse to the US in the 20th and 21st centuries in this TL? Because the US will still likely be wealthier than Mexico is in the long(er)-run due to its higher levels of human capital.

You assume Mexico is still worse-off. That's not really a given. The POD here has Mexico avoiding the causes of most of its (in OTL) enduring political instability. Its population is larger from early on due to a lack of war-related mass death. Its economy gets a useful gold-backed kick-start. California is far more developed early on, so exploiting that region is going to be may more viable.

Being more stable, Mexico is going to be considerably more attractive to immigrants, too. People who went to Argentina or Brazil in OTL may well chose to go to Mexico instead. And in a general sense, during the 19th century, the USA was not attractive for Catholics, but mny still went, because it was their only real opportunity. If there's a prosperous Mexico right next door... which is conventiently Catholic... they'll likely go there, instead.

By the 20th century, I could see this Mexico being a peer to the USA. Imagine loads of hard-working Italians and Irishmen who went to the USA ending up in Mexico instead. Catholic Germans. Frenchmen. All contributing to building up this ATL Mexico, and gradually becoming absorbed into its culture.

 

[ATP]

As I said, I think they'll get the (North)-Eastern section of Texas, which was the main area of initial Anglo settlement anyway. With a more powerful and affluent Mexico, "just taking more" isn't automatically a viable option. (And even if possible, it's just not very attractive.)



You assume Mexico is still worse-off. That's not really a given. The POD here has Mexico avoiding the causes of most of its (in OTL) enduring political instability. Its population is larger from early on due to a lack of war-related mass death. Its economy gets a useful gold-backed kick-start. California is far more developed early on, so exploiting that region is going to be may more viable.

Being more stable, Mexico is going to be considerably more attractive to immigrants, too. People who went to Argentina or Brazil in OTL may well chose to go to Mexico instead. And in a general sense, during the 19th century, the USA was not attractive for Catholics, but mny still went, because it was their only real opportunity. If there's a prosperous Mexico right next door... which is conventiently Catholic... they'll likely go there, instead.

By the 20th century, I could see this Mexico being a peer to the USA. Imagine loads of hard-working Italians and Irishmen who went to the USA ending up in Mexico instead. Catholic Germans. Frenchmen. All contributing to building up this ATL Mexico, and gradually becoming absorbed into its culture.

1.Yes,USA would get part of Texas.
2.Catholics from Europe would choose Mexico - which could have interesting effects.Irish would want free Ireland,Italians free italian states/venetian etc/,polish would want Poland,Bretonnians would want Brettany...
We would see here monarchist from France and Spain,too.
Mexico could use all ot that- imagine world,where rich catholic Mexico have rightful rulers of France,Spain,and goverments in exile from Poland,Bavaria, and other places.

 

[Buba]

Pray tell how do they hold off the american settlers pulling what they did to Hawaii and Texas?

More money = bigger&better army = rebelious american immigrants dancing the hemp jig

Bretonnians would want Brettany...

Too much WFB, I see
It is BRETONS

 

[ATP]

More money = bigger&better army = rebelious american immigrants dancing the hemp jig

Too much WFB, I see
It is BRETONS

FOR THE LADY !!!!!
P.S thanks for correcting my mistake.

 

[Buba]

P.S thanks for correcting my mistake.

An easy mistake to make - I myself occasionaly pause to think - is it Britanny or Bretonia?
Especially when speaking Polish - there the difference is between Bretonia and Bretania

 

[ATP]

An easy mistake to make - I myself occasionaly pause to think - is it Britanny or Bretonia?
Especially when speaking Polish - there the difference is between Bretonia and Bretania

Now,what could happened without any ROB interventions:
1.Putch 1821 averted,traitors killed.Becouse most was masons,masons are purged.
2.Poland fall after 1831 lost uprising - take as many as possible soldiers and modernize army.Including horse artillery and rockets,also ulans as light calvary for keeping borderland safe.
3.Carlist lost war about 1835 - the same,take as many as possible.
4.Do not let protestants and jews come into Texas and New Mexico.
5.About 1845 we would have some skirkishes,maybe even small war - wit by Mexico.In OTL irish soldiers serving in USA army helped mexican,the same could happen here.
Purges of catholics in USA,all catholics go to Mexico.
6.Famine in Ireland - send fleet with grain,and take as many colonist as possible.Since there were 8 millions of irish then,3 millions could go to Mexico.
7.Oregon - in this TL,with weaker USA,it belong to England.
8.1864,another polish lost uprising - take as many as possible.Including prince Czartoryski,considered as uncrown Poland King.Polish goverment in exile - catholic one.
9.Cyvil war - South supported by England win.
10.Sioux wars - there were catholic missionaries there in OTL,american army massacre some from Mexico.
War,Mexico win again,part of territory is theirs with all Sioux serving as border troops.
11.Commancheria taken by Mexico.Commanches as border troops.
12.All catholics go to Mexico,part of protestants and jews to bigger Canada.
13.Japan opened by England about 1870.Later modernization.
14.Hawaii and Okinawa british.Maybe Hokkaido,too and Kurile islands.
15.if there is war about 1890,USA lost it again.
16.Second carlist war - more catholics to Mexico,including rightfull Spain King regognized by Mexico.
17.After 1870 - more catholics from France and Bavaria come.
18.1914 - Confederacy as England ally,North as germans army,Mexico want be neutral,but USA massacre more catholics so they have no choice and join.
19.1917 - France almost fall,but Japan and Mexican corps save them.
20.1918 - german offensive stopped,germans blocked,USA capitulate.
21. 1919 revolution in germany,end of war.
22. 1920 - German state disbanded,Bavaria and other states free again.Poland as catholic Kingdom,soviets crushed - few russian states.

No unifed german and russian states,no powerfull USA - Happy End.

 

[WolfBear]

Now,what could happened without any ROB interventions:
1.Putch 1821 averted,traitors killed.Becouse most was masons,masons are purged.
2.Poland fall after 1831 lost uprising - take as many as possible soldiers and modernize army.Including horse artillery and rockets,also ulans as light calvary for keeping borderland safe.
3.Carlist lost war about 1835 - the same,take as many as possible.
4.Do not let protestants and jews come into Texas and New Mexico.
5.About 1845 we would have some skirkishes,maybe even small war - wit by Mexico.In OTL irish soldiers serving in USA army helped mexican,the same could happen here.
Purges of catholics in USA,all catholics go to Mexico.
6.Famine in Ireland - send fleet with grain,and take as many colonist as possible.Since there were 8 millions of irish then,3 millions could go to Mexico.
7.Oregon - in this TL,with weaker USA,it belong to England.
8.1864,another polish lost uprising - take as many as possible.Including prince Czartoryski,considered as uncrown Poland King.Polish goverment in exile - catholic one.
9.Cyvil war - South supported by England win.
10.Sioux wars - there were catholic missionaries there in OTL,american army massacre some from Mexico.
War,Mexico win again,part of territory is theirs with all Sioux serving as border troops.
11.Commancheria taken by Mexico.Commanches as border troops.
12.All catholics go to Mexico,part of protestants and jews to bigger Canada.
13.Japan opened by England about 1870.Later modernization.
14.Hawaii and Okinawa british.Maybe Hokkaido,too and Kurile islands.
15.if there is war about 1890,USA lost it again.
16.Second carlist war - more catholics to Mexico,including rightfull Spain King regognized by Mexico.
17.After 1870 - more catholics from France and Bavaria come.
18.1914 - Confederacy as England ally,North as germans army,Mexico want be neutral,but USA massacre more catholics so they have no choice and join.
19.1917 - France almost fall,but Japan and Mexican corps save them.
20.1918 - german offensive stopped,germans blocked,USA capitulate.
21. 1919 revolution in germany,end of war.
22. 1920 - German state disbanded,Bavaria and other states free again.Poland as catholic Kingdom,soviets crushed - few russian states.

No unifed german and russian states,no powerfull USA - Happy End.

Why exactly is a powerful USA a bad thing, though? We're currently protecting your Polish asses from the Russian bear, after all!

 

[ATP]

Why exactly is a powerful USA a bad thing, though? We're currently protecting your Polish asses from the Russian bear, after all!

After WW2 you gave us to Sralin for free.Soviets do not genocided us for unknown reasons,but - when you betray us,you could except that we would be genocided.
And,you could easily kill that bear after WW2 and become ONLY WORLD SUPERPOWER.
Even in 2022 Biden still tried to made deal with Putin over Ukraine corpse.

Not mention,that it would be better for all South America countries.No Fruit company wars for them.

For world it would be better if Russia and Germany ceased to exist as united states - becouse then we would need no any superpower to defend from them.

P.S i forget to add,that USA in this scenario continue to purge catholics on what territory they stil have,so all catholics go to Mexico and made it stronger.
Mexico,on other hand,purge masons as american fifth columns,but since they are members of elites,nothing change.There still was catholic elites in that time.And Maxico get stronger for lack of enemy puppets among their elites.

 

[WolfBear]

As I said, I think they'll get the (North)-Eastern section of Texas, which was the main area of initial Anglo settlement anyway. With a more powerful and affluent Mexico, "just taking more" isn't automatically a viable option. (And even if possible, it's just not very attractive.)



You assume Mexico is still worse-off. That's not really a given. The POD here has Mexico avoiding the causes of most of its (in OTL) enduring political instability. Its population is larger from early on due to a lack of war-related mass death. Its economy gets a useful gold-backed kick-start. California is far more developed early on, so exploiting that region is going to be may more viable.

Being more stable, Mexico is going to be considerably more attractive to immigrants, too. People who went to Argentina or Brazil in OTL may well chose to go to Mexico instead. And in a general sense, during the 19th century, the USA was not attractive for Catholics, but mny still went, because it was their only real opportunity. If there's a prosperous Mexico right next door... which is conventiently Catholic... they'll likely go there, instead.

By the 20th century, I could see this Mexico being a peer to the USA. Imagine loads of hard-working Italians and Irishmen who went to the USA ending up in Mexico instead. Catholic Germans. Frenchmen. All contributing to building up this ATL Mexico, and gradually becoming absorbed into its culture.

What population do you think that present-day California will have in this TL? I mean within its real life present-day US borders. Anything near 40 million people?