Mexico Successfully Seizes Texas

To be specific, Santana doesn't strike ahead of his army, therefore the whole Waterloo repeat never happens, and then he seizes Texas.

In this timeline, would the US ever intervene? Or would Mexico get to keeps its possessions? How would this in the long run affect world politics?

Yes, there is a search function, but it sucks, and many times for me will just time out.
 
So the US-Mexican War will still happen? Man, that robs everything. Although, surely that will be hurt from Mexico being in a much stronger position now, along with the upcoming Civil War undoubtedly causing issues.
 
Texas becomes for this United States what California was for the other one as the successful creation of a US Texas territory leads to the problem of more slave states in a USA increasingly by population and overall wealth dominated by the free states. Ensue an earlier, smaller US Civil War won more decisively by the North than IOTL and Winfield Scott as the great hero of that war.
 
So the US-Mexican War will still happen? Man, that robs everything. Although, surely that will be hurt from Mexico being in a much stronger position now, along with the upcoming Civil War undoubtedly causing issues.


Well, I meant more so the Americans would want the land regardless. Not that they would though.


Also, just holding Tejas does not put Mexico in a much stronger position. If they kicked out the 300 Families, then there goes any development of the area. So, Mexico gets to hold on to de facto worthless land basically. In other words, Mexico is still going to have many growing pains, with Santa Anna staying power maybe a little longer that particular term.
 
They also have California(although not sure how much they can take advantage of it.) Over all, if Mexico could stabilize some, they could hold it, and become quite powerful.
 
They also have California(although not sure how much they can take advantage of it.) Over all, if Mexico could stabilize some, they could hold it, and become quite powerful.

They'd need people to be there to actually make California and Tejas useful. That would mean Anglos, and then Manifest Destiny. To avoid that, well I'm not awesomesauce at Mexican history, but perhaps everyone Santa Anna doesn't like can be sent to Tejas. But that wouldn't help much...
 
So the US-Mexican War will still happen? Man, that robs everything. Although, surely that will be hurt from Mexico being in a much stronger position now, along with the upcoming Civil War undoubtedly causing issues.

It will but there will be an entirely different spin on it, the results of which mean that instead of Texas as an established slave state we get Bleeding Texas and a US Civil War that will look rather different than OTL but end with a bigger curbstomp of the South than IOTL.
 
They'd need people to be there to actually make California and Tejas useful. That would mean Anglos,
Why does it have to mean Anglos?

First what kept Mexicans from interest in colonizing their frontier, what makes them different from how the U.S. seemed to pour out settlers into new territory?

If foreigners must be brought in could Mexico try recruiting colonists from other places?
 
Why does it have to mean Anglos?

First what kept Mexicans from interest in colonizing their frontier, what makes them different from how the U.S. seemed to pour out settlers into new territory?

If foreigners must be brought in could Mexico try recruiting colonists from other places?

I said Anglos for a very simple reason. Mexico doesn't have much money during this era and the only nearby people happen to be Anglos. If Mexico got a large amount of money, say from a deal where the Americans just buy Tejas, they could potentially use the currency to encourage settlement in California.
 
Really Mexico's best longterm solution by the time of the Texas revolution, would be to recognize Texan independence to the full extent of it's claims under condition that the republic makes no more territorial claims on Mexican territory(specificly including California, nipping Lamar's pipe dreams) and that Texas does not join the US(maybe make some legal language that if Texas does join the US it renouces all claims south and west of the Nueces line they tried to enforce OTL as a further deterrant beyond their word).

This would then give a buffer between Mexico and the US, and if they aggressively keep the Anglos out of California, it's likely they could hold on to it. That's curb at least the southern half of Manifest Destiny. The northern half, you'd likely see a 54-40 war as a kneejerk to this.
 
Interesting. Well, that already gives many butterflies, as if WW2 comes around, who the heck will own Hawaii? Also, will Silicon Valley even be in the same place?
 
Really Mexico's best longterm solution by the time of the Texas revolution, would be to recognize Texan independence to the full extent of it's claims....

That's too realpolitik for Santa Anna, or any leader for that matter. Besides, that is not relevent to the OP. If you want to make a thread about Mexico doing as you said, feel free to. But for Mexico to give Tejas a lot of land after conquering it again, that seems quiet ASB.
 
Interesting. Well, that already gives many butterflies, as if WW2 comes around, who the heck will own Hawaii? Also, will Silicon Valley even be in the same place?

Hawaii is a different beast, though lets say Mexico is able to get more (loyal) people into Alta California. The Americans would likely still get Oregon and Washington state as OTL, so they have some ports on the Pacific. Hawaii would then be between Mexico, America and Britain. Either one of the nations is able to secure control of the islands or it is left indepedent with the relevent powers guarenteeing its independence.

As for Silicon Valley, that's far down the road. :p
 
Giving Texas independence after defeating the rebels is ASB, but what about Mexican statehood?

That was the original demand, would granting it mollify some of the rebels?
 
Last edited:
Oh you'd have to get rid of SantaAnna in some form for that to happen. And as far as my suggestion being ASB? Maybe... almost as ASB as a 150 frontiersmen inflicting 4x their numbers in casualties upon a well trained army that massively outnumbered them. Or a ragtag force of settlers beating a trained army nearly twice their size in the space of twenty minutes because they were napping without sentries. :p
 
Why does it have to mean Anglos?

First what kept Mexicans from interest in colonizing their frontier, what makes them different from how the U.S. seemed to pour out settlers into new territory?

If foreigners must be brought in could Mexico try recruiting colonists from other places?

Anglos poured into Texas simply because Mexico couldn't match the USA when it came to attracting immigrants. A fair number of the anglos in Texas were recent immigrants (of the 200 men in the Alamo, at least 32 were born overseas). At a guess, I would say that it was Mexico's lack of stability that kept the immigrants going elsewhere. Even the USA's noted hostility to Catholics didn't stop them from coming here. Mexico did try several times to entice it's own citizens to populate Texas, and failed at all of them... inviting the Americans in was about the only way to get any development and use out of the place. If you want to change this, you need a POD that gives Mexico greater stability... which would probably butterfly the Texas war away anyway...
 
Top