No GNW (or “Peter goes South”)
- Thread starter alexmilman
- Start date
Thank you for update!
That means that Union eventually fully defeated CSA? (Because in case of splitting of USA I doubt that rump US could finance such ambitious projects such of major railroad network)
Good question to which I don’t have an equally good answer. 😂
I was considering various scenarios and ended with avoiding any details and having the OTL (more or less: Mexico still holds its initial territory) option because pretty much any alternative I could come with would mean a significant deviation from OTL with the domino effect spreading all over the world, requiring a lot of the invented details, and I don’t feel adequate (or seriously interested) for such a fundamental task not to mention that, as far as I can tell there were/are plenty of TL’s based upon alt-US.
Even leaving outcome close to OTL while maintaining the Greater Mexico raises serious questions to which I do not have ready answers:
- Intercontinental railroads are getting less likely unless government of Mexico is ready to allow a big influx of the American settlers on its territory. But wouldn’t this be a suicidal insanity on a scale too big even for Benito Juarez? IMO the much more restrictive concessions are more likely but this means that the pattern is going to be different being concentrated on more densely populated areas of Mexico and probably accelerating the Mexican Revolution.
- US “footprint” on the Pacific has to be much more modest due to the obvious geographic reasons. How is it going to change the regional geopolitics?
- Will the US try to expand into the Mexican territories ending up with the OTL borders few decades behind the schedule?
- What are the Mexican perspectives for having these territories “reasonably” settled and how developed could they be without arrival of the friendly ASBs? Would the Irish and German immigration be an adequate substitute of the ASBs?
It should be noticed Mexico had many problems that the american wars exposed: mainly the lack of actual control mexico had over it's hinterlands and not anything that was reacheable bt central authority, lots on influential men, the caudillos, essentially ran the place the way they wanted and the central mexican goverment couldn't or wouldn't intervene because they often had corruption problems as well as constant political instability and fights beteewen federalists and centralists. Not having a Mexican American war nor a french invasion does make things better... But the problems are still there enough that someone like the US could take advantage of, Benito is in the right path but it will take some time to better organize the country and eliminate some of the worst problems, time it might not have depending on how hard the US is breathing down it's neck.
I very much doubt that the United States can expand into Mexico, I think that in Texas there could be at least 100,000 Irish.
Not counting California, which may have more just because of immigration and natural growth. By 1900, which is around the time the US is ready to go to war, the entire North will be full of Hispanic Catholics.
I don't see the US going down that path, at best they would annex significantly less populated Oregon.
Perhaps with the problems that Mexico is facing, the northern territories will serve as a refuge for the rebels.
Not counting California, which may have more just because of immigration and natural growth. By 1900, which is around the time the US is ready to go to war, the entire North will be full of Hispanic Catholics.
I don't see the US going down that path, at best they would annex significantly less populated Oregon.
Perhaps with the problems that Mexico is facing, the northern territories will serve as a refuge for the rebels.
Benito is dead by 1872 and his successor was out in 4 years. It looks like under Diaz (who came to power protesting against questionable legality of the presidential reelections) the central government was much more in charge but he was definitely promoting the RR construction by the US companies. I need to find time to read research on how the RRs led to the Mexican Revolution but if the construction in the Mexican South goes on in a high rate negatively impacting the poor (as I understand, this is an idea) , perhaps things would accelerate in Mexico?
Maybe early attempt at Mexican Revolution? It would be interesting to see
This too, altough these parts might still have a lot of anglo settlers(are the mormons a thing in this verse? because I don't think mexicans would tolerate them and that could've been a good chance for USA invasion) and the americans might just go full Louisiana on those states and over the decades create a majority that lives in cities and holds political and economical power over these states, especially if it's 1900 and Irish and germans are accepted as whites and would thus get the same privileges as their anglo neighbours(in theory).
Worth reminding that the mexican community in texas had big influence on the state since forever, only behind the numerically superior anglos who controlled the state, we would see something like this except the americans are forced to make more concessions with the mexican elites if they want to keep the territory.
Well, if the majority are Mexicans+Irish+Germans why would they be excessively excited about joining the US? Even the “gringo” settlers while coming from the US would not be necessary all anglo-saxons and would not necessarily be 100% eager to become a part of the US if they are doing well enough in a new place. IIRC, the initial OTL settlers in the area were predominantly farmers looking for land so the political elite can remain mostly M+I+G with the addition of the new elements and, a big “IF”, if alt-Mexico is doing reasonably well AND the provinces/state are have extensive powers then joining post-ACW US may not be such an attractive thing for the local political class because they would be losing a considerable power to the federal government and the people coming into the area after anschluss (what would be the proper English term?) and having connections in Washington.
Besides, if the “G” component is big enough, this means that Mexico is a place of the big German (as in “Germany”) investments and other interests. Which means that the army is being trained by the German officers and has German weapons and that an attempt to conquer the OTL territories, besides being difficult, may mean very serious international repercussions: withdrawal of the German investments already was a factor in the crush of 1873 and it too the US couple decades to get out of the Long Depression.
Yes. Mexicans know about filibustering (in this TL it would be more extreme, because in case of butterflying Mexican-American War 1846-1848 left to southern expansion less territory), so they wouldn't view positively american immigration. And transcontitnental railroad provide colossal (to sparsely populated territories northern Rio Grande) demographical influx of Americans. So Mexican government don't approve it.
I think that this create a dilemma for USA. First option: USA can accept not only their relative diminished status in Pacific (and generally in Asia) and restrain themselves only as a commercial country in East Asia and accept that with every decade (in case if Mexicans really don't get a major f***-up) southern neighbour will stronger. Second option: they can wrestle California and other northern (to Mexicans) territories and create truly continental Power which hasn't any counterweight (even theoretical) in North America.
I think, yes. This is question of national importance. With territories from California to Texas US - The Power of North America, without any counterweights. Without them - US can be strongest power in continent but only in relative terms, not in absolute, and Mexicans _can_ catch Americans in terms of state strrength. The onlu thing which can stimulate to restrain - unpreparedness to wage major war so quickly after ACW.
I doubt in this. Even now most densely populated regions of Mexico - southern. In OTL (exception - only Southern California) their lost territories wee sparsely populated (by Mexicans not anglo-american immigrants). But in case of conscious resettling on Northern Territories they can provide more or less acceptable ratio of Mexican ctizena and American settlers). I think that without some help from European Powers (who areinterested in Balance of Power in Northern America - a la Orleanist France in case of union of Texas and USA) Mexican perspectives are grim.
Last edited:
I think that remaining in the Spanish Empire (or more realistic Spanish Commonwealth) only will delay the ambitions of US over northern mexican territories.
Probably US won't be able to annex OTL territories because of the higher population of those territories, it's dislike of non-anglo people's, more stable and somewhat powerful Mexico and higher external support but surely would be able to cut a big chunk of it's southern neighbor.
On the other side if more developed, populated and richer California, Texas and maybe New Mexico don't feel threatened from US and also don't feel fairly treated be Mexico central government maybe they could try to be independent. Conflict between states and the central government was a big problem during XIX century in Mexico.
Probably US won't be able to annex OTL territories because of the higher population of those territories, it's dislike of non-anglo people's, more stable and somewhat powerful Mexico and higher external support but surely would be able to cut a big chunk of it's southern neighbor.
On the other side if more developed, populated and richer California, Texas and maybe New Mexico don't feel threatened from US and also don't feel fairly treated be Mexico central government maybe they could try to be independent. Conflict between states and the central government was a big problem during XIX century in Mexico.
Last edited:
I thought the same, however if i am not mistaken Mexico rebelled from the Spanish Crown in one of the resent updates. USA would not be afraid to fight with Mexico alone, they will need some time to recover from ACW, and probably their postwar borders will be different.
Indeed Mexico is independent, not to mention that it's unlikely that any power would intervene in any conflict between Mexico and USA so at this point US is only dragged down via war fatigue.
Otherwise there was a previous discussion regarding US /Mexican border, it involved Spain selling the lands to US to solve potential border dispute, though even if war happens i believe that proposal put by the @Hastings is probably best solution in general.
With US getting Pink colored areas while Mexico keeps yellow areas.
I don't think they can take a lot of territory, especially in Texas. It would be more likely that the North would become independent and be its own state.
IMO more plausible would be, based on the OTL map below, the US buying the territories of Oregon, Nevada, Utah and Colorado. These areas are underpopulated and Mexican government does not have any real control over them. The US is getting a considerable square mileage and expanded presence on the Pacific coast.
ITTL California (as a modern state) is reasonably well populated as a result of the gold rush, Texas, AZ and NM had been targeted by the immigrants from Europe and Louisiana is just too valuable.
Now, as far as easiness to conquer is involved, there are few factors to consider:
- We are talking about the 1870s and what was considered OK few decades later may produce a strong international reaction now and this may not be advisable for the country which is so far is an exporter of the agricultural goods (Europe survived the cotton crisis and there are alternative sources, in grain export the US is far from being #1 player).
- The US is far from being one of the world’s great powers and its economy is still greatly dependent upon the foreign investments and its banking system is lacking the OTL bullion resulting from the CA gold rush. Even in OTL sudden interruption of the German investments led to a major economic crisis.
- There are strong European (German, French, British) economic interests in Mexico.
- Unlike OTL, Mexican army is stronger while after the ACW most of the US Army was disbanded.
- Some of the territories which in OTL went to Mexico earlier now have considerable white population that has no intention to change status quo and not have any links to the US.
My question is what if any of these European countries will really invade the USA to get out of Mexico in case those two go to war? Only Britain really has a base to mount the invasion of their territory with Canada and even then the Canadians are far more vunerable than the Americans, especially as the latter can count on getting Civil War veterans who are familiar with trench warfare and total war.
Also, what part of California is really inhabited? Mostly the south or is everything really occupied? Because there's a difference between the more arid South and more forested north part of the state, and I could see the Americans trying to take over those areas to at least better link up with their Oregon holdings.
I don’t think that such a thing would be really necessary. In OTL France invaded Mexico because it was not considered to be a part of the “civilized world” (just as China, etc.) as as such free for all. But here Mexico has a much greater European population and the different rules apply.
Then, why it would be necessary to “invade” the US? There would be effective tools like naval blockade of the US and general trade embargo and help with the weaponry to Mexico.
After the ACW the US had very serious financial problems because the government had to pay off a huge debt. Plus, post-ACW development seriously depended upon the foreign investments, specifically German, and even in OTL they abruptly stopped in 1873 causing financial panic, massive unemployment, riots and depression which lasted for two decades. To start a major war you need a lot of money and were would they come from in environment like that? Plus, I strongly suspect that experience of the ACW was not really conductive to getting big numbers of enthusiasts for a new major war and their trench warfare experience would not be necessarily too useful in the offensive war, especially in the middle of nowhere.
I suspect that in 1870s Oregon was not the most densely occupied part of the US and the transport connections with it were still rather tenuous. Besides the obvious question why would the US be ready to go to war for the “forested north part”, the problems of “better links” had been successfully handled by construction of the railroads. Anyway, based upon the map, the “link” seems to be a wide enough: Utah, Nevada, Idaho, Wyoming.