Map: No Mexican-American War

[lordroel]

From the website called io9 comes a article called: A Map Of The U.S., If There Had Never Been A Mexican-American War

Map: No Mexican-American War

In 1846, President James Polk, driven by a belief in Manifest Destiny, waged a war to seize land from Mexico and expand the nation's boundary from Texas to California. But events could have plausibly gone very differently, resulting in a map of the U.S. that would be significantly unlike the one we have today.

Map of North America without a Mexican-American War



When the war ended, the U.S. had acquired over 500,000 sq. miles of new land, including Texas and the Mexican territories that would eventually become the states of California, Arizona, New Mexico — and comprise significant parts of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and Nevada.

But the conflict with Mexico had been controversial, as not everyone in the U.S. shared Polk's vision. The famed geographer and historian Donald Meinig — who, between 1986 and 2004, pubished a four-volume opus, The Shaping of America — contemplated how the U.S. would have looked if the war never occurred, producing a map (above) that he titled, "A Lesser United States."

As the award-winning historian Susan Schulten observes on her blog, Mapping the Nation:

Such a geographic reality is not difficult to imagine. In the 1830s, there was not yet a dominant sense of Manifest Destiny. The independence of Texas in 1836 was achieved by a fragile alliance of Anglo and Mexican Tejanos, and came without aid from the United States. In fact, after independence, overtures by the Texas Republic to be annexed by the U.S. were rejected by Presidents Jackson, van Buren, Harrison, and initially by Tyler. The prospect of adding new territory in the west, which would fall under the Missouri Compromise Line and therefore be open to slavery, would upset the delicate balance between free and slave states.

By the 1840s, expansionist sentiment had grown considerably, and was directed not just Texas but also the northwest. President Tyler had avoided the issue of annexation, but in the election of 1844, Democratic candidate James Polk ran on an ardently expansionist platform, and insisted that the west was crucial to the nation's growth. His Whig opponent, Henry Clay, opposed annexation, in part because Mexico had made clear this would be considered an act of war. Clay did poorly in the south, where expansion to Texas was popular, while in the north he was narrowly defeated by a Democratic party that recruited urban ethnic voters on issues unrelated to Texas.

Clay lost to Polk by only 30,000 votes, which suggests that there was limited support for annexation (in fact it was primarily rooted in the south). Yet President Tyler interpreted Polk's victory as a mandate for expansion, which prompted him to push through annexation as one of his final acts, with help from expansionists in Congress. If Clay had won the election, Tyler would not have annexed Texas, and the United States would not have entered into war with Mexico – at least not in 1845. Had Clay won, we might assume that the nation would have avoided annexation, and by extension war with Mexico.

There was deep resistance to the Mexican War in the northeast, and concern by many that it was foisted upon the nation by expansionist southerners hungry for new territory. In other words, many Americans did not necessarily link national progress with geographic expansion. So it's possible to conceive of a lesser America by positing the absence of the Mexican War. Along these lines, we could imagine an independent Mormon state of Deseret, and even a California that remained part of Mexico or gained its own independence after the gold rush.

[stevep]

Lordroel

Interesting. Do you know the basis for the Canadian holding of not just OTL Washington but the land to the east? [Think Idaho and part of Montana perhaps?] I'm less certain that this would change if there was no Mexican war, although it would make for a somewhat stronger Canada, which could be interesting.

Could see an independent California developing as a result of a gold rush in Mexican California and given Texas's example it could well stay outside the US. A lot of potential butterflies however, for instance:
a) Without the war does this mean no or a different civil war? The south will be angry without the desired expansion so it might try for independence earlier, which might favour it as northern industrialisation and internal communications are both weaker. It won't have Texas but might be Texas is more valuable as a friendly neutral that aids circumventing of a union blockade. Also the union would be without Californian gold and Nevada silver. Would still expect the union to win but might be even tougher.

b) Without the Mexican war a number of figures who fought in it would have a much lower profile.

c) Also, without the war would Mexico be that stronger. Its still cursed by Santa Anna's [mis-]leadership, which might be a factor in California becoming independent but could also mean other areas successfully breaking away. Also without the war would the French intervention be avoided? If it wasn't would a US that lacks easy territorial borders with Mexico be able to pressurise a French withdrawal. You might also get a separate Texan intervention which could complicate matters. Especially if that is now feeling isolated with the union ending slavery.

d) The US had lost the bulk of its OTL Pacific coastline and most of the best ports. As such later on it could well have less influence/interest in the wider Pacific and the Far East. This might affect things like what happens to Alaska, Hawaii and possibly, if a war with Spain over Cuba occurs no interest in or capability to take the Philippines. [Which is likely to end up purchased by Germany possibly].

e) If the US is less obsessed with manifest destiny and also looks weaker would British Columbia be as interested in confederation with Canada or might it go it alone as a separate dominion? Especially since it will be larger with its southern provinces. This could add an additional nation to TTL N America and also since BC's inclusion was a key factor in the Canadian trans-continental railways those would come later which would delay settlement of the Canadian prairies.

[lordroel]

Jul 26, 2016 19:15:59 GMT stevep said:

Interesting. Do you know the basis for the Canadian holding of not just OTL Washington but the land to the east? [Think Idaho and part of Montana perhaps?] I'm less certain that this would change if there was no Mexican war, although it would make for a somewhat stronger Canada, which could be interesting.

Sorry no more information than what i already posted here.

Jul 26, 2016 19:15:59 GMT stevep said:

Could see an independent California developing as a result of a gold rush in Mexican California and given Texas's example it could well stay outside the US. A lot of potential butterflies however, for instance:
a) Without the war does this mean no or a different civil war? The south will be angry without the desired expansion so it might try for independence earlier, which might favour it as northern industrialisation and internal communications are both weaker. It won't have Texas but might be Texas is more valuable as a friendly neutral that aids circumventing of a union blockade. Also the union would be without Californian gold and Nevada silver. Would still expect the union to win but might be even tougher.

A civil war still could be fought, maybe more bloodier than OTL with the CSA baked by the Mexicans and the Union maybe backed by the British and California.

Jul 26, 2016 19:15:59 GMT stevep said:

b) Without the Mexican war a number of figures who fought in it would have a much lower profile.

Yep people like Robet E Lee,Ulysses S. Grant and other general mention in this list: Ten Civil War Generals who Served in the Mexican-American War would not have become the commanders we know them to be.

Jul 26, 2016 19:15:59 GMT stevep said:

c) Also, without the war would Mexico be that stronger. Its still cursed by Santa Anna's [mis-]leadership, which might be a factor in California becoming independent but could also mean other areas successfully breaking away. Also without the war would the French intervention be avoided? If it wasn't would a US that lacks easy territorial borders with Mexico be able to pressurise a French withdrawal. You might also get a separate Texan intervention which could complicate matters. Especially if that is now feeling isolated with the union ending slavery.

Well the French intervention in Mexico can still happen, with Mexico being bigger than OTL it could become even more bloodier than it originally was.

Jul 26, 2016 19:15:59 GMT stevep said:

d) The US had lost the bulk of its OTL Pacific coastline and most of the best ports. As such later on it could well have less influence/interest in the wider Pacific and the Far East. This might affect things like what happens to Alaska, Hawaii and possibly, if a war with Spain over Cuba occurs no interest in or capability to take the Philippines. [Which is likely to end up purchased by Germany possibly].

We could see a Second America-Mexico War if the the Maine incident happens as OTL which sparked the Spanish-America War with Mexico backing Spain.

[stevep]

Jul 27, 2016 3:47:21 GMT lordroel said:

Sorry no more information than what i already posted here.

  Ok thanks.

A civil war still could be fought, maybe more bloodier than OTL with the CSA baked by the Mexicans and the Union maybe backed by the British and California.

  If you mean diplomatic support possibly, although I doubt anyone else would get militarily involved.  Also given the CSA supports slavery and was the major driver for a war with Mexico and expanding in that direction I doubt that Mexico would support it.  Britain is likely to support the north as OTL, although with some sympathy for the south, especially in the more aristocratic elements of the population.  Suppect that California is likely to keep well away from the conflict as supporting either side could be bitterly divisive.  [There will be settlers from both north and south and also many from outside the US as OTL and without an existing link to the US most will feel their better off out of it.]

Yep people like Robet E Lee,Ulysses S. Grant and other general mention in this list: Ten Civil War Generals who Served in the Mexican-American War would not have become the commanders we know them to be.

  Not just generals.  Jefferson Davis for instance became CSA President in part because of his successes in the Mexican war.  Looking at his Wiki page,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Davis, after which he was secretary of war for several years and increased the US army and prompted the introduction of rifles so its possible that the US army will be less prepared for any war.  Especially since the US will be smaller so there is less demand for forces. 

Well the French intervention in Mexico can still happen, with Mexico being bigger than OTL it could become even more bloodier than it originally was.

  With a bigger Mexico that might be the case or it might be even more divided, especially if Santa Anna stays in power longer.  Or defeat in a war of Californian independence could mean that he's displaced and a more compenent government is in charge.  In which case France might have no opportunity to intervene in a stronger and economically stable Mexico.

We could see a Second America-Mexico War if the the Maine incident happens as OTL which sparked the Spanish-America War with Mexico backing Spain.

  Possibly although that would depend on what has happened in the preceeding 50 years.  If Texas, Deserte and California are still independent states Mexico and the US would have only a small, isolated border and could have no major tension.  Did Mexico show any sympathy for Spain in OTL?  Especially since it was the former colonial power?

[lordroel]

Jul 27, 2016 12:30:44 GMT stevep said:

If you mean diplomatic support possibly, although I doubt anyone else would get militarily involved.  Also given the CSA supports slavery and was the major driver for a war with Mexico and expanding in that direction I doubt that Mexico would support it.  Britain is likely to support the north as OTL, although with some sympathy for the south, especially in the more aristocratic elements of the population.  Suppect that California is likely to keep well away from the conflict as supporting either side could be bitterly divisive.  [There will be settlers from both north and south and also many from outside the US as OTL and without an existing link to the US most will feel their better off out of it.]

And the independent Mormon state of Deseret, would they choice a side in a civil war.

Jul 27, 2016 12:30:44 GMT stevep said:

Not just generals.  Jefferson Davis for instance became CSA President in part because of his successes in the Mexican war.  Looking at his Wiki page,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Davis, after which he was secretary of war for several years and increased the US army and prompted the introduction of rifles so its possible that the US army will be less prepared for any war.  Especially since the US will be smaller so there is less demand for forces. 

True that means somebody else might be president of the CSA, and that will result in a lot of butterflies.

Jul 27, 2016 12:30:44 GMT stevep said:

With a bigger Mexico that might be the case or it might be even more divided, especially if Santa Anna stays in power longer.  Or defeat in a war of Californian independence could mean that he's displaced and a more compenent government is in charge.  In which case France might have no opportunity to intervene in a stronger and economically stable Mexico.

A bigger Mexico means that there will more more groups to deal with, thus there might be more tension in Mexico.

Jul 27, 2016 12:30:44 GMT stevep said:

If Texas, Deserte and California are still independent states Mexico and the US would have only a small, isolated border and could have no major tension.  Did Mexico show any sympathy for Spain in OTL?  Especially since it was the former colonial power?

With out a Mexican-American War it might be that Mexico sides with the United states, especially if the here about how the Spanish are treating the Cubans.

[stevep]

One other possible butterfly just occurred to me. If the US has a much weaker presence in the Pacific does it still have the same interest in an isthmus canal? Especially if the initial butterfly gravely weakens the manifest destiny idea. It might be that a stronger Mexico or Britain, with its extensive trade and economic interests is the one who builds a canal, either in Columbia/Panama or Nicaragua.

I suspect the Mormons might side more with the CSA as both will tend to be priah states.

Very true, and given his character Jefferson Davis might be a much better general than a political leader.

By the time of map, with a larger Texas and California and Deseret independent Mexico isn't markedly larger than OTL and most of the additional lands are pretty scary populated, mostly by Indian tribes such as the Apaches who cause a lot of problems for any ruler.

A Mexican-America alliance there could be interesting. Alternatively, if Mexico is somewhat stronger, more through better government than additional lands I suspect, possibly the Cuban rebels are asking Mexico rather than the US for aid.

[lordroel]

Jul 27, 2016 16:09:17 GMT stevep said:

A Mexican-America alliance there could be interesting. Alternatively, if Mexico is somewhat stronger, more through better government than additional lands I suspect, possibly the Cuban rebels are asking Mexico rather than the US for aid.

But would the United States allow it.

[stevep]

Jul 27, 2016 16:13:06 GMT lordroel said:

Jul 27, 2016 16:09:17 GMT stevep said:

A Mexican-America alliance there could be interesting. Alternatively, if Mexico is somewhat stronger, more through better government than additional lands I suspect, possibly the Cuban rebels are asking Mexico rather than the US for aid.

But would the United States allow it.

  That could really complicate matters.  If Mexico and the US were competing for influence in Cuba then how much would they conflict with each other rather than actually bother about liberating Cuba?

[lordroel]

Jul 27, 2016 21:38:51 GMT stevep said:

Jul 27, 2016 16:13:06 GMT lordroel said:

But would the United States allow it.

  That could really complicate matters.  If Mexico and the US were competing for influence in Cuba then how much would they conflict with each other rather than actually bother about liberating Cuba?

Maybe the could agree that Mexico concentrates it focus in the Pacific (would love to see the Mexican Navy defeat the Spanish Navy in the battle of Battle of Manila Bay) while the United States focus on Cuba.

[stevep]

Jul 29, 2016 10:45:35 GMT lordroel said:

Jul 27, 2016 21:38:51 GMT stevep said:

  That could really complicate matters.  If Mexico and the US were competing for influence in Cuba then how much would they conflict with each other rather than actually bother about liberating Cuba?

Maybe the could agree that Mexico concentrates it focus in the Pacific (would love to see the Mexican Navy defeat the Spanish Navy in the battle of Battle of Manila Bay) while the United States focus on Cuba.

  Possibly, although I think unlikely.  OTL with a larger US the USN needed British bases [Hong Kong IIRC] to operate against the Philippines.  I doubt Mexico will be significantly stronger than OTL and especially not to reach that far across the Pacific with even a small battlefleet, even if they have friendly bases they can use.

[lordroel]

Jul 29, 2016 13:25:38 GMT stevep said:

Jul 29, 2016 10:45:35 GMT lordroel said:

Maybe the could agree that Mexico concentrates it focus in the Pacific (would love to see the Mexican Navy defeat the Spanish Navy in the battle of Battle of Manila Bay) while the United States focus on Cuba.

  Possibly, although I think unlikely.  OTL with a larger US the USN needed British bases [Hong Kong IIRC] to operate against the Philippines.  I doubt Mexico will be significantly stronger than OTL and especially not to reach that far across the Pacific with even a small battlefleet, even if they have friendly bases they can use.

So there is no way for both Mexico and the United States to deal with Spain.

[stevep]

Jul 29, 2016 15:03:08 GMT lordroel said:

Jul 29, 2016 13:25:38 GMT stevep said:

  Possibly, although I think unlikely.  OTL with a larger US the USN needed British bases [Hong Kong IIRC] to operate against the Philippines.  I doubt Mexico will be significantly stronger than OTL and especially not to reach that far across the Pacific with even a small battlefleet, even if they have friendly bases they can use.

So there is no way for both Mexico and the United States to deal with Spain.

  I didn't say that.  They could well be ally, even if they were also rivals.  However it could be an unstable alliance and they could be in conflict, diplomatic, economic, even partially militarily as much as they are working together.  It depends on a lot of butterflies since the original POD.

  You would need a significantly stronger Mexico than OTL, although this could be practical with better government and more stability and economic development.  Possibly alos a markedly weaker US, say because of land losses, a harder civil war and associated political changes.  If the two are not of comparative power than the weaker, [which would almost certainly be Mexico] would be largely a satalite of the other.

[lordroel]

Jul 29, 2016 16:56:24 GMT stevep said:

Jul 29, 2016 15:03:08 GMT lordroel said:

So there is no way for both Mexico and the United States to deal with Spain.

  I didn't say that.  They could well be ally, even if they were also rivals.  However it could be an unstable alliance and they could be in conflict, diplomatic, economic, even partially militarily as much as they are working together.  It depends on a lot of butterflies since the original POD.

  You would need a significantly stronger Mexico than OTL, although this could be practical with better government and more stability and economic development.  Possibly alos a markedly weaker US, say because of land losses, a harder civil war and associated political changes.  If the two are not of comparative power than the weaker, [which would almost certainly be Mexico] would be largely a satalite of the other.

With out a Mexican-American War i would assume the Mexico government would be much stronger due having not lost a war.

[stevep]

Jul 29, 2016 17:11:52 GMT lordroel said:

Jul 29, 2016 16:56:24 GMT stevep said:

  I didn't say that.  They could well be ally, even if they were also rivals.  However it could be an unstable alliance and they could be in conflict, diplomatic, economic, even partially militarily as much as they are working together.  It depends on a lot of butterflies since the original POD.

  You would need a significantly stronger Mexico than OTL, although this could be practical with better government and more stability and economic development.  Possibly alos a markedly weaker US, say because of land losses, a harder civil war and associated political changes.  If the two are not of comparative power than the weaker, [which would almost certainly be Mexico] would be largely a satalite of the other.

With out a Mexican-American War i would assume the Mexico government would be much stronger due having not lost a war.

  Ah but the government at the time was Santa Anna, which was a disaster for the Mexican people and the countries development.  What Mexico needs, even more than avoiding a disasterous war with the US that loses nearly half its territory, is reasonably competent and stable government.  If it gets that then it could be a lot stronger economically and hence politically.

[lordroel]

Jul 29, 2016 22:02:06 GMT stevep said:

Jul 29, 2016 17:11:52 GMT lordroel said:

With out a Mexican-American War i would assume the Mexico government would be much stronger due having not lost a war.

  Ah but the government at the time was Santa Anna, which was a disaster for the Mexican people and the countries development.  What Mexico needs, even more than avoiding a disasterous war with the US that loses nearly half its territory, is reasonably competent and stable government.  If it gets that then it could be a lot stronger economically and hence politically.

So how do we get Santa Anna out of being the worst thing for Mexico, as you say he is more a danger to the country than a asset who might start wars with Texas, Deseret and California just because he think he can.