The real reason Mexico was screwed in the Mexican-American war was that Mexico didn’t really have a national consciousness. The Americans were able to march across vast sections of the country while the locals just watched as if it were happening to somewhere else. The Mexican population, especially in states away from the fighting, didn’t throw themselves behind the central government. If you fix that then Mexico has a real shot of at least giving the Americans a bloody nose.
WI: Mexico decisively won the Mexican American War
- Thread starter Chimera0205
- Start date
Chimera0205
Banned
Sometimes i forget thats actually a racist slur and not a shorthand for japanese. . Sorry..
There's a pretty huge flaw in this ongoing analogy. Hannibal was a great general, but he lost the war because of deeply ingrained structural disadvantages. Tactical genius won't do you any good without the logistics and supply to follow up your victories.
Pearl Harbor? Okinawa? Gettysburg? Just because the Vietnam war made the American public very cynical towards wars overseas does not mean that the public in the 1840s, at the height of Manifest Destiny and the pressure from slave states to expand in the southwest would turn tail and run after a single decisive loss. America is only casualty averse if the public doesn't feel that the war is worth winning.
there was confusion about this a month ago I almost think you should put a new section to talk about because Ian the admin said that it was mostly know on the west coast
Anaxagoras
Banned
Not back then it wasn't. The 25,000 Americans who died in the Revolutionary War represented 1% of the entire population (in either words, the equivalent of 3.25 million dead for today's America).
Chimera0205
Banned
witch would explain why ive never heard anyone unironically use it as a racial slur and only learned that it even was one about a year ago. cause i live in Texas witch is definitely not the west coast.
Chimera0205
Banned
well to be fair more than half of those were to disease like it is in most pre penicillin wars
FillyofDelphi
Banned
The big reason the US was more casulity adverse in wars like, say, Vietnam was for a number of reasons. The fact it was covered by mass media closely with minimal censorship/spin, for one, the large number of conscripts being sent in, and the fact it seemed to be going on without celebratable concrete gains. The boys for the MA were virtually an all volunteer force and there won't be nightly tv broadcasts of them in boxes, and the papers will have plenty of conquests to report.
Dude I know it a slur and I do not live on the west coast but a little t of people on This forum do not live in the USA and a couple of months ago someone got confused about it
And there were many Americans at the time who thought that this was an unjust war not worth fighting, since it would only serve to expand slavery, which they disagreed with.
The American people are not at all consistent about their war enthusiasm, since with all that pesky personal freedom and access to information they wouldn't get under more repressive governments the general consensus they will form depends entirely on the actual nature of the war and its prosecution.
In 1937, the Japanese people, poor repressed and lied to buggers that they were, went along merrily enough with the invasion of China, and all its losses. If the US Gov't and Army tried something like that in the same year (supposing they had the proximity and thin excuses in place), and with the same process of events - incomplete victory, rape of Nanking and other atrocities, significant losses among their own soldiers, massive strain on the economy, and inability to press further - I think the American people would have flipped their collective lid in a colossal way by the end of '38 at the latest.
In 1937, the Japanese people, poor repressed and lied to buggers that they were, went along merrily enough with the invasion of China, and all its losses. If the US Gov't and Army tried something like that in the same year (supposing they had the proximity and thin excuses in place), and with the same process of events - incomplete victory, rape of Nanking and other atrocities, significant losses among their own soldiers, massive strain on the economy, and inability to press further - I think the American people would have flipped their collective lid in a colossal way by the end of '38 at the latest.
FillyofDelphi
Banned
Irrelevent when you aren't going to be raising direct taxes, conscripting the unwilling, and youre only getting sporadic and heavily spun coverage over a period of less than two years.
unprincipled peter
Donor
this thread is both real, and off the rails.
real because it is realistic about Mexican capability. As OTL constructed, it isn't up to the task. A POD of having an alternate Santa Anna who alters the landscape enough to enable the scenario is not ASB. unlikely, but not impossible. It's the scenario presented. Simply delaying the invaders will allow the ally Disease to enter the fray.
off the rails because a lot of people are cavalier about US ability to stomp a better opponent. The US is not some unstoppable juggernaut. The war was not universally popular, and early losses will bring out the boo birds. it will affect the economy (some posts make it sound like US can fight a major war using spare change found in the couch cushions). The US has the economy and manpower to win a protracted war. Once in the war, I believe the will to win will kick in, but it will test the unity and mettle of the country. I imagine there will be regional differences. Accepting, for arguments sake, that Mexico has the ability to inflict heavy early losses, this will not be a splendid little war easily won without massive disruption/effort.
real because it is realistic about Mexican capability. As OTL constructed, it isn't up to the task. A POD of having an alternate Santa Anna who alters the landscape enough to enable the scenario is not ASB. unlikely, but not impossible. It's the scenario presented. Simply delaying the invaders will allow the ally Disease to enter the fray.
off the rails because a lot of people are cavalier about US ability to stomp a better opponent. The US is not some unstoppable juggernaut. The war was not universally popular, and early losses will bring out the boo birds. it will affect the economy (some posts make it sound like US can fight a major war using spare change found in the couch cushions). The US has the economy and manpower to win a protracted war. Once in the war, I believe the will to win will kick in, but it will test the unity and mettle of the country. I imagine there will be regional differences. Accepting, for arguments sake, that Mexico has the ability to inflict heavy early losses, this will not be a splendid little war easily won without massive disruption/effort.
The most likely way for the Mexicans to win the war is not for them to magically produce a great general, but for the US to lose theirs. In OTL, General Winfield Scott and his staff joined Commodore David Conner on a ship to observe Vera Cruz prior to landing there. As one of those staff officers, George Meade, recorded, they drew fire from the Mexican Fort of San Juan de Ulua. Had those shots hit, Scott and Conner, leaders of the Army and Navy forces present would probably died. So would all of Scott’s general officers and several members of Scott’s staff – Meade, Robert E Lee, Joseph Johnston, and PGT Beauregard. With this decapitation of US forces, at the very least the Vera Cruz landings could have been delayed and they might not have made it out of the lowlands before fever season crippled the army. Even if they had, without Scott’s abilities as leader and Lee’s abilities scouting, the US forces could very well have lost the campaign.
The Estado Libre de Irlanda is created between California and Tajano territory to draw more settlers from the Emerald Isle. The capitol being in Ciudad de San Patricio.
Mexican Hannibal crushes internal opposition stopping the incessant infighting that would have been the ruin of Mexico.
Mormon Revolt
Mexican Hannibal leads the Grand Army of Mexico North to deal with the rebels.
Mexican Hannibal catches a fever. The old man does not die but He does have a vision and converts to the new religion.
Pro-Catholic protests are met with violence. Mexican Hannibal deals with his critics the same way he ended the previous infighting.
The country falls into a state of Civil war.
Irish Immigrants in Estado Libre de Irlanda declare independence and neutrality in the war forming Nueva Irlanda.
California follows Irlanda's lead.
Union, Confederate, French and English factions send their support to the different sides and Greater Mexico shatters into several different states.
Mexican Hannibal crushes internal opposition stopping the incessant infighting that would have been the ruin of Mexico.
Mormon Revolt
Mexican Hannibal leads the Grand Army of Mexico North to deal with the rebels.
Mexican Hannibal catches a fever. The old man does not die but He does have a vision and converts to the new religion.
Pro-Catholic protests are met with violence. Mexican Hannibal deals with his critics the same way he ended the previous infighting.
The country falls into a state of Civil war.
Irish Immigrants in Estado Libre de Irlanda declare independence and neutrality in the war forming Nueva Irlanda.
California follows Irlanda's lead.
Union, Confederate, French and English factions send their support to the different sides and Greater Mexico shatters into several different states.
Does Mexico have to win? I know The OP wants a victory, but I think that's a misguided approach. Mexico had an unwilling population, and bad gunpowder thanks to the corruption that resulted from The instability due to Conservative antics which also resulted in poor officers and conscripts. The constant revolts and The pastry war left Mexico's economy and The government's budget in shatters, and Santa Ana...The U.S. doesn't pick fights it can't win.
The battle of Monterey could have gone in Mexico's favor forcing U.S. troops back into Texas. Many Northerners and the Whig party as well as a great chunck of those who would become republicans were staunchly opposed to the war when the "American blood on American soil" claim began to be question. Add a Cinco de Mayo style victory for Mexico so early and now you have America's will to fight diminished. Maybe Santa Ana is out of the picture and a crafty diplomat managed to see the writing on the wall and fiddled with the US\UK negotiations over Oregon territory and now the Royal Navy is docked at Veracruz?
Mexico doesn't have to win every battle, just not loose as badly and keep more of its territory, maybe even get some good mines in the process and a higher payment for it's territory.
unprincipled peter
Donor
True that the US would look for a war they thought would go in their favor, but there’s always the chance of miscalculation. To get to the OP, there has to be some POD to put the Mexicans into better shape. Or we just accept the OP, because hand wavium.