Map: No Mexican-American War

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.

  Ok thanks.


  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.]


  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. 


  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.


  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?

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.

  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?

  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.

  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.

  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.