As the title says, a few thousand Fresh troops reinforcements arrived ittl for the Mexicans
Last edited:
WI: Santa Anna won San Jacinto, Sam Houston Executed
- Thread starter Slime_blob
- Start date
that would pretty much be the end of the Texan resistance... and might lead to US intervention...
And they come from...where?
If the answer is literally out of thin air, which it pretty much has to be, then the answer is: "ASB is that way".
ASB: The San Jacinto Monument appears the day before the battle. Now Santa Anna's troops don't have to stay up all night fortifying their camp, and they know Sam Houston's battle plans in advance, from the museum exhibits.
From Another General, maybe Urrea or Cos? And arrived not as tired as they are like iotl, they are still quite fresh
US intervention is unlikely, Mexico wouldve shown the US what will happen if they intervened. The Texans just get their buts kicked, and plus stability for Mexico, Santa Anna just secured the presidency after his victory. The US wont intervene as Mexico just showed it's strenght
But those troops were doing something OTL, and in order for them to reach Santa Anna quickly they're going to have to be marched quickly, which means they will be arriving tired. If they aren't tired then they don't arrive in time. That's just the way that the lead-up to San Jacinto was. It was a battle that Santa Anna should not have fought, and should not have gotten himself into a situation where he would fight it.
well, it's not a given that the US would intervene, but if not, it wouldn't be this... when you read about the US back then, they seemed to have had a rather arrogant 'we can beat anyone' attitude. Internal politics would be a lot more likely to stop intervention, as in 'do we want to add more slave states to the Union"...
Why would they, Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren is facing to many problems inside the US, the fact that tensions between abolitionists and people who wanted slavery. THe Panic of 1837, and other sorts of Problems like the French debt and other stuff. And tensions with britain are high
Last edited:
I’m not sure the U.S. would intervene, despite the fact that Texas was the talk of the South as a new land, Manifest Destiny, that the States claimed Texas or parts thereof until Adams-Onis in 1819, or that it was an Election Year. Foremost in my view is that hundreds of Americans were executed without demur in the 1810s and 1820s in the region (the Mier and other filibusters / expeditions) let alone later events (when the U.S. was stronger) such as Walker and Lopes‘ expeditions in Central America and Cuba in the 1850s and the Virginius.
On the other hand, a big brouhaha in the South, with tens of thousands of destitute refugees, including widows and orphans, fleeing into Louisiana and with the death or execution of a recent congressman and Governor, might affect the election with either (more likely) a new President elected on southern votes declaring war in 1837, or (less likely) Jackson pressed to take action in order to save Van Buren’s campaign.
The problem I see for either case is that:
1. Jackson hated Houston and Crockett
2. Van Buren I don’t think would have been sympathetic to the cause of Texas both as a Northern man and judging by his later views and conduct
3. I don’t think the Whigs were sympathetic to the cause of Texas in itself, preferring a stronger central government and economic development over expanding the country. I can conceive of the Whigs as seeing the move to Texas as a symbol of a problem (emigration control) rather than a good.
4. While WH Harrison was a Virginian and associated with the West I don’t see him particularly concerned with the Texican cause nor with the fate of the individual Texicans.
5. I don’t see therefore how the South (and it was to the South, almost entirely, that Texas was important) can, by shifting their votes, push either party to either support or avenge Texas.
Looking at the 1836 Election, Van Buren was the Democratic nominee from May and can’t be changed. The Whigs put forward several candidates. Harrison has been mentioned but there were also Mangum , Webster and White. I can see White, as a Tennessean, receiving additional votes in the South from Van Buren or losing delegations to Mangum (who, given he took South Carolina, appears to be more zealous). It is also to be noted that Van Buren received a narrow majority of Electoral Votes, including the lower Mississippi Valley which would have been most affected by events in Texas. The thing is, even if Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi switch, Democrats should still have a majority in the House. I don’t think that even if the South wants to block Van Buren they can get White or Mangum (as second or third place finisher) into the White House. All that would happen is Democratic unity breaks down amid personal and regional and ideological splits and probably Whig unity as well given Webster took his native Massachusetts and I cannot see him allowing an explicitly pro-Texas Southern Presidency, Harrison has to give up support in the West for this to happen, and that among the states for which Congress was to be elected in 1837 (ie post March) were Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama, Louisiana having voted in August 1836. And then there’s uncertainty about who is Vice President.
Texas events thereby don’t affect many relevant states in a meaningful period. Louisiana has voted before Texas is extinguished. Neighboring states don’t vote for a year later, after the Presidency is won.
On the other hand, a big brouhaha in the South, with tens of thousands of destitute refugees, including widows and orphans, fleeing into Louisiana and with the death or execution of a recent congressman and Governor, might affect the election with either (more likely) a new President elected on southern votes declaring war in 1837, or (less likely) Jackson pressed to take action in order to save Van Buren’s campaign.
The problem I see for either case is that:
1. Jackson hated Houston and Crockett
2. Van Buren I don’t think would have been sympathetic to the cause of Texas both as a Northern man and judging by his later views and conduct
3. I don’t think the Whigs were sympathetic to the cause of Texas in itself, preferring a stronger central government and economic development over expanding the country. I can conceive of the Whigs as seeing the move to Texas as a symbol of a problem (emigration control) rather than a good.
4. While WH Harrison was a Virginian and associated with the West I don’t see him particularly concerned with the Texican cause nor with the fate of the individual Texicans.
5. I don’t see therefore how the South (and it was to the South, almost entirely, that Texas was important) can, by shifting their votes, push either party to either support or avenge Texas.
Looking at the 1836 Election, Van Buren was the Democratic nominee from May and can’t be changed. The Whigs put forward several candidates. Harrison has been mentioned but there were also Mangum , Webster and White. I can see White, as a Tennessean, receiving additional votes in the South from Van Buren or losing delegations to Mangum (who, given he took South Carolina, appears to be more zealous). It is also to be noted that Van Buren received a narrow majority of Electoral Votes, including the lower Mississippi Valley which would have been most affected by events in Texas. The thing is, even if Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi switch, Democrats should still have a majority in the House. I don’t think that even if the South wants to block Van Buren they can get White or Mangum (as second or third place finisher) into the White House. All that would happen is Democratic unity breaks down amid personal and regional and ideological splits and probably Whig unity as well given Webster took his native Massachusetts and I cannot see him allowing an explicitly pro-Texas Southern Presidency, Harrison has to give up support in the West for this to happen, and that among the states for which Congress was to be elected in 1837 (ie post March) were Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama, Louisiana having voted in August 1836. And then there’s uncertainty about who is Vice President.
Texas events thereby don’t affect many relevant states in a meaningful period. Louisiana has voted before Texas is extinguished. Neighboring states don’t vote for a year later, after the Presidency is won.
I’m not sure. Texas only had like 40 000 American settlers at the time. The US would have a lot more people available to fight. They may decide not to intervene but not necessarily because the little Texan army lost.
Does Jackson hate Houston at the moment? I know that Crockett and Jackson detested each other since mid-1835, or so. Perhaps a bit earlier. But Jackson and Houston? I assume it was because of the Indian Removal court case? I am not sure on their beef, to be honest as from what I remember they had a decent mentor-Mentee relationship. .
The only Whig I know of who wants Texas is Henry Clay. But he would rather buy it than go to war for it. At the same time, he would rather an independent Texas than in the Union if it causes problems.
You will more than likely get a flood of Americans in Texas as in OTL to join the Texas cause. You might even get more in the vein of "We need to help Texas to avenge Houston!" or something of the sort. Mexico did not recognize the treaties that Santa Anna negotiated with Houston anyway. If you get the "Pastry War" to kick off as in OTL things pretty much line up like our timeline. Except Houston being President of Texas more likely Austin in his place?
Honestly when Mexico starting allowing Americans into the Texas area to settle it and ironically couldn't stop the flood of American illegal immigrants into Texas (the first illegal immigrants into Texas were Americans) the writing on the wall for Texas being annexed into the United States was more than likely a forgone conclustion. Houston or no Houston.
Honestly when Mexico starting allowing Americans into the Texas area to settle it and ironically couldn't stop the flood of American illegal immigrants into Texas (the first illegal immigrants into Texas were Americans) the writing on the wall for Texas being annexed into the United States was more than likely a forgone conclustion. Houston or no Houston.
The U.S. had no fear of a war with Mexico. Texas was being flooded with American volunteers, the question was if they would arrive in time. What held off U.S. intervention were domestic political concerns, not fear of Mexican military prowess.
And Urrea, and Cos would have to stop what they were doing to come to Santa Anna's aid. Santa Anna's Army was being dispersed on occupation duty, and was being weakened by illness, and desertion. The Mexicans had been marching hard for weeks. That's why on the day of battle he had only a small margin of numerical superiority, and his men were tired, and their moral was low. On the day of battle 1/3 of his troops were raw recruits, who were hungry, and sleeping on their feet. Santa Anna was overconfident, and making unsound judgments. He may have felt distracted by domestic political concerns, and needed to finish the campaign quickly, so he could get back to Mexico City.
The slave issue was the problem. The Panic of 1837 came in the following year, the debt in 1836 was trivial, and tensions with Britain were a natural state of affairs. Jackson very much wanted to add Texas to the Union, but because of the slavery issue he needed to act cautiously.
Osman Aga
Banned
Texan resistance collapses, existing Texans either flee to the US. The US probably still invades Mexico later on and still gets Texas.
Osman Aga
Banned
God I wish this OTL.
I have a weak spot for a Mexico with the 1835 borders. Especially if it turns out better than OTL Mexico.