AHC: Make Mexico expansionistic post 1860
- Thread starter SPJ
- Start date
Mexico wins a crushing victory in the Mexican-American war. Later they managed to gain all lands in Central America.
Germaniac
Donor
I am a firm believer that Mexico, post-1810, has very little chance to contend with the United States. The Mexican War of Independence and the subsequent brain drain, think South Africa but much worse, left Mexico in an extremely weak position. Its' infrastructure, stability, and government apparatus' were in complete disarray and dictator after president after dictator would prove this.
Post 1860 is nearly impossible. Let's look at geography, not to mention Mexico is having a civil war at the time.
North - California has experienced a boom of american colonists due to the gold rush, No chance. Texas, Similar to California, no chance. Even if you break up the United States the english speaking protestant population would more likely remain independent than join Mexico.
South - Why invade jungles and only increase the number of hostile indigenous peoples into the country. It is better to allow Guatemala independence than have another Chiapas province.
East - There was talk about Cuba, but Mexico is in no position to take on Spain in a war of aggression since even the United States thirty years later would have trouble.
Mexico is just blocked in... A POD for an expansionist Mexico needs to come before or concurrent with the Bourbon Reforms. The problems really started their and one could argue that the entire colonial system of New Spain was to blame for the position Mexico was in...
Sad really, Mexico could have been as much or more so prosperous that the United States. Sort of the Little Engine that didn't.
Post 1860 is nearly impossible. Let's look at geography, not to mention Mexico is having a civil war at the time.
North - California has experienced a boom of american colonists due to the gold rush, No chance. Texas, Similar to California, no chance. Even if you break up the United States the english speaking protestant population would more likely remain independent than join Mexico.
South - Why invade jungles and only increase the number of hostile indigenous peoples into the country. It is better to allow Guatemala independence than have another Chiapas province.
East - There was talk about Cuba, but Mexico is in no position to take on Spain in a war of aggression since even the United States thirty years later would have trouble.
Mexico is just blocked in... A POD for an expansionist Mexico needs to come before or concurrent with the Bourbon Reforms. The problems really started their and one could argue that the entire colonial system of New Spain was to blame for the position Mexico was in...
Sad really, Mexico could have been as much or more so prosperous that the United States. Sort of the Little Engine that didn't.
Couldn't there be a way to convince the people of the Central American countries that it is in there better interest to rejoin Mexico?
What if the French imposed 2nd Mexican Empire remained intact? Could chances of expansion be possible with the foreign aid provided to Maximilian's empire?
Germaniac
Donor
The Central American states didn't want to be ruled from Mexico City just as much as Mexico City didn't want to rule them. There is little of economic value there except for a Canal which under no circumstances Mexico would be able to muster the internal capital for a project like that, thus again indebted them to the US or a european power.
The 2nd Empire was just that "French imposed" Mexico couldn't even keep a Mexican in power, there is no chance without MASSIVE french military support that the 2nd empire could survive. The United States would never allow that amount of French involvement and the Mexican people would always see the empire as a French puppet and do what they do best, start a civil war.
Mexico is screwed from the second that the Peninsular Spanish flee. They have absolute control over the economy and government. Once they leave the entire infrastructure of Mexico collapses.
While not ASB, after 1860 there's very few roads one could take Mexico through to exert any force beyond its borders. Aside from the disastrous war against the United States, by 1860 you have Mexico just barely recovering from a large civil war. Now, with some luck, if Mexico can somehow avoid the nearly extra decade of warfare that was brought by the French Intervention, then maybe the Liberals under Benito Juarez could consolidate control, stabilize the country, and maybe down the road, around the turn of the century exert itself in Central America. Again, this is with a bit of luck, and the ride will be bumpy, but impossible it is not.
Of course anything concerning more than meddling in Central America requires a PoD farther back...though not as far as before independence (of course the farther back the better). It's not outside the realm of possibility to have the Revolutionary elite take hold of independence fervor circa 1808-1810 and not have nearly all of the revolutionary leadership die off (or have the war for independence last so long). The less war damaged the country can come out of independence the better chances it will have by the time the Americans come knocking on the back door.
Of course anything concerning more than meddling in Central America requires a PoD farther back...though not as far as before independence (of course the farther back the better). It's not outside the realm of possibility to have the Revolutionary elite take hold of independence fervor circa 1808-1810 and not have nearly all of the revolutionary leadership die off (or have the war for independence last so long). The less war damaged the country can come out of independence the better chances it will have by the time the Americans come knocking on the back door.
scholar
Banned
All it would require is that two people die, are defeated, or go into exile for the second Mexican Empire to succeed.
The goal is to make Mexico more expansionistic, not that they succeed at that goal. The best way to do this is to keep Maximilian in power. He is there at French behest and the period French are most definitely expansionistic.
Most likely attempted expansion is south, the Caribbean risks war with another European power. The Mexican Empire won't try northward, either, so long as the US is united, but might consider reasserting claims to Texas if the Confederacy survives.
Most likely attempted expansion is south, the Caribbean risks war with another European power. The Mexican Empire won't try northward, either, so long as the US is united, but might consider reasserting claims to Texas if the Confederacy survives.
An expansionistic and successful Mexico past 1860 can be done. The biggest step would be to eliminate any trace of the rule of European royalty in Mexico as that royally(yes, pun intended) screwed the country for years to come.
Perhaps we can get someone like Benito Juarez in office, who is a major reformer like the OTL statesman, but who is also far more open to expansion. Maybe a few Central American countries start having trouble and they start looking for annexation if things get bad enough. Can't imagine Mexico would reasonably say no to that.
Perhaps we can get someone like Benito Juarez in office, who is a major reformer like the OTL statesman, but who is also far more open to expansion. Maybe a few Central American countries start having trouble and they start looking for annexation if things get bad enough. Can't imagine Mexico would reasonably say no to that.
Have them take on Guatemala in 1870 when their regime is on the ropes, let there be some sort of (perceived) economic miracle and have the idea of beneficial Mexican rule spread to the rest of Central America. Have Mexico industrialize faster with more international capital, maybe this requires Maximillian to stay in power, but avoiding the civil wars will help. Get Mexico to build the canal with an international company and part-ownership. Leave Panama to Columbia and maybe Costa Rica stays independent. Have the British sell the Mosquito Coast to Mexico and maybe a poorer Jamaica or other series of islands too. An improved merchant marine might also help, though doubtful Hawaii could be come Mexican. If the old Japanese-Mexican ties can be restored maybe they decide to help each other into the 20th century. Have the Mondragon rifle adopted locally and perfected internationally while attracting more talent and international allies. Maybe Mexico develops enough by WWI to work with the UK in exchange for territory or technology, giving the US a headache as they have no desire to fight the UK but also do not want to have a London "Satellite" on their southern border. As a friend of London and Paris they thrive after the war on international trade, promoting education and harvesting local talent. Sonora develops as a major mining center and cross-border traffic is much less than OTL. Mexico dreams of retaking her old provinces to the north but will not do so. By 1950 their standard of living is about better, not that of the US but the gap is half what it is in OTL. Education is mandatory and while the church holds the hearts and minds of the people liberal ideas are discussed and science is explored more in depth. UNAM becomes one of the world's recognized universities and money from petroleum and tourism is put to use for more education and exploration. While Cancun, Acapulco, and Bluefields becomes some of the world's finest destination beaches (especially after the fall of Cuba), the people are not in abject poverty in 2010. Standards of living are akin to some of the Southern US on average and financially they are in debt but not to the same extent as their northern neighbors. Borders run in OTL Mexico, most of Central America, and perhaps Jamaica. Much less likely would be Cuba and Puerto Rico, though they could be satellites if the rebellions against the Spanish saw aid from Mexican gunrunners. Japan would be on very friendly terms and perhaps pre-WWII sees Japanese ships docking at Acapulco or Guyamas, perhaps post-WWII as well.
How might that butterfly away the French intervention? Wouldn't France still want to take Mexico due to it's debts? Personaly I've been wondering that if the Confederates states retain their independence it would help the French intervention to be successful and allow Mexico to maintain French funds which could aid expansion.
Germaniac
Donor
Getting a liberal in power is not going to do the trick...
1st) The liberals are not going to be expansionists, they are going to put all their efforts into reforming Mexico (which will be difficult enough)
2nd) Several time Liberals where in office, only to be ousted by conservatives a couple years later. It was a never ending cycle
3rd) The power of the Church had to be broken, however any time this was attempted it might work for a couple of years then civil war breaks out and the cycle starts over again.
4th) Lets say Mexico mexico invades Guatemala in 1870, with the Army in the South a man like Porfilio Diaz will launch a civil War. The Issue is that the Army must stay in close proximity to the capital at all times because at any given moment a coup will the launched.
5th) Yes, Juarez was a liberal and is widely seen a a progressive and a champion of democracy, but during his presidency he constantly faced revolts and unrest. There is no opportunity to launch expeditions against foreign nations until Diaz is in power.
6th) Diaz was widely popular among the people of Mexico during the reigns of Juarez and Tejada. You must remember at any given moment every liberal agenda in Mexico had a conservative movement working against it. Diaz was that symbol. During the Porfiriato is probably the only chance at external expansion, but Diaz had little interest in expansion.
1st) The liberals are not going to be expansionists, they are going to put all their efforts into reforming Mexico (which will be difficult enough)
2nd) Several time Liberals where in office, only to be ousted by conservatives a couple years later. It was a never ending cycle
3rd) The power of the Church had to be broken, however any time this was attempted it might work for a couple of years then civil war breaks out and the cycle starts over again.
4th) Lets say Mexico mexico invades Guatemala in 1870, with the Army in the South a man like Porfilio Diaz will launch a civil War. The Issue is that the Army must stay in close proximity to the capital at all times because at any given moment a coup will the launched.
5th) Yes, Juarez was a liberal and is widely seen a a progressive and a champion of democracy, but during his presidency he constantly faced revolts and unrest. There is no opportunity to launch expeditions against foreign nations until Diaz is in power.
6th) Diaz was widely popular among the people of Mexico during the reigns of Juarez and Tejada. You must remember at any given moment every liberal agenda in Mexico had a conservative movement working against it. Diaz was that symbol. During the Porfiriato is probably the only chance at external expansion, but Diaz had little interest in expansion.
Well, perhaps another dictator like Santa Anna arises. Or perhaps during the Civil War, Mexico just sees an opportunity to get its stolen lands back.
Mexico might propose a deal to the Union: It invades the CSA from the south while the Union simultaneously comes in from the north, and the land will be split between the two victors in a future treaty. The situation was desperate for the Union at the beginning, and they may well take the deal.
A more likely idea is expansion southwards.
Perhaps if Mexico became industrial enough, they could maintain the money for an overseas Empire.
Mexico might propose a deal to the Union: It invades the CSA from the south while the Union simultaneously comes in from the north, and the land will be split between the two victors in a future treaty. The situation was desperate for the Union at the beginning, and they may well take the deal.
A more likely idea is expansion southwards.
Perhaps if Mexico became industrial enough, they could maintain the money for an overseas Empire.
Diaz did consider a crackpot plan to peacefully annex Cuba to Mexico in 1896. Well, some Mexicans did at least. It would have established "a non-colonial protectorate" [sic] 'in the manner of the one existing [de facto?] between the United States and the Republic of Hawaii' or something like that (hindsight, why are you so funny?). You could even argue that by virtue of being the successor of the Viceroyalty of New Spain Mexico had a legitimate claim on Cuba (and the Philippines, and a bunch of other places too), it just never pressed it.
Another waaay easier scenario would be Mexico just building a navy and showing an interest in establishing a mini-colonial empire by seizing islands in the Pacific like Chile did.