A stronger Mexico post 1848?

Inspired by The Knight Irish's' TL...After its loss to the United States how could Mexico make enough of a comeback to be at least a second rate power? By 1900? By today? Without the French sticking around too long?
 

Germaniac

Donor
Arguably under Porfirio Diaz they were doing exceedingly well, but his decision not to leave office and allow democratic elections led to the Mexican revolution which literally destroyed mexico until the PRI stabilized things in the 20's
 
Diaz was good to foreign corporations for sure. Which I'd thought was a big reason for their revolution against him?
 
Yeah, if you're looking at how Diaz and those directly benefiting from a Porfiriato did during his tenure, then sure, Mexico was doing swell. In reality, the masses were repressed and had little to no control over matters in the country, nor did any "wealth" translate to them/Mexico at large.
 
Have the Reforma War be much shorter and decisive for Juarez and the Liberals. Because the country wasn't as destroyed by the war, they can still keep their payments or work out a deal for a pause, thus no French Intervention. Thus, you have Juarez running continuously, without wars to stop his policies and improvements.
It would also help if Diaz decided to stay as a priest following the Mexican-American War, or he died during the shorter ATL Reforma War.
 
It would also help if Diaz decided to stay as a priest following the Mexican-American War, or he died during the shorter ATL Reforma War.

Diaz absence doesn't solve the problem; another military strongman would take his post. Juarez was actually heading in that direction (but he died in time to remian the hero), then you have Lerdo de Tejada who would have continued Juarez' policies (which were not so diffrent from Diaz' own TBH) but he lacked Jarez and Diaz's character. It wouldn't take long before a Diaz-light would come in. At worst you get people like Manuel Gonzalez and Victoriano Huerta (like Diaz but more currupt) at best you get folks like Bernardo Reyes or Jose Limantour (exactly like Diaz but foreign corporations might benefit even further).

Personally I think that with an easier (and earlier) transition of Diaz' goverment to a more socially responsible goverment. 1910 (the year Diaz was supooused to step down) was already to late. If Diaz had stepped down in 1892 (two terms after Flores' single term) and left another lackey in charge for eight years Bernardo Reyes is the most likely candidate to suplant Diaz at this point. Reyes can stay in power for 2 terms. In 1900 we get a new scientifico in power (Jose Limantour or Ramon Corral are possibilities) they stay for one or two terms, and by now you likely have some natural opposition building up agaist the "Liberales/Cientificos". By 1910 there would likely be two opposition parties slowly growing in popularity a "cristian socialist" type party under Madero (or others like him and a left wing workers party.

This way Mexico would likely avoid the revolution. Thus Mexico can continue to enjoy the economic progress brought by stability and the "cientifico" administrations as it transitions towards a more socially responsible goverment. The transition might be much more similar to the one at the end of the PRI years. Maybe the scientificos stay in power for longer but avoiding the economic and cultural destruction brought by the revolution is a very good start.
 

Germaniac

Donor
While the upper classes did benefit the most under Diaz the period was the most stable in Mexican history to that point. Had he allowed his subordinates take power sooner the devastation of the revolution.
 
While the upper classes did benefit the most under Diaz the period was the most stable in Mexican history to that point. Had he allowed his subordinates take power sooner the devastation of the revolution.

This is basically what I proposed. I think Diaz's reservation for allowing his subordinates to take the reins came from the fact that Manuel Gonzalez proved to be rather insubordinate during his term as president. Had Gonzalez been controlled the story would have been different
 
Arguably under Porfirio Diaz they were doing exceedingly well, but his decision not to leave office and allow democratic elections led to the Mexican revolution which literally destroyed mexico until the PRI stabilized things in the 20's

I agree. If Diaz has retired in 1910 and allowed Reyes, Limantour or Madero to succeed him, then Porfiriato Mexico could have transitioned peacefully into a reformed state. Madero would likely have more success than a Reyes or Limantour since he is more of a reformer. Labor and land reform could have happened within stable institutions instead of a revolutionary society. The Mexican Revolution had a lot of successes, but the cost in blood and treasure was high, and ultimately a corrupt, bloated state sector in the economy would keep Mexico poor.

The Porfiriato achieved a lot of macroeconomic success, but its exploitation of the mass of Mexicans was a powder keg. Any government after him would have a lot of trouble dealing with these issues, and it is by no means certain that it would have succeeded.

However, there is certainly a lost opportunity in 1910.
 

Germaniac

Donor
I agree. If Diaz has retired in 1910 and allowed Reyes, or Madero to succeed him, then Porfiriato Mexico could have transitioned peacefully into a reformed state. Madero would likely have more success than a Reyes or Limantour since he is more of a reformer. Labor and land reform could have happened within stable institutions instead of a revolutionary society. The Mexican Revolution had a lot of successes, but the cost in blood and treasure was high, and ultimately a corrupt, bloated state sector in the economy would keep Mexico poor.

The Porfiriato achieved a lot of macroeconomic success, but its exploitation of the mass of Mexicans was a powder keg. Any government after him would have a lot of trouble dealing with these issues, and it is by no means certain that it would have succeeded.

However, there is certainly a lost opportunity in 1910.

Reyes would be a terrible choice, which is arguably why Diaz sending him away. He had to much support in the army and the last thing mexico needs at the time is another military strong man. I think Limantour is the best bet as madero was too reformist and would not gather enough of the conservative support needed to keep mexico from going belly up
 
Top