AHC: Best Case Scenario For Mexico

2. Are Unfortunate Implications necessarily wrong? A historical comparison of U.S. and Mexican governments shows one is more effective than the other, although that might be oversimplifying things.

Well certainly the US has had a much more stable and effective government. But it has actually very little to do with the style of government. Mexico's failed start had a lot more to do with the cultural diversity of the country, a geography made of ecological islands that were easily devastated, and a macho-takes-all mindset of several of its early leaders.

Mexico could have governed itself had a figure head like Washington set an example. However no Mexican leader ever did that. They all just couped against each other continuously.

If the US swallowed up Mexico it would greatly hurt both countries. The US was overstretched in the mid 1800s as it was. The South would try to export slavery which was already illegal in Mexico previously. Even if the South gets extra territory, disagreements between the North and South would exist. Mexican leaders are already highly nationalistic by this point.

The Mayan Chan Santa Cruz Republic within the Yucatan Republic will also rebel against any foreign goverment.

You are looking at a 3 or 4 Way Civil War. (Possibly 5 if California and the West Coast simply decide to call it quits)
 
No. And I am getting sick of this bizarre cliche.

You too? It drives me crazy every time someone spews out the "infallible truth" that Mexico should either be destroyed or swallowed by their "benevolent" northern neighbor. :rolleyes:

To answer the OP, there are a few ways to give Mexico a break...and then some. There's the possibility of making Mexico fight for it's independence earlier on. You can exploit the 1799 Conspiracy of the Machetes or if you want something closer to home the Events of 1808. In both you have one of the underlying currents of Mexican independence, privaledge for the small upper class of Peninsulares (Spaniards born and raised in Spain) against the Criollos (Mexican-born Europeans), who were prevented from getting the best positions in government by virtue of their place of birth (notwithstanding the fates of the lower castes). In the former you had an attempt by Criollos to overthrow the Peninsular's controlling New Spain and the hope of setting up a new government, inspired by the nascent United States, but the Conspiracy was found out and the Conspirators executed. That one might be a bit difficult, but not ASB. In the latter you have Mexican Criollos, with the support of Viceroy Iturrigaray, a peninsular, attempting to set up an independent congress in reaction to Napoleon's invasion of Spain. The peninsulares revolted against Iturrigaray and quickly got rid of him, propping up a new Viceroy more in line with peninsular though and stamped out criollos from the leadership positions granted to them by the previous Viceroy. In OTL discontent continued to brew until 1810, but it's not outside the realm of possibility to have the peninsular takeover in 1808 go off in a manner which may force confrontations earlier on.

After the Grito de Dolores there are some nice POD's to work with. In my TL (linked below) I have Ignacio Allende take command of the Insurgent army instead of Hidalgo, and the Insurgents proceed to attack Mexico City. The Spanish retake the city, but the chain of events I have set up prevents nearly all of the Insurgent leaders from being killed like they were in OTL, resulting in a more powerful Insurgent Army that beats the Spanish earlier than OTL, leaving Mexico with a strong and popular leadership post independence. After 1815 (the death of Morelos) I think it truly becomes difficult to have Mexico get the absolute best deal it can get, but even then there are various POD's that allow Mexico a better deal than it got OTL (I highly reccomend Desmond Hume's TL Under the Eagle Flag, and jycee's TL A Mexican "Victory").
 
Last edited:

Glen

Moderator
Lose the Mexican-American War, but avoid the French Intervention, allowing Juárez and the liberals to win Reform War. Skip ahead a generation or two and Mexico is a stable, vibrant, federal republic and a growing power in its own right.

That does sound like an everyone-wins scenario--OTL's U.S. and a much better Mexico.
 
The Mexicans discovering the gold earlier, when the U.S. is too weak to simply take the gold, would be a good scenario for Mexico.

Perhaps they can attract lots of Catholic Irish turned off by Know-Nothing-ism in the United States who now have other options to bolster their own population and military and deprive the U.S. of additional populations to recruit from.
 
In the 19th Century:

A simple best-case scenario in the more distant past is for Mexico to win the Mexican-American War. Mexican armies had superior numbers and the advantage of the defender. If they defeat either Taylor or especially Scott the resulting disaster for US arms sinks the Democratic Party while also tabling the US Civil War for a generation in the best case for the USA.

An indirect best-case scenario is a more rapid Union victory that enables it to avoid occupation by the Habsburgs, strengthening indigenous development within Mexico itself.
 
If you want the Mexicans to at least do better in the M-A War, I remember reading somewhere that the Americans' big advantage was "flying artillery"--mobile cannon.

The Mexicans went into the M-A War thinking they'd destroy us, but their weaponry was 20+ years out of date.

Maybe some Mexican or Spanish VIP sees flying artillery in action during some war in Europe and brings word back to Mexico. They invest in the technology, so at the very least, even battles they lose aren't nearly as one-sided.
 
Well certainly the US has had a much more stable and effective government. But it has actually very little to do with the style of government. Mexico's failed start had a lot more to do with the cultural diversity of the country, a geography made of ecological islands that were easily devastated, and a macho-takes-all mindset of several of its early leaders.

Mexico could have governed itself had a figure head like Washington set an example. However no Mexican leader ever did that. They all just couped against each other continuously.

If the US swallowed up Mexico it would greatly hurt both countries. The US was overstretched in the mid 1800s as it was. The South would try to export slavery which was already illegal in Mexico previously. Even if the South gets extra territory, disagreements between the North and South would exist. Mexican leaders are already highly nationalistic by this point.

The Mayan Chan Santa Cruz Republic within the Yucatan Republic will also rebel against any foreign goverment.

You are looking at a 3 or 4 Way Civil War. (Possibly 5 if California and the West Coast simply decide to call it quits)

That's a slight overstatement of the case. The first US experiment with self-government failed, the second suffered a large-scale revolt and its worst defeat ever by Indigenous Americans right in the first Administrations, barely avoided self-destruction in 1812, and almost fell apart into two countries over whether blacks should be all-free or all-slave. Reconstruction and Redemption and also the Jim Crow era that followed them are not my idea of stability, while the US government is not necessarily the world's most efficient.

Mexico's chaos is of a different sort reflecting Spanish colonial rule but US history has hardly been peaceful IOTL.

2. Are Unfortunate Implications necessarily wrong? A historical comparison of U.S. and Mexican governments shows one is more effective than the other, although that might be oversimplifying things.

(U.S. rule over more populated Mexican territories will likely be very racist at least for awhile, governance in the ex-Mexican states might still be corrupt and abusive regardless of whose flag is flying, etc.)

One inversion of that is that the Mexicans abolished slavery during their independence war. US exportation of slavery into Texas was one of the triggers of both Texas secession and Mexico's civil wars have never focused on whether or not a huge portion of the population qualify as humans or not. And see above.
 
If you want the Mexicans to at least do better in the M-A War, I remember reading somewhere that the Americans' big advantage was "flying artillery"--mobile cannon.

The Mexicans went into the M-A War thinking they'd destroy us, but their weaponry was 20+ years out of date.

Maybe some Mexican or Spanish VIP sees flying artillery in action during some war in Europe and brings word back to Mexico. They invest in the technology, so at the very least, even battles they lose aren't nearly as one-sided.

Equipment's hardly everything. If wars were decided by material calculations alone the Continental Army would have been destroyed in 1776. Scott and Taylor pursued risky strategies. The Battle of Churubusco offers a good instance without changing too much of how Scott's big gambit turns into a disaster for US arms.
 
You too? It drives me crazy every time someone spews out the "infallible truth" that Mexico should either be destroyed or swallowed by their "benevolent" northern neighbor. :rolleyes:

I have never freaking understood why people think this. I am also quite tired of this cliché. The US swallowing Mexico cannot be a good scenario for either country.

To answer the OP, there are a few ways to give Mexico a break...and then some. There's the possibility of making Mexico fight for it's independence earlier on. You can exploit the 1799 Conspiracy of the Machetes or if you want something closer to home the Events of 1808. In both you have one of the underlying currents of Mexican independence, privaledge for the small upper class of Peninsulares (Spaniards born and raised in Spain) against the Criollos (Mexican-born Europeans), who were prevented from getting the best positions in government by virtue of their place of birth (notwithstanding the fates of the lower castes). In the former you had an attempt by Criollos to overthrow the Peninsular's controlling New Spain and the hope of setting up a new government, inspired by the nascent United States, but the Conspiracy was found out and the Conspirators executed. That one might be a bit difficult, but not ASB. In the latter you have Mexican Criollos, with the support of Viceroy Iturrigaray, a peninsular, attemtping to set up an independent congress in reaction to Napoleon's invasion of Spain. The peninsulares revolted against Iturrigaray and quickly got rid of him, propping up a new Viceroy more in line with peninsular though and stamped out criollos from the leadership positions granted to them by the previous Viceroy. In OTL discontent continued to brew until 1810, but it's not outside the realm of possibility to have the peninsular takeover in 1808 go off in a manner which may force confrontations earlier on.

After the Grito de Dolores there are some nice POD's to work with. In my TL (linked below) I have Ignacio Allende take command of the Insurgent army instead of Hidalgo, and the Insurgents proceed to attack Mexico City. The Spanish retake the city, but the chain of events I have set up prevents nearly all of the Insurgent leaders from being killed like they were in OTL, resulting in a more powerful Insurgent Army that beats the Spanish earlier than OTL, leaving Mexico with a strong and popular leadership post independence. After 1815 (the death of Morelos) I think it truly becomes difficult to have Mexico get the absolute best deal it can get, but even then there are various POD's that allow Mexico a better deal than it got OTL (I highly reccomend Desmond Hume's TL Under the Eagle Flag, and jycee's TL A Mexican "Victory").

Iturrigaray is a great figure. Once tried handling outlining a TL where he brings Novohispanic independence. But ended up being too much. Post 1821 another POD could be Vicente Guerrero admitting his defeat against Antonio Bustamante and not causing Mexico's first coup. Or the cannonball that hit Santa Anna in the leg during the Pasty War being aimed a few inches higher so it hits him in the chest. Probably chaining the Mex-American war for good (that was going to be the POD for my TL originally but I decided to keep him longer).

Lose the Mexican-American War, but avoid the French Intervention, allowing Juárez and the liberals to win Reform War. Skip ahead a generation or two and Mexico is a stable, vibrant, federal republic and a growing power in its own right.

Technically this happened even with the French intervention. Juarez did win, and that turned out alright for a while. The Juarez, Tejada Diaz and Gonzales presidencies were all good from Mexico. The fault was keeping Diaz two months too long.

A simple best-case scenario in the more distant past is for Mexico to win the Mexican-American War. Mexican armies had superior numbers and the advantage of the defender. If they defeat either Taylor or especially Scott the resulting disaster for US arms sinks the Democratic Party while also tabling the US Civil War for a generation in the best case for the USA.

Not that easy. Almost impossible. But you can give Mexico a better deal. As I did in my TL (see link bellow). Mexico had better numbers but through the two years of the war it changed administrations five times. By this point Mexico is a failed state. But at the same time OTL proves that even at its worst Mexico managed to keep quite a bit of territory and that anymore is almost ASB. (I can see Sonora and Baja also being annexed by the US in a worst case scenario but nothing more).


Another possible scenario for a stabler Mexico would be for Diaz to go out the front door with romp and pomp as Mexico greets democracy under Francisco Madero. Rather than imprisoning Madero, and later going out the back door when Madero still won.
Fun fact: the Mexican revolution was not launched against Diaz but against Madero. In his campaign Madero made many promises he could not keep, and many allies (Zapata, Carranza amongst them) that he should not have. When it turned out that Madero did not seek economic reform but simply a political reform, these guys revolted against him. By this time Diaz was already enjoying his retirement in Paris.
Had Diaz accepted defeat, and kept to his promise that Mexico was ready for Democracy, Madero would have not found the need to ally with populist leaders like Zapata, Carraza, Villa and all those dudes. Madero would have been elected in 1810 and Mexico would have celebrated its centennial under a new young vigorous leader. Economic reform would have come in due time. And Mexico would have kept the simpler 1857 constitution, rather than the mess of volumes we have now with the 1917 one.

You could end up with a Mexico of today's borders and population. But with an even steady growth from 1910 till today. Rather than than the constant ups and downs.


IMO a Mexico that got a good deal (regardless of POD) non-wank by 2010 would have:
OTL's territory (plus a bit more in the North).
Todays Mexican population (add the Mexican-American population of respective territory added). This ranges between 110-130 depending on size. However this population is more diverse (due to a steady flow of immigration) and more spread out. With 4 or 5 cities that have 5 million + population: Mex City, Monterrey Guadalajara, Puebla, Veracruz, Puerto Vallarta. Take your pick. San Diego, Los Angeles, Laredo could also be candidates if Mexico keeps more territory in the North.
A Mexico City with no more than 16 million to avoid the gross centralization of OTL.
A nominal GDP somewhere between Canada's and Itlay's GDP of OTL. Making Mexico #8 or 9 in the respective TL. (Mexico is #14 in OTL, nominal GDP speaking).
A GDP per capita, like that of OTL's Italy or Israel, bumping it from the low 50s on the list to the low 20s.
The highest foreign tourism world wide. (How we have the beaches, ruins, cuisine, culture, etc that we have. The richest country as our northern neighbor and still not manage to make this so perplexes me).
And a cultural maturity, free of the identity crisis that plagues Mexico today. By this I mean that when a British TV show makes fun of Mexico, Mexico will laugh with the joke rather than make a huge fuss about it. That when Yanni wants to hold a concert in Teotihuacan he should be allowed to do so, to promote tourism to the area. And that if someone wants to hold an F1 Gran Prix to a Mexican city, we allow them to instead knowing it will bring cash flow to it rather than dismissing it as a sport of the rich.

Honestly all of the above does not seem that hard for Mexico to achieve without the need of being annexed by the US.
 
Last edited:
Technically this happened even with the French intervention. Juarez did win, and that turned out alright for a while. The Juarez, Tejada Diaz and Gonzales presidencies were all good from Mexico. The fault was keeping Diaz two months too long.

:confused: What

Juárez was ousted from power directly due to the French Intervention. No French Intervention means La Reforma continues along peacefully; the entire Diaz dictatorship is butterflied away altogether.
 
:confused: What

Juárez was ousted from power directly due to the French Intervention. No French Intervention means La Reforma continues along peacefully; the entire Diaz dictatorship is butterflied away altogether.

Sorry, what I meant to say was that at the end of the day it was still a liberal victory. While yes an extra six years of stability (with no French Intervention) would have been beneficial to Mexico, in this case I think that in the greater picture it doesn't matter much. The Diaz dictatorship might have been butterflied but Juarez would have become dictator (the only reason he didn't in OTL was he died on time) and Diaz, still his righthand man during the Reform War, could easily taken over afterwards.
 
Sorry, what I meant to say was that at the end of the day it was still a liberal victory. While yes an extra six years of stability (with no French Intervention) would have been beneficial to Mexico, in this case I think that in the greater picture it doesn't matter much. The Diaz dictatorship might have been butterflied but Juarez would have become dictator (the only reason he didn't in OTL was he died on time) and Diaz, still his righthand man during the Reform War, could easily taken over afterwards.

But Juárez wouldn't have been President for so long ITTL with no French Intervention, removing Díaz from a position to become dictator. The entire issue is largely butterflied away, unless you can show that Juárez or Díaz or etc had dictatorial ambitions even before the French Intervention, and I doubt that's possibly considering even IOTL Juárez was offered amnesty and a position of power in Maximilian's government but refused.
 

Kosta

Banned
Mexico could have governed itself had a figure head like Washington set an example. However no Mexican leader ever did that. They all just couped against each other continuously.

Lázaro Cárdenas: look him up. If you're too lazy to do so, he was the creator of the sexenio, one of the many good things he did for Mexico.
 
Lázaro Cárdenas: look him up. If you're too lazy to do so, he was the creator of the sexenio, one of the many good things he did for Mexico.

I know who he was and what he did. But although Cárdenaz did do a few good deeds, he was never the figurehead that Washington was. Furthermore some of his decisions, like the nationalization of the oil industry are quite questionable.

Furthermore Cardenaz is already too late in the game, by his time Mexico had 100+ years of instability, with the sole exception of the Porfiriato.

For such a figure head you need someone like Washigton, early during the war of independence. A father of the nation sort of deal. Arkhangelsk uses Allende in his TL, which is a great idea. Another option would be a man who brings the nation together after the humiliating defeat of the Mex-American war, as I did with Herrera in my TL. This is still early enough in the game to bring a good deal of progress later on.

Don't get me wrong I still believe that had the revolution and post-revolution years (up to Cardenaz) gone a bit different we could have had a stable Mexico experiencing steady growth. Rather than the ups and downs of OTL's 20th century Mexico. But I do think it is a bit too late for such national figure. Short of some a fascist dictator, who would still be hated later on.
 
Top