AHC: Mexico a Great Power by 1890

Is it states, your challenge is to make Mexico a great power, bonus if its a colonial power, by the 1890s.

I'm not to familiar with Mexico but i know they have a fairly large population and today are a large economy.

So, how would you do it?
 
It was a lot smaller in previous periods: like many third-world countries, it has grown rather fast in the last century. In 1800, for instance, it had only a bit over 1/3 the population of Great Britain and less than a fifth the population of France. It also was a "colonial" economy with little in the way of an indigenous manufacturing or shipping base. For it to be a great power by 1890, we need a fairly early POD: the ol' favorite, Spanish Monarchy flees to the New World, is about as late as you can get, and in any event that gives you more of a Great Power New Spain than the more territorially restricted Mexico proper. With PODs after the breakaway from Spain, you can probably get a fairly major power (but not superpower) Mexico in the 20th century, but not as early as 1890.

Bruce
 
Mexico should have a system of government similar to either America or Britain and be eliminated of most of its corruption. That way, all the unrest should not have happened.
 
Mexico should have a system of government similar to either America or Britain and be eliminated of most of its corruption. That way, all the unrest should not have happened.

The American system of government, from what I know, hasn't worked especially well for most nations other than America.
 
What if they kept Maximillian and stayed close to France? France then strenghtens Mexico by industrialization to prevent any U.S. sponsored "regime changes" or additional territory grabs.
 
Mexico should have a system of government similar to either America or Britain and be eliminated of most of its corruption. That way, all the unrest should not have happened.

Nope, you're wrong. If anything the American system of governance has been pretty shit for Mexico and the rest of Latin America. The only thing it has given us are a multitude of despots.
 
What if they kept Maximillian and stayed close to France? France then strenghtens Mexico by industrialization to prevent any U.S. sponsored "regime changes" or additional territory grabs.
I think that, given how Maximiliano disliked Napoleon III, he would have thrown off the leash ASAP and side with the U.S. out of pure pragmatism, and try to reach a compromise with them.

And about the OP:
The first thing needed is to make the two main political factions (Radical Liberals and Conservatives) more willing to make compromises, unlike OTL where they refused to budge on their ideas, and hated each other so much that they bollocksed the country on five decades of intermittent civil war.

The other one: Get rid of Santa Anna. He's responsible for the loss of half of Mexico's territory due to his lack of foresight, poor planning, and megalomania.

Another one: Texas could have been kept inside Mexico if they had reached a compromise with the Anglo colonists. The first colonists were somewhat more willing to stay as a Mexican province had Santa Anna not told them to bugger off.

Optional things: If Agustín I purges the Congress out of dissidents instead of disolving it as he did OTL, it would have helped a lot.
 
Nope, you're wrong. If anything the American system of governance has been pretty shit for Mexico and the rest of Latin America. The only thing it has given us are a multitude of despots.

The American system of government, from what I know, hasn't worked especially well for most nations other than America.

Well, in that case, what if they had a system of government similar to Napoleonic France?
 
A less messy War of Independence is a good way to start.

Scenario 1) After the Battle of Monte de las Cruces, Ignacio Allende failed to convince Miguel Hidalgo to march upon Mexico City. This leads directly to their capture and deaths.

Change this. Many historians argue that capturing Mexico City would have consumated ended the war right now right there in 1810. Ignacio Allende plotted to poison Miguel Hidalgo several times, because he considered the priest was hurting their cause (which was ultimately the truth); you'd just need to have this happen.

This get rid of the bizarre situation of OTL 1821, in which Agustin de Iturbide consumated the independence despite being a conservative who had been fighting AGAINST it for the last decade. And of courrse this means the conservatives and centralists get much less power, preventing alot of the 19th Century conflicts in Mexico.

Scenario 2) Have Ferdinand VII accept the crown of the Mexican Empire when offered in 1821. This would essentially put Mexico in a Personal Union with Spain, rather than the colonial relationship they previously had.

This is very difficult since at this time Spain refused to recognize Mexico as anything but a colony, plus even if it worked it was unlikely to last with all the troubles yet to come for Spain itself in the 19th Century.

Scenario 3) Have the first Mexican Empire under Agustin I de Iturbide remain. A strong constitutional monarchy could impose order on Mexico through the century, leading to growth and development.

Scenario 4) I forget, but there was a rejected proposal soon after the ARW, for the Spanish Empire to be reorganized into some sort of commonwealth, with each of the spanish colonies o 'virreinatos' becoming an independent kingdom in personal union with Spain and ruled directly by 'infantes'.
 
Including government stability as an obvious way to help Mexico on a quest to Great Power, what if she just sold those territories to the U.S in return for the U.S recognizing that Mexico owned Texas? That way Mexico makes some coin, the U.S is happy, and Mexico-U.S relations are better?

Mind you, I'm spitballing.
 
Arcvalons and Vault boy are spot on, here are my 2 cents.

The earlier a PoD the easier your job should theoretically be. The colonial legacy Spain left behind isn't anything to really be proud of, as far as making a great and stable nation is concerned. As I assume most people are thinking of a Mexico closely related to the one of OTL, a good PoD is an Insurgent seizure of Mexico City in November 1810. It's not that difficult to have the Insurgent leadership press on as opposed to falling back from the capital at the last minute, as they could have probably taken Mexico City at the time. Things after that get kinda fuzzy, but having the Mexican War of Independence end earlier, with the important figures of the time surviving the war and the country experiencing lesser damage is totally within the realm of possibility. My timeline linked in my signature deals with this exact premise.

I really like this particular PoD because it's relatively early, giving you the freedom to give Mexico a much better lease on life. A Mexico much more prosperous after independence gives policy makers in Mexico City the chance to deal more diplomatically with the Comanche and Apache in the north. Prior to independence the Spanish appeased the Indians relatively well enough to ensure the security of settlers in the North, something the Mexicans were unable to do due to the poor economic position they were left with after 1821. Rectifying this detail will maybe ensure that Northern Mexico isn't a deserted nightmarish wasteland when the Americans come knocking around mid-century or earlier, as the Mexicans will actually be a position to defend their northern territories.
 
The problem isn't the form of government that Mexico had. Mexico has immense challenges to overcome. Any kind of system of government is going to run into the same problems.

1) Mexico's population is vastly illiterate and uneducated. This hurts both political and economic development.

2) The elites are bitterly divided over the role of religion and the Catholic Church (including its land holdings).

3) Mexico is a huge country that requires much power to be devolved to the local elites, but any central government wants to centralize power in its own hands. This creates a huge tension within the country and is a major source of conflict.

4) Mexico's geography lacks the long navigable rivers and lakes that enable water transportation and canal building to speed up economic development. Before the rise of railroads, Mexico has little opportunity to develop its economy nationally.

5) Most of the land is held by informal communal agreement (either by traditional among the villagers, or in coordination with the local Catholic Church lands), but lacks formal title. It is a feudal economy on the cusp of the modern age. Moving towards any system of formalized title will displace much of the agricultural workforce and end any kind of economic independence of the peasants.

6) Mexico lacks the native capital to fund its internal improvements, so it becomes reliant on foreigners for investment which creates a lot of political problems familiar to anyone who knows the dangers of absentee landlordism and nationalist backlash.

With hindsight and a level of control of computer games, someone could devise a policy that can make Mexico into a decent, regional power (but not a world great power). However, no such hindsight exists, and such control is impossible in real life. Even if we create a new person with the qualities we want or handwave away personality changes of an existing person (like Santa Anna, Juarez, or Diaz), that person still needs to deal with immense political opposition. We might see 6-12 years of wise, benevolent leadership, but continually for decades?

It's important to note the many wars Mexico had during this time, most of which were due to the issues above.

War of Independence (1810-1821)
Central American Revolt against the Mexican Empire (1822-1823)
Attempted Spanish Reconquest (1821-1829)
Various Rebellions against Santa Anna (1835-1848)
Pastry War (1838-1839)
US-Mexican War (1846-1848)
Reform War (1857-1861)
French Invasion (1861-1867)
Several Rebellions under Juarez, Lerdo and Diaz (1871-1876)
Mexican Revolution (1910-1921)
Cristero War (1926-1929)

There is a reason General Sherman argued against the Confederate rebellion by saying it would lead to the same fate as Mexico (endless war). The above list is indicative of the huge political challenges in ruling Mexico and coming up with a settlement that can satisfy everyone. Between 1810-1876, there are only a few years when Mexico wasn't engaged in some kind of internal war. Porforio Diaz created a peace for about 30-40 years, but it exploded again at the end of his term because he hadn't really settled any of the issues that had created political instability beforehand. Even today after decades of stability with the PRI and some serious political and economic reforms fromt he mid 1980s to today, Mexico has achieved a level of stability and prosperity, but we still see the same problems.

Mexico simply can't become a great power by 1890.
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
There is a reason General Sherman argued against the Confederate rebellion by saying it would lead to the same fate as Mexico (endless war). The above list is indicative of the huge political challenges in ruling Mexico and coming up with a settlement that can satisfy everyone. Between 1810-1876, there are only a few years when Mexico wasn't engaged in some kind of internal war. Porforio Diaz created a peace for about 30-40 years, but it exploded again at the end of his term because he hadn't really settled any of the issues that had created political instability beforehand. Even today after decades of stability with the PRI and some serious political and economic reforms fromt he mid 1980s to today, Mexico has achieved a level of stability and prosperity, but we still see the same problems.

Mexico simply can't become a great power by 1890.

^ This, plus the fact that by the time Mexico becomes stable enough you would have powerful nations in place already that would most likely see that not only Mexico can't become a Great Power by 1890, it ensures that unless a good majority of the exist Great Powers die out and Mexico does some hyper industrialization, it will never be a great power.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
3) Mexico is a huge country that requires much power to be devolved to the local elites, but any central government wants to centralize power in its own hands. This creates a huge tension within the country and is a major source of conflict.


If Mexico become smaller (losing Calif, Baja Cal, Texas, Nueva Leon/Rio Grande, and Yucatan earlier) can it become more successful ?

It would no longer have to waste resources in various wars, it will have more homogenous society, and rebellion would have less power bases to challenge central gov. it also would have more buffer/neighbour states rather than have to deal with powerful USA.
 
Top