AHC: Mexico as the Great Power of the Americas

With any POD after the 27th of September 1821 (the end of the Mexican war of Independence), make Mexico the dominant nation in the Western Hemisphere.

Note: Mexico doesn't necessarily have to be a global superpower on par with OTL's USA, merely the most powerful country in the Americas (and perhaps also recognized as one of the world's Great Powers).
 
Last edited:
It could be a great power had it won the Mexican-American War and still kept it territory in Southwest including California and Texas. Only difference it probably would result in a Mexicowank where it ends up taking Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Oregon (if better yet the entire Oregon territory thus preventing the entire US from having the Pacific coast now).
 
Probably the most credible POD would be if Mexico never outlaws slavery, and in fact promotes it like Brazil. In that setting, rather than the Civil War, you could see the American Slave War between a Mexico that still has the Southwest, Cuba/Spain.

The South+Mexico and Cuba vs the North, with the British staying out beyond interdicting the slave trade could be interesting.
 
Have the First Empire thrive, or at least last long enough. And by enough that is preventing the half-a-century of issues and hardships and instability that came after its dissolution.

Probably the most credible POD would be if Mexico never outlaws slavery, and in fact promotes it like Brazil. In that setting, rather than the Civil War, you could see the American Slave War between a Mexico that still has the Southwest, Cuba/Spain.

The South+Mexico and Cuba vs the North, with the British staying out beyond interdicting the slave trade could be interesting.

By this point, it'd be impossible. Calling for abolition dates to Hidalgo and company, and reinforced time and again, so by 1821, the earliest he PoD can be, it'd be too late.
 
Have the First Empire thrive, or at least last long enough. And by enough that is preventing the half-a-century of issues and hardships and instability that came after its dissolution.



By this point, it'd be impossible. Calling for abolition dates to Hidalgo and company, and reinforced time and again, so by 1821, the earliest he PoD can be, it'd be too late.

Then maybe you get a much more desperate Northern situation (say Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, and Kentucky also join the Confederacy and where it suffers some serious Copperhead sabotage that leads to Mexico regaining part of Texas in exchange for its support against the Confederacy on a Second Front.
 

SsgtC

Banned
The only way I see this happening is if Mexico never loses Texas. Meaning they need to not only win the Texas War of Independence, but they need to crush the Texans. Then, on top of that, they need to fight and win a war with the US. Not just defeat an invasion of Mexico, but successfully invade the United States and so decisively beat them, that the US has to cede large parts of it's territory to Mexico to secure a peace treaty. And IMO, the US would have to deliberately lose the war for that to happen.
 
The only way I see this happening is if Mexico never loses Texas. Meaning they need to not only win the Texas War of Independence, but they need to crush the Texans. Then, on top of that, they need to fight and win a war with the US. Not just defeat an invasion of Mexico, but successfully invade the United States and so decisively beat them, that the US has to cede large parts of it's territory to Mexico to secure a peace treaty. And IMO, the US would have to deliberately lose the war for that to happen.

Hmm, not quite. War between them is not needed. The US could also just implode on its own (maybe a worst Nullification Crisis could erupt into the ACW right there?). As for Texas, the situation can also be butterflied away if there's no Empresario System to draw their interest, or Stephen Austin fails to renew his father's contract regarding the colonists (Mexico's independence had made Moses's contract with Spain void). This could lead to a weaker American prescene in Texas to avoid the escalation that led to the M-A War. And without Texas the South is left without much room to expand slavery west, and could lead to tensions to rise and an early ACW to follow.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Even with a weaker US post ACW (assuming a southern victory) the North and the South individually would still be stronger than Mexico. The South would be sightly smaller land wise than Mexico, but much more of it is arable. The North would actually be bigger than Mexico and far more industrialized. Even without the US rising to the same heights as OTL, it would still be the dominant power in the Americas. Even split in two. For Mexico to become the dominant power, they need to be able to do cripple the United States that it takes 50 or more years for the US to recover.

Hmm, not quite. War between them is not needed. The US could also just implode on its own (maybe a worst Nullification Crisis could erupt into the ACW right there?). As for Texas, the situation can also be butterflied away if there's no Empresario System to draw their interest, or Stephen Austin fails to renew his father's contract regarding the colonists (Mexico's independence had made Moses's contract with Spain void). This could lead to a weaker American prescene in Texas to avoid the escalation that led to the M-A War. And without Texas the South is left without much room to expand slavery west, and could lead to tensions to rise and an early ACW to follow.
 
Even with a weaker US post ACW (assuming a southern victory) the North and the South individually would still be stronger than Mexico. The South would be sightly smaller land wise than Mexico, but much more of it is arable. The North would actually be bigger than Mexico and far more industrialized. Even without the US rising to the same heights as OTL, it would still be the dominant power in the Americas. Even split in two. For Mexico to become the dominant power, they need to be able to do cripple the United States that it takes 50 or more years for the US to recover.

Well, of course, but in this case Mexico wouldn't be static either. As I mentioned before, a possibility with the First Empire surviving can be one thing, as it can have a huge effect. You would have a Mexico that still holds Central America sans Panama, relations with the Native Tribes in the north don't sour (the Republic blundered here big time) turning them into potential allies specially if the US still does its Indian Wars and Trail of Tears and stuff, and also has the side effect of making colonization of the north easier for them. Get them to modernize their military and perhaps even get an European ally, and once war does roll the US would now find itself in a disadvantage. Further crippling could happen if the Mexico seizes the chance in sparking and supporting slave revolts in the South.
 
Hmm, not quite. War between them is not needed. The US could also just implode on its own (maybe a worst Nullification Crisis could erupt into the ACW right there?). As for Texas, the situation can also be butterflied away if there's no Empresario System to draw their interest, or Stephen Austin fails to renew his father's contract regarding the colonists (Mexico's independence had made Moses's contract with Spain void). This could lead to a weaker American prescene in Texas to avoid the escalation that led to the M-A War. And without Texas the South is left without much room to expand slavery west, and could lead to tensions to rise and an early ACW to follow.

Unlikely that the Nullification Crisis works - South Carolina was close to alone on the issue, with states like Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi condemning their actions as illegal and dangerous. Plus, Andrew Jackson personally was very popular in the South.
 

SsgtC

Banned
The US wouldn't be standing still either though. So absent being crippled so badly that it takes decades to recover, Mexico will never catch up. IF the US is crippled though, either the North and South individually or combined, then Mexico had it's window to gain on and surpass the US economically and militarily.

Well, of course, but in this case Mexico wouldn't be static either. As I mentioned before, a possibility with the First Empire surviving can be one thing, as it can have a huge effect. You would have a Mexico that still holds Central America sans Panama, relations with the Native Tribes in the north don't sour (the Republic blundered here big time) turning them into potential allies specially if the US still does its Indian Wars and Trail of Tears and stuff, and also has the side effect of making colonization of the north easier for them. Get them to modernize their military and perhaps even get an European ally, and once war does roll the US would now find itself in a disadvantage. Further crippling could happen if the Mexico seizes the chance in sparking and supporting slave revolts in the South.
 
The US wouldn't be standing still either though. So absent being crippled so badly that it takes decades to recover, Mexico will never catch up. IF the US is crippled though, either the North and South individually or combined, then Mexico had it's window to gain on and surpass the US economically and militarily.

Admitedly, this could need a PoD earlier than 1821. I could think of a War of 1812 that goes bad for the US, perhaps even a defeat. Then add a successful Hartford Convention and New England leaves as well.

Keeping it post-1821, then perhaps UK-US relations take a dive somewhere, and the Oregon issue or that one that settled the Maine border turns into an actual war.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Possibly with a defeat in the war of 1812. But it would have to be more than just a defeat. We'd have to change British war aims. IOTL, the British fought a primarily defensive campaign (outside of the assualt on New Orleans). We would need the British to conquer the US and have the United States revert back to colonial status. Or at best be forced to cede New England and the Northwest Territories to the UK. Then you can get a United States weak enough for Mexico to become the dominant power.

The big thing that is going to hold Mexico back is population. In 1803, Mexico's population was 6.8 million. Roughly equal to the United States. Maybe even higher. But by 1884, Mexico's population was only 10.4 million. The US had a population of over 50 million by 1880. Now, granted, some of that population came from Mexico losing the Southwest in 1848. But not enough to balance out the population.

Economics also kills Mexico. In 1820, Mexico had a population that was 68% of the US'. But their GDP was only 38% of the United States. In other words, their per capita GDP was only 57% of the United States.

The more I look at this, we need an insanely early POD to make this work. Something like Spain actually investing in Mexico and seeing it as an integral part of their empire and building Mexico as early as the 1700s, the way Britain did with the colonies. Otherwise, I just don't think it happens.

Admitedly, this could need a PoD earlier than 1821. I could think of a War of 1812 that goes bad for the US, perhaps even a defeat. Then add a successful Hartford Convention and New England leaves as well.

Keeping it post-1821, then perhaps UK-US relations take a dive somewhere, and the Oregon issue or that one that settled the Maine border turns into an actual war.
 
Personally, I wouldn't go that far back. Mexico's problem was not so much the starting point it had, but rather the early stretch of the track. Avoiding those bad decades could make the difference. The Federalists/Liberals vs Centralists/Conservatives conflict did few good for the country. Yes, it helps if we could have a PoD way back, but I would think we can make it work with the current one asked. Except perhaps for dragging the US down. That one is certainly tougher, but I would think it's still doable.
 
Personally, I wouldn't go that far back. Mexico's problem was not so much the starting point it had, but rather the early stretch of the track. Avoiding those bad decades could make the difference. The Federalists/Liberals vs Centralists/Conservatives conflict did few good for the country. Yes, it helps if we could have a PoD way back, but I would think we can make it work with the current one asked. Except perhaps for dragging the US down. That one is certainly tougher, but I would think it's still doable.

Mexico can probably be fixed with some 1821 or later POD, but by far the best anti-US one is the Newburgh Conspiracy back in 1783. It's not that the States were bulletproof afterwards, but most of the popular ideas from later aren't as good ideas as they seem upon closer inspection.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Without a very early POD, you can make Mexico vastly stronger. But without a corresponding POD too make the US vastly weaker, the United States remains the most dominant power in the Americas.

Personally, I wouldn't go that far back. Mexico's problem was not so much the starting point it had, but rather the early stretch of the track. Avoiding those bad decades could make the difference. The Federalists/Liberals vs Centralists/Conservatives conflict did few good for the country. Yes, it helps if we could have a PoD way back, but I would think we can make it work with the current one asked. Except perhaps for dragging the US down. That one is certainly tougher, but I would think it's still doable.
 
Top