AHC: Mexico Greater than the United States

TFSmith121

Banned
Well, you hadn't suggested ANY specific date,

And pray tell, where did I say that I'm using a 1829 POD?

Well, you hadn't suggested ANY specific date, other than objecting to the suggestion that the eariler one starts, the more likely it would be it might come to pass...

So, suggest one.

Best,
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 67076

Russia has huge natural disadvantages. Germany lost WWI and WWII because it wasn't the side with the most resources (and in the latter, because its leader was a delusional madman)
And yet Russia was still a Superpower for over 40 years and pre WW1, was one of the fastest growing economies in the world.

1) Gold rushes are problematic. Especially when non Mexicans will be heading there to get rich, and not interested in the Mexican government getting any of it.
And that is why you get the government to settle early and build infrastructure there. But wait, why would they want to settle there you ask?

The Mediterranean California? Ranching opportunities? An escape from the planter aristocracy?

You could also have policies that favor native Mexicans but not other people.

2) "Free land! It's not land anyone wants, but hey, its free!"
"We're poor as fuck and we hate this city/province/country. The Mexican govt is giving free land. But fuck it, lets not take it b/c its hot and musty."

Beggers can't be choosers. When people see an opportunity, no matter how small, they will go for it.

And really, no one wants it? I'm sure the Comanche (to use an admittedly bad example) would like a word with you.

3) But how ARE those industries developing? They're not just going to appear out of whole cloth. It's not impossible, but its going to take some changes to OTL - so if you want to suggest it, please elaborate.
Couple ways, but most importantly by keeping the area stable. Mexico was plauged by varying periods of banditry and extreme instability which make commercial development difficult to say the least. By keeping the area constantly stable, it makes development easier, encourages travel and trade. In addition, it gives much more government revenue than OTL which allows more money to be spent domestically. Thus, more roads, which encourage more trade and makes it easier on merchants and businessmen.

As well, stability tends to be good for cities, which are a nice source of revenue for the government.

Furthermore, have a government (either federal or provisional) that is business friendly as opposed to favoring the landed aristocracy. There is incentive for (at least parts of) the government to do this as propping up the cities/middle class can serve as a good counterbalance to the aristocracy.

Perhaps. But I'm not sure how accessible (after digging a while, it gets increasingly difficult to go further even if there's gold to be found)/known those deposits are.
Judging by OTL, not that difficult. El Salvador, for instance, is rich in silver even today.

It's not nothing, but it's not something I'd want to have to rely on over the commercial developments in the US, if I had to pick where to bet.
Mexico doesn't have to be reliant on a few key industries. They can develop their own commerce, which, with the much larger stability and resources compared to OTL, will make them a much more attractive place to invest in and for them to develop their own economy.

The gap between the US and Mexico is far wider than France and Germany. Those are at least in the same league.
After 1840? Sure. But with a POD in say, 1810, things are far from set in stone.

It's not enough for Mexico to win some of the time. If you want Mexico to be greater, it has to be the one in a consistently stronger position - not simply lucky.

And quality is expensive. Lesser resources make it harder, not easier, to have "but better".
Well, you hadn't suggested ANY specific date, other than objecting to the suggestion that the eariler one starts, the more likely it would be it might come to pass...

So, suggest one.

Best,
Now where did I object to starting earlier? I'm merely saying this doesn't need a POD in the 1500s.

Ok. This timeline would probably explain it better than I could, but..

I'd start with a POD during or shortly after the revolution that gives the country a stable foundation and government. As well said POD would also end the revolution faster, ensuring less infrastructure is damaged, less to rebuild, less debt for the new Mexican govt, leaves the military with less of a say in political matters and sets the precedent for peaceful development.

Afterwords, butterfly the Central American independence. This helped set the trend for revolts in Mexico and further keeps the peace and stability, which in turn allows the government to exert more control and power projection.

It's also a good idea to avoid the screw ups to the Santa Anna government and focus on a policy of internal improvements.

This gives Mexico a far better start than OTL, with more resources, stability, money (no expensive wars just to put down revolts), infrastructure, and people (immigration will be more than OTL what with the country being more prosperous).
 
And yet Russia was still a Superpower for over 40 years and pre WW1, was one of the fastest growing economies in the world.
Russia was a superpower in a world with a dissolving British Empire, France well past its prime, and Germany divided.

Pre-WWI, it was a distant fourth place industrially - fast growing industrially or not (economically has to include the very sluggishly growing agriculture sector, which is not a minor part of the economy for Russia).

All of the things that are why Russia was that don't apply to a recognizable US.

And that is why you get the government to settle early and build infrastructure there. But wait, why would they want to settle there you ask?

The Mediterranean California? Ranching opportunities? An escape from the planter aristocracy?

There are better opportunities outside of Mexico, however.

You could also have policies that favor native Mexicans but not other people.

Sure. Now ask the Boers how well that worked.

"We're poor as fuck and we hate this city/province/country. The Mexican govt is giving free land. But fuck it, lets not take it b/c its hot and musty."

"Yeah, let's go somewhere that has free land that isn't hot and musty."

"Free land" in the early and mid 19th century describes most of North America. It's even more so earlier.

Beggers can't be choosers. When people see an opportunity, no matter how small, they will go for it.

Except that they can be choosers. This isn't a situation where they're either living in a suboptimal part of North America or staying in a really poor part of North America, this is a place where options are so wide that its practically ridiculous by European standards.

And really, no one wants it? I'm sure the Comanche (to use an admittedly bad example) would like a word with you.

Which brings up a reason why you couldn't pay me to settle in western Texas.

Now admittedly this is a problem with west of the Mississippi in general, not Mexico.

Couple ways, but most importantly by keeping the area stable. Mexico was plauged by varying periods of banditry and extreme instability which make commercial development difficult to say the least. By keeping the area constantly stable, it makes development easier, encourages travel and trade. In addition, it gives much more government revenue than OTL which allows more money to be spent domestically. Thus, more roads, which encourage more trade and makes it easier on merchants and businessmen.

"Better than OTL" is not going to suddenly produce trade and industry in and of itself. There needs to be a market and money in it and everything else that is developing to the north.

With the set up of OTL, that will probably be relatively sluggish. So what changes developing a greater business class TO trade and so on?

As well, stability tends to be good for cities, which are a nice source of revenue for the government.

See above. If we're trying to get Mexico above OTL, this would mean a lot. If you want it beating the US, either the US has to be the one riddled with issues (another set of PODs) or Mexico has to outcompete - not merely improve on OTL.

Furthermore, have a government (either federal or provisional) that is business friendly as opposed to favoring the landed aristocracy. There is incentive for (at least parts of) the government to do this as propping up the cities/middle class can serve as a good counterbalance to the aristocracy.

Certainly. Why this wasn't explored OTL is something I would love to look into - a healthy middle class is good for the government in almost any form of government except true feudalism.

Judging by OTL, not that difficult. El Salvador, for instance, is rich in silver even today.

Fair enough.

Mexico doesn't have to be reliant on a few key industries. They can develop their own commerce, which, with the much larger stability and resources compared to OTL, will make them a much more attractive place to invest in and for them to develop their own economy.

And again, how is that developing? For example, there already IS a whaling industry in New England in the early 1800s. Mexico has to catch up to get ahead.

After 1840? Sure. But with a POD in say, 1810, things are far from set in stone.

Definitely. I'd say even by 1810 your chances of "better than the US" are poor, but "better than OTL" could reach a pretty significant Mexico.

Which is no small thing - after all, "power" and "greatness" are relative terms, so if Mexico is second string instead of fourth, that impacts the US's position.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Okay; I think that's a little late, however.

I'd start with a POD during or shortly after the revolution that gives the country a stable foundation and government. As well said POD would also end the revolution faster, ensuring less infrastructure is damaged, less to rebuild, less debt for the new Mexican govt, leaves the military with less of a say in political matters and sets the precedent for peaceful development.

Mexico's (and New Spain's) biggest issue was sharing the North American continent with an almost hereditary enemy that had out-Spanished the Spanish when it came to imperial expansion during the 1600-1800 period. The religious differences didn't help.

Havin said that, as long as France is a third player in North America, the British and Spanish are in an uneasy balance, and at times - Cartagena in 1741 or Pensacola in 1781, for example - the Spanish and British were (more or less) peer competitors. Once France, Spain, and Britain were out of the picture because of the Napoleonic Wars, the US had significant political and economic advantages over the successor states to the Spanish Empire because of geography, economics, political stability, and unity.

Mexico and the rest of Latin America suffered heavily because of the differences between their situation and that of the US, most of the roots of which dated back a century or more.

Best,
 

dead_wolf

Banned
Mexico's (and New Spain's) biggest issue was sharing the North American continent with an almost hereditary enemy that had out-Spanished the Spanish when it came to imperial expansion during the 1600-1800 period. The religious differences didn't help.

Havin said that, as long as France is a third player in North America, the British and Spanish are in an uneasy balance, and at times - Cartagena in 1741 or Pensacola in 1781, for example - the Spanish and British were (more or less) peer competitors. Once France, Spain, and Britain were out of the picture because of the Napoleonic Wars, the US had significant political and economic advantages over the successor states to the Spanish Empire because of geography, economics, political stability, and unity.

Mexico and the rest of Latin America suffered heavily because of the differences between their situation and that of the US, most of the roots of which dated back a century or more.

Best,

Everything there except the geography can be fixed though.. which is the point of the thread. As I said way back on the first page, avoiding the empire, or having an empire that is actually legitimate and therefore acceptable to both liberals & conservatives, would led to political stability and unity, both of which of course create positive feedback loops which generally lead to more stability & unity, which lays the groundwork for economics... etc. And the geography isn't anywhere near as horrible as some people are making it out to be. Mexico certainly is arid, but it's not the Sahara.

Making a, for lack of a better term, successful Mexico is easy. Making it greater than the US will take some work and require a general Ameri-screw early on. Either the US goes the same way as every other New World state did in the early 19th century, or something truly catastrophic happens there.
 

Deleted member 67076

There are better opportunities outside of Mexico, however.
Ok, so everyone is going to be able to get those opportunities and move out of Mexico? Nice.

Sure. Now ask the Boers how well that worked.
The Boers don't have nearly the same amount of numbers, resources and aid that the Mexicans do. But going along with that analogy, is there no way to mitigate the damage?

"Yeah, let's go somewhere that has free land that isn't hot and musty."
"Wait, do we have the money to go anywhere else?"

I don't think your average peasant would have the money to move to another country by himself.

Now, as for an immigrant, it depends. An Englishmen with money would likely move to the US.

But, as I've said before, a 'better' ecological climate isn't everything. There's other matters like culture, language, contacts, religion and familiarity. One might see more protestants go to the US, but Catholics deciding to go to Mexico.

"Free land" in the early and mid 19th century describes most of North America. It's even more so earlier.
Fair enough.

Except that they can be choosers. This isn't a situation where they're either living in a suboptimal part of North America or staying in a really poor part of North America, this is a place where options are so wide that its practically ridiculous by European standards.
Define they? Immigrants? Mexican citizens? The Native Americans?

Also, just how much poorer was Northern Mexico to say, the Midwestern United States in the very early 1820s?

Which brings up a reason why you couldn't pay me to settle in western Texas. Now admittedly this is a problem with west of the Mississippi in general, not Mexico.
I didn't know you speak for the millions of humans that had a chance to settle.

"Better than OTL" is not going to suddenly produce trade and industry in and of itself. There needs to be a market and money in it and everything else that is developing to the north.
No, but that alone is enough to help kickstart development far earlier than OTL.

And government investment can't help to start a market? I mean, a market for trade and investment can develop if one major settlement is developed far north (possibly by a far earlier Gold Rush, say 1820s, for example).

Ok, so what's needed to develop a market in your view? What do you need to kickstart the development of a frontier?

With the set up of OTL, that will probably be relatively sluggish. So what changes developing a greater business class TO trade and so on?
-Growth in population and especially that of cities.

-A more educated populace as compared to OTL

-A more developed state. A large reason why Latin America was still stuck with an agricultural base for as long as it did was lack of infrastructure to move goods around, and the lack of state control to improve the infrastructure, along with the potential for bandit raids, attacks by guerillas and other hostile groups, which made trading far more costly than in America.

Its far cheaper to do business and that will encourage more people to do business and to start earlier.


See above. If we're trying to get Mexico above OTL, this would mean a lot. If you want it beating the US, either the US has to be the one riddled with issues (another set of PODs) or Mexico has to outcompete - not merely improve on OTL.
At least you didn't say it could be justified because butterflies. :)


Certainly. Why this wasn't explored OTL is something I would love to look into - a healthy middle class is good for the government in almost any form of government except true feudalism.
Because often times in Latin America the government was run by a certain group of Aristocrats that didn't like cities, by being puppets of a foreign country/business that didn't want the area to develop, often times the middle class would squabble amongst themselves (this also includes the 'lower' upper classes and the government bureaucracy) and didn't have enough of a presence to counterbalance the aristocracy by themselves. Usually they required the help of a powerful caudillo, which brings its own set of problems.

And again, how is that developing? For example, there already IS a whaling industry in New England in the early 1800s. Mexico has to catch up to get ahead.
These different components can add up to a larger economy than than the US possibly. Having multiple developed sectors could make the economy more robust which allows it to withstand economic depressions better, allowing the state to bounce back faster during these critical periods. Might also help bridge the gap.

Its not the best thing yes, but nothing says we have to beat the US by say, 1860.
Definitely. I'd say even by 1810 your chances of "better than the US" are poor, but "better than OTL" could reach a pretty significant Mexico.

Which is no small thing - after all, "power" and "greatness" are relative terms, so if Mexico is second string instead of fourth, that impacts the US's position.
Dat historical determinism. Never pegged you for the type, but that's for another discussion.

How was the difference in development in the US in 1810 than Mexico?

Possibly. Judging by OTL, a stronger Mexico could lead to a stronger France, for example.

Mexico's (and New Spain's) biggest issue was sharing the North American continent with an almost hereditary enemy that had out-Spanished the Spanish when it came to imperial expansion during the 1600-1800 period. The religious differences didn't help.
So you're basically saying that the US started out hating Mexico and that it was already stronger and better than Mexico for the most part at the point of independence?

As well, this implies that nations can't change and 'once a loser, always a loser'. That most certainly isn't true.

Havin said that, as long as France is a third player in North America, the British and Spanish are in an uneasy balance, and at times - Cartagena in 1741 or Pensacola in 1781, for example - the Spanish and British were (more or less) peer competitors. Once France, Spain, and Britain were out of the picture because of the Napoleonic Wars, the US had significant political and economic advantages over the successor states to the Spanish Empire because of geography, economics, political stability, and unity.
And those supposed advantages in economics and stability are?

Since you seem to be utterly convinced geography, economic issues, and colonial practices are impossible to overcome (along that a state's policies are impossible to change) lets look at this on the other side.

Screw up the US. It really isn't that hard. Have it break apart, go through a round of rebellions, earlier civil war, etc. Even ruing the OTL stability for, say, 10 years or so can do wonders to hamper a state's long term development.

Now what exactly is preventing Europe from dicking around in North America? I mean, Britain still has a major foothold in the form of Canada and war could have broken out between the two powers a number of times.

Relations with France could have deteriorated for a variety of reasons and war could have been sparked as well.

Mexico and the rest of Latin America suffered heavily because of the differences between their situation and that of the US, most of the roots of which dated back a century or more.

Best,
So reverse the damage? Its not impossible. Look at Argentina for example.

And speaking of damage, the Bourbon Reforms did much to aid the Spanish Colonies.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Do you see a Mexican Empire accepting non-Catholic emigrants?

As I said way back on the first page, avoiding the empire, or having an empire that is actually legitimate and therefore acceptable to both liberals & conservatives, would led to political stability and unity, both of which of course create positive feedback loops which generally lead to more stability & unity, which lays the groundwork for economics...

Do you see a Mexican Empire accepting non-Catholic emigrants? That's another big difference with the British colonies/US.

Again, I'm not trying to replay the black legend, but there were very real differences between the Spanish colonies and their sucessor states and the British colonies and theirs, in terms of social realities.

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Impossible to overcome?

Since you seem to be utterly convinced geography, economic issues, and colonial practices are impossible to overcome (along that a state's policies are impossible to change) lets look at this on the other side...So reverse the damage? Its not impossible. Look at Argentina for example.

Impossible to overcome?

No, but once the "lead" is in place, it is very difficult to overcome.

Look, North America was colonized (largely) by three aggressive European powers from roughly 1500 CE onward, each with very different societies at home that influenced how the settlement came about, which in turn was tremendously important to how the settler societies developed in turn.

France did not "send" large numbers of Europeans to New France/Louisiana, and did not assimilate the indigenous people who survived the contact, and eventually lost out, because of demographics, economics, and climate.

Spain sent a moderate number of Europeans and Africans to the Western Hemisphere, but they were spread over much of South America, Central America, the Caribbean, and North America; the "Spanish" population was thin on the ground in comparison to the British, and although the Spanish assimilated the indigeonous people to a greater extent then the French or British, numbers were still thin per mile of territory. The casta system didn't help develop homogenous societies, either. When independence came, the successor states were thinly populated and divided by geography (Chile and Argentina vis a vis Mexico and Gran Colombia, for example).

Britain/England send a large number of Europeans to the Western Hemisphere and a large number of Africans as well; the "British" population was generally thicker on the ground than the Spanish (and much thicker than the French). Although racial divisions were as deep in the British colonies as the Spanish, the impact in terms of demographics was probably less because of the lack of tropical diseases in (most of) the British colonies. When independence came, the successor states were (relatively) densely populated and (in comparison) much more united in terms of geography in terms of proximity and ease of communications.

These are all very significant "advantages" for the British colonies/US over the Spanish colonies/sucessor states, and undeniable...

Best,
 
General responses to past comments:

1. Argentina is temperate. So are Chile, Uruguay, and southern Brazil. Not coincidentally, those were the most developed parts of Latin America in the early 20th century.

2. Britain did not in fact dump many colonists on North America. Most of the population growth of the US was internal, through high birth rates and unusually low death rates. New England was settled by puritans, who stopped coming in large numbers after 1640; but they were in a region that by European farming standards was underpopulated, so they had way, way lower child mortality than Europe, and their population doubled about once per 25 years. Mexico did not have this, which should give us some indication that it couldn't have the agricultural wealth of the US.

3. Coastal California has temperate climate, avoiding tropical diseases; its summers are very mild, especially in San Francisco. LA also had oil in a world that was rapidly expanding its oil use.

4. Mexico couldn't settle Texas because it was so far away from its center; that's why it invited Anglos in. This is despite the fact that at its eastern edge around Houston, Texas is humid subtropical rather than semi-arid.

5. Mexico's main advantage in the colonial era was that Mexico City was reasonably close to both oceans. (Panama was even better at that, but it was not as large a city as Mexico City.) The advantages of the location decline with industrialization, because the optimal location for a canal is Panama whereas railroads can be built pretty much anywhere. At the latitude of Mexico City, the mountainous terrain makes it harder to built railroads. The Mexican Cession and the Gadsden Purchase territory are ideal for railroads, but that was never an important part of Mexico; a railroad would have had no local traffic to add to the transcontinental traffic, unlike the American transcontinental railroads.
 

dead_wolf

Banned
The population of the US was ~7 million in 1810 and that had grown to about ~9.5 million in 1820. Meanwhile New Spain was ~5 million in the same period, and the Mexico had about ~6.5 million by the time of independence. Sure that's starting from a smaller number, but the growth rate is the same, and stayed the same until the Mexicans went through all of the violent conflict involved in the First Empire and then the Centralist period. Heck between 1830 and 1840 Mexico actually had negative growth rates. On the other side of the border, the US' population growth remained steady, with a small dip after the civil war, until exploding in the 1890s with a fresh wave of European migrants. So, avoid Mexico having such political issues at the beginning of its independence, and you'd be off to a very good start for them; they'd certainly keep up demographically with its northern neighbor, especially if the US could be kept out of the Louisiana territory, or at the least on the eastern side of the Rockies.
 
Last edited:
Ok, so everyone is going to be able to get those opportunities and move out of Mexico? Nice.

If you can move to California, you can move from (within the 2014 borders of) Mexico, you can get those opportunities and move outside of New Spain.

We're not talking about an easy trip either way, after all.
The Boers don't have nearly the same amount of numbers, resources and aid that the Mexicans do. But going along with that analogy, is there no way to mitigate the damage?
The Boers also are actually having their government and military might concentrated in the same area as gold country, as opposed to far away.


I'm not sure what you can do about that when you're the weaker power (more than just USians are going to come here, so Mexico has to compare to them too).
"Wait, do we have the money to go anywhere else?"

I don't think your average peasant would have the money to move to another country by himself.
See my first comment here - if the average peasant can move to San Jose or San Diego, he can move to another country by himself. It doesn't become more expensive to cross hundreds (at least) miles NE as opposed to NW.

Now, as for an immigrant, it depends. An Englishmen with money would likely move to the US.

But, as I've said before, a 'better' ecological climate isn't everything. There's other matters like culture, language, contacts, religion and familiarity. One might see more protestants go to the US, but Catholics deciding to go to Mexico.
The problem is that for - say - an Irishman, a lot of those (culture, language, contacts, familiarity) - favor the US, or at least aren't any less favorable to the US than Mexico. Spain's colonial policies leave New Spain a lot more reflective of Spain and just Spain than what made up the US is reflective of England (not even Britain) and just England.

This isn't beyond fixing, but a POD so far back as to change that dramatically is going to mean that 1800 looks unrecognizable. If that's not a problem, that might make some pretty interesting timelines.

Define they? Immigrants? Mexican citizens? The Native Americans?

Also, just how much poorer was Northern Mexico to say, the Midwestern United States in the very early 1820s?
"They" as in the people you're claiming can't be choosers.

Northern Mexico vs. the Midwestern United States: How many Mexicans owned their own land? I can't read Spanish, so even if there's census data I'd have trouble citing it, but that provides an obvious way to check.

I didn't know you speak for the millions of humans that had a chance to settle.
I speak based on the millions of humans that had a chance to settle what is (OTL) the US chose mostly the area that (as of the early 1800s) is the US. I don't need to speak for them to speak OF them.

No, but that alone is enough to help kickstart development far earlier than OTL.

And government investment can't help to start a market? I mean, a market for trade and investment can develop if one major settlement is developed far north (possibly by a far earlier Gold Rush, say 1820s, for example).
Again, government investment with what money? You can't have the government invest money it doesn't have to produce industry and trade that will then provide further funds.

Ok, so what's needed to develop a market in your view? What do you need to kickstart the development of a frontier?
A lot of energetic entrepreneurs high on optimism and with enough resources to absorb the inevitable setbacks and difficulties of settling the frontier. It's going to be a hit and miss proposition for the individual anywhere, under any state, just by the nature of the business. So you need enough continued interest to get over that phase, and that means something attractive enough to be worth taking those risks. The fur trade is one nice thing - it provides a ready market (the trappers) actually on the frontier, a ready market back home to make real money, and has the area become familiar enough that when settlers come, there are people who can guide them through the bad parts.

That's a lot easier in the Louisiana Purchase area than say Arizona, however.

-Growth in population and especially that of cities.

-A more educated populace as compared to OTL

-A more developed state. A large reason why Latin America was still stuck with an agricultural base for as long as it did was lack of infrastructure to move goods around, and the lack of state control to improve the infrastructure, along with the potential for bandit raids, attacks by guerillas and other hostile groups, which made trading far more costly than in America.

Its far cheaper to do business and that will encourage more people to do business and to start earlier.
But the problem is, those cities won't grow on their own. People have to want to come there. And so on.

So let me phrase my question to you like this.

How do you sell this place as worth settling in? With "this place" being the part of Mexico you want to develop - the frontier, the area that as of 2014 is still Mexican, somewhere in the other Latin American countries - you can pick. What do you want to do to encourage development? What tools do you even have to encourage development? (as in, what powers do you have to work with - setting low tariffs requires control of that in federal hands)

At least you didn't say it could be justified because butterflies. :)
Embracing butterflies makes it hard to study cause and effect.

Because often times in Latin America the government was run by a certain group of Aristocrats that didn't like cities, by being puppets of a foreign country/business that didn't want the area to develop, often times the middle class would squabble amongst themselves (this also includes the 'lower' upper classes and the government bureaucracy) and didn't have enough of a presence to counterbalance the aristocracy by themselves. Usually they required the help of a powerful caudillo, which brings its own set of problems.
So that brings us to how, in your scenario, we remove that. Those are huge obstacles to even trying to encourage what you want to encourage, let alone having any successes.

The US lacked either such a dominant aristocratic element (overall - the Southern planters do not represent the norm of the US), did not suffer from being a puppet, and the middle class had a very healthy presence thanks to the better developed commercial/mercantile stuff TFSmith has gone into.

Since we presumably want a recognizable US for this to be meaningful - if "The US" is New England and the rest has splintered into petty states, its not very hard to make that a minor country - this is going to mean Mexico needs the changes.

I wish I knew enough about Spanish colonial polices (pre and post Bourbons) to suggest an area to tweak - it's not as if Spain set its colonies up to fail purposefully.

These different components can add up to a larger economy than than the US possibly. Having multiple developed sectors could make the economy more robust which allows it to withstand economic depressions better, allowing the state to bounce back faster during these critical periods. Might also help bridge the gap.

Its not the best thing yes, but nothing says we have to beat the US by say, 1860.
The US has multiple sectors too. And I'd say we should aim to at least be competing with the US by 1900 for this. Not as a hard and fast rule - just trying to find some way of seeing if a given thing is working out (if its still working by 1900, the US is unlikely to suddenly get a case of self-destruction)

Dat historical determinism. Never pegged you for the type, but that's for another discussion.

How was the difference in development in the US in 1810 than Mexico?
Dat historical observation that by 1810, the different effects of colonial rule in (what would be) Mexico vs. the US have already shaped the two, so it would be hard to use modifying that to make a difference. The US has already survived the chance of being broken asunder by the Articles of Confederation failing and the Constitution not being accepted, so that hurting the US isn't going anywhere.

The later your POD, the better established the US already is.

And what developments do you want to compare?

http://kclibrary.lonestar.edu/19thcentury1800.htm

And the sequel.

Mexican equivalent will take longer to find.
 

dead_wolf

Banned
Do you see a Mexican Empire accepting non-Catholic emigrants? That's another big difference with the British colonies/US.

Again, I'm not trying to replay the black legend, but there were very real differences between the Spanish colonies and their sucessor states and the British colonies and theirs, in terms of social realities.

Best,

So... you start off repeating the Black Legend, then saying you don't want to reply it? ;)

Look, yes, the Mexican state had always enshrined Catholicism until 1917. But how's that different from 90% of the planet throughout the same period? A successful Mexico inherently implies one that's stable. What you're essentially arguing is that that, a successful Mexico, is ASB, which simply isn't acceptable, black legend be damned.
 
So... you start off repeating the Black Legend, then saying you don't want to reply it? ;)

Look, yes, the Mexican state had always enshrined Catholicism until 1917. But how's that different from 90% of the planet throughout the same period? A successful Mexico inherently implies one that's stable. What you're essentially arguing is that that, a successful Mexico, is ASB, which simply isn't acceptable, black legend be damned.

Being religious in OTL in Spanish colonies does not help compared to the Enlightenment that is happening in Britain and her colonies. Spanish colonial policies by 1800 is backward compared to the British. Spanish colonial practice/policy can be a hindrance or inspiration depending on how Mexicans react to their history.

If you put highly determined, organized, intellectual people in Mexico much like OTL American revolution, you might end up with a more stable Mexico. This will give stable institutions for a future Mexican state.

The manpower of Mexico and USA in 1800 are statistical tie with 1800 Mexico having more natural resources than 1800 USA. So it is really a matter of people and their decisions that will decide Mexico's fate and future.

A more powerful Mexican state than USA is highly doable and possible.
 
The manpower of Mexico and USA in 1800 are statistical tie with 1800 Mexico having more natural resources than 1800 USA. So it is really a matter of people and their decisions that will decide Mexico's fate and future.

A more powerful Mexican state than USA is highly doable and possible.

Are we including everything that was part of New Spain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Viceroyalty_of_New_Spain_1800_(without_Philippines).png as Mexico here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Political_divisions_of_Mexico_1821_(location_map_scheme).svg

Just this?

Speaking for myself, I've been looking at the latter as more appropriate.
 
This seems impossible with a POD after the Louisiana Purchase. However, this a a problem because the resultant Mexico after butterflies could end up being vastly different from our own at the outset, and might therefore be unrecognizable.
 
It is 1800 flat not 1821. OTL USA land area is smaller in 1800.

Okay, pardon me if I'm misreading your reply (and thus missing your answer), but:

And there isn't a Mexico (except maybe a small Kingdom of Mexico) in 1800. So what territory do you refer to when saying "Mexico" in 1800?
 
Okay, pardon me if I'm misreading your reply (and thus missing your answer), but:

And there isn't a Mexico (except maybe a small Kingdom of Mexico) in 1800. So what territory do you refer to when saying "Mexico" in 1800?

I apologize for the confusion. I believe Mexico should revolt earlier than OTL to have at least time advantage. The OTL Spanish and OTL Mexico was totally mismanaging Mexico/New Spain.

There are so many reasons to revolt earlier all you need is some disgruntled Mexican born Spaniards to unify the local populace and the local aristocracy which is easy to get a POD due to Spanish policies.

Although Spanish brought Western Civilization to its colonies, they were not really good colonial masters by the 18th century.

A rough statistical indication to this is population resurgence before Prehispanic conquest. This means local policies did not attract local Fertility rate and increased immigration. An example of this is Mexico and Philippines. OTL Modern Mexico had a rough estimate of 11-30M population prehispanic, while Philippines had 8M which is around late 15th Century early 16th century. The Spanish were never able to reach this population again under their rule even with 19th Century technology and techniques with both colonies. That is 300-400 years to recover that population but still failed. Mexico was only able to reach 11M by 1890s(60 years after independence) or 30M by the 1950s.
 
Top