Basically this. The objective of this thread is to find a POD for Mexico to preserve its 1821 borders. It might be quite difficult so this thread allows pre-independence PODs.
AHC: Mexico preserved its original borders
- Thread starter InfamousPotato
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mexico
There are actually a lot of Mexico-centric scenarios that deal with your question. E.g. @jycee
Killing off Santa Anna as soon as possible after birth would be a good start.
How about military colonies in the Lost Territories? It would make Anglo settlers to have an harder task to colonize the place.
For exemple, if Tejas is settled with Mexicans instead of Americans, the 1848 war might be averted.
For exemple, if Tejas is settled with Mexicans instead of Americans, the 1848 war might be averted.
These are Mexico's 1821 boarders by the way.
As you can see, not only does northern Mexico have to stick, but Southern Mexico/ Central America also has to stick. I would think keeping Northern Mexico is easier than Southern Mexico. During this time, Mexico was an Empire, so preserving that could be interesting.
As you can see, not only does northern Mexico have to stick, but Southern Mexico/ Central America also has to stick. I would think keeping Northern Mexico is easier than Southern Mexico. During this time, Mexico was an Empire, so preserving that could be interesting.
I'm not convinced a post-Mexican independence way of keeping these territories is realistically plausible barring an utter Mexico wank and an utter US screw. However...
I'd say the south is easier than the north, since with the north, you have an almost unpopulated land, with the bulk of the population being people who either at best do not like the central government to some degree or another (as with those in the south) or are completely alien from the culture of the central government and also view the place as a land full of invaders to be exploited (several indigenous peoples, who held the real power there). Central America can probably be controlled long-term with a POD later than the far north of Mexico.
Not to say this impossible, especially given the pre-independence POD. Basically, let's say that sometime in the early-mid 18th century, a Spanish explorer, trader, Indian diplomat, someone, finds the gold in Colorado. His find is confirmed independently by several sources over the next few years, and eventually, the resources are given to allow a colonial venture there, which soon turns into a full-on gold mining colony. With the resources (real or perceived) from this find, Spain increases the resources given to New Mexico, which combined with good Indian diplomacy, effectively neutralise the worst of the American Indian threat to New Mexico (and probably also *Colorado). Keep the Apache and Comanche fighting, instead of letting the Comanche come out as dominant as in OTL--balance the strength of the two better than Spain did OTL. And let the Navajo know that a New Mexico raid is among the most dangerous things they could do. New Mexico was, after all, a colonial project to protect Spanish mines in the modern Mexican North, just native raids utterly ruined its purpose since Spain had to take so much time protecting it--it's very possible for New Mexico to thrive, based on everything I've read.
What next? Well, maybe more exploration of the far north of New Spain. There's quite a few silver strikes to be found, and lest we forget, the famous California gold rush find exists as well. If Spain finds these, then Spain will invest huge in these places where OTL they were reluctant to. These will not be thickly populated, but they might have comparable populations to the level of some of Mexico's main mining districts, like Durango or even Zacatecas. This will prevent American takeover, basically. Texas is still at risk, since it's both so close to the future United States and lacks the rich gold and silver finds and thus might as well be a comparable backwater as in OTL Mexico (although as noted above, with somewhat less ravaging by native peoples). But Texas is solveable by an independent state which arises in Mexico.
The biggest issue by my scenario is that the Mexican Far North would rather be independent than answer to governments in Mexico City. Given that New Mexicans OTL lynched their governor sent by those in Mexico City, I think there's plenty of reason for them to launch an independence struggle against Mexico City. Strong, sane, and effective governance in Mexico City could silence this movement's power and keep the region as part of Mexico proper.
For future prospects, with some immigration on the levels of Brazil (likely doable), you're going to create quite a strong country. It will be in the shadow of the United States, considering the smaller population and the initial lack of development, but it will be quite capable on its own in exerting influence in world affairs in due time. Far more than Mexico can now or ever was able to OTL.
I'd say the south is easier than the north, since with the north, you have an almost unpopulated land, with the bulk of the population being people who either at best do not like the central government to some degree or another (as with those in the south) or are completely alien from the culture of the central government and also view the place as a land full of invaders to be exploited (several indigenous peoples, who held the real power there). Central America can probably be controlled long-term with a POD later than the far north of Mexico.
Not to say this impossible, especially given the pre-independence POD. Basically, let's say that sometime in the early-mid 18th century, a Spanish explorer, trader, Indian diplomat, someone, finds the gold in Colorado. His find is confirmed independently by several sources over the next few years, and eventually, the resources are given to allow a colonial venture there, which soon turns into a full-on gold mining colony. With the resources (real or perceived) from this find, Spain increases the resources given to New Mexico, which combined with good Indian diplomacy, effectively neutralise the worst of the American Indian threat to New Mexico (and probably also *Colorado). Keep the Apache and Comanche fighting, instead of letting the Comanche come out as dominant as in OTL--balance the strength of the two better than Spain did OTL. And let the Navajo know that a New Mexico raid is among the most dangerous things they could do. New Mexico was, after all, a colonial project to protect Spanish mines in the modern Mexican North, just native raids utterly ruined its purpose since Spain had to take so much time protecting it--it's very possible for New Mexico to thrive, based on everything I've read.
What next? Well, maybe more exploration of the far north of New Spain. There's quite a few silver strikes to be found, and lest we forget, the famous California gold rush find exists as well. If Spain finds these, then Spain will invest huge in these places where OTL they were reluctant to. These will not be thickly populated, but they might have comparable populations to the level of some of Mexico's main mining districts, like Durango or even Zacatecas. This will prevent American takeover, basically. Texas is still at risk, since it's both so close to the future United States and lacks the rich gold and silver finds and thus might as well be a comparable backwater as in OTL Mexico (although as noted above, with somewhat less ravaging by native peoples). But Texas is solveable by an independent state which arises in Mexico.
The biggest issue by my scenario is that the Mexican Far North would rather be independent than answer to governments in Mexico City. Given that New Mexicans OTL lynched their governor sent by those in Mexico City, I think there's plenty of reason for them to launch an independence struggle against Mexico City. Strong, sane, and effective governance in Mexico City could silence this movement's power and keep the region as part of Mexico proper.
For future prospects, with some immigration on the levels of Brazil (likely doable), you're going to create quite a strong country. It will be in the shadow of the United States, considering the smaller population and the initial lack of development, but it will be quite capable on its own in exerting influence in world affairs in due time. Far more than Mexico can now or ever was able to OTL.
unprincipled peter
Donor
metalinvader,
overall, I like the tenor of your post. I wouldn't say it requires a Mexico wank, and US screw, just a slight revision of their respective fortunes. IMO, OTL US is as unlikely a uber wank anyone could possibly imagine in 1750. conversely, Mexico/ New Spain had immense potential squandered away. It isn't written in stone that the US will succeed so magnificently, while Mexico/NS declines. Balance it out just a little, and the continent is vastly different.
under your general scenario, with a POD of mid 1700's, don't forget that a stronger/more effective northern development will also likely include Spanish Louisiana, with butterflies affecting Spain's giving it back to France, who promptly sold it to the US. and a Spanish/New Spain policy POD around that time, could have butterflies on Spain's decision to so strongly, and with eventual counter productive effects, assist US independence. I'm a firm believer that Spain's role in American Revolution had an immense effect on US independence. US was going to gain independence eventually, but delaying it a decade or two changes everything, and without Spain's help, timing of it changes.
Galvez was well liked in Mexico, and competent. It's rumored that he had royal aspirations, and was possibly killed off by the Spanish crown. the spectre of a combo George Washington/Iturbide makes one go hmmmm. you'd be hard pressed to find competent royalty to go the Brazil/Aranda route ,but writing in a Brazil-like bloodless revolution under a Galvez, Mexico automatically is better off. The Spanish Crown was fleeing to New Spain circa 1808, but never made it, so you can really amp up the Brazil comparisons. point, though is that simply avoiding the devastation of Mexican independence brightens its future.
overall, I like the tenor of your post. I wouldn't say it requires a Mexico wank, and US screw, just a slight revision of their respective fortunes. IMO, OTL US is as unlikely a uber wank anyone could possibly imagine in 1750. conversely, Mexico/ New Spain had immense potential squandered away. It isn't written in stone that the US will succeed so magnificently, while Mexico/NS declines. Balance it out just a little, and the continent is vastly different.
under your general scenario, with a POD of mid 1700's, don't forget that a stronger/more effective northern development will also likely include Spanish Louisiana, with butterflies affecting Spain's giving it back to France, who promptly sold it to the US. and a Spanish/New Spain policy POD around that time, could have butterflies on Spain's decision to so strongly, and with eventual counter productive effects, assist US independence. I'm a firm believer that Spain's role in American Revolution had an immense effect on US independence. US was going to gain independence eventually, but delaying it a decade or two changes everything, and without Spain's help, timing of it changes.
Galvez was well liked in Mexico, and competent. It's rumored that he had royal aspirations, and was possibly killed off by the Spanish crown. the spectre of a combo George Washington/Iturbide makes one go hmmmm. you'd be hard pressed to find competent royalty to go the Brazil/Aranda route ,but writing in a Brazil-like bloodless revolution under a Galvez, Mexico automatically is better off. The Spanish Crown was fleeing to New Spain circa 1808, but never made it, so you can really amp up the Brazil comparisons. point, though is that simply avoiding the devastation of Mexican independence brightens its future.
The US was bound to be a major power in 1750. It (as in the Thirteen Colonies) had a population exceeding any Latin American country, and most importantly, was very well developed, comparable to Europe. Granted, the southern colonies were less developed and populous when you consider the majority of their population (very high, yes) was enslaved. It also had ample amount of frontier to expand into beyond the Appalachians, which was beginning to be tapped by 1760s. Any way of nerfing the US involves turning the Thirteen Colonies against each other and making them compete between themselves and the British for this frontier land (and of course, indigenous peoples will serve as muscle for whoever gets them on their side). This was a possibility. The "balanced" one is the Americans being led around by the British and their Indian allies in the trans-Appalachian country for longer, worse War of 1812, but still united country and still able to reap the rewards of that which the British can't really deny in the end. I find a US nerf is really hard without screwing the US, because allowing the US any of its potential results in something as dominating as OTL. I agree regarding Spain's role in American independence (sadly ignored in the history books in favour of France), but even a British North America with no independent Thirteen Colonies is going to have huge effects on things, since eventually, New York or Philadelphia or Boston is gonna be determining policy in North America instead of London, thanks to demographics and economics (the early industrial revolution in New England, say).
I wasn't suggesting Spanish Louisiana as a part of this, since this could have happened before France lost Louisiana. But if we assume that Louisiana is still divided between Britain and Spain, well, see my notes on Texas. It will benefit from a stronger Mexican Far North, but there still isn't much there, and it still inherits the French administration which wasn't suited for large-scale colonisation (which can be modified). It does make a barrier for would-be Anglo settlers to have to punch through. I'm confident that without further settlement, they could filibuster their way through Louisiana, French or Spanish (except for Louisiana the modern US state itself, possibly). Louisiana--New Orleans in particular--is massively important for both the Old Northwest and Old Southwest in particular--those settlers must be able to have fair access to it. But I don't think Spain could envision that those settlers--barely a factor except locally in the American Revolution--would soon be both that numerous and demanding New Orleans. And again, where is Spain drawing these settlers from? Gold and silver in the Mexican Far North is much easier to draw people to--I guess they could do the same as they drew people to the Mexican North to begin with. But French Lousiana's main trade was timber to Haiti/Saint-Domingue. I'm not sure how things were a few decades later, but the plantation economy which works there (not a good draw for most settlers, of course) was not well established then. And of course, additional settlement means the indigenous peoples France/Spain was on good terms with in Louisiana will turn hostile (or at least, more expensive to placate with gifts) before long. Which means another expense for Spain in the long term.
Mexico vs Brazil is always an interesting comparison, since both were the most populous Latin American states throughout history, both were empires, both were the crown jewel of their respective colonial country's empire, etc. Mexico did too, but a lot more haphazardly, going by the example regarding the Yucatan. Strengthening the Far North as I proposed could be a time bomb if not done right, although given the idea of investment in them, maybe New Mexicans and others might not end up with such hatred of the Mexico City government that they'd choose things like lynching the governor or outright revolt.
I can see Texas still getting its independence as normal, but Mexico keeping everything West of the Rio Grand if the right presidents and more Mexican immigrants are sent Northward. I have no idea how it can still keep the Central American territories, but if it does it would until the late 18th century give the US a run on the most powerful nation in the Americas.
unprincipled peter
Donor
OTL, the USA unified, while spanish and Portuguese america splintered. It's more difficult to get the Iberian colonies unified, but it's so ridiculously easy to get the US splintered. As I said, the 'wank' of OTL US is so stupidly wankish, the only way it's believable is because it happened.
It is not hard at all to find a US less successful, and a New Spain more successful. the US part is easy. New Spain had just as much potential, including population. they didn't use it. the difference is that US managed to spark a movement, while New Spain did not. kill the US movement, and it's easy to see New Spain doing better. People have argued that sans George Washington, the revolution and the foundation of the US are vastly different. so the lack of one person could potentially completely change the US as we know it. Just kill off GW, Carlos III of spain, or Louis XVI and there is no US as we know it.
In 1800, the US does NOT in any way have the automatic advantage from one coast to the other. they're moving toward it, but it's not pre destined. Move the POD back 50 years, it is insane to insist the British colonies are destined to rule the continent. that is only the view from hindsight from US wankers.
It is not hard at all to find a US less successful, and a New Spain more successful. the US part is easy. New Spain had just as much potential, including population. they didn't use it. the difference is that US managed to spark a movement, while New Spain did not. kill the US movement, and it's easy to see New Spain doing better. People have argued that sans George Washington, the revolution and the foundation of the US are vastly different. so the lack of one person could potentially completely change the US as we know it. Just kill off GW, Carlos III of spain, or Louis XVI and there is no US as we know it.
In 1800, the US does NOT in any way have the automatic advantage from one coast to the other. they're moving toward it, but it's not pre destined. Move the POD back 50 years, it is insane to insist the British colonies are destined to rule the continent. that is only the view from hindsight from US wankers.
Deleted member 67076
@Arkhangelsk @Vault boy
Hopefully the experts respond.
My take would be to simply keep the Empire around stable, kill Santa Ana and somehow kill off King Ferdinand to get Spain to recognize Mexico as soon as possible.
Follow this with demobilization of the state budget, and pump more money into repairing the country. Stability + low military budget should do most of the work, as infrastructure building alongside stability will make Mexico have a population boom just like it did in the Porfiriato. Keeping the empire should hopefully keep the colonial policy of subsidizing the Comanche, preventing the rapid decline in population of Mexico's north and make settlement of the northern territory easier. And also, keeping the empire keeps the south, which should be easy to deal with if given the right amount of carrot and stick approach.
Few decades from there, ISI will give you an industrial powerhouse that will make any invasion a nightmare.
Hopefully the experts respond.
My take would be to simply keep the Empire around stable, kill Santa Ana and somehow kill off King Ferdinand to get Spain to recognize Mexico as soon as possible.
Follow this with demobilization of the state budget, and pump more money into repairing the country. Stability + low military budget should do most of the work, as infrastructure building alongside stability will make Mexico have a population boom just like it did in the Porfiriato. Keeping the empire should hopefully keep the colonial policy of subsidizing the Comanche, preventing the rapid decline in population of Mexico's north and make settlement of the northern territory easier. And also, keeping the empire keeps the south, which should be easy to deal with if given the right amount of carrot and stick approach.
Few decades from there, ISI will give you an industrial powerhouse that will make any invasion a nightmare.
Alas, you have invoked me. And your answer is actually very close to what I was to say.
First, we must get rid of the conservatives in Mexico, or disallow them from implementing their centralist ideas of governance. If not, at least get rid of Santa Anna, who was a lame Cincinnatus imitation who went onto making things way worse than they were left originally, even in situations that were already way past the shit creek.
Best course of action would be by keeping the Empire, either under Iturbide or under a Spanish prince (hopefully, Francisco de Paula de Borbón), even if it means that the Independence of Mexico would be more like the Brazilian Independence.
Under Iturbide, we would have a strongman that while the political liberties are going to be trampled all over the board for the first ten to fifteen years, he would at least be able to groom his eldest son into a more fair-headed leader, all while avoiding the political minefield that the country was. Not to mention he was extremely badass himself. Fast-forward twenty years into his reign (or successor if he dies), and Mexico would be stable, with a budding industry and rail network and capable of going toe to toe with the Americans, and probably causing them to just pack up and leave the country alone.
In the latter, without the massive population drop caused by the Independence War, Mexico will be able to keep on settling California and Texas, though they would have to deal with the Anglos rioting every now and then. The country would likely be more wealthy and more industrialized by the 1840's.
The Mexican-American War and its outcome are one of the easiest things to reverse in the alternate history world, and this was of course even a feature of the original "For want of a Nail". There was substantial opposition among Americans to fighting the was and annexing the territories -its how Lincoln got elected to Congress and Grant mentions his disgust at the war in his memoirs. The 1844 presidential election was ridiculously close and something of an upset. And when it started, most European observers thought that Mexico would win. They were fighting on home ground and had the larger standing army. The American army did really well, but really Mexico required leadership at an amazingly high level of incompetence to lose the war.
You can even prevent Texas independence pretty easily, going back to not letting the settlers in the place in the first place. And losing Santa Anna to a childhood illness may be enough on its own.
Mexico wank scenarios are popular here because its really not hard to improve Mexico's performance in its first century of independence.
Now if you want them to keep Central America at all, that is harder but probably doable. But I don't know enough about nineteenth century Central American history to make an informed comment.
You can even prevent Texas independence pretty easily, going back to not letting the settlers in the place in the first place. And losing Santa Anna to a childhood illness may be enough on its own.
Mexico wank scenarios are popular here because its really not hard to improve Mexico's performance in its first century of independence.
Now if you want them to keep Central America at all, that is harder but probably doable. But I don't know enough about nineteenth century Central American history to make an informed comment.
