DBWI Mexico doesn't collapse

When the mexican-american war happened many people thought that Mexico would win. They didn't, and in the aftermath of losing half their territory Mexico had a revolution that shattered the nation. Warlords tore the country apart and one nation became over 40. Even today over a hundred years later the former country of mexico is composed of over 20 countries, but what would have happened if they had stuck together.

Could a unified mexico regain territory's lost during the mexican american war? Could a unified mexico be a threat to the united states during its civil war and the other wars it was in. What would our world look like today?
 
Having this happen would almost certainly prevent the five wars during the early 1900's in Mexico. A unified Mexico would likely prevent the French and Spanish from gaining any colonial holdings along the center and south.

Would be interesting to see how the area around the U.S border would be though, without three powers funneling money into the area to sway their opinion, I'm not sure how well off these areas would be in terms of infrastructure and economics, They've done well so far to not become a part of the current drug traffic.

Would the U.S have a large "Mexican" population you think?

But to answer your questions. It's hard to tell, the warlords along the border did send most of their armies into California and New Mexico. They held most of the states but didn't have the money to keep the occupation up. Not to mention the Confederates pushed them out in 63.

After this point I doubt that a unified Mexico would have even dared attacking the U.S, With how many nations that exist to this modern day, I can't imagine a central government being that strong.
 
Having this happen would almost certainly prevent the five wars during the early 1900's in Mexico. A unified Mexico would likely prevent the French and Spanish from gaining any colonial holdings along the center and south.

Would be interesting to see how the area around the U.S border would be though, without three powers funneling money into the area to sway their opinion, I'm not sure how well off these areas would be in terms of infrastructure and economics, They've done well so far to not become a part of the current drug traffic.

Would the U.S have a large "Mexican" population you think?

But to answer your questions. It's hard to tell, the warlords along the border did send most of their armies into California and New Mexico. They held most of the states but didn't have the money to keep the occupation up. Not to mention the Confederates pushed them out in 63.

After this point I doubt that a unified Mexico would have even dared attacking the U.S, With how many nations that exist to this modern day, I can't imagine a central government being that strong.

OOC: WTF? How do Spain and France (especially Spain) get NEW colonial holdings AFTER the Monroe doctrine and nationalism in Mexico?
 
OOC: WTF? How do Spain and France (especially Spain) get NEW colonial holdings AFTER the Monroe doctrine and nationalism in Mexico?

OCC the bigger concern is the british who wont be happy, Im going to write off the invasion during the civil war as a few warlords, feel free to contradict the man OCC

The warlords you mention Francisco Diaz who attacked california and Carlos Hernadez who attacked New mexico were more banditos then conqurers. They cut a swath of damage through out the american west but they were stopped by the union army after the war and they never really held any territory.

As for the confederacy, are you talking about the failed american one during the civil war or the trade and customs union that was established in the northern part of what used to be mexico? Because that confederacy did end up killing Francisco Diaz after he fled back home, and put Carlos Hernadez in jail after he surrendered.
 
OOC: WTF? How do Spain and France (especially Spain) get NEW colonial holdings AFTER the Monroe doctrine and nationalism in Mexico?

OOC: I wasn't being fully serious. But I could somewhat see France gaining parts of Mexico during the American civil war if Napoleon was stupid enough to go for it. Spain.. I was thinking as acting with a french alliance etc. Again, not trying to be serious : P
 
The American Civil War is a opening, albeit temporary, for any adventerous Europeans to attempt regaining colonies. It is correct the recovered US will spoil those dreams later, but in the moment the opportunity would be there.

A unified Old Mexico does have potiential. No guarantee but oil, minerals, and some good agricultural land can provide a basis for a fairly prosperous state. If such a state existed it might butterfly away Mexico as a source of narcotics for the US Since the early 20th Century the warlords have made increasingly good money off drugs as a agrindustry.

This could also eliminate the frequent US military expeditions into the Mexican states, and for Pacific War afficiandos raise the question of no Japanese port on the west Mexican coast. (OTL Japan twice tried to obtain commercial control of a Mexican harbor to develop port facilities. Both times the US squelched the effort). Indeed unified Mexico is a possible Ally in WWII vs being a haven for Axis agents & commandos.
 
Could a unified mexico regain territory's lost during the mexican american war? Could a unified mexico be a threat to the united states during its civil war and the other wars it was in. What would our world look like today?

Probably not on a temporary basis, and certainly not on a lasting one. Even if the central government in Mexico manages to hold on, the stresses that led to the nation breaking up would still be there; look how long it took the United States to really bring its rebelling states fully back into the fold. By the time of the American Civil War, Mexico probably isn't back to full strength militarily.

The Union could have raised additional troops if the Mexicans tried anything in California, the Comanche would have made gains in the territories difficult to maintain, and the Confederacy would have been able to hold off an invasion of Texas - though the last certainly shortens the Civil War. If, somehow, Mexico is truly unified and strong it might be able to make some temporary gains, but post-war the Union war machine is just going to pivot and march on the Mexican forces.

Now, over the long term, Mexico has the resources and the natural trading partner to become at least a significant regional power. The United States was always going to be dominant, but the other major powers in the Americans - Canada, Argentina, Brazil, and Chile - are mostly at the extremes of the continents. There's plenty of space for Mexico to be dominant in Central America and, alongside the Americans, dominate the Caribbean. Think along the lines of Korea - not the biggest dog in the neighborhood, but big enough that everyone else takes notice.
 
Probably not on a temporary basis, and certainly not on a lasting one. Even if the central government in Mexico manages to hold on, the stresses that led to the nation breaking up would still be there; look how long it took the United States to really bring its rebelling states fully back into the fold. By the time of the American Civil War, Mexico probably isn't back to full strength militarily.

The Union could have raised additional troops if the Mexicans tried anything in California, the Comanche would have made gains in the territories difficult to maintain, and the Confederacy would have been able to hold off an invasion of Texas - though the last certainly shortens the Civil War. If, somehow, Mexico is truly unified and strong it might be able to make some temporary gains, but post-war the Union war machine is just going to pivot and march on the Mexican forces.

Now, over the long term, Mexico has the resources and the natural trading partner to become at least a significant regional power. The United States was always going to be dominant, but the other major powers in the Americans - Canada, Argentina, Brazil, and Chile - are mostly at the extremes of the continents. There's plenty of space for Mexico to be dominant in Central America and, alongside the Americans, dominate the Caribbean. Think along the lines of Korea - not the biggest dog in the neighborhood, but big enough that everyone else takes notice.

I like the Korea analogy and I'll take it a step further. Mexico would be in an ideal position to have it both ways. A regional economic and political leader that does not have to spend much on its military because its proximity to the US ensures Washington will handle any and all major security challenges. Arguably even better off than Canada because Canada has its NATO commitments and aspirations to play a role in global security affairs. Mexico will not even have that burden.
 
Top