If Mexico was wealthier, more stable, and allied to the US?

Richter,
You hit the nail on the head on a few points:

Almost all countries which have to force their way to independence start off broke. The parent country isn't going to willingly leave them with money, or they have to spend their money to gain independence through payments, or through financing a revolution. The trick is having an economy strong enough to recover from this. If you've destroyed your economy in the revolution, or if you simply don't have a strong enough economy before the revolution, it's going to be tough to form a strong/stable gov't.

On top of that, there's often a social fabric that needs breaking in order to foster prosperity. Most third world countries/colonies have in common a small rich sector and a massive poor sector, with little middle class. This isn't conducive to prosperity or stability. Or, there's no real consensus on how to govern/structure the country, so internal strife plays havoc. The US seems to be pretty rare in being able to walk that fine line of having difference of opinion while still forming somewhat of a consensus (which later broke down in the civil war, but at least the strife held off long enough for a nation to be built. Most countries have that strife and hostilities break out right off the bat).

Mexico seems to have had neither a strong economy or a stable social/political environment, which is really why it never developed as a power.

Texas only becomes the Alsace-Lorraine, though, IF Mexico truly becomes a power later on. IF Mex becomes a power early, Texas doesn't gain independence, and the US doesn't see Mexico as easy pickings and we don't have the Mex-American war. IF Mexico becomes a power afterwards, they have to become a heck of a power to even fathom taking on the US. France OTL talked the talk about regaining A-L, but ultimately, they held no illusions about retaking it. Germany and France were two cats in a much smaller yard, so conflict was almost taken for granted. A strong Mexico and the US would be two cats in a much larger yard, so conflict can be avoided.
 
Wouldn't a Mexico that's at least more stable, need to settle the issues left over the Spanish give up such as changes to the class system and land, preferably not to long after independence.
hence "following the war, Mexico gets its act together" ;)
 
*Ahem* Well my TL linked in my sig posits this idea that Mexico starts off at independence on really good footing, and is guided by its founding fathers through a much more stable and quieter 1820's. The ruling Criollos immediately see the need to attract people (both recent immigrants from Europe and native Mexicans) to settle its northern frontiers, and with a stabler nation to head, Mexico's leaders are more successful in doing this than they were in OTL.

I do have to say that Mexico and the US could eventually be allies under this scenario, bot not after a while, and (at least the way I have it set up in my TL) after a good round or two of fighting. I can't really see them getting along all too well during the 19th century.
 
hey, all. i was wondering this recently: in North America at least, Mexico is one of the better-known countries

Not sure what this means ... better known than Canada or the United States? These are the only two other countries in North America.

In any event, a stronger Mexico means continental rivalry - they are the only potential two ocean powers (until climate change makes more of Canada habitable).

I like the UK/France analogy - if they were rivals long enough the US would not be in a position to project power globally ... then a European power might threaten them after conquering the continent (like Germany, say, in WWI) ... this might cause them to unite as allies.

Overall, though, Mexico faces some pretty extreme challanges: their terrain essntially divides them and provides little arable land.

What could work is the US occupying Mexico for an extended period - say, ten years - and undoing much of the centralized/hacienda style agriculture left over frmo the legacy of spanish feudal colonization. This change would unleash some real potential through private land ownership. Then, when the U.S. gets distracted by its civil war, Mexico can use the evacuation of US troops to focus on industrialization perhaps.
 
i'd imagine that the US-Mexico relationship ITTL would get to be more like that between the UK and France IOTL: they're straight-up rivals for a while until a war that puts them on the same side breaks out (like a WW1 analogy), after which they are still rivals, just not vindictively, and realistically they wouldn't get into a war with each other after that point.

My idea for getting the USA and Mexico on the same side is some kind of attempted European Reconquest of North America. Have this happen sometime in the 1800s.
 
My idea for getting the USA and Mexico on the same side is some kind of attempted European Reconquest of North America. Have this happen sometime in the 1800s.

The British were the only ones with the logistics to even try and they were far too smart to make an attempt given that the USA had fought two wars against them and both times proven a tough or at least expensive opponent.
 
European reconquest in the America's? I don't think would find with worthwhile to invade the U.S France just went through revolution,napoleon and they even sold Louisiana I don't think they would find it worth while to take it back. Spain I highly doubt would want to try it's hand to take back it's American colonies.
 
Isn't Mexico's population too small to make them a serious US rival by the 1870s? By the early 1900s the US has nine times Mexico's population. With more industrialization Mexico's birthrates will likely be lower.
 
Not sure what this means ... better known than Canada or the United States? These are the only two other countries in North America.
Central America and the Caribbean are part of North America ;)
My idea for getting the USA and Mexico on the same side is some kind of attempted European Reconquest of North America. Have this happen sometime in the 1800s.
i had thought of it as basically WWI, perhaps with slightly different alliances which open up an American theater (maybe most of South America ends up aligning with the Central Powers for whatever reason). tbph, what i want to figure out is how different from OTL Mexico it ends up being, namely socially, politically, and culturally.
 
I like the UK/France analogy - if they were rivals long enough the US would not be in a position to project power globally ... then a European power might threaten them after conquering the continent (like Germany, say, in WWI) ... this might cause them to unite as allies.

The UK/France comparison with the US/Mexico has problems with different geography. Not to mention that politically France had times like that of the Sun King, victory in the Hundred Years War, and the American Revolutionary War, where the French could clearly state that THEY had defeated Britain/England, and were the stronger of the two. So the psychology of the relationship between the UK and France is a whole lot healthier going into such things as the Crimean War and WWI. At least, compared to that of the USA and Mexico.

AFAIK, Mexico's only glorious triumphs in its history against foreigners were in the war against Napoleon III.:( Unless you count the Alamo.

Overall, though, Mexico faces some pretty extreme challanges: their terrain essntially divides them and provides little arable land.

Another problem is that militarily while Mexico is all but invincible in terms of defending itself from an invader coming from the south, and reasonably defensible from invaders coming by sea from the east and west, it is and always will be an open door facing the north (comparable to Poland in that way).:( The whole northeren third of Mexico is wide open to invasion (and a reason that while Mexico has kept strict political and military control in its center, and some good levels of control in the south, the north has a history of relative lawlessness.:(), and could have been conquered at any time.:(

What could work is the US occupying Mexico for an extended period - say, ten years - and undoing much of the centralized/hacienda style agriculture left over frmo the legacy of spanish feudal colonization. This change would unleash some real potential through private land ownership. Then, when the U.S. gets distracted by its civil war, Mexico can use the evacuation of US troops to focus on industrialization perhaps.

Isn't this OTL with Imperial France? Just less time in occupation?

Besides, pre-Civil War I can't imagine a mostly Southern (they constituted 75% of the troops in the Mexican War) occupation force being very enthusiatic about destroying the hacienda system (too much like Planters), unless like in Texas and California they were looking for a 100% conquest of the country, which seems as pretty extreme ATL to me.
 
Last edited:
Central America and the Caribbean are part of North America ;)

Burchfield, R. W., ed. 2004. "America." Fowler's Modern English Usage (ISBN 0-19-861021-1) New York: Oxford University Press, p. 48 – quotation reads: "the term 'North America' is mostly used to mean the United States and Canada together. Countries to the south of the United States are described as being in Central America (Mexico, Nicaragua, etc.) or South America (Brazil, Argentina, etc.)"; see also: McArthur, Tom. 1992. "North American." The Oxford Companion to the English Language (ISBN 0-19-214183-X) New York: Oxford University Press, p. 707.

Each area has a distinct name. North America, the Caribbean, Central America and South America.
 
is it really all that impossible to have Mexico stabilize after the Mexican War? It's hard to see how Mexico would be any wealthier, but couldn't the government at least get functioning?
 
is it really all that impossible to have Mexico stabilize after the Mexican War? It's hard to see how Mexico would be any wealthier, but couldn't the government at least get functioning?
personally, i had just wanted to look at what Mexico could look like if it stabilized after the war without looking at the how and why
 
It would be cool if this more stable Mexico, the United States and Canada all joined in an economic union like the EU at some point.

The NAU (North American Union).

With current population levels, the NAU would have a population of 470 million people. Thats roughly the size of the EU.
 
Top