I still don't think more territory equals better Mexico, and I do think it is rather hard to fix Mexico's underlying problems. And I do think America, with its large, mobile population base and historic immigration patterns (both people going to America and Americans going west) will desire a large slice of the Pacific coast.
It really depends on how one approaches a wank- large amounts of territory or political stability and economic development. It'd be interesting to see a more radical Mexican revolution early on. While they would probably face similar instability and may (or may not) lose those northern lands to the Yanqui, the liquidation or at least castration of noble political power could help stabilize Mexico going forward.
Or, even more tantalizing- no Napoleon as an example for New World rulers to follow. Less Bonapartism, more republicanism. If the more conservative criollos lose influence, then there is that much less of a base for Maximillian-type shenanigans- and the possibility of more electoral methods for populist reformers. In addition, the weakening of early conservatism could help moderate progressive leaders- perhaps no ultra-progressive government leading to Cristero Wars? Perhaps an alt-Zapata as an elected leader and not a revolutionary?
Now, the lack of Bonaparte does not eliminate caudilloism- but it might prevent the phenomenon of Mexican empires and nouveau nobility in Mexico proper.
I think the problem is that Mexico-wanks are often born of hating Ameriwanks with full Mexican annexation, and out of a desire to see Mexico "do better" against America. If you structure a "Mexico-wank" on the premise of retaining distant but prosperous territories, then you run into problems of the kind TFSmith pointed out and the problems that Mexico faced OTL. Even today, northern Mexico is rather unruly.
If you base a "Mexico-wank" on alternate social development, then you might be able to see Mexico as more of an Argentina (hopefully without the disasters that country ended up enduring). If the US is more nativist about European immigration- not too hard- and if other South American countries are less attractive- fairly easy, just have some wars/political disasters- then a more stable Mexico could attract immigration and the better kind of industrial development. I do think the Rio Grande is a good border (although maybe alt-Mexico could retain LA and San Diego) in part because, for alt-Mexico, it gives America a Pacific coastline and therefore gives America Pacific distractions. If America is busy looking towards weaker Central American and Caribbean countries as prospects for banana republicanism, then Mexico- full of resources and, in TTL, immigrants- can develop to a point sufficient enough to blunt American economic domination. A progressive Mexican government could allow in the Chinese blocked by the American government, giving Mexico more immigration sources. Personally, I think any alt-immigration to Mexico would be of the Asian variety, because America will end up letting in a lot of Europeans despite questions of religion and ethnicity.
It really depends on how one approaches a wank- large amounts of territory or political stability and economic development. It'd be interesting to see a more radical Mexican revolution early on. While they would probably face similar instability and may (or may not) lose those northern lands to the Yanqui, the liquidation or at least castration of noble political power could help stabilize Mexico going forward.
Or, even more tantalizing- no Napoleon as an example for New World rulers to follow. Less Bonapartism, more republicanism. If the more conservative criollos lose influence, then there is that much less of a base for Maximillian-type shenanigans- and the possibility of more electoral methods for populist reformers. In addition, the weakening of early conservatism could help moderate progressive leaders- perhaps no ultra-progressive government leading to Cristero Wars? Perhaps an alt-Zapata as an elected leader and not a revolutionary?
Now, the lack of Bonaparte does not eliminate caudilloism- but it might prevent the phenomenon of Mexican empires and nouveau nobility in Mexico proper.
I think the problem is that Mexico-wanks are often born of hating Ameriwanks with full Mexican annexation, and out of a desire to see Mexico "do better" against America. If you structure a "Mexico-wank" on the premise of retaining distant but prosperous territories, then you run into problems of the kind TFSmith pointed out and the problems that Mexico faced OTL. Even today, northern Mexico is rather unruly.
If you base a "Mexico-wank" on alternate social development, then you might be able to see Mexico as more of an Argentina (hopefully without the disasters that country ended up enduring). If the US is more nativist about European immigration- not too hard- and if other South American countries are less attractive- fairly easy, just have some wars/political disasters- then a more stable Mexico could attract immigration and the better kind of industrial development. I do think the Rio Grande is a good border (although maybe alt-Mexico could retain LA and San Diego) in part because, for alt-Mexico, it gives America a Pacific coastline and therefore gives America Pacific distractions. If America is busy looking towards weaker Central American and Caribbean countries as prospects for banana republicanism, then Mexico- full of resources and, in TTL, immigrants- can develop to a point sufficient enough to blunt American economic domination. A progressive Mexican government could allow in the Chinese blocked by the American government, giving Mexico more immigration sources. Personally, I think any alt-immigration to Mexico would be of the Asian variety, because America will end up letting in a lot of Europeans despite questions of religion and ethnicity.