Replace the United States with Mexico as a superpower

-Delay Mexican independence through averting the Latin American Revolutionary wars. Mexico and the rest of Latin America continues its rapid, stable development throughout the 1800s until its far stronger than the fatherland. Additionally, this means a Mexico that has Central America, its north, potentially Louisiana, Cuba, Santo Domingo, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and maybe (although its a stretch) bits of Venezuela.

Why would Mexico's population grow to the size of the US just because it remained part of Spain. Also, even if Spain kept Louisiana this doesn't mean the US won't eventually go to war with Spain to try to reach the Pacific. I
 

Deleted member 67076

Why would Mexico's population grow to the size of the US just because it remained part of Spain. Also, even if Spain kept Louisiana this doesn't mean the US won't eventually go to war with Spain to try to reach the Pacific. I
I didn't say it would match the population of the US. However, it would be larger due to the demographic transition kicking into stage 2 from the lack of instability and better investment into the country (and therefore the mass deaths that occurred; note how stagnant Mexico's population effectively was from 1810-1840) alongside more immigration from being a more attractive destination on account of its better economy. And also from keeping the rest of New Spain would add another few million off the bat.

If the US were to go to war against Spain here while it keeps its colonies I don't have much, if any faith it could beat Spain. This is effectively meaning it would have to fight against most of the hemisphere in this scenario, one that's a hell of a lot stronger than they were historically.
 
This idea of "institutions" is very weak. Mexico right now is a middle power (still in the top 5 economies of the Americas though) because the French bent backwards for the US, allowing it to become independent decades ahead of any other colony and developing the infrastructure necessary for industrialising before Mexico which allowed it to develop a more powerful military that stole about half of Mexican territory.
Well, there was also the fact that Mexico's war for independence was longer, it had multiple secessionist wars on multiple fronts that erupted within a decade of independence, and it just experienced more general political instability than in the US, where the worst that happened was a bunch of angry farmers raided an armory. The United States' forces were, well, united while the Mexicans were still divided amongst themselves. The equipment and experienced played a large part, yes, but lack of unity and cohesion in both military and politics made fighting the US a lost cause, like in the defense of Veracruz. That much is institutional, I suppose. The US had the great fortune of not having quite as much division and instability as Mexico (the self-autonomy under benign neglect did allow for a smoother transition into independence, I think it's argued) and that the conflicts happened after the critical foundational period and did not last long. Mexico had decades of chaos from the get-go, for one reason or another.
 
One thing would be to make sure many of the folks who headed the Mexican Revolution didn't die out.

Another would be to have Mexico embrace more of its native identity. Mexico when foudned, still had Spainish connections regarding how the social classes were and for things to help be different. This would help more with a national identity and bring everyone closer together with maintaing good relations with the natives.
 
It's not hard to define a Mexico/Louisiana border because of Geography. I think they would get along.

The border was disputed in OTL. France said it was the Sabine River, while Spain said it was a dry gulch east of Nachitoches. The disputed area was a no man's land and became a haven for outlaws. The border was finally settled by the US and Mexico.
 

Maoistic

Banned
Well, there was also the fact that Mexico's war for independence was longer, it had multiple secessionist wars on multiple fronts that erupted within a decade of independence, and it just experienced more general political instability than in the US, where the worst that happened was a bunch of angry farmers raided an armory. The United States' forces were, well, united while the Mexicans were still divided amongst themselves. The equipment and experienced played a large part, yes, but lack of unity and cohesion in both military and politics made fighting the US a lost cause, like in the defense of Veracruz. That much is institutional, I suppose. The US had the great fortune of not having quite as much division and instability as Mexico (the self-autonomy under benign neglect did allow for a smoother transition into independence, I think it's argued) and that the conflicts happened after the critical foundational period and did not last long. Mexico had decades of chaos from the get-go, for one reason or another.
The war for independence of both countries lasted about the same, so no. And French assistance was the only reason why the US didn't become as unstable as Mexico, which did not have even half the assistance the French, whose help made France practically broke and is what led to the 1789 revolution, gave the US. It has nothing to do with this nebulous concept of "institutions" capitalists seem so obsessed with.
 

Maoistic

Banned
This would help more with a national identity and bring everyone closer together with maintaing good relations with the natives.
The US always had and continues to have atrocious relationship with Native Americans. Bad relations with them by no means hinders development as a superpower.
 
The US always had and continues to have atrocious relationship with Native Americans. Bad relations with them by no means hinders development as a superpower.
No, but it would help with peace and population and if the native nations had stronger support, that hinders the USA as well
 
Top