Saving Mexico

Today there are many problem facing Mexico, such as the all powerful drug Cartels and excessive poverty. At what point(s) in history could Mexico's fortunes change to the point where it's population lives in relative comfort and economic prosperity?

I'm not asking for some Mexico-wank where it miraculously defeats the US in the Mexican-American war or a Mexico that throws it's weight around on the world stage.

And how does your Mexico affect the region and the world?

Look forward to your responses. :D



P.S posted in pre-1900 but POD can include post-1900 too. Comment if this should be changed.
 
Have the US annex all of Mexico that would solve all their present problems. Plus the yanks won't need to deal with illegals coming from the south. :p:D

As for my serius answer it isn't really that hard perhaps prevent the continuos coups that happened during the Mexicos history and have a strongman or monarch that keeps the country together stabilizes it.
 
Yankee slavers kicked out of Texas, followed by the Californian gold rush which boosts Mexican population?
 
Yankee slavers kicked out of Texas, followed by the Californian gold rush which boosts Mexican population?
The Californian gold rush while Mexico is in power would be like South Africa during the diamond rush- it would be invaded by greater powers.
 
Have the US annex all of Mexico that would solve all their present problems. Plus the yanks won't need to deal with illegals coming from the south. :p:D

I am assuming you mean during the Mexican-American war era, I can't imagine a possibly worse time due to the nature of the white american, it would be an interesting concept however, primarily due to the fact it would probably lead to a timeline where the USA has a major Communist uprising or something akin to one after a century or so of humiliating racist policies, combined with how the USA also treated afro-americans...
 
Have the US annex all of Mexico that would solve all their present problems. Plus the yanks won't need to deal with illegals coming from the south. :p:D

As for my serius answer it isn't really that hard perhaps prevent the continuos coups that happened during the Mexicos history and have a strongman or monarch that keeps the country together stabilizes it.

Even then the U.S. would still have illegal immigrants-from Guatemala. This is happening to Mexico OTL. :)

I'd think an after 1900 POD would be better than a before 1900 POD, actually. Post-Revolution politics made it a lot more stable. 19th century Mexico was kind of a basket case, at least until Benito Juárez was elected. Even he couldn't save Mexico from French imperialism.

Maybe a good idea would be to butterfly Porfirio Díaz's dictatorship somehow, but still have a leader who follows the ideas of the científicos (technocrats). The long dictatorship meant that when opposition finally appeared, the country was shattered when long-neglected tensions came out into the open. Land reform could go a long way towards doing this (see the popularity of Lázaro Cárdenas and Emiliano Zapata). If more leaders were legitimately elected like Juárez, then you might have a more stable democracy. Then again, in much of Latin America both liberals and conservatives felt the need to rig elections, so that their ideas may stay in power.
 
Have the USA not make drugs illegal in the first place. Mexico's current problems is due to the power and influence of drug cartels, who thrived by smuggling drugs into the USA. The USA should have learned its lesson after Prohibition in which the ban on alcohol led to the rise of organized crime there.

Why the USA still bans drugs is a head-scratcher. I believe in personal responsibility. If you are aware of the negative side-effects of certain drugs on yourself and you still want to use them, then it is your right and on one else's business. Making all kinds of drugs be legal after the age of 18 (with a notice sticker put on drug packages about the negative effects of drugs) would help Mexico and other drug countries like Columbia immensely by eliminating the drug cartels which then could be bring law and order back and stability.
 
Have the USA not make drugs illegal in the first place. Mexico's current problems is due to the power and influence of drug cartels, who thrived by smuggling drugs into the USA. The USA should have learned its lesson after Prohibition in which the ban on alcohol led to the rise of organized crime there.

Why the USA still bans drugs is a head-scratcher. I believe in personal responsibility. If you are aware of the negative side-effects of certain drugs on yourself and you still want to use them, then it is your right and on one else's business. Making all kinds of drugs be legal after the age of 18 (with a notice sticker put on drug packages about the negative effects of drugs) would help Mexico and other drug countries like Columbia immensely by eliminating the drug cartels which then could be bring law and order back and stability.

While I fully agree that Mexico's current troubles stem largely from the ill-advised 'war on drugs' (and while I also agree that whatever drugs any adult person chooses to use is his own business and should be legal...), I also think that Mexico has socio-political issues that go back a long way. Removing the OTL US drug policy would certainly benefit Mexico, and all of Latin America, but it would not solve every problem. Mexico, from its very start as an independent nation, has suffered from political infighting (which often erupted into civil war) and had to deal with a series of successive coups. For Mexico to be truly 'saved' from its historical problems, that issue will need to be addressed.

In my opinion, a strong start is the best guarantee for success. Compare, for instance, the USA, France and Mexico. The USA really lucked out: when the original political framework didn't function adequately, they managed to peacefully alter it and introduced a consitution. The first president was an honest and capable man, who set a lot of inspiring precedents.

Then look at France. The French, following their revolution, tried out several mercurial political systems in rapid succession, ended up with a reign of terror, and then had a strongman assume control. Then the monarchy was restored, abolished again, another emperor got crowned, was deposed again, the country was occupied during WWII, and afterwards finally managed to become the stable republic it always wanted to be. But it took a while.

Mexico got it even worse than France, and due to a combination of factors, never managed to become truly stable and prosperous. Would it have had better chances without US drug policy messing things up? No doubt about it. But whould that have solved everything? Don't be so sure.

I firmly believe that if both France and Mexico had gotten off to a good (read: stable) start, like the US did, they would've had a much better chance. So to 'save' Mexico, my advice would be: start early. Give them a solid constitution from the get-go. Prevent Iturbide from crowning himself emperor. That, basically, solves the fundamental problems that Mexico has been struggling with ever since.
 
I haven't read to much into Mexican history yet but I've been wondering about this myself.

What if we go back before Porfirio Díaz's dictatorship and get rid of Santa Anna's dictatorship instead?

Also I've read some TL in which Mexico benefits from a successful 2nd Mexican Empire. It might be plausible since I've read Maximilian I had an honest sympathy for Mexico and made alliances with the populations in Mexico who had been rebelling against the previous government such as the Yaqui.
 
I haven't read to much into Mexican history yet but I've been wondering about this myself.

What if we go back before Porfirio Díaz's dictatorship and get rid of Santa Anna's dictatorship instead?

Also I've read some TL in which Mexico benefits from a successful 2nd Mexican Empire. It might be plausible since I've read Maximilian I had an honest sympathy for Mexico and made alliances with the populations in Mexico who had been rebelling against the previous government such as the Yaqui.

It is possible Mexico could have done okay under Maximilian. Unfortunately, he seemed to favor the liberals, who were republican to begin with and wouldn't be appeased. If he had allied with the Catholic conservatives and didn't appoint anti-French ministers, perhaps he could have had a better chance. . .

If Santa Anna is gone, who would replace him, and would Mexico become a republic? He overthrew the monarchy of Iturbide after all. This would be a very interesting POD.
 
Maybe have A Pod during the American Revolution that the Southern States stay with Britain like Canada while the OTL Northern states leave. Britain expands the South Domain to the Mexican Border and keep it stopped there.

This USA has no way of attacking Mexico and instead has to fight Britain or not expand. Britain starts to control Mexico and build it up in exchange for some trade agreements and favourable treaties. This Mexico is now more powerful.
 
It is possible Mexico could have done okay under Maximilian. Unfortunately, he seemed to favor the liberals, who were republican to begin with and wouldn't be appeased. If he had allied with the Catholic conservatives and didn't appoint anti-French ministers, perhaps he could have had a better chance. . .

If Santa Anna is gone, who would replace him, and would Mexico become a republic? He overthrew the monarchy of Iturbide after all. This would be a very interesting POD.

Except the only reason Maximillian was even an improvement on previous dictators was his more liberal attitude on Mexican problems, making him more conservative would just make him another despot in Mexico's long history of despots.

Also as a sidenote, why does no one ever find a way to make Maximillian emperor of Austria? I mean his poliitcal attitude would probably actually be helpful and fit in there rather than being a complete fish out of water.
 
Except the only reason Maximillian was even an improvement on previous dictators was his more liberal attitude on Mexican problems, making him more conservative would just make him another despot in Mexico's long history of despots.

Also as a sidenote, why does no one ever find a way to make Maximillian emperor of Austria? I mean his poliitcal attitude would probably actually be helpful and fit in there rather than being a complete fish out of water.

There was a WI about Franz Joseph dying and making Maximilian the Austrian emperor not too long ago.
 
I firmly believe that if both France and Mexico had gotten off to a good (read: stable) start, like the US did, they would've had a much better chance. So to 'save' Mexico, my advice would be: start early. Give them a solid constitution from the get-go. Prevent Iturbide from crowning himself emperor. That, basically, solves the fundamental problems that Mexico has been struggling with ever since.

I agree too. However, Mexico also suffered from countless foreign intervention from Spain, France, USA, and Britain. France had the same problem during the French Revolution and its aftermath. The USA was lucky in that they had no enemies or impotent enemies to muck up affairs, so the US Constitution was able to consolidate at its own pace..
 
Top