What would a first-world Mexico look like

I put this in this forum because it requires a pre-1900 POD to be accomplished. What would have to happen to have Mexico advance into lower first-world status (I guess say Portugal or Greece or perhaps even Ireland)? If that's impossible then say like modern-day Argentina or Chile, except better. I'm kind of assuming that the disastrous wars with the U.S. still happen and the Yanquis annex all the land up to the Rio Grande as in history.
 
You could have the Confederates win the Civil War. The result will be a Monroe doctrine that's essentially dead. The will mean no disastrous wars with the US and a bigger Mexico. This may lead to a more stabile government which is needed to get a first world Mexico. Emperor Maximilian will likely stay in power with the French propping him up as long as they can.
 
But then Mexico would not exist,that would be an answer..but I don't think it would be good enough. One idea is to have Mexico remain under Spain's rule..or have Mexico win the Mexican-American war..that might bring confidence to the people and speed things up.
 
I think the Alien Space Bat colony would be pretty prosperous.

It's real simple actually. Have the US annex all of Mexico.

:rolleyes:

I've never understood where the sentiment that Mexico is unable to fix or improve itself comes from...

There are a whole crapload of obscure PODs taht could lead to Mexico reforming, stabilizing, and growing economically, and of course there are a few choice obvious PODs, like Iturbide sticking around, or Santa Ana never becoming dictator...
 
Yeah, I mean I'm expecting that if you just had things get better consistently after Juarez goes to power then maybe the country could have reformed effectively and then avoid years and years of disastrous debilitating civil war.
 
I've never understood where the sentiment that Mexico is unable to fix or improve itself comes from...


Roberto,

That sentiment comes from actual Mexican history.

Mexico has been little more than a basket case for it's entire history. Even now it's balancing on the knife edge of turning into a failed narcoterrorist state, something Columbia happily managed to avoid.

There are a whole crapload of obscure PODs taht could lead to Mexico reforming, stabilizing, and growing economically, and of course there are a few choice obvious PODs, like Iturbide sticking around, or Santa Ana never becoming dictator...

Obscure PODs aside, there are too few bright spots in Mexico's actual history. In most of the other regions we discuss there seem to be "happy accidents" and "miracles". Sadly in Mexico's case, none of those ever seem to occur. It's as if Mexico is snakebit or something, so it's understandable why no one ever examines beneficial PODs involving the region. Nothing that good has happened there so it hard to imagine anything good ever happening there.

It's sad really. I've worked off and on in Mexico since the early 1990s. The potential seems to be there, but the Mexico can't seem to get out of it's own way. :(


Bill
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I mean I'm expecting that if you just had things get better consistently after Juarez goes to power then maybe the country could have reformed effectively and then avoid years and years of disastrous debilitating civil war.

Juarez stays alive for his '71 term, and decides to not run for re-election following a minor heart attack in '72. During his '71-
75 term he incorporates the Reform laws into the Constitution and expels the Sisters of Charity. In the '75 election he backs his foreign minister, Sebastian Lerdo, for the presidency, and with President Juarez's backing Lerdo wins.

Diaz launches his rebellion following Lerdo's election. Juarez gives a series of speeches against Diaz, and in 1876 Diaz is defeated, captured and shot. Lerdo is able to continue Juarez's reforming work, and with the rebellion and then death of Diaz is able to force through a series of centralizing measures that concentrate power in Mexico City.

In '79 Lerdo wins another term, despite allegations of fraud, and starts grooming his own foreign minister for the Presidency. Lerdo's reformist agenda has largely achieved its goals, and the Liberal Party finds itself increasingly splintered between those who pushed for further reforms, and those who looked towards economic growth as more important than further reforms.

Continuing economic growth through Lerdo's terms leads to a more united country (telegraphs, railroads), and when Lerdo's handpicked successor wins the Presidency, there is grumbling among the military but no revolt.

Basically, after Lerdo's terms the Liberal Party is able to craft a national consensus. The series of military victories (especially the execution of Diaz and his leading supporters) has convinced regionalist conservatives that route might not be so hot. Economic growth is important to the ruling Liberals, as it is to the conservatives, and the Liberals are unwilling to go totally over to the truly purist reformers who are demanding wide-spread land reform. So a pro-growth, pro-modernization agenda becomes the basis for the national consensus. The Liberal Party is opposed by the National Party, the conservative party that forms in some level of opposition to the Liberals. The two switch back and forth, while a series of populist movements emerge either independently or as splinter of the Liberal Party.
 
Last edited:
When was oil discovered in Mexico?

if we could get Juarez to keep power we could have some things go right (I don't know what. I know almost nothing of Mexican history, except that Cinco de Mayo means 5th of May and has something to do with Juarez gaining power, not with the sinking of a boat called the May :)). Standard Oil could then pour a lot of investment dollars into Mexico to help stabilize it and at least create a workable middle class of oil workers and others, who can then pump more money into the Mexican economy.

Or did that happen and it failed, anyway? I don't know. All I know is, I feel sorry for Mexico. they're kind of like the Detroit Lions of history. With a bunch of Matt Millens in succession leading them.

Edit: Okay, I was typing while Matthias posted. Some good ideas; perhaps Standard Oil helps to finance the development of those telegraphs and railroads? After all, the money's got to come from somewhere.

While it's true that this would be, in large part, the Untied States helping to do it at first, this is at least helpful till they can get their own industry going. And, when the trust busting starts, it would be easy for the Mexican parts to then splinter off and become sucessful on their own. Perhaps with some compromise bones thrown tot he liberals in the form of their own laws to regulate the monopolies of the Mexican versions of Standard Oil, a few railroads, etc. From the Wikipedia article, it seems one of the largest problems, at first, was the 1917 Constitution's declaring all oil production was owned by the government, which hurt foreign investment. Perhaps if the exploratory oil driling hits something in the 1870s?
 
Last edited:
Hernando de Soto, the economist not the explorer has written long and hard on the problem of getting Latin America out of current morass of underdevelopment. It is not just the lack of money that kept Mexico down. Argentina rode an export commodity boom in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and is down today.

To raise up Mexico you have improve the rule of law to keep the abuses of the rich and powerful to a minimum. This means a change to a legal system more like the Anglo-American model.
 
Hernando de Soto, the economist not the explorer has written long and hard on the problem of getting Latin America out of current morass of underdevelopment. It is not just the lack of money that kept Mexico down. Argentina rode an export commodity boom in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and is down today.

To raise up Mexico you have improve the rule of law to keep the abuses of the rich and powerful to a minimum. This means a change to a legal system more like the Anglo-American model.
That would be interesting. Mabe it helps if Juarez lives longer?
 

wormyguy

Banned
It would look like part of America.

POD: America decides to annex the whole of Mexico after the Mexican-American war.

Sorry if that's a little simplistic, but its really the only plausible way modern day Mexico will be firmly in the first world.
 
Okay, this idea is more plausible than we give it credit for. In 1800, Mexico was home to the largest city in North America (Mexico City), its oldest university (the Royal and Pontifical University of Mexico), and probably its largest concentration of wealth. The problem of course was that the Viceroyalty of New Spain was a socially (and racially) stratified society with a political system that reinforced the power of elite groups and did not encourage the development of civil society. The problem for Mexico is 1) to manage the process of independence in such a way that caudillio-ism doesn't take root as a political tradition, 2) to manage that process in such a way that independence does not coincide with a mass capital flight, 3) to allow for greater immigration and population increase, to offet future pressures from the USA.

On one hand, the above requirments seem to call for rather drastic changes. On the other, there's a lots that's eminently butterfly-able: the invasion of Spain in 1807, for example, can be altered by any number of events in the French Revolution. Prevent that and the whole nature of the independence movement changes. Even later on, there are possibilities: one of the perenial problems in Mexico was a lack of investment capital, caused in part by the fact that the Treaty of Cordoba specifically allowed Spaniards to flee the country and called for the remission of a set amount of capital (imagine, say, if Britain had requried the USA in 1783 to pay back taxes for the past century, plus interest). A great many changes can change the nature of those negotiations in order to avoid the exodus of wealth. And of course, any significant hiccup in the USA's development would probably benefit Mexico.

I would agree that for Mexico to be the pre-emienent power in North America, the changes would have to much older and deeper: they would have to extend to the Spanish system of colonization and of colonial governance.
 
I've always thought there were situations in which Mexico could develop into a modest regional power in the Americas, but as Nicomacheus states, you have to go pretty far back and mess with the US founding as well as the Spanish Empire to make it the pre-eminent power in North America. I tend to imagine, however, that for Mexico to become a half-way decent regional power which the USA needs to consider, this would have to be as a client state of a bigger world power. The USA itself, France in the mid-late 1800's, perhaps Germany and or Italy in the 20th century. Maybe Russia or China later. None of this has anything to do with making Mexico a stable democracy. I see no reason Mexico could not grow into a nation to be reckoned even if it retained itspre-colonial and colonial systems of nobility and feudal land tenure benefitting only 1% of its population. All it needs is more powerful friends.
 
I tend to imagine, however, that for Mexico to become a half-way decent regional power which the USA needs to consider, this would have to be as a client state of a bigger world power. The USA itself, France in the mid-late 1800's, perhaps Germany and or Italy in the 20th century. Maybe Russia or China later.

First and foremost, it would need Britain.

None of this has anything to do with making Mexico a stable democracy. I see no reason Mexico could not grow into a nation to be reckoned even if it retained its pre-colonial and colonial systems of nobility and feudal land tenure benefiting only 1% of its population. All it needs is more powerful friends.

By civil society, I didn't mean democracy, so much as a rule of law (no perennial revolts, coups, and civil wars). While Mexico was not without laws, it lacked stability to the extent to which the rule of law floundered.

Now, I agree that the social system could have lasted longer and could have been more stable. However, I'd argue that in a country with the geography of Mexico (relatively sparsely populated in places with a great variety of terrain to form obstacles to an army) in the long run, stability will require the rule of law (or at least army-enforced rules). Part of the problem in OTL Mexico was that the mountain ranges, deserts, and jungles allowed dissident groups to retreat into the hinterland and plague the central government. The US government encountered similar difficulties when it tried to us federally directed police power on a local level (see Nullification Crisis, ACW). Allowing localities freedom to set their own policies and obey the laws was thus part and parcell of a liberal agenda whereas support for the central government was usually synonymous with a conservative one.

Property rights would also be important because the primary way that Britain and other Great Powers would come to view Mexico as a cause worthy of support would be if they had investments to protect. Note that we're probably taking about rights and rule of law more substantial, than say, that found in China or Russia today -- not a paragon of democratic property rights, but enough to convince a foreign investor to risk some capital.
 
When was oil discovered in Mexico?

if we could get Juarez to keep power we could have some things go right (I don't know what. I know almost nothing of Mexican history, except that Cinco de Mayo means 5th of May and has something to do with Juarez gaining power, not with the sinking of a boat called the May :)). Standard Oil could then pour a lot of investment dollars into Mexico to help stabilize it and at least create a workable middle class of oil workers and others, who can then pump more money into the Mexican economy.

Or did that happen and it failed, anyway? I don't know. All I know is, I feel sorry for Mexico. they're kind of like the Detroit Lions of history. With a bunch of Matt Millens in succession leading them.

Edit: Okay, I was typing while Matthias posted. Some good ideas; perhaps Standard Oil helps to finance the development of those telegraphs and railroads? After all, the money's got to come from somewhere.

While it's true that this would be, in large part, the Untied States helping to do it at first, this is at least helpful till they can get their own industry going. And, when the trust busting starts, it would be easy for the Mexican parts to then splinter off and become sucessful on their own. Perhaps with some compromise bones thrown tot he liberals in the form of their own laws to regulate the monopolies of the Mexican versions of Standard Oil, a few railroads, etc. From the Wikipedia article, it seems one of the largest problems, at first, was the 1917 Constitution's declaring all oil production was owned by the government, which hurt foreign investment. Perhaps if the exploratory oil driling hits something in the 1870s?

Vaguely.

Cinco de Mayo is irrelevant in the scheme of Mexican history. The only people who care about it are the people in Puebla, where the battle was fought.

It's much more widely celebrated in the US than in Mexico. In Mexico it's just annoying because they don't deliver mail on that day and all the banks are closed.
 
Top