What would Greater Mexico/New Spain evolve to?

I am curious as to how a Mexican Empire or New Spain that did not lose its land to the United States would look like to today. Would it be progressive or conservative. How would it take to immigration. What conflicts internally would evolve? Would it be the Great Power of the Americas? Would the government be stable. And so forth?
 

FDW

Banned
Well, Greater Mexico would certainly be a great power, something to be reckoned with. I imagine that that it would have rather poor relations with the US (due to US incursion attempts).
 
Depending on what happens to the US, I imagine a greater Mexico would curb both massive US expansion and the US's ability to become a dominant world power. They might be rivals, opposing one another in wars, or whatever.

I'd be interested in this Mexico's relations towards Spain.
 
Much depends on where you place your POD, but by definition it would have to be more stable and better organized than OTL Mexico by the 1840s to hold off the US. Presumably if a US similar to OTL exists in this TL, we can't have a POD much before the 1750s, or the butterflies will really flap. Does it include Louisiana? How about central America? If it is a kingdom/empire, is it's king the King of Spain in exile or a cadet branch like in Brazil? If it is a republic, when was the Revolution? There are too many bad legacies in place from the colonial era by the 1750s for Mexico to match the US in strength in the 19th century unless the US is somehow crippled or broken up before the 1830s, but in might catch up in the 20th. If the US manages to get Louisiana without too much bitterness, they might manage to get along: the US after all reaches the Pacific in Oregon fairly early on, and aside from the gold in California the southwestern deserts aren't that attractive. (If new Spain includes Louisiana and is unwilling to sell, I predict bitter conflict is inevitable, but the US might well sicken of war before it goes as far as taking Texas and California, and there's always the possibility the UK allies itself with a strong(er) Mexico against US expansionism).

I think if the US gets Louisiana and the Pacific Northwest, it will still grow into a superpower: the loss of Texas, California and the Southwest do deprive it of some valuable real estate, agriculture, and raw materials, but it remains the most desirable of settler colonies, and will almost certainly gain the population it needs: and California isn't that important to the US as a whole before the 20th century. And the US can always buy Mexican oil. Of course, the US will become less attractive if it is in a constant state of militarized cold war with Mexico, but, as I said, I doubt 19th century Mexico will be strong enough to force the US into a garrison state status, although it may maintain a standing army of semi-respectable size, rather than the near-joke it usually reverted to in peacetime before 1945.

Bruce
 
Last edited:
Even without Louisiana or the Northwest, the US should do quite well by itself. Mexico/New Spain might never really develop (due to a lack of population) the northern territories.

And oil was discovered in Pennsylvania before Texas (and in fact Pennsylvanian experts played a role in Texas OTL), not sure what happened to that by 1900, but it was something.
 
Oh, the US could probably do pretty well without the Louisiana territory: I just think it's too remote from Mexico's population centers to hold onto when US settlers start coming west (the Canada analogy might be raised as an objection, but US settlers are going to be rather less receptive to a Hispanic Catholic rule than British Protestant one, and in any event the infrastructure to absorb them is lacking outside of Louisiana proper).

Bruce
 
This depends on what happens in the US, but Mexico really needs to make a point of settling its northern territories if it's gonna hold onto them.

If California has a gold rush/boom while still part of Mexico, that might help a lot.

If Mexico is more attractive to immigration than OTL that might help, and also create a very different Mexico.
 
This depends on what happens in the US, but Mexico really needs to make a point of settling its northern territories if it's gonna hold onto them.

If California has a gold rush/boom while still part of Mexico, that might help a lot.

If Mexico is more attractive to immigration than OTL that might help, and also create a very different Mexico.

Political stability would be a big help. People are less likely to move to somewhere with frequent (and often violent or extra-legal) changes of government type.

Bruce
 
How much of the immigration into the USA would divert to Mexico? And what kind of policies towards immigrants are likely in Mexico?
 
Political stability would be a big help. People are less likely to move to somewhere with frequent (and often violent or extra-legal) changes of government type.

Bruce

Politically stable Republican Mexico and America end up as strong allies, much like France and the UK.

By the 1950s, the Norteamericanos are known across the world for being insuffferable.
 
Politically stable Republican Mexico and America end up as strong allies, much like France and the UK.

By the 1950s, the Norteamericanos are known across the world for being insuffferable.

Well, that's a best case scenario...except perhaps for those nations which find them annoying. :)

Bruce
 

elkarlo

Banned
Maybe a Brazil like parting from Spain would let mexico stay stable, and not bankrupt Spain. Allowing for immigration and investment to flow in asnwell
 
I imagine the northerly territories that in otl are in the US would still become inundated with English speaking settlers. Mexico would have to come to some sort of arrangement with them to avoid Texan style revolutions. They would likely become a major political constituency over the 19th century.
 
It would lose everything north of the Tropics and all caribbean posessions (Cuba, Hispaniola, Puerto Rcio)

But TBH, my "Greater Mexico" is the First Mexican Empire, Panama, Spanish Caribbean, and the Philippines.
 
How much of the immigration into the USA would divert to Mexico? And what kind of policies towards immigrants are likely in Mexico?

Me thinks that the Mexican government would encourage Catholics and southern Europeans. So expect more Irish, Germanic Catholics and Italians immigrating into Mexico, especially towards the northern territories to counter any Anglo immigration.
 
I imagine the northerly territories that in otl are in the US would still become inundated with English speaking settlers. Mexico would have to come to some sort of arrangement with them to avoid Texan style revolutions. They would likely become a major political constituency over the 19th century.

Why?

If Mexico is a viable government, why would they revolt? Italians didn't try to secede from America when they moved to New York.
 
Why?

If Mexico is a viable government, why would they revolt? Italians didn't try to secede from America when they moved to New York.

Considering that the Texas Rebellion started out as a series of complaints that the settlers had about lacking any kind of representation (first one, being lumped up with what nowadays is Tamaulipas, Coahuila and Nuevo León), a more stable and sane government would have allowed the representation they deserved and that they should have had. So, there's the end of any Texian revolt.

Inmigration to Mexico would consist of Irish, French, Italians, and German Catholics; possibly Lebanese and Armenian immigrants later on, and East Asians in the last legs of the 19th century/early 20th, once the agricultural boom in the Colorado River starts.
 
I think it was inevitable that Mexico was going to lose those largely uninhabited territories to the Unites States since the US had a population 3 times as large. In fact Mexico is fortunate it didn't lose more.

My version of Greater Mexico is if Mexico manages to hold on to Central America even in an autonomous capacity. That would give Mexico a larger population and a wider strategic reach. For example it might be possible for them to make a canal before the Panama Canal. I think in that situation Mexico might be considered a sort of middle power equivalent to Italy or Spain. It might be a little more active in global affairs.
 
Why?

If Mexico is a viable government, why would they revolt? Italians didn't try to secede from America when they moved to New York.

Depends about where we're talking: Texas is one thing, but northern Louisiana is rather another. New York wasn't wide open plains inhabited only by soon-too-be-disposed-of Indians. Also, your average Italian didn't think of himself or herself as inherently superior to the people running the US (well, not much :D ), and Italy didn't have a 1000-mile border with the US east coast, higher standards of living, and powerful armies ready to march to the aid of their people if they claimed they were being mistreated. :)

Bruce
 
I think it was inevitable that Mexico was going to lose those largely uninhabited territories to the Unites States since the US had a population 3 times as large. In fact Mexico is fortunate it didn't lose more.

.

Well, Mexico and the US were about the same in population in 1800: it's just that the US grew a lot faster. A stable Mexico sans the bloodletting of civil wars and attractive to immigrants might grow rather more: indeed, OTL it grew rather slower than some other parts of Latin America. If it grew as fast as, say, Brazil (which had a relatively stable 19th century), Mexico+Central America would have close to 49 million people by the end of the 19th century, comparing respectably to the 76 million of the USA. Heck, a Mexico including Texas and the Southwest could be rather more attractive than tropical Brazil to immigrants.

Bruce
 
Top