Well for starters, Guerrero wining fair and square that would mean that Manuel Gomez Pedraza would be his vice president and not Bustamante who won in third place OTL and was a major mover of the coup that overthrew Guerrero. Guerrero would still face the issue of his liberal federalist policies enraging the centralists while his attempt to establish federal taxes would enrage the regional oligarchs who then accused him of being a centralist giving an opening to the absolute worst guy ever (Santa Ana) to also lead the coup against Guerrero. What I have been able to gather so far, and I still have a lot that I still need to read on this specific subject, I have the following.
A legitimate Guerrero administration may not arouse as many suspicions from those who thought he wanted to become a despot, but the only way he could pull things off is if he makes some strategic decisions. For example, maybe putting Lucas Alaman in charge of finances and then tasking him with designing the invasion of Cuba. That would keep him busy and focused helping Guerrero. The two agreed on the need for education and industrialization, and maybe that common ground could be enough to keep Alaman on Guerrero's side...and Alaman's financial acumen couldn't hurt the issue of the bankruptcy that the government was facing. If Alaman strikes a deal to support some of Guerrero's liberal programs in exchange for waiting on electoral reforms and leaving the church alone, Guerroro might avoid a coup. That's quite a good fair number of "ifs" but could be doable.
An obstacle to the government's finances was the lack of any real taxation power (much like the US before Hamilton got his way). The States saw taxation as their exclusive right and would even tax interstate commerce, which didn't help the economy. This is a huge obstacle for Guerrero because he is damned if he doesn't tax and damned if he does. If he avoids asking for extraordinary powers from Congress and simply asks congress to do the dirty work for him, and with enough politicking to get enough votes, maybe Congress can pass some sort of tax and help curb some of the interstate commerce tax from the individual states to help the government build some revenue and also help out the economy a tad bit.
With Lucas Alaman in the cabinet, he could maybe give his Banco de Avio an early start, which would benefit Mexico's domestic industry. And after defeating the Spanish reconquista movement, Guerrero could potentially score a new loan from either the British or the US, or two smaller loans from both of them which would give him enough to build up his naval project, pay and fund his army, and subsidize education and Alaman's bank. Alaman would certainly support Guerrero's raising of an army and small navy to invade Cuba. So let's say that if a coup attempt actually happens, ITTL Guerrero hasn't lost his liberal allies and has gained some moderate allies and even some conservatives refuse to participate thanks to Alaman's influence.
There's a complication in the form of a centralist revolt in Yucatan which is a bit complicated in latter part of 1829, the same rebellion that Guerrero in the OTL left his post as president to go fight which gave Bustamante an opening to launch his coup. I can see Guerrero doing the same exact thing, but this time it would be Pedraza who would remain in Mexico city. And if Guerrero managed to avoid asking for extraordinary powers and using the Congress allayed the fears of the regional oligarchs, that might avoid a liberal backed coup which is what happened when Bustamante and liberals who used to be allied to Guerrero joined that revolt. (It's the chronology of this and the specific revolt Guerrero was fighting that I am not so sure about, I am running into a few blind spots in my knowledge here). T
So Guerrero manages to survive as president into the new year and finishes his first year of his term. Mexico is still basically in the same spot as it was when he started, although there is some money thanks to a loan and thanks to defeating Spain's latest Reconquista, some people are starting to wonder if Mexico might actually survive. A lot people thought Mexico would soon fall back under Spanish rule which served as a strong roadblock to recognition and trade and investment. It's constant rebellions and insolvency did not help disabuse people of that notion.
Guerrero would do best to continue focusing on the deal made with Alaman, and respond to a second Scottish rite based attack from centralists that is bound to happen. The next question is that of Texas. Stephen Austin appeared to be a big fan of Guerrero, although I am not sure what the abolishing of slavery would do to that appeal, it may not really mean anything until Mexico attempts to enforce abolition in Texas. If this results in an earlier attempt to leave, it could be early enough that Guerrero could just use the fleet and army meant for Cuba to crush the early Texan revolt, expel the rebels and confiscate their land to sell to European or Mexican settlers. I doubt the US of 1830 would fight a war on those grounds.
Another possibility for Texas could be a compromise, Texas gets its statehood in exchange for compensated abolition (which was dictated for anyway in Guerrero’s OTL proclamation) over an predetermined number of years with Austin being appointed as governer. It could potentially work. The problem is that a state of Tejas led by anglo settlers would not be very helpful in preventing more settlers and enforcing abolition. A Texan revolt would probably end up happening eventually when the federal government forces the issue. So the deal would be this:
Texas is a state
Slavery is abolished through mandatory compensated manumission
New Anglo-Americans can be admitted but at a quota dependent on Mexican and European settlers
Angloamericans must learn Spanish and convert to Catholicism
Only those born in Mexico could hold office, original settlers that arrived with Austin can be grandfathered in.
OTL, there was one major settlement of Mexicans in southern Texas, ITTL we could see more than one to help balance out the system. This could work for a few years, and would solve the issue of Texas for a few years. Obviously the Anglo-Americans will not hold up their end of the bargain and will cheat a fair bit. This would meet the demands they were making in the OTL, and Austin’s trip to Mexico City in 1833 was for this end, but he was jailed which I doubt Guerrero would have done. So let’s say the deal is made in 1831 and in 1833 you have a few Mexican settlements in southern and eastern Texas with maybe a German settlement. If anyone in Mexico City was smart, they’d go to New York City and look for some good Catholic Irish settlers. Texas will still have an Anglo-American majority but not as unbalanced as in OTL. So let’s say this route is taken, and no war.
That leaves us with another matter, the old peninsulars who still lived in Mexico. Pedraza’s refusal to deport them was a part of the popular uprising that placed Guerrero in office in the OTL. So with Guerrero in from day 1, then comes the final push to expel the Spaniards. If anyone has a brain, they could confiscate their wealth while they are at it, it would go a long way to helping out Mexico’s finances, maybe even pay for some presidios (forts) in the north to help deal with Native American raids. There were some 70,000 Spaniards in Mexico in the early republic…depending on who you ask. The problem was that the Treaty of Cordoba safeguarded the Spaniards in Mexico, but they were hated by everyone who wasn’t a royalist Criollo and played a roll in the 1829 Reconquista attempt. Some of the first expulsions limited the Spaniards to taking with them only a third of their wealth. Guerrero at first was all about defending the Spaniards, but then when their betrayal was made known in 1829, he abandoned their cause. So ITTL we can assume that he would continue down that path and with the dire need of money, maybe he could prohibit the remaining Spaniards from taking much of their wealth with them and confiscate their properties. He could also target Spaniards who claimed Mexican citizenship, it would get ugly and I can see another centralist revolt with sympathetic and opportunistic centralists joining with those Spaniards to fight off Guerroro’s move.
1832-1833 would be dictated by Guerrero’s willingness to leave the Church alone, if he does that he might just make it till 1833. Then there is one more problem. Consecutive reelections are prohibited by the 1824 constitution. A new person will need to become president. I can see Pedraza gunning for it, then there’s Santa Ana (if he’s still around), Valentin Gomez Farias and a few other contenders. Beating Santa Ana if he didn’t get taken down with the coup attempt, will be difficult as he led the army that defeated the Spanish invasion in 1829. Putting Santa Ana in office would mean death for the First Federalist Republic. If he did get caught up in that rebellion, it could very well be Gomez vs Pedraza and I can see Pedraza winning.
Pedraza would become president on April 1st 1833. In the OTL the remaining revolts were a result of the Coup against Guerrero and counter revolts which ended in 1832 more or less. But this wasn’t the end of revolts in general. When Centralism was proclaimed several revolts broke out in the states in 1834 and 1835 including Yucatan and Texas. ITTL, Federalism is still a thing in April 1st 1833. I am not sure how Pedraza would run. Would he keep Alaman in the cabinet? That’s up in the air. Would they finally proceed with the invasion of Cuba? I find it unlikely, maybe step up David Porter’s raids against Spanish ships in the region until recognition from Spain finally came. TTL’s Mexico is much more stable than OTL’s, and now has a third constitutional president and no deposed presidents.
Pedraza is facing several problems. Mexico’s mines are ruined, some may be operating but nowhere near the levels of pre independence period. The state oligarchs are feverishly guarding their sovereignty and making interstate commerce nearly impossible and that’s not even counting the lack of infrastructure and the rough terrain and sparsely populated north facing raids by Native Americans. Pedraza is bound to have to fight Zacatecas, Rio Grande, Texas and maybe even Yucatan anyway if he attempts to force the issue of interstate commerce and taxation. It may not be as bad as the revolts in the OTL, but it would consume his administration. But he was more of a moderate, from what I have been able to gather, so maybe he’ll tread cautiously and only have to deal with some minor instances of a caudillo attempting to gain a following only to be crushed by quick military campaigns.
In the OTL, Spain didn’t recognize Mexican independence till 1836. Fernando VII died in 1833, Isabella II’s regent went a bit liberal to gain allies to fight the Carlists. What if a stronger naval campaign by David Porter (which was cancelled in the OTL a few years earlier) resulted in landing some troops in Cuba which finally forced the regent to recognize Mexico a bit earlier. Maybe the invasion could happen in 1834, not a full scale successful invasion mind you. And by the end of the year you get a treaty which makes Pedraza super popular which he can use to defend himself from uprisings. But not the Texan uprising which is bound to happen during his term or by 1840 at the latest.
Like I said, Anglo-Americans fail to honor their part of the deal wholesale and now Mexico has to lay down the law. This causes a war that Pedraza now has to pacify in 1835-1836. Now, we don’t have a cowardly Santa Ana leading the charge, so the Battle of the Alamo doesn’t get as bloody and isn’t as big of a rallying call to “Texans and all Americans in the world” and the battle of San Jancito at most is just a minor embarrassing defeat for Mexican forces. Unless the US moves to intervene, Houston will eventually lose and in this scenario US intervention is not as likely as it was in the OTL. You can’t really keep the Centralists at bay for ever. Eventually they’ll do what they did in the original timeline. And at the end of Pedraza’s term either a centralist wins the next election or the next noncentralist loses and a church and army backed revolt takes the presidency. In any rate, by 1837, the first federalist republic would have existed for 13 years (one year longer than the OTL) and only had 3 or 4 presidents as opposed to 9 with some of them swapping back and forth. You would see something like the Seven Laws and Centralism taking hold, provoking revolts…maybe the Pastry War happens again maybe the French get a bloody nose thanks to Mexico’s larger navy and stronger army in this timeline and they are forced to be more reasonable with their demands.
There could be and earlier Mexican-American War which will have very similar results or it could similarly not happen until 1846 with Polk’s administration. The best Mexico can do is something like the maps in
this post. Long story short, Mexico would still be unstable, financially unsecure, and might still be dealing with some of the issues that made its army in the OTL ineffective.
For example, thanks to lack of funds and some corruption, Mexico’s gunpowder supplies were tainted. They caused weapons to malfunction regularly and made everything form rifles to artillery immensely inaccurate. Maybe this Mexico would have better gunpowder. Santa Ana is a problem in the OTL, no Santa Ana in this time line. Thanks to the establishment of the Centralist republic, the states were either in open rebellion or simply stood by and refused to participate in the war effort. ITTL, Mexico would still have these issues to some degree, but not as drastic so we can imagine a few Mexican victories that would slow down the US. So Mexico is able to maybe sue for peace or accept an offer it can’t refuse and thus not lose as much land.
This is a really long way for me to say that yes, Mexico could be better put together and look differently with your scenario. However, Guerrero winning the election is not the magic pill that will make Mexico a regional power. It will make it better in some areas, and not so much in other areas. It may be bigger land wise, it could catch some of the action of the California gold rush. Maybe even avoid defaulting on its debts after TTL’s version of the reform wars which means Napoleon III would have a much harder time invading Mexico and he would have to do it from the get go all on his own. Perhaps this means we can avoid a porfiriato, but I’m not sold on the idea if that’s a good or bad thing…or maybe there’d be a different porfiriato or perhaps a shorter one that would allow Mexico to do in the late 1800s what it did in the 1920s, maybe the so called “Mexican Miracle” could happen during the Great Depression setting up Mexico to being a bit more developed post world war 2. It would simply be more developed than most of Latin America but still a “developing” nation with various problems. And this is if a lot of things go right!
I just don’t think Guerrero winning the election would be a strong enough POD to do much other than create a similar Mexico that has had a little bit better luck but still largely the same as the Mexico we know and love today.
Anyway, this is a large response but I found it fun to write up.
