StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I'm curious as to whether anyone else here has done a lot of studying on Mexican history (well, I haven't done a lot, but I had two upper division classes on Mexico that were very comprehensive).

In any case, one of the things you notice about Mexico in the early to mid 19th century was that the country was extremely unstable. There were something like 38 Presidents over the period from 1821-1855, with Santa Anna (the Mexican general who led the attack on the Alamo in Texas) being president something like 11 different times. This was, to some extent, very beneficial for the United States - Texas was able to break away, and Mexico was able to do very little when the US went to war in 1846.

There were some reasons for this, but I think that Mexico may have been considerably more stable without certain individuals, like Santa Anna. The question is, how would a much more stable Mexico affect the United States? Is it even possible for Mexico to be in such a state at the time (and I have my doubts)? Would this have blocked US western expansion, or was the differential in power so great that the US probably still would have stormed west?

But just as importantly, suppose that the US western expansion goes much slower because of this. How does it affect politics back on the eastern side of the Mississippi?

Well, suppose there was a Porfirio Diaz-type strongman in charge during the early years that kept the country held together firmly... and quashed various rebel movements. A strong, stable Mexico could have held off various American incursions, making American adventurism in the south more rare, and a bit more cautious.

I'd wager that our settling of the southwest would be more slow, and in some cases we would not have ben able to erode away as much of the north as we managed to get (although by sheer force of numbers we would have still Manifest Destiny'd our way-- Mexican settlement never even came close to the numbers of American settlement, I think we outnumbered them by something like 10 to 1 in some areas.)

Oddly enough, though, a stable Mexico means that the train system down there never got tore up (Pancho Villa used hijacked trains to transport his revolutionaries and their gear around; the government tore up the rails to limit his movement). If the rail system stays intact, you have a more economically stable and powerful Mexico. The Peso would not have been a 'toilet paper currency' and Mexico might even have been able to compete on the same level as, say, maybe Canada with regards to the United States. Mexico is blessed by an abundance of resources, really, but cursed by some of the most provincially-minded government.

You'd probably see Mexico as the "US of the south". Depending on if we played our cards right with them, they may have been a more powerful and willing proxy for us to go through during the years of mucking about with Central America. I'd even go so far as to say that probably most Central Americans would see Mexico as a powerful and willing co-conspirator with us Yanquis. I can see a powerful two-party democracy forming there as well-- a pro-business, pro-American party that is willing to oppress their fellow Hispanics for US benefit because of the economic boons they get from us; and another, probably leftist/socialist party that is more in tuned with 'fellow Latinos' and wants Mexico to shield the Central Americans from American predatory economics.

In all, it'd be 'somewhat better' for America (a better business partner, less incentive for illegal immigration) and 'way better' for Mexico, but Central America would probably still get the bone in new and creative ways.

Coyote wrote:Well, suppose there was a Porfirio Diaz-type strongman in charge during the early years that kept the country held together firmly... and quashed various rebel movements. A strong, stable Mexico could have held off various American incursions, making American adventurism in the south more rare, and a bit more cautious.

They definitely had warnings in the actual events that occurred - the leader of Mexico's liberation army (after Hidalgo's revolt failed), Agustin de Iturbide, actually warned about the threat of American colonization in 1821 or 1822. Presumably, had he been a more competent, Diaz-like leader then Mexico might have held together a lot better, although Mexico would not have turned into a republic so quickly.

Interestingly enough, in some of my readings for one of the classes, I read up that there was desire for a colonization program in Mexico to help settle the north a little more thickly because of the threat of American expansion, but they obviously got held up because of the chaos of Mexico in the early to mid- 19th century.

I'd wager that our settling of the southwest would be more slow, and in some cases we would not have ben able to erode away as much of the north as we managed to get (although by sheer force of numbers we would have still Manifest Destiny'd our way-- Mexican settlement never even came close to the numbers of American settlement, I think we outnumbered them by something like 10 to 1 in some areas.)

I think we still probably would have gotten Texas - or our support for Texan independence would become a direct thing. There were already large amounts of American settlers in Mexico by the late 1820s, and even assuming a Diaz-style strongman Mexico probably wouldn't have been able to do anything about it - Mexico was in ruins after 11 years of scattered guerrilla warfare and revolutionary battles following the failure of Hidalgo's revolt in 1810.

California's another interesting case. It revolted the same time as the 1846 war happened.

Oddly enough, though, a stable Mexico means that the train system down there never got tore up (Pancho Villa used hijacked trains to transport his revolutionaries and their gear around; the government tore up the rails to limit his movement). If the rail system stays intact, you have a more economically stable and powerful Mexico. The Peso would not have been a 'toilet paper currency' and Mexico might even have been able to compete on the same level as, say, maybe Canada with regards to the United States. Mexico is blessed by an abundance of resources, really, but cursed by some of the most provincially-minded government.

Keep in mind that Mexico more or less didn't have a major train system prior to Diaz's ascension in 1876 - they had something like 300 miles of track, which is pretty pathetic. Mind you, had Mexico had some stability earlier on, that might not have been the case.

I think some kind of reckoning was coming though, and Pancho Villa was only part of it. The Diaz period may have industrialized the country to some extent and greatly economically empowered it, but the human costs were staggering - most Mexicans suffered tremendously from it. Perhaps if Madero hadn't been so incapable of guiding a democratic transition, or if Carranza had assumed the presidency . . .

You'd probably see Mexico as the "US of the south". Depending on if we played our cards right with them, they may have been a more powerful and willing proxy for us to go through during the years of mucking about with Central America. I'd even go so far as to say that probably most Central Americans would see Mexico as a powerful and willing co-conspirator with us Yanquis. I can see a powerful two-party democracy forming there as well-- a pro-business, pro-American party that is willing to oppress their fellow Hispanics for US benefit because of the economic boons they get from us; and another, probably leftist/socialist party that is more in tuned with 'fellow Latinos' and wants Mexico to shield the Central Americans from American predatory economics.

That depends. Keep in mind that the leftist/socialist side didn't really emerge wholesale until after the Revolution of 1910. Before that (up until mid-19th century and the Benito Juarez era), the main division was between the more secular, pro-republic people like Juarez who supported a secular, federalist, democratic government, and the more "centralist", conservative people (including the Catholic Church), who more or less wanted New Spain with a monarch ruling it directly. Assuming a Diaz-style strongman, the "leftist" side may never have emerged, particularly if said strongman came from the conservative side of the aisle.

In all, it'd be 'somewhat better' for America (a better business partner, less incentive for illegal immigration) and 'way better' for Mexico, but Central America would probably still get the bone in new and creative ways.

I agree on this.

Iturbide was made Mexican Emperor, but refused to accept a constitution, so he was deposed. Had he accepted a constitution, Mexico would have been rather formidable to attack, and at the time possessed all of Central America except British Honduras (Belize) and the Mosquito Coast (coastal Nicaragua and southern Honduras on the Atlantic side, a British protectorate), and Panama, part of Gran Colombia. I think the biggest challenge to Mexico in that timeline would be the Gold Rush of the 1850s--if they mistreat the Protestant settlers, there's bound to be a Gold Rush-style war. The question is whether or not the USA survives; without Texas as a slave state, the balance between slave/free states would have been broken sooner, and the civil war might have started at a period when it was winnable for the South.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Iturbide was made Mexican Emperor, but refused to accept a constitution, so he was deposed. Had he accepted a constitution, Mexico would have been rather formidable to attack, and at the time possessed all of Central America except British Honduras (Belize) and the Mosquito Coast (coastal Nicaragua and southern Honduras on the Atlantic side, a British protectorate), and Panama, part of Gran Colombia. I think the biggest challenge to Mexico in that timeline would be the Gold Rush of the 1850s--if they mistreat the Protestant settlers, there's bound to be a Gold Rush-style war. The question is whether or not the USA survives; without Texas as a slave state, the balance between slave/free states would have been broken sooner, and the civil war might have started at a period when it was winnable for the South.

I don't know whether Iturbide could have gotten away with a Constitution had he accepted it - the conservative faction in the Mexican government (the Catholic Church and much of the Criollo - white european but not born in Spain - elite) was not in favor of Republicanism (witness the fact that many of its members actively colluded with Maximilian in 1862), and they were still quite strong at this time. Iturbide had had to make major compromises to those guys in the Plan de Iguala, and I can't see him consciously signing that away without getting deposed.

As for the south, Mexico lost Guatemala and the rest of the south pretty quickly - Guatemala left in 1823 or 1824, I believe, and peacefully.

I still think Texas would have broken away, eventually, although whether or not that's a permanent thing is in question - I can't remember if Mexico had any real competent generals at that time other than Santa Anna (which wasn't saying much).

Guardsman Bass wrote:
I don't know whether Iturbide could have gotten away with a Constitution had he accepted it - the conservative faction in the Mexican government (the Catholic Church and much of the Criollo - white european but not born in Spain - elite) was not in favor of Republicanism (witness the fact that many of its members actively colluded with Maximilian in 1862), and they were still quite strong at this time. Iturbide had had to make major compromises to those guys in the Plan de Iguala, and I can't see him consciously signing that away without getting deposed.

As for the south, Mexico lost Guatemala and the rest of the south pretty quickly - Guatemala left in 1823 or 1824, I believe, and peacefully.

I still think Texas would have broken away, eventually, although whether or not that's a permanent thing is in question - I can't remember if Mexico had any real competent generals at that time other than Santa Anna (which wasn't saying much).

Well, I meant a monarchist constitution with Iturbide as Emperor, but limited by it.

Another fascinating possibility--some of Napoleon's old guard did settle in Mexico, after all--is if Joseph Bonaparte, then residing in the United States, was offered the throne after the traditional monarchies refused it.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:

Guardsman Bass wrote:
I don't know whether Iturbide could have gotten away with a Constitution had he accepted it - the conservative faction in the Mexican government (the Catholic Church and much of the Criollo - white european but not born in Spain - elite) was not in favor of Republicanism (witness the fact that many of its members actively colluded with Maximilian in 1862), and they were still quite strong at this time. Iturbide had had to make major compromises to those guys in the Plan de Iguala, and I can't see him consciously signing that away without getting deposed.

As for the south, Mexico lost Guatemala and the rest of the south pretty quickly - Guatemala left in 1823 or 1824, I believe, and peacefully.

I still think Texas would have broken away, eventually, although whether or not that's a permanent thing is in question - I can't remember if Mexico had any real competent generals at that time other than Santa Anna (which wasn't saying much).

Well, I meant a monarchist constitution with Iturbide as Emperor, but limited by it.

Like some form of constitutional monarchy? That's a possibility, although Iturbide would have had to have been far more competent at governing than he was historically to pull it off.

I think eventually they would have hit a snag with the Catholic Church in Mexico, though. Every time the leaders of Mexico tried to change some privilege the Catholic Church had (like having clergy only being tried in special ecclesiastical courts), the church cried "Religion y fueros!" and fanned a civil war.

Another fascinating possibility--some of Napoleon's old guard did settle in Mexico, after all--is if Joseph Bonaparte, then residing in the United States, was offered the throne after the traditional monarchies refused it.

I don't know much about Joseph Bonaparte. How competent was he in politics and/or military matters? All I know is that he was Napoleon's brother.

One thing to keep in mind is that Mexican politics got deeply polarized, and fast. Of course, if Bonaparte was a better politician than Iturbide, then that might not have been such a problem, although he still might have trouble with the pro-republicans in early Mexico.

An interesting side question - how "settled" was the South at this time, in terms of plantation expansion into new areas like Texas and beyond the Atlantic Coast southern states and Louisiana? Assuming slavery tensions come to the forefront sooner, it could make a difference on whether there is an outright revolt or not.

Something I forgot-- most American settlement to the West was concentrated on the Louisiana Purchase territories and the '54-40 or fight' line: they wanted Washington and Oregon so they could open trade to Asia-- California didn't really become an issue until teh gold rush. (I'm not saying it was off the radar entirely, but it was not the center of attention).

But more interesting was that the Phillippenes was governed out of Mexico, since Spain was too far away. America wante dtrade with Asia; Mexico through its Phillippenes proxy already had a foothold-- we might have seen a Mexico-US naval war erupt. Depending on how things could have gone with Russia (Tsar Alexander was pro-American, at least during 1812, would it have continued?) we might have seen a Mexico-Japan team vs. a US-Russia team in 1902... odd.

Coyote wrote:But more interesting was that the Phillippenes was governed out of Mexico, since Spain was too far away.

There is no feasible way for Mexico to hang on to the full extent of the Viceroyalty of New Spain (including the Philippines, Cuba, et al.), to the point that it's not even really worth thinking about. The Spanish navy, while obviously no first-rate outfit, was at least second-rate, which put it well ahead of Mexico's non-existent navy and minimal shipbuilding infrastructure. Any claims on these territories were purely administrative, anyway, and would lapse as soon as independence was achieved.