Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

1821 Mexico rejects constitutional monarchy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 1821 Mexico rejects constitutional monarchy

    In 1821 when Mexico finally breaks with Spain they adopt a constitution and democraticly elected weak federal government along the lines of the US at the time rather than a constitutional monarchy with a European-style constitution guarrenteeing social and economic justice. Further, Mexico rejects the Catholic Church as a state religion and allows religious choice and freedom.
    In the following years Mexico, like the US, tries to actually populate their more vacant land areas and encourages immigration into them. Assume that the government that resulted from this was reasonably stable like the US one became.

    What would Mexico look like today if that had happened rather than it having a series of defacto monarchs and dictators running the nation with a state religion and a political attitude that mirrored that of Spain, France, or Italy?

  • #2
    This seems like a potientilly educational thread, but I dont think the usual suspects will have much to say. Maybe someone who frequents the colonial era forums can be recruited?

    Comment


    • #3
      I was hoping to discuss the implications of a Mexico that is more like the US or Canada and one that as a result retained Texas and the Southwest US in their possession through allowing liberal immigration policies.

      Comment


      • #4
        Wouldn't it be great if they had?
        It was assumed in the US that this was what would happen, and that we would have a friendly and prosperous neighbor to the south and west... something fervently desired after the War of 1812.

        However, things didn't work out that way.
        Santa Anna played a large part in that, but it was the system that allowed him to be so abusive opened the door to his ilk in the first place, and ultimately doomed Mexico.
        US westward expansion was essentially a plunge into a vacuum.
        Not that the desert south-west is ever going to be filled with much... ever been there? Vast, vast stretches of just nothing as far as the eye can see. Never saw anything like it until I went to Arabia, which was pretty much the same, terrain-wise.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
          In 1821 when Mexico finally breaks with Spain they adopt a constitution and democraticly elected weak federal government along the lines of the US at the time rather than a constitutional monarchy with a European-style constitution guarrenteeing social and economic justice.


          Mexico had a monarchy for all of about 6 non-consecutive years. The 19th century saw them going through constitutions and 'republics' again and again- choosing to be a republic 2 years earlier than they first became one in 1823 changes nothing, unless the hypothetical means that Mexico will somehow become completely immune to coups, and counts usurpers and dictators as 'monarchs'.
          Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
          And sorry I could not travel both
          And be one traveler, long I stood
          ...
          Two roads diverged in a wood, and I,
          I took the one less traveled by,
          And that has made all the difference.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Duke Maynard View Post


            Mexico had a monarchy for all of about 6 non-consecutive years. The 19th century saw them going through constitutions and 'republics' again and again- choosing to be a republic 2 years earlier than they first became one in 1823 changes nothing, unless the hypothetical means that Mexico will somehow become completely immune to coups, and counts usurpers and dictators as 'monarchs'.
            I'm assuming... assuming... here that they manage to produce a stable constitutional democracy along the lines of the US. That means no monarchs, no dictators, no corrupt "republics."

            I know that is a stretch but this is an alternate history and I'm exploring the result of Mexico being more like Canada or the US in terms of stability and expansion.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
              I'm assuming... assuming... here that they manage to produce a stable constitutional democracy along the lines of the US. That means no monarchs, no dictators, no corrupt "republics."
              Yeah, I see that, and like I said, that is what Americans thought would happen in Mexico, and wanted it badly.
              I used to think that the US Constitution wasn't just a cultural thing, and if applied as written, it could serve anyone in the world equally well.
              But now, I doubt it. Most people just don't believe in themselves in the way it would require to even take the plunge.


              Anywho... so, what if they did-
              All positive, across the board. The US has less territory, primarily empty deserts. Mexico gains the ability to populate and govern said lands due to the fact that it now has a sociolo-econimic system that can attract the immigration it needs to do so.
              Westward expansion of Slavery is no longer an issue... would the Civil War have happened?
              US expansion to Oregon and Alaska would still happen, Hawaii becomes a question mark, and thus US involvement in WW2 also becomes doubtful.
              The Spanish-American war should not have happened at all in this case, we would look at the Cuba situation and nudge Mexico; "Hey, why don't YOU take care of this thing?"

              Having an equally prosperous and free nation to our north has been 100% beneficial to us, why not one on the South as well?
              Family-oriented, good religious foundation and work-ethic (not kidding here, when was the last time you saw a homeless Latino Bum?) and little to fight over once the border is settled... and that's not such a stretch to imagine. Polk had a serious up-hill fight just getting the country to the Oregon coast, the war with Mexico sent him to an early grave.

              I can't see a down-side here.

              -even better, Mexico could have exported a strictly Consistutional system to the rest of Latin America, without the usual belly-aching about Yankee interference. Its possible that we could have had nations with high standards of individual liberty, prosperity and an absence of aristocrats all the way down to the Brazilian border.

              Dang.... anyone got a time-machine?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Exorcist View Post
                Having an equally prosperous and free nation to our north has been 100% beneficial to us, why not one on the South as well?
                Strong neighbors hamper territorial expansion. Long have the Maple Leaf tyrants blocked the glorious forces of the American motherland () from annexing the 13 more northern coloni- I mean provinces.

                But I just don't see a stable Mexico emerging from the 1821 revolution. Perhaps an Empire under someone other than Iturbide might have produced more stable formative years- Maximillian wasn't doing to poorly, but he inherited a nation already beset by 60 years of coups and an ongoing insurgency. The aid given to the rebels by the United States was of no help either.
                Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
                And sorry I could not travel both
                And be one traveler, long I stood
                ...
                Two roads diverged in a wood, and I,
                I took the one less traveled by,
                And that has made all the difference.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Duke Maynard View Post
                  But I just don't see a stable Mexico emerging from the 1821 revolution.
                  Yeah, but the point of the thread is what if they had.

                  I guess you could say that Latin America didn't have the right tradition... ownership in Spanish Colonies was based on ownership of people, whereas in the north it was based on ownership of land.
                  BUt, what if the US had mounted an aggressive campaign of propaganda and material support after 1815?
                  Maybe fear of getting into a war with Spain right after one with Britain would have held DC back, but wouldn't that have been a small risk?

                  I'm amazed Draco has nothing at all to say about this... too rational a discussion?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'd think that South America would likely still be screwed up but Central America with a better Mexican influence wouldn't be. Those nations might even see becoming part of Mexico as a good thing in this case.
                    The other effect is that the US is now one of three rival, but friendly, powers on the North American continent.
                    It likely would have solved the slavery issue without the US having a civil war as a Mexico retaining its northern land areas cuts off expansion of slave states while the non-slave ones would have still expaned west eventually reaching the Pacific coast.

                    Comment

                    Latest Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X