What went wrong /his/? And could it have been saved?

>>91580
If they weren't Mexicans. The primary job of Latin American politicians is fighting each other.

>>91580
Reagan amnesty

Another question, why did Mexico survive as such a large country, but Central America fractured? Geographical separation because of mountains?

>>91580

Santa Anna.

Him being assassinated early on would have helped.

Also brazil is the only american country that has any legitimacy to be a monarchy.

>>91758

Well mexico lost both central america and the southwest, it did lose land. Also they had multible sucessionist groups (especialy in the yuctan) that have attemped to break of.

Central America attempted to stay unified but political differances between the liberals and conservatives shattered their country.

>>91580
Mexico is a shit hole, why would giving it more land be better? There's a reason tons of Mexicans flee illegally to the US, and only criminals trying to outrun the police try to get into that lawless wasteland known as Mexico.

It might have been nice if America just annexed the whole thing.

Maybe if Maximilian had won, Mexico might be a decent nation today. But that didn't happen.

Manifest Faggotry.

The simple inclination of any human society to to subjugate and steal from another society for the sole reason that they can. The natives and chicanos were doing it before the white man, and the white man was doing it before they met the natives.

>>91580

Weak minded people with weak bodies got rekt by superior Europeans

>>91801

America would have just been thrown into civil war quicker with all the extra land (free vs slave debate over all of mexico and mexican sucessionists). Do wish America helped the other mexican sucessionist groups out though.

How would Maximilian gain legitimacy to rule Mexico though? The man faced oposition by liberals and conservatives. Also assuming america hasn't sundered themselves at all, they will start to arm the rebulicans in his country.

>>91801
Mexico is quite beautiful. I just returned from Oaxaca and had zero problems.

>>91580
>Northern land is empty
>Let's invite a bunch of foreigners from a powerful neighbouring country to populate it
>They'll have allegiance to Mexico
>Nothing bad can possibly happen

>>91580
Many parts of Mexico are safer than the US

>>91830

Shut the fuck up.

First, America sent a diplomat to discuss the matter with the mexican government and their prime minister didn't even speek to that diplomat.

So American siezed the southwest that only had a few thousand mexicans on it.

Mexico signed a treaty gived the rights of that land to the US.

And are you going to ignore the internal rebellions going on in mexico at the same time?

>>91944
California was only apart for Mexico for like 30 years and in that time rebelled 3 times.

Not to mention Spain/Mexico ignored Russian claims there. And possible English claims.

>>91580
spaniards cant into large states

>>92007

That is my point, they faced internal rebellions all the time.

Justed tired of hearing how the imeprial US opressed all of mexico, and the mexicans did nothing wrong!

>>92067
I know, all these Mexicans saying America stole California, I have to say, we didn't want to be apart of Mexico, also America kicked Mexico's ass and then bought the land. They paid for land, that no longer belonged to Mexico as the California Republic and Republic of Texas seceded.
I don't know of any other nation, defeating a country, occupying its capital, and then purchasing land said country no longer owned.

>>92010

Well, they managed a fairly large Empire...

>>92067
>>92227
Don't delude yourselves. It was a landgrab, the US had no claims to the land; it was simply a 'might makes right' moment.

>>91580
If the King of Spain had either accepted the headship of the First Mexican Empire *or* appointed a decent relative as head of it I believe Mexico would be a world power today.

>>91801
After the survival of the First Empire the success of Maximilian would have been the next best chaance

>>92351
>the US had no claims to the land
Mexico has no claims to the land - Cortes plopped his flag down in 1522 and claimed the whole North American continent.

Mexico did not respect the Treaty of Velasco, signed by Santa Anna and Sam Houston after the battle of San Jacinto.

Mexico attacked us north of the Rio Grande.

Mexico dragged out a war they knew they could not win. They even brought back Santa Anna out of exile.

Who ever conquered the land, has the rights to it. The Mexicans couldn't hold it, nor could they settle it. The US had both the military means to hold the land, and the exploding population to settle the new territory.

California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas, are all rightful US soil. SUCK IT!

>>92416
I would have rather had the 2nd Mexican Empire, the Empire actually lasted more than a year, granted not that much longer. Had foreign backing from France, and Maximilian was a reformist, and a moderate.

He also named Agustín de Iturbide y Green as his successor, meaning the Dynasty of Agustín I would have continued after the death of Maximilian, and Agustín III was half American, which might have helped US-Mexican relations. To me this would have been the best of all possible worlds.

>>91580
Too many mountains and other natural barriers to easily keep a centralized government.

>>92582
Mexico and Spain also ignored a Russian fortress built in California.

A British flag planted by Francis Drake in California

And not to mention tons of Amerindians who were living there.

I would also say those lands are the rightful soil of the California Republic and the Republic of Texas who both signed into the US on their own accord. It's not like a bunch of Spanish-Californians (Californios) or Anglo-Californians rebelled when the US came. They were cool with it.

>>92667

Just like the English ignore Spanish towns in Alaska?

>>91801
Mexico really isn't as bad as you think. The northern regions are drug war and crime infested shitholes, but the rest of the country is around the level of Eastern European countries or Turkey.

>>92582
Whoa! calm down sperglord.

Prior to the war, the US had zero claims to the land, it was a part of the Viceroyalty of New Spain, and colonized by them, then administered by Mexico after the independence. They had some towns and other settlements over it, but it was sparsely populated.

Whatever happens after the war and manifest destiny is another thing entirely. I'm not saying that they're not now rightful US soil.

>>92727
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Ross,_California
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Albion

>>91580
As a mexican, Im not overly butthurt about the loss. If americans are good at anything, it's war, and they fucking destroyed us. They won that land fair and square

You're asking some retarded questions, OP.

Yes, it could've been saved by giving Criollos the same rights as peninsular Spaniards and granting more autonomy to the Viceroyalty.

>>92926
>As a mexican
I don't see how your nationality is relevant in any way whatsoever.
Is it supposed to make your opinion more valid, somehow?

>>92875

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valdez,_Alaska

>>92962
You know that doesn't predate Russian Alaska right?
He also didn't do anything, other than sail round there. By that logic, the Portuguese have a claim to all of Africa since they sailed around it and made some maps.

>>92750
>The northern regions are drug war and crime infested shitholes, but the rest of the country is around the level of Eastern European countries or Turkey.
Not really.
Northern Mexico's been settling down for a while now, it's central and southern Mexico that have been seeing any real violence recently. South-Central Mexico (Mexico City and bordering states) is much more developed than most of the country, so I'll give you that.

>>92600
Imagine if that had been; a strong Mexico, free of most corruption with economic and cultural ties to France.
A very different world

>>93068

Could you, please, try to make some sense?

>>93088
>Imagine if that had been; a strong Mexico
I wouldn't be so sure. No matter who rules México, the US doesn't want a strong America.

>>92958
Holy shit. I love you senpai desu

File: Toadfrogsuit.png (167KB, 629x480px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 629x480px

>>91758
First of all, what this guy said is wrong

>>91796

Political differences while a problem where not that significant on the dissolution of said Union that no one saw as a country.

There were not roads, or good ones at least, between the States, making communication almost impossible. The extreme example of this would be Costa Rica, they were completely isolated from the rest, making communication almost impossible. They didnt have a road between them and Nicaragua until 1955. Of course, because of this they didnt have representation on the congress and where 100% autonomous, but thats another history.

Economy. Every State had different economic partners our allies, some of which were enemies at the time or even enemies of the other States (México, USA, France, Britain, Colombia and so on). Nobody wanted to give up their economic partners, industries or deals. The extreme example of this is again Costa Rica, they didnt even have commercial ties with the rest of the Central American Union.

Political representation. Nobody acknowledged the authority of the Federal Congress, so it was basically worthless in every sense.

Civil wars because of political, economic and territory control.

Cultural differences. Like I said before, nobody say said union as a country, not even the people of other States as fellow country men. Union supporters were never able to convince people why it was a good idea to join as a united federation.

The Union never existed beyond a simple idea.