Memes aside, what actually went wrong? Why did Mexico choose to become SMOL after the early-1800's at a time when its North American counterparts the US and the British dominion of Canada were continuing to expand?
>>18103625What was California like under Mexican rule? All that wilderness waiting...for something greater
Mexico era un desastre, no hay nada más que decir, todo más allá del río bravo tenia apenas 3 mexicanos 5 vacas 20 bisontes y un perro, ah y los miles de salvajes peyoteteros "we wuz a civilization and shit" simplemente era de ver quien se podía comer todo el medio oeste completo,
>>18103625It was the failed state - successor state - of a failed empire. The main thing with the US and Anglo-American expansion is they simply had no serious competitors on the continent.
>>18103625Constant political corruption from the get-go which allowed Central America to secede due to the inability of the central government to effectively respond.The northern states were infamously sparcely populated and ungovernable.Generally: It's hard to expand when you're having a civil war every tuesday.
>>18103625The real problem was Centralism and geography. Most of Mexico’s population today lives in that strip that’s generally at the latitude of Mexico City, the northern states only have a significant population insofar as economic connections with the states became viable which boosted wealth, development and population. The North was isolated, neglected, and culturally and politically unique. The North and other peripheral areas of Mexico such as the Yucatan peninsula were always the strongest drivers of federalist and secessionist sentiment relative to population size. Even modern day Northern Mexico wanted secession or federalism back when the American Southwest did. More importantly, there were very few Hispanic people there and the government had VERY little effective control over more than 90% of that land. The area was predominantly controlled by natives who were indifferent at best and extremely hostile at worst, there was a significant amount of Anglo settlers, and the Hispanics as I mentioned were resentful. Consult picrel. It’s a common misconception because of placenames, the huge population of the Southwest in the modern era, and self-hating education about how we “stole” the land from Mexico that it must’ve always had a big population living in built up cities that were interconnected in fully conquered areas, but it’s not the case. 90% of Hispanics descend from post-annexation migrants. Picrel: Map of Effective Control, North America, 1835
>>18103647>The northern states were infamously sparcely populated and ungovernable.>Generally: It's hard to expand when you're having a civil war every tuesday.
>>18103625They couldn't defend Coahuila against the Comanche, let alone New Mexico or Texas. Only after the Mexican American War and reduction in amount of territory the Mexican Army had to cover were they really able to make themselves the main power in all of their claimed territory.
Colonial authorities & lackeys (Iturbide et al) killed most of the republican oriented patriots. Then they zig zaged & decided to become independent of Spain, but the damage was already done. What followed were decades of political turmoil between ex royalists to see who controled the country.Had Morelos or Allende or any other original patriot ruled the country from the very start, the northern countries would had been settled properly & the USA would had never conquered them
