"Mexico - Could they have done any worse?" Topic

Fellow TMPers – I have a long-standing interest in Mexico and all things Mexican, so I wonder about your thoughts, mes vieux, on a question that has been nagging at

Maximilian, who had lots of faults but seems to have been a relatively decent person, gets booted out by Juarez, a true son of Mexico and a patriot – but then, in 1876, Porfirio Diaz, one of Juarez' generals, takes over and proceeds to rule with an iron fist in an iron glove until 1911 – during which time the Mexican economy grows, almost totally at the expense of the average Mexican worker, so that by 1910 the average standard of living was actually below that of 1810 – and 1% of the population owned 85% of the wealth – so the Revolution was no real surprise

Question is, would having Max around have been any different? I grant you, the odds of his little Empire surviving were not great, but then again I think people underestimate the importance of US assistance to the Republican forces – by the end of the war, almost the entire Army of the North was wearing surplus US army uniforms and carrying Springfield rifle-muskets – so, had things not gone so well for the Union, and had old Max hung on (I know – two long shots) – do you reckon the Mexicans could have done any worse than with Porfirio?

I would be interested in your speculations (lots of scope for gaming here)

People generally seem to prefer being oppressed by locals over being liberated by foreigners. It's just how we are.

I think its like any other monarchy – if its an absolute monarchy it all depends on the quality of the monarch. Maximillian was probably, by all accounts, a relatively enlightened monarch, but would that be true of his heir?

Mexico in 1865 didnt really have enough of a middle class, landed gentry or even educated commoners to give much hope for a successful conversion to a constitutional monarchy. The end result, barring a very impressive set of morals on the part of Maximillian's heirs, would probably have been similar to what happened without Max.

You can always do worse.

Like get caught in a war between the USA and France perhaps?

Gracias,

Glenn

Wait a second 1% of the population having 85% of the wealth, where have I heard that recently?

Good point about the monarchy – also, old Max had the dubious benefit of some of the worst advice anyone ever got

War between the US and France? Could make for some good gaming, but I suspect would have wound up as a one sided drubbing

Well,Doug, you do have to wonder – - -

Zippyfusenet,

Nicely put. Very true.

TCM aired this, a reflection of its own time, a few months or so ago:

YouTube link

Quite melodramatic.

Allen

Actually, old Max HAD a solid chance…he had to do two things…kill Father Fisher AND pull a Henry VIII and create a Mexican version of the Church of England (Episcopalion).

Max was a good person and quite progressive, but he let himself be influenced too much by Fisher. Quite simply, he misplaced his "pair" while in Mexico…

Far from saying it would be easy, but he actually did care about the people, but when they are so superstitious…he literally had to get in the trenches with them and SHOW them, almost on a person to person basis, that he was one of them…it could have been done.

(In short, he'd have to pull a Peter the Great and DRAG the Mexicans into the 19th Century…)

I'm not disparaging the French, who had done a creditable job on the Austrians in 1859, but they'd be loony to mix it up with the US. The Americans had a fully ramped-up logistics machine, factories dedicated to cranking out some fairly advanced weaponry, interior lines of supply, tens of thousands of battle hardened veterans and an ironclad navy.

That and Mexico (and all of South America) had a revolution or a counter revolution on a fairly regular basis. Between the Monroe doctrin and "La Liberacion" an Austrian ruler representing a French government wouldn't have stayed in power for much longer anyway. Still if he had managed to keep his power for a while, who knows…

I vaguely remember a TV series on the S. American
military..

Not sure how this applies.. but La Revolucion would have happened. The problem in Mexico, and many former Spanish colonies, is mindset of the military.

They see themselves as the bulwark against chaos.. and anything that doesn't fit with that is suppressed..
leading to a military dictatorships.

No.. I don't know what it is about Spanish-influenced
militaries that leads to the mindset..

YouTube link

I agree with Andrew's point about old Max's draw to influence of Father Fisher and the controversy surrounding all things religious.

Max and his wife Maria were ahead of their time in many respects -
with social reform and building work top of the agenda for many years. However due to his former relationships with his own Family (and his childhood) Max had (1) a rather fragile ego and (2) was prone to bouts of daydreaming and disengagement from the more mundane (but important) day to day running of the country. He couldnt understand why the population didnt love him – given all his ideas about investment, building and reform. Even at the end when he was surrounded – he insisted to his Generals that the population would come to his rescue and see him for what he was. He wasn't the best decision maker either – the national army nearly revolted due to his insistance on designing a new garish uniform!

It probably didnt help also that he was associated by the vast majority of the population with thousands of foreign troops (French, Austrian, Belgian, Egyptian) running around the country at will. That didnt even include the formation of units such as the Contra-Guerilla's – who just raped and pillaged under the excuse of fighting for the nationals.

Lets not forget however that his chief opponents – the leaders of the republican armies were just as opposed to one another as they were to Maximillian. As some of you have pointed out – they didnt do such a great job after Max was executed. It is also interesting to think why he had to be executed and not exhiled as he could have been. Why did they need to publically shoot him? Some might argue that a significant percentage of the populace actually felt sorry for the man – and that without the European armies that had formerly fought under his name he might now prove popular through his personality alone.

Anyone interested in this era shoudl read the Cactus Throne and Maximilian and Maria.

Simon

"…War between the US and France? Could make for some good gaming, but I suspect would have wound up as a one sided drubbing…"

Won't comment on that but having the Gringo's in Mexico again? Talk about firing up the revolution… el festival de sangre!

The US would have spent so many resources trying to deal with the assorted Guerrillas (who might even have cooperated against the yanqui presence!)

Which would have meant even more economic disaster for Mexico. IMNSHO, of course.

Garcias,

Glenn

Won't comment on that but having the Gringo's in Mexico again? Talk about firing up the revolution… el festival de sangre!

It's true.
Every time we've invaded Mexico, they've whipped our butts, forcing us to retreat with only the northern half of their country to show for it.
-Kle.

Allen – great footage – actually, Paul Muni looks a lot like Juarez – I have never seen the movie, must try to find it

As to los gringos in Mexico, US foreign policy in Central America for much of the early 20th century was push the local government until they said no, then send in the Marines – Smedley Butler writes quite eloquently on this

I have to agree about Max – he seems like a nice guy and very well intentioned – Andrew does make you think – although it would been easier to send old Father Fisher to be someone else's confessor – pulling a "Peter the Great", although unlikely, would have certainly made for a difference in Latin American politics

Sherlock's comment reminds me about a South American politician who once made the comment, "if the English had landed in South America instead of the Spanish, who do you think would dominate the Americas?"

Great comments, chaps

Hi

Kle, you are incorret.

Actually part of this story is that Mexico was wealthy, and the "northern part" impoverished. But the northern part with similar population became the winner. It was not that Max would have made a difference. it was that mexico was so wealthy in assets that no ruler bothered with developing a proper sustainable economy.

Rocky

"Maximilian and Maria?"

Shouldn't that be "Carlotta?"

TVAG

KLE,

Too True! LOL!

Just think if Mexico had been burdened with even worse leadership (and powder) – we might own Cancún! What a burden that would be!

Garcias,

Glenn

Note that Max and Charlotte (Carlota in Spanish, original first name Maria) were (and would be) childless. They had adopted 2 Mexican boys, one of whom would be heir after Max died. The Turtledove time line, with the Confeds beating the Unionists, gives a good example of what would happen if the Federal government did not step in to enforce Monroe doctrine.

"…it was that mexico was so wealthy in assets that no ruler bothered with developing a proper sustainable economy…"

Rulers can't/don't create sustainable economy, businesses do. Rulers can only influence (almost always – 99.9999% – negatively) the growth of an economy. Governments make lousy economies. And Mexico's government at that time…

Gracias,

Glenn

Cinco de Mayo – The Battle of Puebla, 1862.

link