Like that previous vast territory on the opposite side of the continent. New France had the makings of a powerful empire, but lacked the population to control it against an expansionary Thirteen Colonies.
New France is definitely another one. You have to rule the territory, build infrastructure, and administer it. While integrating new settlers and keeping national cohesion. Very hard if you don't have the economic base to do it or the bureaucracy to manage it.
Geography didn't offer Mexico anything because her hands were too small to hold it. There is no realistic alternate future where Mexico could have held onto the territory lost in the Mexican War. Control of territory is determined by who settles it and there was never a pipeline of land hungry immigrants coming into Mexico City and marching north that was remotely equivalent to the number of immigrants coming into the Eastern seaboard of the United States and marching west. Even if the United States had been pacifist, additional western states would have broken away from Mexico like Texas as immigration made them more American and less Mexican. This isn't a moral or a legal judgment, Mexico had a right not to have its sovreign territory seized by force. But rights tend to evaporate when demography changes the facts on the ground.
Also, interestingly is a book I just finished titled War within the War that thoroughly explores the insurgency and civil war aspects within the wider conventional war.
Can we buy this in book form? This is the kind of historical and geopolitical analysis we need. Can you suggest a book(s) that are readable and engaging as this?
Like that previous vast territory on the opposite side of the continent. New France had the makings of a powerful empire, but lacked the population to control it against an expansionary Thirteen Colonies.
New France is definitely another one. You have to rule the territory, build infrastructure, and administer it. While integrating new settlers and keeping national cohesion. Very hard if you don't have the economic base to do it or the bureaucracy to manage it.
This is so thorough and well written. Thanks for sharing! Looking forward to reading more of your work.
Geography didn't offer Mexico anything because her hands were too small to hold it. There is no realistic alternate future where Mexico could have held onto the territory lost in the Mexican War. Control of territory is determined by who settles it and there was never a pipeline of land hungry immigrants coming into Mexico City and marching north that was remotely equivalent to the number of immigrants coming into the Eastern seaboard of the United States and marching west. Even if the United States had been pacifist, additional western states would have broken away from Mexico like Texas as immigration made them more American and less Mexican. This isn't a moral or a legal judgment, Mexico had a right not to have its sovreign territory seized by force. But rights tend to evaporate when demography changes the facts on the ground.
Also, interestingly is a book I just finished titled War within the War that thoroughly explores the insurgency and civil war aspects within the wider conventional war.
Can we buy this in book form? This is the kind of historical and geopolitical analysis we need. Can you suggest a book(s) that are readable and engaging as this?
Shades of Denmark and Greenland in the 21st century.