>>18103625 (OP)
The 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
