A More Successful Mexican Rebellion

[Raymann]

I admit that Mexican history before the Mexican American War is a weak spot for me but we live and learn right? Anyway…

One of the earliest battles during the Mexican Revolutionary War was the Battle of Calderon Bridge which resulted in a decisive Royalist victory and the eventual capture of the rebel leaders.

The POD here is that the Spanish (Royalist) forces don’t get lucky and hit the rebel ammo dump during the battle of Calderon Bridge in 1811. Royalist forces still win the battle (their training is simply so much better than the rebels) and drive the rebels from the field but they’re hurt bad and can’t pursue.

Most of the rebel army escapes and flees up north. Bases and weapon trading depots are set up in Louisiana and although Southern Mexico is secure and Royalist forces are still successful, they are unable to decisively crush Hidalgo’s forces. Spain protests to the United States but naturally they turn a blind eye to the European imperialists (besides, they’re making good money selling the rebels). US arms production ramps up and many US citizens volunteer to help the rebels.

(I’d rather not get into the consequences of a more heavily armed US presence in Louisiana for the soon to be War of 1812 )

By 1816, the rebellion is costing Spain an arm and a leg. Their control of Northern Mexico is limited to armed camps and the occasional expedition. Tensions with the US over Florida and the mistreatment of captured US militiamen aren’t helping on the diplomatic side and with rebellion brewing at home over the constitutional crisis, Spain decides to throw in the towel and sell Florida and Northern Mexico to the US.

The Monroe-Onis Treaty is signed in late 1816. For $10 million the US received all of Spanish Florida and Spanish claims to Oregon along with the provinces of Tejas (without Coahuila and to the Nueces River), Nuevo Mexico, and Alta California. The US agreed to end all support to rebel forces (well the government did) and drop any claims of rough Spanish treatment of US citizens.

So how does this turn out? Spain has a bit more cash a less territory to control, how long can it hold Mexico down? (The Spanish Civil War isn’t far off). The US gets most of the West 30 years early. Texas would probably still be a slave state but would California also be one? And how would this effect the settlement of Oregon?

And here is a map to help

[Raymann]

Nothing, bah.

[lonewulf44]

Originally Posted by Raymann

Nothing, bah.

Hmmmm ... a subject I like. I'm no expert on the area either but it seems to me that I remember Spain very very reluctant to give up territory by any means around this time. How much of the territory listed was actually already claimed by the US with via the Louisiana Purchase a decade earlier? I suppose it really depends on the trouble Spain is in with their colony(ies). As for views into the future ... would the holding of that much 'southern' territory ease worries of the Slave states of a 'free' majority in government if they could rely on a steady stream of slave states rolling in? Or would such a thing actually accelerate the/a Civil War? For that matter, how would these events in the/a early 19th century affect the Mexican-American War?

[Raymann]

Originally Posted by lonewulf44

How much of the territory listed was actually already claimed by the US with via the Louisiana Purchase a decade earlier?

I think a good bit was disputed; West Florida, Eastern Louisiana, and most of the western boundry.

As for the South, this might delay the Civil War but slavery is no good in the desert so eventually the South will be outnumbered.

The Mexican-American War might be butterflied out. Unless American settlers start to move into Mexico (unlikely cause its full of Mexicans) but the only reason I can think of for that is for more slave states.

[Nicomacheus]

It's certainly an interesting notion, but there are some kinks to work out.

Spain was incredibly reluctant to sell Florida in 1819 (they didn't ratify the treaty until 1822, for example). In part, this is because of Ferdinand VII and his insistence on retaining the entire Spanish Empire. He got to insist because between 1814-1820 he re-instituted absolute rule (abrogating the Constitution of 1812). When liberals came to power between 1820-1823, they did attempt to settle the ongoing conflicts in Spanish America: Morillo signed an armistice with Bolivar, O'Donoju agreed to the Treaty of Cordoba with Iturbide, which freed Mexico. Furthermore, the politics of Spanish America was quite complicated. One of the rallying cries of Hidalgo's army centered on restoring "the good government of the King." It's not entirely clear that the former rebels would be happy having been purchased by the Liberal, Anglo USA.

I'm not sure that it's realistic to posit that all of northern New Spain / OTL Mexican cession plus parts of Texas descends into chaotic rebellion if for no other reason than the region was very, very sparsely populated at the time. It would be more a case of a rebel army wandering around hostile territory (Indians) with Royalist forces potentially chasing after them. Selling the territory doesn't really affect the problem.

And then there's issues stemming from the enormous butterflies this introduces: 1) US slavery issues -- I won't speculate, but things could go any which way, 2) effects on Spanish politics -- because IMO such an action would at least be predicated on a different state of affairs in Spain itself, and 3) effects on the futures of other Latin American republics.

[Matthais Corvinus]

Putting the United States in control of this much territory this much earlier in the country's history is going to produce a lot of ripples. The thing is that those ripples are not the clear-cut ones of battles won or lost, but how, for instance, the Compromise of 1820 works out with all that territory now under American control. The Americans have gotten in 1816 almost for free and with little effort what in OTL would take several decades and two wars (Texan War of Independence, Mexican-American War) to achieve. In fact, access to the Pacific would have been gotten through California before agreements over the Oregon Territorywere even negotiated between the American and British. With this much territory, the question is whether the US would be sated in its expansionist drive, or if with all this territory, the US is now going to expand even more. With California under American control, the trans-Nicuaraguan route is going to become important much sooner. So possibly an American annexation of Nicaragua in the 1830's or 40's?

The Missouri Compromise would, I think, be the first major place where the ripples of this POD would be seen. How the survey of the new territory turns out will probably determine how the *Missouri Compromise ends up turning out. Would the Senate simply extend OTL's line to the Pacific, or would the line be further north? I feel how the surveyors presented the differences between the Southwestern deserts and the Great Plains would probably be what this different line would hinge on.

The states of Texas and California are definitely butterflied away. Without the Republic of Texas and the Gold Rush, I don't think either state would have the borders of OTL. California should be at least two and probably more states, possibly with one or more *Californias having slavery.

As far as the rest of the struggle for Latin American independence, the Spanish were probably going to lose. Domestic politics and the British navy kept metropolitan Spanish troops in Europe, so I don't think this changes that much. Spain and Latin America's political instability for most of the 19th century seems likely (as it was endemic in OTL), as I don't think this POD is sufficient for a "Bolivar/Iturbide works political miracles and maintains long-term political stability" or a "Carlos doesn't try for the throne/ the Bourbon meekly accept liberal reforms" TL.