A More Successful Mexican Rebellion

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

Nothing, bah.

Raymann said:

Nothing, bah.

Click to expand...

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?

lonewulf44 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Matthais Corvinus said:

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.

Click to expand...

The gist of this is quite right. There will be huge changes to the USA. There will also be huge diplomatic consequences: OTL the USA and Britain spent quite a bit of time posturing about the independence of Latin America (hence the Monroe Doctrine and Canning's "summoning of the New World to counterbalance the old") because both countries wanted a good position to exert influence over the remains of the Spanish empire. TTL the USA has taken an excellent stab early on at upsetting what was a balance in OTL (until 1845-6). This bound to have diplomatic repurcussions in US-UK relations.

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.

Click to expand...

The Spanish are definitely going to lose, but questions remain of how, when and by whose hand. For example, say we stick to the original timeline: What's the response in Mexico / New Spain to Madrid selling more than half the land area of the Viceroyalty? Not good. I could easily see the sale being a galvinizing factor in New Spain for some kind of unified front. At the least, it probably leads to an earlier reaction by the elites, perhaps leading to an earlier sort of Plan of Iguala, though perhaps not with Iturbide at the helm. These events will be crucial to whether or not the provinces of the Kingdom of Guatemala (i.e. Central America) decide to join Mexico (as they did the First Mexican Empire). OTL their decision came after the Battle of Boyaca and San Martin's success in Chile and Peru; TTL it does not.

It's not outside the realm of consideration that Spain manages to hold on to some of its empire (with $10M US Dollars to offset what were in OTL horrible finances) far longer than it did OTL (Peru, for example). OTL 1816 was a breif moment in time where re-inforced Spanish armies looked as though they were making strides against the rebel / independentist forces. If a wider rebellion in Mexico means that Spain has diverted troops there, then other places (probably Venezuela) may be less under control. Bolivar may have an easier time invading in 1817 if Morillo has fewer troops. This may mean he does not invade Nueva Granada and thus begin to form Gran Colombia (not that he won't try eventually, only that he might focus on Venezuela first, letting his later conquests take a different form).

This could be interesting merely if the Adams-Onis borders come into play in 1811 with a U.S. that is considerably better armed and with personnel who may have acquired valuable experience fighting in Mexico...

You must also take into consideration that at this time the Mexican rebels were loyal to Ferdinand but not towards the viceroy the goal of Hidalgo, Allende, Morelos (the early insurgents) was not to gain independence from Spain but to bring the king to New Spain and make Mexico City the capital of the Empire. A few early victories on the insurgents' part or a a larger Napoleonic Victory in Europe could convince Ferdinand that this might not be a bad idea.
Furthermore in OTL the insurgents got little help form the US at this point, honestly at this time the US is really not that powerful it still has some internal squabbles figuring out what to do with the Louisiana Territory and the War of 1812 to worry about. No European power would tolerate the puny republic meddling in their affairs. Only giving Ferdinand another reason to move his court to Mexico City. And why would the support monarchists like Hidalgo and Morelos.
In OTL it was after the loyalist forces crush the insurgents that the movement is revived by Guerrero, and Fernadez (later Guadalupe Victoria) as an full fledge independence movement with hopes of a republic and by Iturbide, a former loyalist, for the creation of a Mexican Empire, whether it be by bringing Ferdinand to Mexico or by claiming the throne for himself but that was on the last months of the war.
The US supporting the movement at any point before the Embrace of Acatempan couldn't result in anything good for the US. Direct war against Spain, the Florida deal not coming through. Spain claiming Louisiana back. Or the creation of a stronger unified Mexico/New Spain, which could become a strong rival in the continent. Remember no Iturbide means that Mexico never pays Spain for the lands and therefore the country is not stillborn in debt and there is less split between republicans and monarchists later liberals and conservatives. Even Agustin fighting longer alongside the insurgents, say the war lasted until 1825, could make him change his mind over that.
Yes Spain is an Empire in its final days but it has lots of land and lots of people much more than the US dare go against at this point. Not a good idea for the US at all.

Nicomacheus said:

The gist of this is quite right. There will be huge changes to the USA. There will also be huge diplomatic consequences: OTL the USA and Britain spent quite a bit of time posturing about the independence of Latin America (hence the Monroe Doctrine and Canning's "summoning of the New World to counterbalance the old") because both countries wanted a good position to exert influence over the remains of the Spanish empire. TTL the USA has taken an excellent stab early on at upsetting what was a balance in OTL (until 1845-6). This bound to have diplomatic repurcussions in US-UK relations.

Click to expand...

I don't know about that. The territory that was acquired is thought to be mostly worthless and much of it is both mostly unexplored and hard to get to. So the Americans have gotten some desert from the Spaniards- how does that affect British trade with Mexico and points south?

American internal expansionism could rapidly change that though I suppose. With a Pacific coast starting before 1820, when the railroad appears the idea of a trans-continental railroad will probably take hold much faster, since there is such a large coast. Plus, American expansionism could start looking south, possibly to Central America, to grab direct control of the sea-routes west to California.

The Spanish are definitely going to lose, but questions remain of how, when and by whose hand. For example, say we stick to the original timeline: What's the response in Mexico / New Spain to Madrid selling more than half the land area of the Viceroyalty? Not good. I could easily see the sale being a galvinizing factor in New Spain for some kind of unified front. At the least, it probably leads to an earlier reaction by the elites, perhaps leading to an earlier sort of Plan of Iguala, though perhaps not with Iturbide at the helm. These events will be crucial to whether or not the provinces of the Kingdom of Guatemala (i.e. Central America) decide to join Mexico (as they did the First Mexican Empire). OTL their decision came after the Battle of Boyaca and San Martin's success in Chile and Peru; TTL it does not.

Click to expand...

The Mexican elite joining the rebellion earlier in the game is probably a good thing for Mexico. If the conservatives join earlier, then I think there is a good chance that the utter failure of the First Mexican Empire doesn't see the light of day. OTL Iturbide turned coat on the Spanish, beat them and crowned himself all in a short amount of time. He didn't look for support from other members of the anti-Spanish opposition, and tried to rule through the army. With a longer lead time to independence, and the chance to sort out who is really in charge, would probably at least result in a longer lived immediate post-independence regime.

Once the Viceroyalty of New Spain is overthrown, isn't that pretty much game over for the Spanish in not only Mexico, but Central America? The Central American captain-generalcy or whatever was a dependent of the New Spain Viceroyalty.

It's not outside the realm of consideration that Spain manages to hold on to some of its empire (with $10M US Dollars to offset what were in OTL horrible finances) far longer than it did OTL (Peru, for example). OTL 1816 was a breif moment in time where re-inforced Spanish armies looked as though they were making strides against the rebel / independentist forces. If a wider rebellion in Mexico means that Spain has diverted troops there, then other places (probably Venezuela) may be less under control. Bolivar may have an easier time invading in 1817 if Morillo has fewer troops. This may mean he does not invade Nueva Granada and thus begin to form Gran Colombia (not that he won't try eventually, only that he might focus on Venezuela first, letting his later conquests take a different form).

Click to expand...

So ripples, but ultimately the Spaniards couldn't maintain control of their Latin American possessions. So its gain over for the Spaniards by the mid-1820's. Perhaps Francisco Santander and Bolivar have differences earlier, aborting Gran Columbia and perhaps allowing Santander to set-up his own republic in New Granada. IMO Santander is an independence leader who might have engendered more of a respect for rule-of-law in government.

jycee said:

You must also take into consideration that at this time the Mexican rebels were loyal to Ferdinand but not towards the viceroy the goal of Hidalgo, Allende, Morelos (the early insurgents) was not to gain independence from Spain but to bring the king to New Spain and make Mexico City the capital of the Empire. A few early victories on the insurgents' part or a a larger Napoleonic Victory in Europe could convince Ferdinand that this might not be a bad idea.

Furthermore in OTL the insurgents got little help form the US at this point, honestly at this time the US is really not that powerful it still has some internal squabbles figuring out what to do with the Louisiana Territory and the War of 1812 to worry about. No European power would tolerate the puny republic meddling in their affairs. Only giving Ferdinand another reason to move his court to Mexico City. And why would the support monarchists like Hidalgo and Morelos.

Click to expand...

I don't think the Spanish would be moving their court, primarily because the French arrested the entire Spanish royal family in quite short order. War against Spain was contemplated extensively in the US and was supported by much of the Federalist Party during John Adams Administration. The point of war with France was that the war would include France's ally Spain, and thus the US could conquer Florida and Louisiana. Alexander Hamilton was particularly in favor of this, since he would be the general in charge of that conquering army. Washington was put in charge, but Hamilton was his second-in-command, and since Washington took virtually no part in the organization of the army, so Hamilton was the de facto commander.

In OTL it was after the loyalist forces crush the insurgents that the movement is revived by Guerrero, and Fernadez (later Guadalupe Victoria) as an full fledge independence movement with hopes of a republic and by Iturbide, a former loyalist, for the creation of a Mexican Empire, whether it be by bringing Ferdinand to Mexico or by claiming the throne for himself but that was on the last months of the war.

The US supporting the movement at any point before the Embrace of Acatempan couldn't result in anything good for the US. Direct war against Spain, the Florida deal not coming through. Spain claiming Louisiana back. Or the creation of a stronger unified Mexico/New Spain, which could become a strong rival in the continent. Remember no Iturbide means that Mexico never pays Spain for the lands and therefore the country is not stillborn in debt and there is less split between republicans and monarchists later liberals and conservatives. Even Agustin fighting longer alongside the insurgents, say the war lasted until 1825, could make him change his mind over that.

Yes Spain is an Empire in its final days but it has lots of land and lots of people much more than the US dare go against at this point. Not a good idea for the US at all.

Click to expand...

The juntas that ultimately formed the kernels of independent South American countries were also ostensibly ruling in the name of Ferdinand VII. So were the Spanish insurgents whose political views so intensely clashed with that king a little down the road. Hidalgo's rebellion called for massive economic reforms, chief among them land reform. The rebels might have claimed to be fighting for Ferdinand VII, but they were using that as a cover for their radical reform agenda. If the rebels had been more successful, that is if they become the main anti-Spanish opposition in Mexico, then the movement would have turned republican once it became clear Ferdinand VII had no intention of granting any kind of land reform.

I think the POD should probably be that Hidalgo and Allende decide to attack Mexico City rather than turning back. The 100,000 rebels with them, although poorly trained, make an attack on Mexico City. The attack carries the city, and Hidalgo's rebels are now in possession of the capital. With control of Mexico City, all kinds of interesting things will happen, what exactly I don't know. But the end result would be that Hidalgo's movement would become an independence movement. It really was and independnece movement, and with Ferdinand VII in a French prison Hidalgo can proclaim himself ruling a junta in Mexico City in the name of the imprisoned King.

Once Ferdinand VII comes back to the throne, then Hidalgo's regime (or whomever is in control) becomes independent-seeking. All kinds of interesting things probably happened in the intervening few years, and Mexico could well be mostly free of loyalists. The creole elite may decide that it is better to work with the rebels than fight for the doomed Spanish, so perhaps commanders like Agustin Iturbide come over following the fall of Mexico City.

Made a quick map of this scenario. The butterflies are fascinating, I've never seen the US do so well, without an early war with France/Spain.

American expansion is on a roll at this time, in the next five years, Mississippi, Illinois, Alabama, Maine and Missouri will become states. However I don't think there will be a gap of 15 years between Missouri and Arkansas here. Texas will be a state by 1830 and that's when the problems begin. American settlers will start settling the Rio Grande basin and it's likely that there will be clashes between them and the Mexicans who likely resent the cession of half the country before Independence. The unsuitability of the west, with the possible exception or some parts of California to slavery would also be known. Given these factors a Mexican-American war in the '30s is the likely result, and it's unlikely the Americans would stop at the Rio Grande. The South would press for the annexation of Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon and Coahuila. Baja and a good portion if not all of Sonora and Chihuahua would doubtlessly be carved off as well with the eye towards a southern transcontinental railroad.

California starts get settled much earlier here and that will likely lead to an earlier American settlement of Oregon. I'd think this would likely lead to an earlier extension of the border on the 49th rather than to war or negotiation of different border however.

As for the Civil War, not much changes I think via the balance of power between sections. There are only so many southern settlers to go around, they might have more states/territories, but that won't translate to more manpower I'd think.