For Want of a Nail was the first alternate history book I ever read, and is probably one of the best. Its textbook format provides it with a sense of verisimilitude that many other works lack. It feels plausible, like the world it describes could actually exist.
That being said, there are some aspects that seem implausible to me.
The United States of Mexico is, for me, one of the most interesting AH countries. The hybrid American-Mexican culture seems fascinating, and presumably the country would have a delicious Tex-Mex cuisine. But much of its history and society I think are unlikely.
First, the states. After Andrew Jackson conquers the country, he divides it into 6 states, Jefferson, El Norte, Arizona, California, Durango and Chiapas. The first four are gerrymandered to give the Anglos control of the senate. But, as For All Nails points out, these states are really implausible. FAN has its own map showing more states, but even that might not be enough. The criollo elite in Mexico wouldn't want to give up any power, and I think in the end, the country might have its OTL states plus the four gerrymandered Anglo ones. This way the criollo elite get their influence, but the Anglos get their disproportionate share.
Next there is the racial demographics of the USM. Andrew Jackson divides the country into five races: Anglos (English-speaking whites), Hispanos (Criollos and mestizos), Mexicanos (Indians in Chiapas and Durango), Indians (Indians in the four northern states) and Blacks. I'm not sure this is that plausible. Mexico already had its ethnic divisions: white criollos, mixed race mestizos and Indians. Given how small the Anglo population is, I think it unlikely they could force their racial system on the country. I think it's more likely that a racial pyramid would arise in which Anglos and criollos are at the top, mestizos in the middle, and blacks and Indians at the bottom. I don't think it makes too much sense for Indians to be divided into two groups. I also think that over time the Anglos and Criollos would merge, and by the twentieth century, there would be simply a bilingual white elite. Sobel states that there were about 100 million Mexicans by the turn of the century, which is far higher than the population of OTL Mexico and the American Southwest at the time. Presumably Mexico had a very pro-immigrant policy, possibly because the white elite wanted to "whiten" the country. I would guess that Mexico would be particularly attractive to Catholic immigrants, unlike the protestant CNA. These immigrants would be considered white, though I wonder whether they would be Spanish speaking or English speaking.
Next is the issue of slavery. Sobel states that slavery was common in Chiapas, and that the Mexicanos in particular opposed abolition. But that doesn't make much sense to me. Cotton production in Mexico is limited to the far north of the country. Also, OTL Mexico abolished slavery soon after independence. While Jackson's new constitution would allow slavery, I doubt it would spread south. I think it would be limited to the four Northern states, and maybe northern Durango. Far more widespread would be a semi-feudal system of peonage across the southern two states.
Now on to the CNA.
First, like Mexico, the subdivisions don't make much sense. The one that stands out most is Manitoba, which when formed comprises the northern shore of Lake Superior and would have a negligible white population. Hudson's Bay Company isn't mentioned, but maybe Manitoba starts as a rotten borough for the company. Something Sobel never mentioned, but which might happen is CNA annexing some of Britain's Caribbean colonies. OTL there was discussion of Canada doing just this, but, since the CNA is bigger, wealthier and right next to these colonies it seems plausible.
Now the issue of slavery in the CNA. Sobel kind of glosses over this issue, with slavery ended peacefully in the 1840s, and many freed slaves end up settling in Southern Vandalia. Now in OTL London was able to end slavery in the Caribbean without too much difficulty, but that was at least partially because slave owners weren't that influential of a lobby and slavery wasn't essential for the imperial economy. But slavery would be an important part of the Southern Confederation's economy, and the Southern Confederation surely has great influence in Burgoyne. I think attemps to ban or limit slavery by London or Burgoyne could easily lead to rebellion in the South and in the Caribbean.
I also think race relations are a little too good in the CNA. By the 1970s there have already been two black governors general. Given the legacy of slavery though, I have a hard time believing race relations would be better than OTL USA. Sobel also glosses over the treatment of American Indians, but I doubt the CNA was very different than the USA in that regard.
There's also the issue of immigration to the CNA. I'd guess that Protestants would tend to immigrate there, and anti-Catholic sentiment might be widespread, partially due to bad relations with Mexico. With the St. Lawrence entirely under CNA control, New York might be less important and thus smaller. There would probably be a larger Indian (from India) population than in OTL US and probably more immigrants from other British possessions. I'm not sure if Jews would rather immigrate to the CNA or Mexico.
What are other aspects of the book that are implausible, and how could they be made more plausible?
That being said, there are some aspects that seem implausible to me.
The United States of Mexico is, for me, one of the most interesting AH countries. The hybrid American-Mexican culture seems fascinating, and presumably the country would have a delicious Tex-Mex cuisine. But much of its history and society I think are unlikely.
First, the states. After Andrew Jackson conquers the country, he divides it into 6 states, Jefferson, El Norte, Arizona, California, Durango and Chiapas. The first four are gerrymandered to give the Anglos control of the senate. But, as For All Nails points out, these states are really implausible. FAN has its own map showing more states, but even that might not be enough. The criollo elite in Mexico wouldn't want to give up any power, and I think in the end, the country might have its OTL states plus the four gerrymandered Anglo ones. This way the criollo elite get their influence, but the Anglos get their disproportionate share.
Next there is the racial demographics of the USM. Andrew Jackson divides the country into five races: Anglos (English-speaking whites), Hispanos (Criollos and mestizos), Mexicanos (Indians in Chiapas and Durango), Indians (Indians in the four northern states) and Blacks. I'm not sure this is that plausible. Mexico already had its ethnic divisions: white criollos, mixed race mestizos and Indians. Given how small the Anglo population is, I think it unlikely they could force their racial system on the country. I think it's more likely that a racial pyramid would arise in which Anglos and criollos are at the top, mestizos in the middle, and blacks and Indians at the bottom. I don't think it makes too much sense for Indians to be divided into two groups. I also think that over time the Anglos and Criollos would merge, and by the twentieth century, there would be simply a bilingual white elite. Sobel states that there were about 100 million Mexicans by the turn of the century, which is far higher than the population of OTL Mexico and the American Southwest at the time. Presumably Mexico had a very pro-immigrant policy, possibly because the white elite wanted to "whiten" the country. I would guess that Mexico would be particularly attractive to Catholic immigrants, unlike the protestant CNA. These immigrants would be considered white, though I wonder whether they would be Spanish speaking or English speaking.
Next is the issue of slavery. Sobel states that slavery was common in Chiapas, and that the Mexicanos in particular opposed abolition. But that doesn't make much sense to me. Cotton production in Mexico is limited to the far north of the country. Also, OTL Mexico abolished slavery soon after independence. While Jackson's new constitution would allow slavery, I doubt it would spread south. I think it would be limited to the four Northern states, and maybe northern Durango. Far more widespread would be a semi-feudal system of peonage across the southern two states.
Now on to the CNA.
First, like Mexico, the subdivisions don't make much sense. The one that stands out most is Manitoba, which when formed comprises the northern shore of Lake Superior and would have a negligible white population. Hudson's Bay Company isn't mentioned, but maybe Manitoba starts as a rotten borough for the company. Something Sobel never mentioned, but which might happen is CNA annexing some of Britain's Caribbean colonies. OTL there was discussion of Canada doing just this, but, since the CNA is bigger, wealthier and right next to these colonies it seems plausible.
Now the issue of slavery in the CNA. Sobel kind of glosses over this issue, with slavery ended peacefully in the 1840s, and many freed slaves end up settling in Southern Vandalia. Now in OTL London was able to end slavery in the Caribbean without too much difficulty, but that was at least partially because slave owners weren't that influential of a lobby and slavery wasn't essential for the imperial economy. But slavery would be an important part of the Southern Confederation's economy, and the Southern Confederation surely has great influence in Burgoyne. I think attemps to ban or limit slavery by London or Burgoyne could easily lead to rebellion in the South and in the Caribbean.
I also think race relations are a little too good in the CNA. By the 1970s there have already been two black governors general. Given the legacy of slavery though, I have a hard time believing race relations would be better than OTL USA. Sobel also glosses over the treatment of American Indians, but I doubt the CNA was very different than the USA in that regard.
There's also the issue of immigration to the CNA. I'd guess that Protestants would tend to immigrate there, and anti-Catholic sentiment might be widespread, partially due to bad relations with Mexico. With the St. Lawrence entirely under CNA control, New York might be less important and thus smaller. There would probably be a larger Indian (from India) population than in OTL US and probably more immigrants from other British possessions. I'm not sure if Jews would rather immigrate to the CNA or Mexico.
What are other aspects of the book that are implausible, and how could they be made more plausible?
