A more white Mexico

NIK PARMEN

Banned
What if during the 19th century Mexico had encoureged a more European immigration like Argentina? The impact?
 
Probably not. Mexico already had a well established demography. There wasn't any new territory for immigrants to move into. They'd just merge with the population.
 
If Mexico hadn't lost Texas (and its other northern territories), it is doable, because:

a) Immigrants will have a place to go (1)

b) Mexico wouldn't fear immigration as much, as without the Texas precedent, Mexico might not be afraid of immigrants comming in, outnumbering there the locals and seceding to join the USA. If, for example, in 1870 the Welsh in Patagonia had seceeded to join the British in Malvinas, asking to be part of the UK, and had succedeed, Argentina might have had a more restricted policy towards immigration from 1880 onwards.

The problem is how to avoid the lose of Texas...

Anyway, if Mexico wants immigrants, it'd have to change its laws. For example, Argentina allows foreigners to own land, something Mexico's laws forbid, IIRC. The constitution of Argentina grants foreigners almost the same rights as citizens, something I think the Mexican constitution doesn't (or at least didn't do in the period in question).

(1) There were always, however, places for immigrants to go in great numbers (enought to form a majority) during the XIX century even with OTL borders: Bja California, and Northern Mexico's states
 
Last edited:

Paul MacQ

Donor
What is the possibility before it became Mexico?

The region around Current Texas gets Immigrants from Places like the Italian States, Would need a cause, Have been thinking on the back of my mind migration especially from the Kingdom of the Sicily’s if Spain would not mind them going to a undeveloped area ??

Say in the 1740’s to 1760’s Just small numbers in the tens of thousands over 20 years, then more as it is seen as a Place it fellow Italian Ethnic group being the majority ?

Looking at them Population in the area anybody that makes use and any sort of Productivity would make Spain Happy. Until you get say twice as many Settles at there were US Settlers, Maybe pushing to independence in the 1810s-1820s? Support Spanish speaking and dominated Mexico ??
 
If Mexico hadn't lost Texas (and its other northern territories), it is doable, because:

a) Immigrants will have a place to go

b) Mexico wouldn't fear immigrations as much, as it wouldn't Texas precedent, Mexico might not be afraid of immigrants comming in, outnumbering there the locals and seceding to join the USA. If, for example, in 1870 the Welsh in Patagonia had seceeded to join the British in Malvinas, asking to be part of the UK, and had succedeed, Argentina might have had a more restricted policy towards immigration from 1880 onwards.

The problem is how to avoid the lose of Texas...

Anyway, if Mexico wants immigrants, it'd have to change its laws. For example, Argentina allows foreigners to own land, something Mexico's laws forbid, IIRC. The constitution of Argentina grants foreigners almost the same rights as citizens, something I think the Mexican constitution doesn't (or at least didn't do in the period in question).

I believe that one of the reasons Mexico lost Texas (as well as it's northern half) was due to the ineptitude of Santa Anna's Caudillo government. I don't think you have to go all that far of a PoD to change all this. Perhaps, during the independence wars, you have a more successful rebel army, and maybe give Hidalgo, Allende, Morelos, Guerrero, ect. a chance to unify and win against Spain, then you have a chance for a stable democratic Mexico. (in OTL, one of the reasons Texas declared independence was because the US immigrants entering Coahuila y Tejas were mainly southerners who were mostly a)Protestant and b)slave holding, and they outnumbered the native Mexicans nearly 4 to 1. When Santa Anna suspended the 1824 constitution and implemented the Siete Leyes, the country went into a state of revolt with many states in the union ignoring Santa Anna's actions. This gave the Anglo's in Texas the chance to secede (the 1824 constitution forbade slavery and so did not sit well with the Anglos in Texas))

All that said, with a stable Mexico, you have a chance for it to squash the Texas revolt, have a better chance to stand up against the US, and keep Alta California and Nuevo Mexico. Then when the waves of European immegration begin later in the century, Mexico has room to place them (and since many immigrants, like the Irish, Italians, Poles, ect. were predominantly Catholic, Predominantly Catholic Mexico would seem like a nice place to go...
 
Mexico had a much higher Indian population density, from pre Columbian to the present, than the likes of Argentina. Even if you remove the nationalism brought on by the trauma of losing half its territory, European immigrants won't make much of a dent proportionately. There's already plenty of cheap labor.

I think a better POD would be one that imagines all of Mexico taken by the US following the 1845-48 war. Much of Mexico migrates north, and much of white America migrates south.
 

Lusitania

Donor
One additional point would be that Ferdinand escapes Napoleon instead of being his "guest" and flees to New Spain during the Peninsula War of 1807-1815.

With him comes thousands of SPanish officials and civilians many of whom never leave. With the spanish monarchy in the new world New Spain could of become a more stable environment or maybe open to immigrants.

See my TL for current / future posts on New Spain.
 
If Mexico hadn't lost Texas (and its other northern territories), it is doable, because:

a) Immigrants will have a place to go (1)

b) Mexico wouldn't fear immigration as much, as without the Texas precedent, Mexico might not be afraid of immigrants comming in, outnumbering there the locals and seceding to join the USA. If, for example, in 1870 the Welsh in Patagonia had seceeded to join the British in Malvinas, asking to be part of the UK, and had succedeed, Argentina might have had a more restricted policy towards immigration from 1880 onwards.

The problem is how to avoid the lose of Texas...

Anyway, if Mexico wants immigrants, it'd have to change its laws. For example, Argentina allows foreigners to own land, something Mexico's laws forbid, IIRC. The constitution of Argentina grants foreigners almost the same rights as citizens, something I think the Mexican constitution doesn't (or at least didn't do in the period in question).

(1) There were always, however, places for immigrants to go in great numbers (enought to form a majority) during the XIX century even with OTL borders: Bja California, and Northern Mexico's states

1. I can't imagine anyone wanting to move to Sonora or Chihuahua. It is damn hot, dry and just generally inhospitable. Also until the late 1880s filled with Apaches so not exactly a place that could be filled by immigrants.

2. Texas during the 1850s saw a healthy number of German and French immigrants after the 1848 revolutions in Europe. But as other posters said there is no reason for them to go to Mexico all the good stuff was taken and the US was far more stable politically.
 
I think Mexico had little european settlement because of the problem disease. For most Europeans until the 20th century tropical diseases were untreatable A lot of spanish immigrants when they were apart of the empire, would move to Mexico from Cuba or Hispaniola. The islands were semi-tropical already so the new spaniards would either die or become resilient.

A more white mexico would be possible if more of mexico is non tropical. California of course or Texas would be ideal. Earlier breakthroughs in treatment of tropical diseases, would help out.

Or perhaps if Spain already had a population of tropical disease resistant white people. Similar to Cuba which served as a "staging point" for spanish settlers during the colonial era, what if the pool was larger? What if after conquering the Canary Islands, the Spanish go on to settle parts of Africa? I think the Gambia would be ideal for this, even though it is during the time of the powerful Mali Empire. If this settlement was large enough the Spanish would have even larger settlement pool for Cuba and Mexico. The African traders of Portugal known as lançados were of great importance for the settlement of Brazil.

One big problem for the idea of White Mexico was that Mexico could not be considered a "settler colony." Luis de Velasco, New Spain's second viceroy, estimated that there were over 20,000 africans in 1556. They outnumbered spanish four to one according in the Bishopric of Mexico.
 
Last edited:
1. I can't imagine anyone wanting to move to Sonora or Chihuahua. It is damn hot, dry and just generally inhospitable. Also until the late 1880s filled with Apaches so not exactly a place that could be filled by immigrants.

so were many parts of Patagonia (if you replace the word "hot" for the world "cold") and that didn't stop settlers from coming. True, mny more went to the pampas than to those region, but those who went there were more than enough to form a white mayority in the region.

And, if hot climate didn't stopped whites from moving to New Mexico, it won't stop them from going to Sonora. Not many would go, but these states would be whiter than IOTL.
 
so were many parts of Patagonia (if you replace the word "hot" for the world "cold") and that didn't stop settlers from coming.

The same could also be true for les Îles Malouines - the climate could even be familiar to some that settled there - and most of the Western Hemisphere in general, if you think about it.
 
so were many parts of Patagonia (if you replace the word "hot" for the world "cold") and that didn't stop settlers from coming. True, mny more went to the pampas than to those region, but those who went there were more than enough to form a white mayority in the region.

And, if hot climate didn't stopped whites from moving to New Mexico, it won't stop them from going to Sonora. Not many would go, but these states would be whiter than IOTL.

And the Apaches? I don't think they were in Patagonia:D

Edit: New Mexico/Arizona didn't really start filling up until someone invented Air Conditioning. Another factor to consider, I don't believe that there is a lot of Gold or Silver or really any mineral wealth in Sonora/Chihauhua either which was another draw that NM/AZ had.
True though it would be whiter but would it make an appreciable difference? I don't think so
 
Top