AHC: British Mexico by the 19th Century!

Been working on stuff about this but wanted/needed some input.

Spain and Britain were seemingly constantly at war with one another in the 18th Century and so I'm looking for a British Mexico as a result of one of these conflicts no earlier than the mid-18th Century and no later than 1800.


I understand that Spain weren't punks, so I'm assuming a great misfortune is required to weaken them to that degree. Bad luck? Disease? A pro-British or British supported insurgency in Mexico? Combination of them all?

I don't know, that's why this is your challenge!

Go!

Bonus points go simply to the answer I like the best.
 
The English started settling in Belize in the late 17th century. Perhaps during one of the Anglo-Spanish wars the British invade through there?
 
The English started settling in Belize in the late 17th century. Perhaps during one of the Anglo-Spanish wars the British invade through there?

It's going to be amazingly difficult, methinks. Mexico is huge and Spain is strong. I was thinking about a more severe Jenkin's Ear sort of thing, but it's really going to take some doing for Spain to give up Mexico (maybe even for Mexicans to accept Britishness...). The ensuing fallout from Britain keeping it is gonna be pretty big too. A European war between the two could surely ensue.

However, Britain will see Mexico as keeping her colonies in NA secure, and agriculture in some areas and especially mining all over were already shown to be lucrative, iirc. Britian would fight for Mexico if she thinks she can keep it.

There were many Mexicans not happy with Spanish rule at the time and I could see Britain inciting them as it sends troops through Belize, lands troops on the Caribbean coasts, and dispatches a naval force.

Ideas! Ideas! My kingdom for ideas!
 
What if England concentrated its colonies further south, closer to Mexico. Say that through a series of different decisions, Virginia becomes the furthest north of the English colonies, and other colonies are founded in OTL Carolinas, Georgia, west Florida, and Louisiana (beating the French to the last two). Lands further north are left to the French and Dutch. Florida is taken in the war of the Spanish Succession. By the mid 18th century British colonists are moving into OTL Texas and clashing with the Spanish outposts in that area. With the whole axis of colonization much further south, Spanish Mexico would replace French Canada as the main obstacle to British colonial expansion in North America. It would be a lot harder to capture than Canada, though - much more heavily populated, heavily garrisoned, and more important to Spain than Canada was to France.
 
What if England concentrated its colonies further south, closer to Mexico. Say that through a series of different decisions, Virginia becomes the furthest north of the English colonies, and other colonies are founded in OTL Carolinas, Georgia, west Florida, and Louisiana (beating the French to the last two). Lands further north are left to the French and Dutch. Florida is taken in the war of the Spanish Succession. By the mid 18th century British colonists are moving into OTL Texas and clashing with the Spanish outposts in that area. With the whole axis of colonization much further south, Spanish Mexico would replace French Canada as the main obstacle to British colonial expansion in North America. It would be a lot harder to capture than Canada, though - much more heavily populated, heavily garrisoned, and more important to Spain than Canada was to France.

I think I can come up with a POD for that one. The religious persecuted who formed the backbone of English settlement in New England was precipitated by the Pilgrims. They only ended up in Massachusetts because of storm. If the storm had forced them south, not north, then the axis upon which English settlement in America swings will be around the South. Britain's primary rival in the area from th 17th century onwards will always be Spain, not the Dutch or French.
 
What if England concentrated its colonies further south, closer to Mexico. Say that through a series of different decisions, Virginia becomes the furthest north of the English colonies, and other colonies are founded in OTL Carolinas, Georgia, west Florida, and Louisiana (beating the French to the last two). Lands further north are left to the French and Dutch. Florida is taken in the war of the Spanish Succession. By the mid 18th century British colonists are moving into OTL Texas and clashing with the Spanish outposts in that area. With the whole axis of colonization much further south, Spanish Mexico would replace French Canada as the main obstacle to British colonial expansion in North America. It would be a lot harder to capture than Canada, though - much more heavily populated, heavily garrisoned, and more important to Spain than Canada was to France.

I think I can come up with a POD for that one. The religious persecuted who formed the backbone of English settlement in New England was precipitated by the Pilgrims. They only ended up in Massachusetts because of storm. If the storm had forced them south, not north, then the axis upon which English settlement in America swings will be around the South. Britain's primary rival in the area from th 17th century onwards will always be Spain, not the Dutch or French.

For what I'm trying to do I'll need the American colonies pretty much as is. Maybe a stronger British presence in British Honduras and the Caribbean, and a denser population in the American South?

If all else fails, I can connect an Anglo-Spanish War with an earlier "Conspiracy of the Machetes" type thing. The English agree to prop up Criollos and give them a similar status to that enjoyed by American colonists.

Here's what I'm thinking, and tell me what you think:

Yellow fever plays less of a role in the War of Jenkins Ear.

In 1740, during the War of Jenkin's Ear Commodore George Anson's Pacific fleet is a great success and disrupts Spanish possessions in the Spanish East Indies as well as capturing a gold galleon earlier. Disease is not a major factor and most of the fleet survives the campaign. Meanwhile, General Oglethorpe manages to take St. Augustine and leads a mixed force into Spanish Florida, which remains starved by British blockade.

The following year, The British take Spanish New Granada in an earlier and more successful Battle of Cartagena de Indias then moving on to successfully attack and establish a presence in Cuba.

Mexican revolutionaries (Criollos and Mestizos) become emboldened by the failure of the Spanish to retain her colonies and make contact with Walpole to request recognition of and assistance in their rebellion. Britain agrees to support the rebels in exchange for them recognizing Britain's sovereignty over Mexico as a free Dominion. The compromise is accepted and Britain begins to focus its war against Spain into a war to gain Mexico.

After several years of back and forth, the Spanish cannot hold Mexico or the Caribbean. The Dominion of Mexico is established and the British use it as a penal colony for Irish dissidents.

I'm going to stop and get your feedback before continuing.
 
He they've annexed Mexico, does this mean less stuff in Canada? Also, if Mexico is a Dominion, won't the Americans want the same rights. You are in serious danger of starting an early American Revolution.
 
Having Britain retaining the 13 colonies should be a good start.

Don't you mean a good end? All of what I've just written takes place in the 1740's... ;)

He they've annexed Mexico, does this mean less stuff in Canada? Also, if Mexico is a Dominion, won't the Americans want the same rights. You are in serious danger of starting an early American Revolution.

Not necessarily. Mexico would become something of a tropical Australia or Carolinas, basically a penal colony. A crown supported Plantocracy would be put in place based on a combination of convict indentured servitude (overwhelmingly Irish dissidents and some debtors), slavery of natives, and an increase in the African slave trade. Mines and plantations would be popular. Nothing at all really like Canada.

It would be similar to Quebec in that Anglicanizing a Catholic culture will be troublesome... A compromise could be made, but I have no idea what would be acceptable in a British Mexico.

Also, the Dominionship was my thought based on the agreements to prop up Mexican revolutionaries under the British crown during the War of Jenkin's Ear. What would be more suitable? What is above a colony but below a dominion?
 
The big problem is the amount of gold/silver that Spain received from it's colonies in Central / South America.

This was the main source of income for Spain, and they could not loose it without a major upheaval, as many of their nobles and merchants depended on the metal keeping coming in.

A major out break of disease in Spanish holdings would be a start, taking out most of the army / administrators. The British would take advantage of this to attack from the Caribean whilst the Spanish were weakened. They would grab the gold / silver mines but not really care about the rest. They could come to an agreement with the locals about becoming part of the Empire in return for the Brits keeping the Spanish from landing more troops.

OR
Have you thought what would happen if Darien (the Scotish colony in 1690) was more sucessful. This would become part of the Empire after the Act of Union. A large sucessful city as a springboard for military action in Central America. This would be like the British in Calcutta, starting off trading, but using their military almost as mercinaries in various internal wars. The Brits would keep local rulers, but support them with British soldiers and administators. The country would come under British control chunk by chunk. Each gain would be confirmed in whatever peace treaty was being put forward next in the numerous European wars.
 
Last edited:
Top