AHC: Optimal Spanish Administration of Mexico, and Results?

I've been under the impression (And this is as someone who knows little to nothing about colonial Mexico) that Mexico never really got to as good a position as the United States due to two factors, one being the US, and the other being the colonial administration that Spain set up did not lend itself well to Mexico.

What would be the ideal colonial administration for Mexico under Spain (to keep it under Spain and make it profitable), and what would the ideal colonial administration be for Mexico to have it succeed as a nation.

Note: The likelihood of Spain adopting such positions is secondary in this situation. I just want to see ways that people think Spain could have governed Mexico in order to have maximum effectiveness.
 
When you think about it Spain never had that great colonial administration at all... Best case scenario, less corrupt individuals and a less racist system, but honestly thats kind of obvious...

I honestly don't know what else to say beyond that... I mean... thats basically all of it right there. Spain, and much of Europe, actually had a culture that was incredibly centered around pedigree and privilage. Combine that with the Spanish penchant for mixing with the natives... and you got Mexico... and honestly I don't feel like less mixing with the natives would have helped that much...

In the USA all white people were near equals, in Mexico it was all down to your influence and money, and that is something that came largely from a deeply conservative, stubborn, and gloating Spain.
 
But that seems less a matter of racism (although being reinforced with race tied to lower social class) than a society of peasants and lords, as opposed to how there never was much of an aristocracy in the US - except for the planter South, and even that didn't get rid of a yeomanry, it just tossed it into the less-desired lands.
 
But that seems less a matter of racism (although being reinforced with race tied to lower social class) than a society of peasants and lords, as opposed to how there never was much of an aristocracy in the US - except for the planter South, and even that didn't get rid of a yeomanry, it just tossed it into the less-desired lands.

There was a strong, and somewhere there still is, level of discrimination against those Natives that retained a somewhat pure blood.

The Maya for example weren't treated all that well, and that is part of the reason for the problems in the south of the country.
 
I guess a Spain that gradually conquers Mexico through trade and conversions followed by personal union between Mexico and Spain would be the best possible outcome for both nations. Instead of Mexicans being enslaved to mine gold they sell gold to the Spanish for manufactured goods and colonists. Leading to a indigenous manufacturing industry. This firstly stimulates Spain through the influx of gold and the development of a large manufacturing sector.
 

Germaniac

Donor
For what its worth Mexico's colonial system worked, for three centuries the Spanish never was forced to keep a standing army in their indies colonist. The most effective way to prevent the collapse of Mexico, which was among the richest holdings of any European power, would be to curve the power of the peninsular spanish in mexico. As the Penisulars controlled the riches of Mexico, when it became independent they fled and the infrastructure was left to ruin
 
For what its worth Mexico's colonial system worked, for three centuries the Spanish never was forced to keep a standing army in their indies colonist. The most effective way to prevent the collapse of Mexico, which was among the richest holdings of any European power, would be to curve the power of the peninsular spanish in mexico. As the Penisulars controlled the riches of Mexico, when it became independent they fled and the infrastructure was left to ruin
Sounds like what happened in post-WW2 Africa.
 
To allow legal free trade among the colonies of Spain, instead of forcing it to go through mainland spain.
 
To allow legal free trade among the colonies of Spain, instead of forcing it to go through mainland spain.


At last one intelligent answer!


Is the racist issue on the Spanish administration a joke?
Let's see:
Spanish Mexico vs. United States
Spanish Mexico is less developed because of racism. It is true that people of native origin had less opportunities in Mexico, but in the United States they were... exterminated? What is the percentage of US population with a native american origin? There were Amerindians that were writers, saints of the Catholic Church, acquired titles of nobility and were teachers in Universities. How many of them in the American British colonies or the United States?
There were african slaves on both places, but in Spanish America they could access to freedom more easily (please, try to find out about the black villages in Spanish Florida formed by runaway slaves (some of them reached officer level in the Spanish Army!).

The difference is that the United States received more european immigrants that were less tolerant to natives (more racist?) than Mexico, the US were favoured by a more open trading policy and finally when the industrial revolution took place they had coal and iron that could be extracted easily.
 
To allow legal free trade among the colonies of Spain, instead of forcing it to go through mainland spain.

Pretty much all the European countries were doing the same thing in the period. Spain's direction of trade was no different with Portugal in regards to Brazil, Britain with the Seventeen Colonies, and even France with Quebec. Mercantilism was the word of the day until the 19th century. Free Trade was considered an awful idea as economists of the day saw it as buillon leaving the country and enriching enemies. HMercantilism was tied to bullionism, were a country wanted lots of precious metals entering it but few leaving it. Colonies in the period existed as a means of raw material for the motherland, not a trade preference zone. Not to mention, Charles IV did allow free trade amongst the colonies in the 1780s. He even began to loosen restrictions with foreign countries until the Napoleonic Wars severed the colonists from the metropole.

The biggest issue with Spanish colonization, invasions and plagues aside, was almost two centuries down the line, in the 18th century. The newly installed Spanish Bourbons, keen modernizers were desirous to see a profit milked out of their colonies -- the annual treasure fleets and the Manilla Galleons just weren't cutting it. The colonies, having been left to their own benign neglect much as Britain ignored hers prior to the Seven Years War found themselves up for a rude awakening as the Bourbons were increasingly centralizing in regards to the American Administration. Distrustful of the Criollos, the tiny middle class that had grown up in the heydey of Habsburg neglect, those of Spanish descent who had settled in the colonies and had become fixtures of powers, either through appointments by the crown or through the out right purchase of offices found themselves marginalized as the Spanish Bourbons preferred to send loyal lieutenants from Spain to govern the Americas.

This was especially well shown in the audiencia, or the court system which also functioned as a sort of legislative body. On the eve of the War of the Spanish Succession, the Criollos overwhelmingly dominated these bodies and had an immense say in the day to day governance: this was especially important in Mexico. A century later, on the eve of the French Revolution, only a tiny portion of Criollos still sat on the audiencias: they had largely been replaced by men from Spain, men who were neither born in the colonies or really had no interest or idea in how to govern it.

Of course, trade did a role, and there were clamors for the system dominated around the Casa da Indies to be abolished, and it eventually was. Too late, of course, but that was really only part of the problem. Liberalizing trade won't make Spanish rule in Mexico any better when Charles IV is still sacking and overlooking the criollos for his Spanish born courtiers.
 
I've always thought the Bourbon Reforms were quite beneficial for the Empire. My thought would be would be to introduce them earlier, and perhaps while keeping some of the beneficial parts of Hapsburg decentralization.
 
Anticlimacus said:
What is the percentage of US population with a native american origin?

Actually, I think the figure is surprisingly high for the average American having some Amerindian and/or African ancestry - the problem is that the overwhelming majority of the average American's other ancestries come from Europe.

Mexico also had a much denser Amerindian population, as far as I'm aware, which means that the native element of the Mexican population to this day remains predominant.

So basically, in Mexico, there were a lot more natives and a lot fewer colonists, while in the USA it was the other way round.

The general thrust of your argument still stands, though - in Mexico, all through the 19th and early 20th centuries certainly, it was probably socially less of a disadvantage to be of Amerindian origin than it would have been in the comparative USA.

I think a Spanish Empire which didn't insist on sending out Peninsulares to govern the colonies could have done well for itself. Giving the criollos and mestizos at least recourse to government would have done a lot to build up the sort of proto-democratic structures which would have helped stabilise Latin America, if not keep it within the Spanish Empire.
 
From what I know there was much more miscegenation in the thirteen colonies than is commonly held. All across the American frontier men and women would often join with the native tribes.
 
I've always thought the Bourbon Reforms were quite beneficial for the Empire. My thought would be would be to introduce them earlier, and perhaps while keeping some of the beneficial parts of Hapsburg decentralization.

While they made the colonies more profitable in the eyes of Madrid, all it was inflame hatred of the crown, as the reforms involved abandoning the benign neglect and reestablishing primacy from Madrid. Taxes were made more efficient, smuggling was cracked down on, ect. All at the expense of the goodwill of the criollos, who would later reject Spanish rule all together. The Bourbon Reforms were really just a precursor to the independence wars. Distances in the 18th century make any sort of centralized rule from Madrid redundant, and the Bourbons would've been better off leaving it alone, inefficient as it was. It was their desire to cull a profit that sparked a chain of events.
 
For what its worth Mexico's colonial system worked, for three centuries the Spanish never was forced to keep a standing army in their indies colonist. The most effective way to prevent the collapse of Mexico, which was among the richest holdings of any European power, would be to curve the power of the peninsular spanish in mexico. As the Penisulars controlled the riches of Mexico, when it became independent they fled and the infrastructure was left to ruin

I think this sums up what my answer is going to be. With Mexico's wealth still tied to Spain, it both inhibits the development of native sources of wealth, and locates the wealth power hub outside of the country/colony.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
MerryPrankster said:
An administration that curbs the ability of the local colonists to abuse the blacks and Indians?

You probably need Peninsulares for that...

TBH, the real answer to this question from a Mexican perspective is probably 'No Spanish administration = best Spanish administration' :D
 
Top