Bourbon restoration in 1846--in Mexico

Long after Mexico won its independence, some Spanish statesmen still dreamed of re-establishing a dynastic bond between the two countries. And occasionally Mexican monarchists lent the idea some encouragement. (See http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fal01 for a discussion of one of Mexico's leading monarchists, Foreign Minister Lucas Alamán y Escalada. See also Douglas W. Richmond, "A Conservative Prophet Confronts the Northern Menace: Lucas Alamán and US--Mexican Conflict (1822-1848)", Jahrbuch für Geschichte von Staat, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft Lateinamerikas 43 (December 2006), 213-228 http://www-gewi.uni-graz.at/jbla/JBLA_Band_43-2006/jbla06_213_228.pdf) In 1846, with the advent of the monarchist Paredes to the Mexican presidency, the Spanish government embarked on a project to establish a Bourbon monarchy in Mexico, under the rule of Don Henrique, son of the Infante Francisco de Paula. In pursuance of this idea, Bermudez de Castro was sent to Mexico City as the Spanish Minister, well supplied with funds for the persuasion of the Mexicans. De Castro spent more than half a million dollars in pursuit of this objective, and in the spring of 1846, "with an exuberant optimism that no doubt went beyond the facts" (to quote Dexter Perkins' *A History of the Monroe Doctrine* from which I learned of this interesting incident), he reported that the President and Council were with him, that ten or twelve thousand troops were at the disposal of the monarchists, and that a meeting of distinguished Mexicans had been held at his house to sign a declaration in favor of calling a Spanish prince to the throne. More than this, the Spanish government made overtures to France and Great Britain to enlist their support in this enterprise, declaring in a memorandum to these courts that action was necessary to counter the "gigantic plans" on the part of the US "to sweep away the Spanish race and swallow it up in the gulf of the Union." The question was European, not just Spanish, the memorandum continued: all European nations had an interest in "not allowing the American territory to be subject to the influence of a single Power, especially if this Power be animated by a spirit of rivalry towards the ancient Continent, proclaiming as the basis of its policy to exclude all European nations from any participation in the rule of, or influence upon, the New World." (All quotes in this paragraph are from Perkins, *A History of the Monroe Doctrine.*)

According to Richmond, "Before war broke out with the United States, Paredes undoubtedly sought to establish a Mexican throne. Alamán served as his principal adviser; he drafted as well as announced a decree calling for elections for an extraordinary congress to select a form of government which would defend national security. Alamán and Bermúdez engineered the organization of a corporatist electoral system whereby 160 delegates would have represented nine different social classes, although the preponderance of power would be enjoyed by property owners, the Church, and the army.14 By May 1846 Alamán enjoyed great influence and seemed to be on the verge of achieving his goals. The congress met and agreed upon a new constitution, approved by Alamán and Bermúdez. Paredes appointed Alamán as head of the Junta Superior de Hacienda, which resulted in fairly significant changes. Inspectors reorganized inefficient treasury agencies and began to introduce the metric system.15 But the survival of the monarchist plot as well as the Paredes regime depended on the outcome of the impending conflict with the United States. President James K. Polk became upset at the thought of Mexico gaining a European ally. It is likely that Polk used the threat of a European monarchy in Mexico as the excuse for an eventually belligerent course of action. The Mexican military disasters at Palo Alto and Resaca de Palma in early May 1846 doomed the monarchists. Opposition newspapers soon galvanized public opinion against the whispered plot. The Paredes administration denied any connection to conspirators and the president embraced a republican framework in a futile attempt to retain authority. Alamán responded immediately by withdrawing his support from him, and the monarchist conspiracy ended abruptly..."

Even if the coming of the Mexican War had not doomed the monarchist project, it would probably have been doomed anyway by the fact that it never received encouragement from Paris or from London. My question is, Is there any way the project could have succeeded, despite the furious opposition it would get from the United States--and probably from the majority of Mexicans as well? The only way I could see this is for the US to do something that so infuriated the British that they went along with Spain's plans (and persuaded France to go along as well). Maybe a much more aggressive US position on the Oregon issue (something I can imagine if Cass rather than Polk were elected President in 1844)?

Obviously, there is a parallel to Napoleon III's installation of Maximilian on the Mexican throne--and indeed this enterprise seems even more hopeless, inasmuch as there is no ACW going on to distract the US. But in the Maximilian affair, France was ultimately on its own (even though Great Britain and Spain cooperated in the original 1861 expedition). This 1846 hypothetical assumes all three European powers in question cooperating. Moreover, in 1846, perhaps the monarchists could win some popular support in Mexico by portraying themselves as the only force capable of saving the country from an imminent US invasion. (In OTL of course the invasion doomed the monarchists because people blamed Paredes and his monarchist associates for Mexico's early defeats--and Paredes, in an attempt to save himself, embraced republicanism. But it might be different if there was a concrete possibility that Spanish, British, and French intervention could save Mexico from the US--and if it was clear that such assistance depended on Mexico's restoring monarchy.)
 
dear god, the possibilities of a Mexican-American war starting over an establishment of Mexican Monarcy and a Bourbon alliance.....

....the possibilities are fascinating.
 
This is the first I've heard of it.

Would be interesting if a Bourbon inhabited the Mexican throne, though would it become the Second Mexican Empire or the Kingdom of New Spain?
 
This is the first I've heard of it.

Would be interesting if a Bourbon inhabited the Mexican throne, though would it become the Second Mexican Empire or the Kingdom of New Spain?

Due to Mexican nationalism I can see the ruler of Mexico calling himself primarily Emperor of Mexico, with King of New Spain potentially being a secondary title. So yeah, Second Mexican Empire, probably.

Now if Spain and some other European nations (I honestly don't believe Orleanist France would be that interested in giving the Spanish Bourbons Mexico) support the Second Mexican Empire in a potential war against the US, then oh boy, this timeline would become a US-screw, relatively speaking, especially if Britain sides with Mexico and Spain in that scenario.
 
A big if. The United Kingdom got along pretty well with the United States in this period; there was a lot of money involved in trade between them. I don't see the motivation for the UK to fight the USA; the threat that the USA posed to British imperial interests—of eclipsing the UK, dismantling the British Empire and drawing the British Dominions into its sphere of influence—is something we see now with retrospect and not something the UK seemed very concerned with at the time (see: the UK's great care taken to avoid hostility or conflict with the USA, even when it required a loss of face, a loss of money or backing down on hopes to acquire more land).

Still, Spain + Mexico may be enough to outmatch the USA in the 1840s. That would have very interesting effects on Spanish politics; can the Isabelist regime inspire people against the anti-Catholic, anti-traditional liberalism of the USA as an analogue to the Spanish people vs Napoleon a few decades ago? Can the Gloriosa be avoided and an ideologically right-wing authoritarian regime firmly established in Spain?

I like this idea; I haven't encountered a plausible-seeming mechanism for Mexico to retain its land against American expansionism before.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
It is certainly an interesting what if, but given the ends

Of both attempts at a Mexican monarchy, I think it misses the most important element of the equation...

The Mexicans themselves.

The Mexican conservatives - who were, to a large degree, former royalists who stayed in Mexico and by doing so, essentially came out on top of the war for independence - basically failed both times (Iturbide and Max); they also lost the Reforma war.

Whatever else Santa Ana and his peers were, I don't see them as willing monarchists, much less Spanish restorationists - and, don't forget, the Spanish had invaded from Cuba as recently as the 1820s (1829, iirc)...

And Mexico was not the Dominican Republic in terms of resources, and, of course, even the DR was able to defeat the Spanish attempt at "Restauracion."

Which strikes me as another worthwhile parallel to consider, actually.

Best
 
Maximilian being a blatant puppet imposed by foreign military intervention means he was never the most attractive icon for Mexican conservatism; to use him as an example of how this would turn out is not, I think, quite fair.
 
Maximilian being a blatant puppet imposed by foreign military intervention means he was never the most attractive icon for Mexican conservatism; to use him as an example of how this would turn out is not, I think, quite fair.

That is indeed true, Maximillian was a blatant puppet, and Augustin was practically going to create an autocracy in some form or another. But what of the character and quality of the Infante Enrique, Duque de Sevilla at the time? He was known historically as a liberal and even revolutionary prince, though those didn't develop until after the suggested PoD.

On a side note, I think the reason Spain was interested in this overture was because I feel they wanted to get rid of Enrique, partly because of accusations that he was taking part in a revolt against the crown in Galicia.
 
Top