Effects of Spain keeping Mexico?

[GameBawesome]

Hypothetically, What if the Mexican War for independence, never happened? Let’s say, New Spain doesn’t revolt, and remains loyal to Spain, despite the troubling times in Spain itself, and the revolutions in South America?

How would Spain keeping Mexico effect the American Expansion?
Could New Spain become a dominion or gain autonomy?
Could New Spain expand North?
How does Spain play on the international stage?

 

[Wendell]

Spain cannot keep Mexico indefinitely with a post-1783 POD.

 

[Super_Cool2]

Hypothetically, What if the Mexican War for independence, never happened? Let’s say, New Spain doesn’t revolt, and remains loyal to Spain, despite the troubling times in Spain itself, and the revolutions in South America?

How would Spain keeping Mexico effect the American Expansion?
Could New Spain become a dominion or gain autonomy?
Could New Spain expand North?
How does Spain play on the international stage?

We got both a Mexican-American War and a Spanish-American War OTL, so we likely see a combined version of both conflicts as the USA expands, resulting in a much larger Spanish-American War.

How well Spain does in this alt-Spanish-American War depends on how much stability there is in both the metropole and the colony. Based on what we know, I don't think Spain will do well and will likely result in an American victory once war comes. For the sake of argument, lets assume a Spanish-American War circa 1846 like the OTL Mexican-American War.

• From 1821 (POD year of Spain keeping Mexico) to 1846, Spain had to contend with the Carlist War and a revolt in Catalonia. Not good for stability and Spain has to spend money to tamper things down at home. Spain also must rebuilt from the Napoleonic Wars.
• Mexico had its own stability problems even as an independent state. Because Spain returned to absolutist rule in the 1820s, they will not be giving autonomy to Mexico if they keep it. It will be colonial style rule as always, just like the colonial rule they had in the places they kept OTL like the Philippines, Cuba, and Puerto Rico. The revolts that OTL Mexico had to deal with in Yucatan, Texas, and the Rio Grande still likely occur, and there would likely be additional revolts in Mexico City itself and Central America against colonial rule as well. More wasted treasure for Spain. I cannot see Mexico wanting anything less than independence if all the other mainland Spanish colonies managed to achieve independence, even if autonomy was on the table.

That's a lot of instability. And if these still occur, the USA wins alt-Spanish-American War and grabs the OTL Mexican Cession, potentially with Cuba.

A counter-argument is that, with Mexico's wealth, maybe Spain is better off. And because it is more stable, it can kick Yankee ass when the time comes. Very possible. However, I don't see how Mexico butterflies away the Carlist War, which was based on who takes the Spanish throne. I don't see how Spain can keep things stable in Mexico with no likely changes to Mexico's governance. And if an independent OTL Mexico couldn't keep the territory stable, how does an uninformed and non-caring Spanish government across the ocean achieve this? Plus, the USA will be subtly supporting anticolonial forces in Mexico to keep the instability.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

Based on what we know, I don't think Spain will do well and will likely result in an American victory once war comes.

Why is this so fated to happen? If we look closely at history, most things aren't inevitable and had a few things been changed in history things very much could have been different.

Even in otl with the lost of the colonies and the Carlist Wars there was still a chance for the Spanish to win the Spanish-American wars. It wasn't a fated thing either that the Texans or Americans would have beat the Mexicans in otl anyway either. Mexico at that point had been highly unstable from the Independence Wars as there were lots of tensions between the more conservative/monarachist sections of the populace and the liberals and Republicans. In otl when Augustin d'Iturbide defected, he was on the verge of crushing the Independence Revolt. He only defected at the last minute because he himself and the other Mexican conservatives and the elites were traditionalists and absolutists who didn't want to be under a Liberal Spanish Metropole after the Trieno Liberal. If Iturbide stays loyal and crushes the rebellion on schedule, then Mexico has at least 10-15+ years of breathing room to consolidate itself and reform. The defection could have easily been prevented if say the Trieno Liberal never happened. Plus Spain wouldn't be supportive of Ango-Saxon/Protestant immigration within their colonies so its likely that the whole Texan Revolution is butterflied away entirely. The US likley wouldn't be able to actually steamroll a well-led and intact Spanish Empire assuming it actually survives which it very much had a chance of doing. After all had a few things gone differently in otl, it could have ended up keeping some of its colonies much like how the UK did with Canada. Spain very much could have kept Nueva Espana, Peru, and what's now Chile. Though whether they keep Rio de La Plata is a bit of a toss up though.

I cannot see Mexico wanting anything less than independence if all the other mainland Spanish colonies managed to achieve independence, even if autonomy was on the table.

Peru for most of the independence wars was loyal to Spain and was a bastion for Spanish monarchist support. They were besieged on all sides. Without the Trieno Liberal, the massive army Ferdiand VII was building in Spain would have arrive on schedule in Rio de La Plata to crush the Revolutionaries and relieve the Spanish Royalists. Also Bolivar could have at various points been killed by stray enemy fire. Had he died. then its likely that Gran Columbia falls apart leaving the Spanish in South America with breathing room to re-organize their defenses and logistics while Gran Columbia burst into flames.

Because Spain returned to absolutist rule in the 1820s, they will not be giving autonomy to Mexico if they keep it. It will be colonial style rule as always, just like the colonial rule they had in the places they kept OTL like the Philippines, Cuba, and Puerto Rico.

This is pretty debatable actually. The Crillos which d'Iturbide was a part of wanted some autonomy or at least equal status to the Spaniards. With many years of loyalty d'iturbide could have negotiated some concessions if not de-facto autonomy for himself while Spain is focused on South America. Ferdinand though was popular among the common people in Spain though, and had he been more tactful, much like Charles X the Bourbons could have very much held on to power.

owever, I don't see how Mexico butterflies away the Carlist War, which was based on who takes the Spanish throne. I don't see how Spain can keep things stable in Mexico with no likely changes to Mexico's governance. And if an independent OTL Mexico couldn't keep the territory stable, how does an uninformed and non-caring Spanish government across the ocean achieve this? Plus, the USA will be subtly supporting anticolonial forces in Mexico to keep the instability.

If say Ferdinand has a son then the Carlist Wars are basically averted. This very well could have happened as Ferdinand did try for years to sire a male heir. Even then, he was split on the decision to issue the pragmatic sanction to allow his daughter to succeed the throne. If Ferdinand dies in say 1830 from illness or health complications (he had heart complications in otl which he died from in 1833) then this is avoided with the Carlists taking the throne.

It wasn't fated that Spain's empire collapse in 1815. Had a few things gone differently than in otl, they very much could have kept a reduced but intact Empire.

 

[unprincipled peter]

As Basileus says, nothing is fated.
The Mexican war of Independence devastated the colony. If you hand waveum remove the war, or snuff it in infancy, this devastation doesn't happen. Spain now has a lot more revenue to stabilize, and Mexico has more time to develop. Ferdinand is a major problem as his actions are a big part of bringing on the Liberal rebellion. The easy way is to send him to an untimely death, but we could also posit that a better showing in the colonial theater might moderate things just enough to allow for a better (not necessarily miraculous) situation. Add in a son, or alternately, no children at all, and the Carlist Wars are averted. Or, with a different couple of decades prior, the CW may be averted. Or, with Mexico still in the fold, any US conflict may divert attention and the CW may be averted. So many things can change with something as massive as keeping New Spain, especially if it is done with minimal bloodshed. Nothing is fated.
With a stronger Mexico/New Spain, getting stronger, USA is not going to be so belligerent. USA could afford to be so aggressive because they correctly saw they were stronger. In TTL, this is not the case. Mexico has not been destabilized. Spain is more stable. This is a war Spain can win.
Spain was not averse to allowing US migration. They had been allowing it in the Louisiana Territory prior to the debacle with France/Sale. However, they did so while maintaining control, rather than the Mexican model of allowing the USAmericans in unfettered and with minimal oversight. The Texas/California situation is going to be vastly different TTL.
With any Spanish fortune, US boundaries may stop expanding with the Louisiana Purchase. Florida may be lost to US, though, although with Spain/New Spain in better condition, Spain may be more willing/able to push keeping it.
One thing that I think is ultimately fated is that large colonies grow to the point of independence being inevitable. Violent independence is not inevitable. Mexico will eventually reach the point of desiring, and being able to force, autonomy/independence. Whether this comes peacefully, or violently, is not written as of 1815.
This also impacts the Oregon Territory. Spain historically claimed it. Britain wanted it, although diminishingly so as time went on. US wanted it, and ultimately got it based on a combination of Britain's waning interest coupled with an inheritance of Spanish/Mexican legal claims post Mexican-American war. TTL, there are three players in the game. How things go depend a lot on how California develops. If New Spain can manage control of the settlements and inevitable mineral discovery, it may be able to force a favorable outcome. Things have gone too rosy for Spain so far, though, so I predict that Britain and USA compromise with the OTL British Columbia going British and Oregon/Washington going to USA, and Spain out in the cold.
With a minimal West Coast, USA may have much less presence in the Pacific, leading to Hawaii remaining British.

This also may change the US civil war situation. If the Mexican American war is averted, the political (and military leadership/lessons) winds may swirl differently. Or, a potential Spanish-USAmerican conflict in the 1850's, whether it breaks into war, or remains as a crisis, could change the political landscape. The civil war, in its OTL form, need not be fated. How the slavery issue is resolved, and/or when open conflict/secession breaks out will be affected by such massive changes of North American TL.