Again, I agree with much of what you say. Here, though, there is misunderstanding... I meant the bad taste is on the part of Britain and Spain.
Spain is obvious - a colony is forcibly breaking free and depriving them of funding/trade. As with USA and Britain after that independence struggle, these differences can be overcome, but in the short term, there is dislocation of economy (actually, this is already torn asunder because of the massive Peninsula War) and the loss of funding.
Britain is more complicated. As you say, there is long term desire to separate the colonies and open them to British trade/economic domination. But this is tempered by a need to deny Spain to Napoleon and use the Peninsula War to bleed France.
Within Mexico, it is a complicated situation as well, with Criollos and Peninsulares vying for power, and businessmen and the Church balancing personal economic salvation with needs of the colony and mother country. Economic well being for some leads to economic deprivation for others, as you say. For a new country, national well being must be paramount over individual needs. Resources prior sent to Spain can now be retained for the good of Mexico. Overall, this should be welcomed, although there will be individuals who are disadvantaged in the divorce.
I think a lot of factors are not being looked at here when it comes to Mexico becoming independent earlier
For one, the fact that it was the criollo elite that wanted to push this movement is something that can't be understated. People from all sorts of other backgrounds were for the most part fine with the spanish even as far as economically, and its in the money and power were the criollos wanted to hog in all for themselves. But as for the people, what they actually saw more as a threat or annoyance was that Spain was becoming more liberal and because they thought that there was still a direct french monarchy controlling it. In this sense it's how a lot of the locals were tricked in OTL by Hidalgo so they thought that they were vying for the side of King Ferdinand VII by trying to become independent when it really wasn't the case, the criollos just wanted to have more power and that's it.
Another thing is that while Mexico's Otl indepedence was relatively peaceful compared to the independence movements in south america. It doesn't mean that the seeds of chaos by creating independizing weren't already sowed. Many later politicians would work on the side of masonry to sell mines and lands whether it belonged to the natives or not, to european power and the US. Not to mention that they also completely unrecognized the previous aztec and mayan nobles whose titles had been respected for 300 years, because the criollos both didn't like them nor wanted them to have any sort of power, and because it was the natives that would side more with Spain as a whole because of the contrast in treatment. The royalists after all were very much the natives most of the time, not just peninsulares or people from spain etc. How could’ve that even worked after all? Spain was way too busy at the time to deal with any other issue, and somehow the pushback that the caudillos faced were by peninsulares only?
This is especially exemplified when we look at the northern territories from Texas to the coasts of Alaska, people often say that these places were very underpopulated or sparse. Yet at the same time the spanish influence that was felt here still exists, from the very names of the cities and states to the facts that records show that the explorers that would go to these places would very often find natives who spoke fluent if not mainly spanish. For another example, did you know Geronimo spoke mainly spanish? But considering that these whole big territories were under New Spain, and that the criollo elite gave no care to natives in general. This gave the US the opportunity to abuse that weakness and to take over the territories. That’s exactly why the whole idea of Mexico or even spain selling those lands to the US sounds a lot like criollo masonry, considering that these lands weren’t just some empty bunch of nothing, thought wouldn’t be too unrealistic as even Benito Juarez was proposing to sell baja California to the US later on in history.
Another argument is about the capital that Spain was using up to deal with the war in the peninsula. But at the same time you have to look at it from a broader perspective and how it makes the criollos more bratty. Throughout the entire viceroyalty of New Spain, the actual pressures Spain ever put on that colony can only mainly be traced to this time period in particular because of how badly Spain got crippled as a result of Napoleon. At no other point did Spain ever sap out the resources of New spain or other territories as it did here, nor did it send any men from the viceroyalties to fight european wars or anything. These were more like roman provinces or well as the title viceroyalty suggests, an allied kingdom, not a colony as the english usage of just wealth extraction. So the fact that the criollos felt so indignified by this change (for pretty justifiable reasons) makes them more of an unsympathetic bunch. The viceroyalties after all had the benefit of always being in a state of peace for so much of it, meanwhile the peninsula was always the one suffering from famines and having to group up their own men to fight wars in europe.
Another thing is how the independence is to be felt regionally and globally. Regionally, the common hispanic market that was running at the time since 1778 would be blacked out off a pretty big commercial ally. You may say, well England wanted them to be independent alongside the nations of south america for commerce. But the reality is that it’s really not very much commerce and more like being subjected to huge debts (as it happened in south america thanks to the masonry-affiliated libertadores), having their own mines and lands being sold off to the british and later other foreign powers, and in the case of Peru where Jose de San Martin literally stole tons and tons of gold to give to the british. To what extent is allying to the british a good idea for Mexico in any capacity? But realistically speaking, if the criollos do succeed, I think it would depend highly on who’s in charge to see if they would also fall victim to this informal british empire. But without any other links other than themselves how could they keep going for long?
because for example, another economic hit Mexico will face soon after independence is that its gonna close the Manila galleon trade. And this won’t just hurt the philippines, Spain, and the still viceroyalties more down south during this time, it will hurt Mexico a lot too. The asian market they had will be completely gone and so it makes it easier for the foreign powers at the time to make mince meat out of mexico at its behest as it did already occur in OTL.
Not just this but the sort of companionship it had with the other viceroyalties. Did you know before the independence, when any sort of invasion or conflict would happen in the spanish new world, many generals from all around hispanic america would be brought same with troops sometimes? Did you know that there were very many viceroys of criollo or mestizo descent that sometimes originated from another or neighboring viceroyalty? By proclaiming independence, the criollo elite of said new republic is essentially closing down all of that in favor of their own wealth and interests and nothing more.
And this sort of weakening is what allows countries, like the US, France, or Britain, to do whatever with Mexico later down the line. So much for the liberty and the democracy honestly. I fail to see how such a rotten base as the criollos winning could create an actual prosperous Mexico later on that won’t end up getting hammered around by whoever foreign power is up to the task.
