No Spanish-American War. What happens to Puerto Rico?

Worth pointing out two things. Firstly, Puerto Rico isn't an independent country today so the idea that it needs to beer independent in a Spanish held timeline seems on the face of it slightly suspicious.

But also, there is a tendency to perceive the future of colonialism in this timeline as following a similar trajectory to OTL which is by no means certain. WWI and perhaps more importantly WWII did much to economically distress the colonial powers, and later undermine the philosophical underpinnings of territorial government.

Theoretically we could see a future where many colonies are fully integrated into the parent country and where calls for independence is seen as eccentric and fanciful.

If France and the UK can hold onto some significant extra territory to OTL it makes Spain and others more likely to be able to hold onto some of theirs.

With an earlier POD maybe, but according to the original post the POD is right around 1898 so Spain has already lost most of its empire, and Cuba wants independence as well, so it would hardly be fanciful for PR to do so as well.

Keep in mind that France and the UK did in fact give independence to the great majority of their old empires - the remaining overseas territories are often called « confetti of the empire ». It’s not impossible for Spain to keep PR but I think it’s quite logical for it to want independence given its population (over 3 millions) and that Spain went through a lot of turmoil in the XX century.
 
Perhaps, but not that much. There's nothing like the situation in the French Caribbean, where Creole is the main language of home and French is the language of officialdom. There was also not such a deep split as in Cape Verde and São Tomé and Príncipe, where Portuguese colonial racism created the preconditions for a split. (I'm inclined to think that, in the case of those two ex-Portuguese archipelagoes, autonomy within Portugal would have provided better outcomes for locals than independence.)

There was racism in Puerto Rico, read about the Spanish caste system.
 
What butterfly effect does avoiding the Spanish-American War of 1898 have on the (potential) Spanish Civil War of the 1930s?

Getting their faces kicked in by the Americans was highly traumatic to the Spanish political system. TTL, I think they are still losing Cuba, so there is still some trauma. But not as much. Combine that with an influx of cash from a possible sale of the Phillippines (along with maybe selling islands like Guam to the US), and you are looking at a stabler system. Maybe contemporary Italy or France levels of political dysfunction.
 
I think the exact way in which the Spanish-American War is avoided will shape the future of Puerto-Rico. While the Maine was the CB, America certainly wasn't looking favourably at the events unfolding in Cuba prior to that. A negotiated settlement or a quick and relatively humane suppression of the rebellion would be needed to ensure no American intervention, although I suppose the war going more or less as OTL but with nothing substantial enough to give America the will to intervene is possible. Each of which has some pretty differing outcomes.

Negotiated settlement: More autonomy for Cuba potentially laying the ground work for the Spanish West Indies to transform into a Dominion-esque state? (Having this as a butterfly of Spain successfully reintegrating the Dominican Republic in the 1860s would be an especially cool TL).

Quick suppression: Puerto Rico could very well remain in Spain to the modern day.

Long bloody war: The Philippine insurrection likely gets a second wind, and Spain would struggle immensely with two wars on opposite sides of the earth. It may not be as traumatic as getting its teeth kicked in by America, but losing lots of men and most of its colonies is going to rattle Spain's political institutions. Good chance of revolution, durring which PR likely goes its own way.
 
I think the exact way in which the Spanish-American War is avoided will shape the future of Puerto-Rico. While the Maine was the CB, America certainly wasn't looking favourably at the events unfolding in Cuba prior to that. A negotiated settlement or a quick and relatively humane suppression of the rebellion would be needed to ensure no American intervention, although I suppose the war going more or less as OTL but with nothing substantial enough to give America the will to intervene is possible. Each of which has some pretty differing outcomes.

Negotiated settlement: More autonomy for Cuba potentially laying the ground work for the Spanish West Indies to transform into a Dominion-esque state? (Having this as a butterfly of Spain successfully reintegrating the Dominican Republic in the 1860s would be an especially cool TL).

Quick suppression: Puerto Rico could very well remain in Spain to the modern day.

Long bloody war: The Philippine insurrection likely gets a second wind, and Spain would struggle immensely with two wars on opposite sides of the earth. It may not be as traumatic as getting its teeth kicked in by America, but losing lots of men and most of its colonies is going to rattle Spain's political institutions. Good chance of revolution, durring which PR likely goes its own way.

Two thirds of Cuba were already under rebel control when the USA intervened, Spain only controlled the eastern part of the island. In the Philippines, IIRC, Spain only controlled Manila and a few other places, the rest was under control of various Filipino groups. The wars in Cuba and the Philippines were becoming nightmares, Spain would eventually have to withdraw.
 
Two thirds of Cuba were already under rebel control when the USA intervened, Spain only controlled the eastern part of the island. In the Philippines, IIRC, Spain only controlled Manila and a few other places, the rest was under control of various Filipino groups. The wars in Cuba and the Philippines were becoming nightmares, Spain would eventually have to withdraw.
Yeah I agree, the colonial wars going as OTL sans-US intervention would certainly result in a Spanish defeat. Sorry if my post wasn't clear on that.

In the Philippines, IIRC, Spain only controlled Manila and a few other places, the rest was under control of various Filipino groups.
The rebels had actually been defeated in 1897, and only resumed their rebellion when America declared war. A quick conclusion to the Cuban conflict likely allows Spain to remain in control of the Philippines for at least the immediate future.
 
Yeah I agree, the colonial wars going as OTL sans-US intervention would certainly result in a Spanish defeat. Sorry if my post wasn't clear on that.


The rebels had actually been defeated in 1897, and only resumed their rebellion when America declared war. A quick conclusion to the Cuban conflict likely allows Spain to remain in control of the Philippines for at least the immediate future.

Are you sure, that, the Filipino rebels had been defeated in 1897? No offense , but, I remember reading, once, that, the Spanish only controlled Manila and a few other cities.
 
Are you sure, that, the Filipino rebels had been defeated in 1897?
What else would you call the rebellion's leaders signing an agreement to end their insurrection and live in exile?

No offense , but, I remember reading, once, that, the Spanish only controlled Manila and a few other cities.
By mid June that was the case. The Battle of Manilla Bay was on May 1st.
 
Long bloody war: The Philippine insurrection likely gets a second wind, and Spain would struggle immensely with two wars on opposite sides of the earth. It may not be as traumatic as getting its teeth kicked in by America, but losing lots of men and most of its colonies is going to rattle Spain's political institutions. Good chance of revolution, durring which PR likely goes its own way.

The rebels had actually been defeated in 1897, and only resumed their rebellion when America declared war. A quick conclusion to the Cuban conflict likely allows Spain to remain in control of the Philippines for at least the immediate future.

Are you sure, that, the Filipino rebels had been defeated in 1897? No offense , but, I remember reading, once, that, the Spanish only controlled Manila and a few other cities.

What else would you call the rebellion's leaders signing an agreement to end their insurrection and live in exile?


By mid June that was the case. The Battle of Manilla Bay was on May 1st.

Sorry, I haven't read much about the Philippine Revolution.

1.The Supporters of Bonifacio did not accept Emilio Aguinaldo's treaty of Biak na Bato, if the Americans did not have Aguinaldo return the Supporters of Bonifacio will continue the revolt, however it will be bloodier, the ones that got in exile are the supporters of Aguinaldo, we will see the Creoles and Peninsulares expelled in the country ruled by the supporters of Bonifacio.

2. The Philippine revolt got splintered when the Americans came because the Visayans and Mindanaoans want their own countries, so it is likely that the Spanish retain parts of the Philippines ITTL, the Visayan and Mindanao revolts defeated the Spanish completely so the Luzon will follow up on that, however the Philippines will end up splintered into many states.

3. The Americans aside from Cuba wanted to get/purchase Luzon, that is their plan since they want to have influence in the Western Pacific and also Japan since they opened Japan when Gen. Perry opened itl.

I think the alternative for the Spanish to the War would be the Spanish selling their rights to Luzon and Cuba to the Americans, rather than fighting the Americans and have the Americans help them in supressing the revolt in the rest of the Philippines.
 
Last edited:
1.The Supporters of Bonifacio did not accept Emilio Aguinaldo's treaty of Biak na Bato, if the Americans did not have Aguinaldo return the Supporters of Bonifacio will continue the revolt, however it will be bloodier, the ones that got in exile are the supporters of Aguinaldo, we will see the Creoles and Peninsulares expelled in the country ruled by the supporters of Bonifacio.
How strong were they? Their leader had been executed by Aguinaldo.
 
How strong were they? Their leader had been executed by Aguinaldo.


Macabulos refused to honor the Pact of Biak-na-Bato, which called for a truce with the Spanish colonial government, and continued operations in Central Luzon. But on January 14, 1898, he disbanded his troops and accepted amnesty after receiving P14,000 as part of Spanish reparations to Filipino revolutionaries. Macabulos distributed the money to his men.

However, he resumed operations against the Spanish and on April 17, 1898, an assembly of citizens representing the town councils Macabulos established, calling themselves representatives of Central Luzon, met and drafted a provisional constitution. They created a government that was to exist until a revolutionary government is established. Macabulos' government was headed by a general executive committee, consisting of a president, vice president, secretary of interior, secretary of war and a secretary of the treasury.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Macabulos

Francisco Makabulos chose to be the leader of the remaining Katipunan that did not accept the Biak na Bato treaty and pretended to accept amnesty, during that time there is also a strong revolt in Mindanao as well by Vicente Alvarez supported by the Sultanates.

I think we would end up having the Americans buy Luzon in this scenario since this revolt had support of the Masses already.
 
Last edited:
Puerto Rico in the 19th century was already a Spanish Canada. Many Spanish loyalists fled there after the revolutions in the early part of the century.
 
My best guess is that it would remain part of Spain with the same status as the Canary Island. In fact in 1898 and before the war, Puerto Rico was raised to an overseas province with the same status as, say, Barcelona or Seville. Even with a Spanish-American War happening, Spain could have kept it's territorial integrity with some preparation and maybe even curbstomp the US anyways, the scenario doesn't really recquire a no-war clause. Assuming Spain develops in the same way as it did IOTL (probably not) Puerto Rico would likely side with the nationalists due to it's rather traditionalist point of view and the fact that all overseas territories eventually sided with the nationalists. Maybe having a fascist island so close to the mainland of the US could scare them a bit with some paranoia oubtreaks like "Spain allow a Nazi base there and maybe they bomb America or even attempt a landing". Post WW2 Puerto Rico would recover better and faster than mainland Spain, likely becoming a refuge for those not desired by the Francoist regime if they hide well. Being considered an overseas province and with most of the population supporting it being Spanish I can't see the UN forcing a decolonisation like that of Guinea. Think about it as a second Sahara, surviving the decolonisation but, unlike the Sahara, not being occupied by a foreign power.
 
Well, apart from Francisco Franco finally getting into the Spanish Navy (even if it's in San Juan, not Havana) and Pablo Casals probably not inaugurating the festival as a result of being a Civil War refugee (not to mention no J-Lo and Marc Anthony), . . .

The effects on Puerto Rico would be huge if it remained Spanish. At the time of the Spanish-American War, Puerto Rico's cash crop dependent economy had reoriented itself around coffee and tobacco (sugar was but one component, and even then it wasn't a major driver of the economy as it became under the US) so those two crops, along with tropical fruits, remain the main drivers of Puerto Rico's economic development. Meanwhile, after the loss of Cuba and the Philippines, you'd bet Madrid would want to pump huge amounts of investment into Puerto Rico as its last remaining element of the Spanish Empire in the Americas. In that case, Puerto Rico would not be immune from broader Latin American trends towards Comtean positivism, although in this case it would like the US's contentious relationship with Central American and Caribbean countries rather than the paradigmatic examples of Mexico and Brazil. So alongside agriculture, the service sector (i.e. construction, the military) would also be a main part of the Puerto Rican economy - even more so as the Spanish are trying to replace what they already lost in Cuba in terms of infrastructure and all that jazz. Politically, while an autonomous province of Spain, the Puerto Rican political climate would differ considerably from the Mainland, even with superficial similarities, and would share strong similarities with other similar Latin American countries during this time period since Comtean positivism was A Big Thing (TM) that Latin American political élites thought could help their countries in particular and the wider region in general "civilize" and achieve modernity without changing the basic structures inherited from the colonial period. In fact, I'd go further - alongside this positivist consensus, similar to Colombia Puerto Rico would also retain its historic conservative and liberal parties, since they too accepted this consensus, with the Liberal Fusionists' Puerto Rican branch even branching out into populist-esque liberalism similar to its contemporary in José Batlle y Ordóñez and his Colorado Party in Uruguay.

Similar to @Drex in assuming an OTL path for Mainland Spain (probably not), then the post-WW1 crisis would hit Puerto Rico very hard, leading to dissatisfaction with the positivist model and looking for options for change; Primo de Rivera's dictatorship would be more of the same of reheating a past-due positivist model on the Island. One option would be corporatism, and in this case I'd assume that a split would develop in Puerto Rico's conservatives which would allow it to happen and probably along the lines of Italy's People's Party (IOTL a similar split occured in Chile with its nucleus in the Falange Nacional; despite the name, it was actually made up of progressives and reformists and would form the basis upon which Chile's Christian Democratic Party would be built), so while it would start off as a big-tent corporatist party which would generally be conservative and focused largely on defending Catholic interests (as were the first generation of Latin American Christian Democratic parties in those days, cf. Mexico's PAN) it would be the reformists who would drive the agenda of the Catholic-corporatist party. Another avenue for change would be towards the Left, and in a more unusual way (well, more unusual by Spanish standards, but was emergent and was among many options on the table in Latin America and which ultimately had major impact in the region). Socialism and Marxism never really took hold in its canonical form in Latin America, with the few successful examples serving as exceptions which prove the rule, primarily because the ideologies developed in an environment assuming a stage of political, economic, and social development that approximated Western Europe and North America as the paradigm that it wanted to change, not to mention that Marx himself believed his form of socialism could never work in Latin America and used all sorts of racist justifications to explain why. So socialism was largely a phenomenon limited to the immigrant populations until you had people trying to adapt both to fit into a Latin American context. The most successful of these (although not in its native Peru) was Victor Raúl Haya de la Torre and his American Popular Revolutionary Alliance (APRA), and it is parties in the same mold as APRA throughout Latin America that were among the most successful parties of Latin America's Left post-WWII since they were able, in their own peculiar country-specific environments and with a great deal of moderation so that they could be considered equivalent to social-democratic parties in Europe, to put Aprista policies into practice. Puerto Rico has one such Aprista party IOTL, the pro-status quo Popular Democratic Party (PPD) with its implementation largely manifested in Operación Manos a la Obra (Operation Bootstrap) and the creation of the modern Commonwealth as we know it today, among both non-Puerto Ricans (like yours truly) and Puerto Ricans alike; any attempt to replicate a party in APRA's mold in a Puerto Rico still part of Spain ITTL would need to take into account the social structures of Puerto Rico itself and the nationalist movement. There has always been discontent in some form or another on the Island (the most famous example being the Grito de Lares) and as some have already pointed out in this thread there's also been considerable racism in Puerto Rico historically, which dates back to the colonial-era class system which in a weaker form would still be prevalent. So something like Aprismo would hold special appeal for Puerto Rico's poor and lower classes, not only as a chance to better oneself but also as an acknowledgement of the realities of mestizaje on the Island itself as a core part of its identity and also by channeling the discontent in the Island into something more positive and constructive. (Conversely, parties like the PSOE, the Communists, and even left-liberal parties like Azaña's crew, for example, would hold little appeal in Puerto Rico since it would assume a situation similar to the Mainland that simply does not exist in Puerto Rico; Puerto Rico's Aprista party and the PSOE would not get along from the outset.) Now, this Aprismo could be channeled through the nationalist movement (which would ultimately advocate for Puerto Rican independence), through other means, or through both, with both a moderate-nationalist form of Aprismo similar to what IOTL would become the basis for the PPD and a radical-nationalist form of Aprismo that would advocate for independence. Either way, the Second Republic and Puerto Rico would not get along well since the Island would go for local parties which by Spanish standards would be centrist to right-wing but which by Latin American standards would be all over the spectrum. At its core would be problems resulting from the huge dependence on agriculture in the Puerto Rican economy which would mean the 1920s would be anything but golden/"roaring" in Puerto Rico and the 1930s would have the Island suffer the full effects of the Depression.

Therefore, when we reach the Civil War period (which already has one butterfly in Franco as a naval officer, possibly in Puerto Rico itself, which throws all sorts of Spanish military and colonial history into a different direction), my best guess would be that Puerto Ricans in general would be in an ambiguous position, preferring not to support either side and would much rather go its own way into neutrality. I don't think there would be strong feelings towards either side of the conflict since to do so would put the Island into a paradox. If Puerto Rico declared for one side or another, the problem that results is that the Island's population would refuse to go along and would lead to all sorts of contortions, i.e. Apristas supporting the Nationalists if the Puerto Rican government declared for the Republic, or Catholic-corporatists and hardline conservatives supporting the Republic and the Spanish Navy if the Puerto Rican government sided with the Nationalists. It would also make it all the more likely that the radical nationalists (the ones who, in IOTL as part of a much broader movement, sided with the Partido Nacionalista and its leader, Pedro Albizú Campos) would take advantage of chaos on the Mainland to declare an independent Puerto Rico and would be willing to fight both sides in order to achieve this objective - and the last thing both sides want (particularly the Republicans, considering the chaos already present in its territory, not to mention the anarchists in Catalonia and Aragón) would be yet another piece of Spanish territory breaking away to form its own independent nation. So it would sue for neutrality and would hope and pray that nobody on the Mainland takes notice. This could mean that at the end of it Puerto Rico could go either way due to its neutrality, either as the last remaining bit of the Republic in a Taiwan-like situation, as another victory for the Nationalists towards the end of the Civil War out of indifference, or even as an independent state (and in this case probably backed not only by the US but also by the Dominican Republic under Rafael Trujillo, by Britain (the BVI are not far from Vieques and Culebra) and by other Latin American countries). No matter what form it takes, I do think a lot of Civil War refugees would try to make the crossing and their presence could definitely help Puerto Rico's post-WWII recovery. If Puerto Rico remains Spanish - either as a Taiwan-like remnant of the Republic or as part of Nationalist territory - I agree that decolonization would not be forced by the UN, but that does not mean that the sentiments behind it will not go away, particularly among the Apristas and the nationalist movement. Furthermore, if Puerto Rico ends up either as an independent state or as a Taiwan-like remnant of the Republic, it's going to be subject to a lot of American economic and cultural influence - not as intense as IOTL, and definitely not to the levels of, say, Cuba, but the United States would become a major player in the Puerto Rican story. If the Republic wins the Civil War, OTOH, then we'd be entering into new territory and the Republic would have to hope the Nazis don't invade because then things will get bloody fast. Of course, if the Republic survives a Nazi invasion, then it would be a good time for the Republic to eschew its radical beginnings and moderate into something more acceptable to Puerto Ricans - or at least something that would make Apristas comfortable.
 
I think aside from Puerto Rico, I think Visayas could be retained by the Spanish if the Spanish choose to sell Cuba and Luzon instead of a war with the Americans.
 
I think aside from Puerto Rico, I think Visayas could be retained by the Spanish if the Spanish choose to sell Cuba and Luzon instead of a war with the Americans.

Would the Visayas go for the Nationalists or the Republicans, assuming an OTL trajectory on Mainland Spain?
 
Would the Visayas go for the Nationalists or the Republicans, assuming an OTL trajectory on Mainland Spain?
Depends on who they support - they might go republican or nationalist- I think they will go Liberal in this case, the faction that they support can form a government in Exile there ala Taiwan.
 
Last edited:
Yeah so close to the end of the Civil War that it ended less than a month later. The communists weren't all that important when the war was already lost.

But the coup did show that the Republican Army was not fully under Communist control.

My best guess is that it would remain part of Spain with the same status as the Canary Island. In fact in 1898 and before the war, Puerto Rico was raised to an overseas province with the same status as, say, Barcelona or Seville. Even with a Spanish-American War happening, Spain could have kept it's territorial integrity with some preparation and maybe even curbstomp the US anyways, the scenario doesn't really recquire a no-war clause. Assuming Spain develops in the same way as it did IOTL (probably not) Puerto Rico would likely side with the nationalists due to it's rather traditionalist point of view and the fact that all overseas territories eventually sided with the nationalists. Maybe having a fascist island so close to the mainland of the US could scare them a bit with some paranoia oubtreaks like "Spain allow a Nazi base there and maybe they bomb America or even attempt a landing". Post WW2 Puerto Rico would recover better and faster than mainland Spain, likely becoming a refuge for those not desired by the Francoist regime if they hide well. Being considered an overseas province and with most of the population supporting it being Spanish I can't see the UN forcing a decolonisation like that of Guinea. Think about it as a second Sahara, surviving the decolonisation but, unlike the Sahara, not being occupied by a foreign power.

Are you sure that Puerto Rico has a traditionalist point of view?
 
Top