Spain keeps Mexico

Unlike the other Hispanic American countries, Mexico's independence was secured by conservatives. Spain had actually all but defeated the Mexican rebels, and only lost the country because Agustín de Iturbide switched sides in the war. He went from supporting Spain to fighting against it because he felt that an independent Mexico was the only protection against liberalism eminating from Spain (due to the 1812 constitution).

Say Iturbide doesn't switch sides.

How does Spain govern New Spain with all of its possessions in South America gone? How does the U.S. react to being sandwiched between 2 European colonies, blocking its expansion?
 
Unlike the other Hispanic American countries, Mexico's independence was secured by conservatives. Spain had actually all but defeated the Mexican rebels, and only lost the country because Agustín de Iturbide switched sides in the war. He went from supporting Spain to fighting against it because he felt that an independent Mexico was the only protection against liberalism eminating from Spain (due to the 1812 constitution).

Say Iturbide doesn't switch sides.

How does Spain govern New Spain with all of its possessions in South America gone? How does the U.S. react to being sandwiched between 2 European colonies, blocking its expansion?

The USA had still plenty of room to expand, after the Louisiana purchase...

The american colonists and the spanish Empire could be in conflict in the 1830-1840 and the solution to these conflict could be the same as the Louisiana or the Florida purchase, the USA could buy these lands...

Or you could have an earlier spanish-american war when Spain was in the middle of the Carlists Wars (1833-1843)...
 
I admit I'm not very knowledgeable of Mexico's history but I'd say that even if the royalist side wins the war it'll be hard to make Mexico stable enough to avoid a later insurrection that will eventually lead to Mexico's independence.

Wouldn't it be easier to make Mexico a dominion? Iturbide initially asked Ferdinand VII himself to lead an independent Mexico (or to offer Mexico's crown to another Bourbon). Ferdinand VII could have sent a brother of his as a regent with instructions to defy the constitution. Iturbide would probably accept him.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
There would be another revolt after a while, and if Spain won again there would be yet another one later. Sooner or later Spain would lose.
 
There would be another revolt after a while, and if Spain won again there would be yet another one later. Sooner or later Spain would lose.

Yea pretty much.

Even if Agustín de Iturbide doesn't switch sides there are still a rather large insurrection under Vicente Guerrero, Anastasio Bustamante, and Guadalupe Victoria going on. These guys are capable leaders, Iturbide provided the extra punch and the swift end to the war but him staying amongst the loyalist ranks doesn't guarantee Spain keeping Mexico.

It only means this is going to be a longer, bloodier war than it already is. It might become a matter of who tires first. And even if Mexico tires out first, the only way to keep it from rebelling would be to follow Iturbide's idea of creating a dominion or another Bourbon taking the crown would be giving Mexico techinical "independence".

And even then I can't see Spain keeping Mexico too long as a dominion before there is a republican uprising. Spain in the 19th century was going through pretty tough times, problems with succession, liberalism, etc. In Mexico it would have to deal with a rebelling Central America, Yucatan, the American neighbor to the north, and an uneasy population that might spark into rebellion at any moment.

When people like Juarez, Diaz, Lerdo de Tejada, etc. Come along they might just spark a second rebellion in the late 1860s-70s. And likely be succesfull,
 
Top