Spanish-American War instead of Mexican-American War

Spanish-American War instead of the Mexican-American War

Would the United States have gone to war for Spanish Possessions in the Gulf and Caribbean sooner if they were unwilling/able to take Texas and the American southwest from Mexico in the 1840's?

Criteria:

  • The war needs to start between 1848-1858 and end before 1860
  • Independent Texas exists
  • The southern border of the continental US must remain at the Adams-Onis Treaty line.
  • California gold rush happens OTL
Questions:

  • Will the US win or lose?
  • Could this postpone, prevent or start the ACW?
  • What international repercussions should the US expect?
  • Is there resistance from the natives/reaction to slavery?
  • How long until statehood/How many states?
  • How long to abolition?
 
Last edited:
That's an interesting one. Spain wasn't quite the empty shell it was in 1898.
Your right, but it's army had become corrupt after the Napoleonic wars. I think the US would win even though they are fairly evenly matched in terms of technology Spain is across the Atlantic and thus has the disadvantage. If the US succeeds there will be at least two more slave states added to the union. If it fails it will rip the US apart. I would expect abolition to start around the same time as the Ten year's war OTL or as a result of a slave revolt in the 1870's. The war will be unpopular in Europe but no one is going to help Spain. There really wasn't much of a Nationalist feeling in Cuba until the 1870's, so I don't think there will be much support or resistance from natives.
 
Well the big differences is Spain will have a navy to make things more difficult for the US and New Spain is would likely be more stable and unified in TTL than Mexico was in OTL - even if there are parties who still want to break away from Spain they would still want to see NewSpain/Mexico whole and not in Yankee hands.

This would make things much harder for the US. I'd reckon the war in the North would proceed similar to OTL. The US will springboard from Texas into Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas, have a very hard time getting past Monterrey but once they do, they'll manage to hold on to it for the reminder of the war and Texas would be secure no matter the end result.

In California, same as OTL a very small band of Americans will march in persuade the local governors and landowners to pull a Texas with very little bloodshed.

The big big difference though is the US will have a much harder time to land in Veracruz - it will also have to deal with Spanish forces in Cuba that could possibly land in New Orleans. And even if they do land in Veracruz, the march on to Mexico City will be much harder since they won't have the bishop and governor of Puebla declaring neutrality and giving them a free pass. Getting past Puebla will be as hard as getting past Monterrey (or worse).

Similarly in the Pacific Coast, Stockton's blockade will have to face Spanish forces stationed in Acapulco. If he doesn't meet Fremont an Los Angeles - the rebellions in Southern California and New Mexico might do more damage.

I think the war is likely to drag on till it becomes highly unpopular everywhere. A peace would be moderated by a third party (Britain or France) likely resulting in Spain lossing Texas to the Americans. California might stay in Spanish hand but not for long.

In Mexico discontent with Spanish rule would only increase and it is rather unlikely Spain will hold on to it much longer. At the very least they have seen that if they work together they managed to hold on the American's back. It is a war like this that really fuels national sentiment.
 
You misread the Premise. If the US doesn't take the American Southwest from Mexico in the 1840's will it take the Caribbean from Spain instead? or are you saying that Mexico will help Spain fight against the US?
 
You misread the Premise. If the US doesn't take the American Southwest from Mexico in the 1840's will it take the Caribbean from Spain instead? or are you saying that Mexico will help Spain fight against the US?
I believe the post was detailing a scenario of "The US fights in still-Spanish-ruled Mexico".
 
I'll edit it to make it clearer. "US fights Spain for Caribbean" Instead of "US fights Mexico for Texas" in the 1840-50's
 
Why do they have to gain in fighting for small islands filled with black people?
New slave states! With out Texas and the SW the only other place below the Missouri Compromise line for slavery to expand to is Oklahoma i.e. "Indian Territory"
 

Dirk_Pitt

Banned
This would only delay the Mexican-American War. Without the issue over Cuba in the 1850s Manifest Destiny will be alive and well for longer.
 
^Not an option, the US will not go to war with Mexico on Manifest Destiny because [a successful and independent] Republic of Texas blocks it's Southwestern Expansion.
 
New slave states! With out Texas and the SW the only other place below the Missouri Compromise line for slavery to expand to is Oklahoma i.e. "Indian Territory"

Until *after* the Mexican war, the drive for new slave states was mostly about getting unsettled land where Southern would-be planters could expand. The Caribbean islands aren't that.
 
the drive for new slave states was mostly about getting unsettled land where Southern would-be planters could expand. The Caribbean islands aren't that
Why not? Because of the existing cast? A war can do crazy things.
 
"History with its flickering lamp, stumbles along the trail of the past, trying to reconstruct its scenes, to revive its echoes, and kindle with pale gleams the passion of former days." ~Winston Churchill

Bumpity
 
Why not? Because of the existing cast? A war can do crazy things.

I think you're missing the fact that these new possessions would already be full and unsuitable for settlement, and the US can't expand into them the same way it could into western territories. The culture and people of Caribbean possessions would be seen as foreign and the only reason any politicians of the day would be pushing to be added them as states would be solely to change the Slave State/Free State balance. You could expect the Free States to kick up a huge fit if they tried.
 
The best portraits are perhaps those in which there is a slight mixture of caricature; and we are not certain that the best histories are not those in which a little of the exaggeration of fictitious narrative is judiciously employed. Something is lost in accuracy; but much is gained in effect. The fainter lines are neglected; but the great characteristic features are imprinted on the mind forever. ~Thomas Babington Macaulay, Machiavelli

To the Top!
 
Top