Spanish Colonization vs English

In colonial times, entire families from Great Britian would immigrate to America, whereas in Latin America individuals would immigrate. These individuals were younger sons of noblemen who immigrated to seek their fortune (since only the oldest sons would inherit the estate; the only other choice was to enter the priesthood.) These immigrants would marry local Indian women, which brought about rapid cultural changes. From what I've read, these men often lived lives of leisure, disdaining manual labor. If these concepts were duplicated in the British Isles, what changes might gave resulted in the United States?
 
Assuming we get even independent and republicanism on schedule, one hell of a more aristocratic air and government, if the disliking-labor means anything.

And even then I dunno on racial matters, perhaps there weren't even enough native women to go around for assumably lesser amounts of white men in this world.
 
Aside from the interbreeding with natives, this did happen to some extent. The difference was, I believe, that the British brought their peasants with them in the form of indentured servants, which were later freed to set up their own holdings. So I think republicanism is probably alright; perhaps pushed back a few decades due to unaccountable butterflies.
If the interbreeding did occur, would we see some tribes taken under the protection of leading landholders? Say a certain group of natives gets chased off its lands by its enemies and the survivors go to the chief's son-in-law for safety. This leads to more frequent clashes for the colonists and between groups of colonists as different tribes interbreed with different groups of colonists.
Greater integration, increase in warfare and faster expansion can be the only results.
 
The spanish kings did not feel they had to colonise their lands in America. There were inhabitants already there and the migration of women was severely hindered. There was no necessity of sending peasants to a place where there were already peasants. In that sense it was not a colonisation. I have already mentioned in several threads that there was another legal difference. The spanish kings gave laws that protected the amerindians (not always obeyed) and there was a feeling that although there was no way of undoing the damage maybe it had not been right to have acted as they did (controversials of Burgos in 1510 and Valladolid in 1555, relectios of Francisco de Vitoria in the University of Salamanca in the 1530s). For the english kings and colonists the naturals of those lands where, even in the XVIII century, barely better than animals and beings without soul. Just check how many inhabitants of amerindian origin are there for instance in Guatemala and in the United States (not only in relative but in absolute terms).
 
Top