Why? The Spaniards won't go to war with the US if they're fighting Mexico.
What if Spain somehow won the Spanish-American War
- Thread starter JewishBolshevik
- Start date
Prehapse have them somehow occur in conjunction with eachother so the US's attention is divided. For added distraction if this is a surviving second Mexican empire it might also be possible to find a way to drag France or Austria into this mess (Mexico during the second empire period was French client state but had a hapsburg monarch) which would also give spain a better chance on the naval end of the conflict with the United States. Haveing both France and Austria involved also reduces the chance of outside intervention since French allies [nameily russia] are less likely to attack Austria and vice versa with austrian allies [namily germany] less likley to start a war with france since both of thier allies are participating in a war together on the same side.
Second Mexican Empire - Wikipedia
House of Habsburg-Lorraine - Wikipedia
Triple Alliance (1882) - Wikipedia
Last edited:
It is true that as part of a project I proposed that Spain and Mexico acted together to deter the United States, but that required a chain of preconditions...
...that included, among other things, the situation that both were Republics with a bad relationship with the United States, and a better relationship with each other, in addition to a mutual distrust towards "the gringo" and economic, cultural and social ties. (And no Spanish support to the attackers against Mexico).
None of which happens in OTL where Spain and Mexico practically ignored each other throughout the 19th century, if not happens Spain supporting the French invasion of México.
...that included, among other things, the situation that both were Republics with a bad relationship with the United States, and a better relationship with each other, in addition to a mutual distrust towards "the gringo" and economic, cultural and social ties. (And no Spanish support to the attackers against Mexico).
None of which happens in OTL where Spain and Mexico practically ignored each other throughout the 19th century, if not happens Spain supporting the French invasion of México.
Well, the Spanish American War was a pretty naked act of aggression by the US against Spain. So conceivably, a more dangerous Spain might dissuade a belligerent expansionist US, and the US would choose an easier target for its jingoistic fantasy - Mexico, Central America, Haiti or the Dominican Republic. This is the era of gunboat diplomacy, the US has more or less reached the limits of continental expansion
When the US went against the Second Mexican Empire it wasn't "going after Mexico again", it was supporting republicans in Mexico.Prehapse have them somehow occur in conjunction with eachother so the US's attention is divided. For added distraction if this is a surviving second Mexican empire it might also be possible to find a way to drag France or Austria into this mess (Mexico during the second empire period was French client state but had a hapsburg monarch) which would also give spain a better chance on the naval end of the conflict with the United States. Haveing both France and Austria involved also reduces the chance of outside intervention since French allies [nameily russia] are less likely to attack Austria and vice versa with austrian allies [namily germany] less likley to start a war with france since both of thier allies are participating in a war together on the same side.
Second Mexican Empire - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
House of Habsburg-Lorraine - Wikipedia
Triple Alliance (1882) - Wikipedia
When was this Charter passed?
What was the Cuban rebels remaining complaint afterward?
Did Cuba and Puerto Rico under these charters get the right to establish their own export and import duty levels pertaining to countries other than Spain, and negotiate market access for themselves in countries other than Spain?
Were people with rebel records under threat of judicial prosecution or offered amnesty?
I think you meant to say,
.....based on everything you said afterward.
1897, The cabinets were formed just before the war of 1898 With Elections being held
"The autonomic regime came into effect on February 10, 1898, and the new insular government was sworn in before the governor, Manuel Macías Casado. Its president was Francisco Mariano Quiñones; the leader of the autonomists, Luis Muñoz Rivera, was in charge of Grace and Justice; Manuel Fernández Juncos, of the Treasury; Manuel Rossy Calderón, of Public Instruction; Juan Hernández López, of Public Works and Communications; and José Severo Quiñones Caro, of Agriculture, Commerce and Industry.
In March-April 1898, the Legislative Assembly was elected, in which the Autonomist Liberal Union led by Muñoz Rivera obtained an ample majority. However, the outbreak of the Spanish-American war in April caused that the chambers could hardly meet and the Cabinet could not carry out its functions. The Parliament was inaugurated on July 17, and took office the following day, being interrupted on the 25th because of the American invasion."
Possibly, although these two countries are in a whole other class of weak and unstable and defenseless compared to Spain.
Possibly, although the Central American republics are in a whole other class of weak and unstable and defenseless compared to Spain, or even Mexico under Porfirio. But, with losing to Spain, other powers may be less hesitant to compete or resist.
Possibly, but 16 years is a long time in politics, and it depends if a consensus remains to slink in home and remain cautious, judging foreign adventure foolish entirely, and sticking with that view, for a whole generation, even while foreign commerce remains a nontrivial part of America's economy, or if for some or most of that time a spirit of correcting or fixing patently exposed weaknesses is the dominant mood, in a determination to "never again" be so embarrassed internationally.
That's pretty much the same as winning the war for Spain, and for America, it is definitely losing the war.
This is a good point to bring up - Per wiki:
I think Hawaiian annexation under the alternate circumstances of *losing* the Spanish-American War is a toss-up, not guaranteed to be tossed out, not guaranteed to still happen either. In basic terms, the white planter leaders of the Hawaiian Republic would still want it, and figures in the McKinley Administration, supporters in Congress and the Navy and pro-Imperialist circles would still want it as much or more than OTL to hold on to a sense of power and potency amidst the failure against Spain. But many in the Congress and public, aside those concerned with the ethics or morality of the annexation, would be concern about the practicality and feasibility of holding down Hawaii without national naval and military overextension, especially with national naval and military prowess revealed to be less than advertised, just ninety miles off the shores of Florida.
Comparing the timing of the Hawaiian annexation with the war, McKinley clearly intended to do it the year *before* getting drawn into a war with Spain and when he did not want a war with Spain. He just did not have quite enough votes. So he would still want it I think unless he came to believe it too dangerous for the country. The Hawaiian Republic government, run by white American planters, either American born or Hawaiian born 2nd generation American immigrants, would be friendly toward American Pacific operations against Spain, no matter how well or poorly they do, so that won't change. OTL the Spanish-American War lasted from April 21st 1898 through December 10th 1898, so it overlapped with the successful passage of the Newlands annexation resolution, although the resolution passed four days after the last important naval battle in Cuba, and two months after the Manila Bay victory.
A potential complicating factor, especially if the US is doing as badly in the Pacific, failing at or around Manila Bay or Guam, as in the Caribbean or Cuba, is that *Japan* might be re-emboldened to resume objections, voiced as recently as 1897, to US annexation of Hawaii. And the McKinley Administration would not want to risk taking on a second opponent, known by professionals and thinking politicians to be more formidable than the Spanish, despite its non-whiteness, while having difficulty with Spain. Japan had dispatched cruisers to Oahu before and could do so again, and could influence situations on the ground through the Japanese worker and merchant population, which could attempt to work with native Hawaiians for a monarchical restoration and an all-racial franchise to replace the white and property favoring franchise of the Planter's Republic that sought annexation to the USA.
Japan may not take any chances, but it might, and might get the best out of the brinkmanship game.
Yeah, he did, and he was able to enjoy popular support, because he came out of the war....alive...which might not happen here.
But would Spain really have been amenable to selling the Philippines to another power, or granting them independence, and would it have seen selling them as more honorable than granting them independence? Do we have any historical sources or historians' views on this?
....and how attractive would a colony in revolt be to a prospective buyer? Now *they* have to pay the costs of putting down the rebellion to enjoy the benefits of the colony. I mean, the French *did* buy Corsica when it was in rebellion from Genoa, but the 1700s were a different time. The US also did give Spain compensatory payments for the Philippines, after deciding staying to govern and and guide the Filipinos, "civilize and Christianize them," and "prepare them for eventual self-government," was the only appropriate thing to do after smashing the Spanish at Manila Bay and hanging out for too long.
Mexico wasn't exactly "easy meat" during the Porfiriato (1877-1910). It's economy was growing, especially the mining sector, the Diaz Administration locked down control of wealth extraction with his Army and the "Federales", and the Mexican Peso was usually more stable than the US dollar at the time, even though the country was super unequal and neglectful of the poor. And even when it broke out into revolution, 1911 and after, well, the US did find it easy to "intervene" and put military forces in and meddle, but very hard to accomplish anything or get anybody to do what it wanted. All the factions had toughened up and learned how to fight and evade pretty well.
Why would the U.S. go after Mexico? After 1853 the U.S. had no interest in Mexican territory, and the U.S. had large investments and trade with Mexico. The U.S. was Mexico's biggest trading partner. It was the war in Cuba that drew the U.S. into a war with Spain not some desire to attack someone they thought they could beat.
Spain's refusal to sell Cuba to the United States was also another powerful factor.
The revolution in Cuba was only the excuse used because it was less ugly than saying "we are entering with vigor to appropriate by force a territory that its original owner did not want to sell to us."
Of course, this later turned against the United States: if they claimed to come in to help Cubans become independent, they would have looked like hypocrites in the eyes of (domestic) public opinion if they decided to go ahead and annex Cuba anyway.
The revolution in Cuba was only the excuse used because it was less ugly than saying "we are entering with vigor to appropriate by force a territory that its original owner did not want to sell to us."
Of course, this later turned against the United States: if they claimed to come in to help Cubans become independent, they would have looked like hypocrites in the eyes of (domestic) public opinion if they decided to go ahead and annex Cuba anyway.
Congressmen Teller of Colorado and the people who voted for his Amendment did not get the secret memo and the secret handshake, d'oh!!!
Oh that's not it eitherCongressmen Teller of Colorado and the people who voted for his Amendment did not get the secret memo and the secret handshake, d'oh!!!
.Rather I would say that the plan of McKinley and part of the government was to annex Cuba, but national public opinion and people like Teller did not agree, and managed to successfully mobilize that opposition.
Hence the emphasis on "domestic" public opinion: If the protests were solely from foreigners, the United States could have tried to ignore them... but trying to ignore the own American Congress and American population was in no one's interest.
There were many open Imperialists in the U.S. but McKinley wasn't one of them. Wanting to annex Hawaii doesn't mean he wanted to annex Cuba. The Hawaii annexation was the culmination of 60 years of growing American influence in the Islands.Oh that's not it either
Rather I would say that the plan of McKinley and part of the government was to annex Cuba, but national public opinion and people like Teller did not agree, and managed to successfully mobilize that opposition.
Hence the emphasis on "domestic" public opinion: If the protests were solely from foreigners, the United States could have tried to ignore them... but trying to ignore the own American Congress and American population was in no one's interest.