What would happen to Mexico in a world without American independance

mad orc

Banned
What would be the fate of Mexico if Britain wins the War of USA Indepenfance .

(ON phone so pardon grammar and vocabulary
 
I think it depends on how things go in Europe. If the French Revolution and Napoleon still happen on schedule and the Spanish Monarchy makes the same decisions it did IOTL, the colonies might still break off. Without an independent America, New Spain still has Louisiana too, so it has even more empty land in the north. That whole area (basically everything Mexico lost to the US+Louisiana) might remain de jure Mexican until the Mexicans can organize enough to really colonize it, though it's possible the British might try to take those areas. It's also possible that this mega-Mexico will be too overstretched to hold its territory together and will balkanize. Of course, if Mexico is the premier independent state in the Americas, then it could well attract the massive immigration that the US got IOTL.
 
I think it depends on how things go in Europe. If the French Revolution and Napoleon still happen on schedule and the Spanish Monarchy makes the same decisions it did IOTL, the colonies might still break off. Without an independent America, New Spain still has Louisiana too, so it has even more empty land in the north. That whole area (basically everything Mexico lost to the US+Louisiana) might remain de jure Mexican until the Mexicans can organize enough to really colonize it, though it's possible the British might try to take those areas. It's also possible that this mega-Mexico will be too overstretched to hold its territory together and will balkanize. Of course, if Mexico is the premier independent state in the Americas, then it could well attract the massive immigration that the US got IOTL.

British might just take it to keep the 13 Colonies happy after spanking Nappy. So I doubt that much would change for New Spain et al. I wonder if British America (whatever it would be called...Southern Canada?) would still make a move against Texas? Though I imagine the southern colonies would go CSA on the British as soon as the British began taking steps against slavery. If TTL's CSA were to gain independence (hard to imagine if the "northern" colonies act to prevent it) it could make a play for Texas and California...but I doubt they'd be able to take Mexico City in order for that to happen. So many thoughts...
 
It would suffer at the hands of American filibusters who bite off more than they can chew and then the Royal Navy gets called in to bail them out.
 
I imagine if the British take Louisiana, they'd govern it as a seperate colony. No sense in making any of the American colonies stronger than necessary, especially if there's recently been a major revolt. If the French still bully Spain into ceding back Louisiana, it may well be more attractive for Britain to buy the rights to it from Spain and keep it rather than force the French to return it to Spain. Given Spain was not in a good position at the time, I don't see them turning down a large sum of cash for mostly-empty land that they don't really control anyway. I doubt the Mexicans would like this, and it might spark worry that their colony might be sold off to pay for the mother country's war.
 
There is a problem with American not-independence scenarios.

After reading extensively on the American War of Independence, its pretty clear to me that once the revolt started (and arguably it started in 1774, not the traditional date of 1775, which was when the British officially proclaimed the colonies to be in revolt), it was impossible for the British to militarily reconquer the colonies. That was the view of the British senior military leaders at the time, it was George III who insisted on even making attempt. Pre-conscription, and the British would not adopt conscription for another 140 years, they simply didn't have the manpower to conquer such a large extent of territory. They also had no clue about what political formula would reconcile the Patriots to continued British rule. They had no clue before 1775 and no clue afterwards, despite trying to start negotiations several times. The Patriots didn't help by being very stubborn in insisting on independence in all but name, and their position hardened from this after 1776. And the British were expecting another war with France and preparing for that, which also meant they could never focus on North America, even before the declaration of war on France.

So the two plausible American not-independence PODs happen before 1775. The first, which is well before, is no Whig policy of "benign neglect", so the Americans don't get accustomed to a situation where being part of the British empire amounts to contributing soldiers for various wars, timber for the Royal Navy, and providing a market for British goods (this to some extent was the situation AFTER independence) and no other demands were made on them. But this early and extreme POD butterflies much more than Mexico. The second POD, which could happen as late as 1773, is that the British either continue or resume the "benign neglect" policy. That would produce a situation where you had American filibusters into Mexico. But it is hard to see how they could have done that for long. North America before 1763 was consuming a lot of government expenditure, in the form of the few British brigades there and producing nothing in return (the customs duties were not being enforced), though having the royal officials there on salaries provided by the American legislatures would have helped in this regard. They also were complicating British attempts to strengthen their position in Canada and india and India at least was always much more lucrative.

Then the British have another problem with the colonists when anti-slavery agitation gathers steam in Britain, though here at least the British might find that the northern colonies will back them. The French revolution is another wild card.

But yeah, any POD where you can keep the Americans to the east of the Mississippi is a good situation for Mexico.
 

Marc

Donor
Consider that Mexico is likely to remain a Spanish territory for a considerable time into the 19th century, perhaps up to the 20th in this supposing.
Why? The French Revolution, if it happens, will have different major actors. Napoleon isn't historically determined, and the French invasion of Spain problematic. So, sans the inspiration of a successful American war of independence, how do you make the argument that Mexico would become independent?
Bottom line: without the historical outcome of the American Revolution, the history of the entire New World is radically altered, fairly early.
 

Deleted member 67076

If this aborts the French Revolution and its wars with regard to the collapse of the Spanish monarchy, then the Bourbon trends are maintained indefinitely and Mexico soon eclipses Spain in economy, population, and global influence. After that its really hard to tell.
 
Top