Second Mexican Empire - Wikipedia
Last edited:
WI: Earlier attempt to put a European on Mexico's throne?
- Thread starter Schlong Dong McTongs
- Start date
Karl, duke of Teschen accepts the offer as was discussed at some point in the 1820s?
Would be interesting to see how he'd beat Iturbide's popularity at the time
He'd likely come with European recognition and with ties to Austria, Spain and (albeit very diatantly) to England and Holland via his wife
unprincipled peter
Donor
There are rumors that Bernardo de Galvez was poisoned by Spanish agents as his popularity was soaring and it was feared he might get notions of taking Mexico independent. That one is kind of a long shot, but hey...
For a minimal POD, Fernando VII could accept reality of Mexico independence, and allow one of his brothers to take the throne. Francisco is more moderate, so he's my choice. He's young enough that he might be pliable rather than the diehard absolutist Charles, who will try to rule with an unbendable rod.
For a little more wonky POD, have Fernando's elder twin brothers survive, and the twins decide to split the empire, rather than see Mexico lost. This is the same as the minimal POD, but it allows alt personalities to be in control. Butterflies of the alt heir likely not acting the same as Fernando, thus altering the situation in Spain in 1807/8, but it isn't hard to write in a similar scenario of Mexican independence.
I fear any attempt to install a king from the outside will be met with failure.
For a minimal POD, Fernando VII could accept reality of Mexico independence, and allow one of his brothers to take the throne. Francisco is more moderate, so he's my choice. He's young enough that he might be pliable rather than the diehard absolutist Charles, who will try to rule with an unbendable rod.
For a little more wonky POD, have Fernando's elder twin brothers survive, and the twins decide to split the empire, rather than see Mexico lost. This is the same as the minimal POD, but it allows alt personalities to be in control. Butterflies of the alt heir likely not acting the same as Fernando, thus altering the situation in Spain in 1807/8, but it isn't hard to write in a similar scenario of Mexican independence.
I fear any attempt to install a king from the outside will be met with failure.
unprincipled peter
Donor
Never say never, but doing worse than OTL is going to take some doing. Wanks are kind of implausible. Doing better, with stability leading to growth and retention of the northern half, is certainly achievable. Some would consider that a wank, but I'm not among them.
Much depends on the personality/character and ability of the alt king/emperor.
You're still going to have a republican current in Mexico as well as conflicts over centralization, which the monarchy likely exacerbates.
The stability and diplomatic recognition a monarchy can provide, especially in this time period, could help Mexico quite a bit however. Especially if the monarchy is established in 1821 rather than the result of a civil war.
Have the Spanish monarchy flee Spain to Mexico when Napoleon backstabs them. Then have them undue some of the bureaucratic colonial restrictions like the Braganza’s did in Brazil. that should improve Mexicos disposition to the monarchy especially as Mexico (New Spain) will be the logical choice as center of the Spanish empire while Spain is under Napoleonic occupation.
Find a way for a Catholic European Prince, likely German (Italians would work too), not minding to piss off Ferdinand VII by taking the Mexican throne. Or have Ferdinand his brother Charles die, allowing a less reactionary Bourbon Prince to take the Spanish throne and accept a union of Mexican and Spanish crowns.
There had already been more than ten years of civil war by 1821, involving far more loss and destruction than the overthrow of Iturbide that followed.
For a European monarch to have brought stability to Mexico he would have to resolve the tensions that caused that civil war, and then were further exacerbated during the fighting. That, to me at least, seems unlikely. Proposals for a Mexican monarchy in the first half of the 19th century always came from the conservative side of the political spectrum and never provide convincing reasons why the opposing political and ideological factions should accept them.
A Spanish Bourbon, in particular, would represent a continuation of the colonial socioeconomic system that was unacceptable to much of society by 1821. A foreign prince might not be so tied to the Spanish system, but would still be associated with the conservative faction and moreover would likely have very little understanding of and ability to maneuver within the Mexican political system. He might be overthrown as quickly as Iturbide, or alternately remain in a fairly impotent position like the Supreme Conservative Power of the 1836 constitution.
The idea of a foreign price somehow standing above and reconciling faction by the magic of his royal aura is a very romantic and unlikely view, in my opinion.
iddt3
Donor
I think retention of the whole of the Northern half is very difficult, as the viable bits of it are really far away from the Mexican center of power and easier for the US to access/settle. More badly governed and exposed territory was certainly not what Mexico needed in the 19th century. Stability helps, but fundamentally you need to break the class dynamics between ruler and ruled. I'm not sure a monarchy of any sort, whose natural allies will be the conservative land owners and the church, is well equipped to do that.
unprincipled peter
Donor
This is often stated, yet untrue. Mexico had established routes north. In a world where Mexico is stabilized and better governed, they have the inside track on retaining the north. Keeping Texas denies easy access to the west. The immigrant trails to the west ran through St Louis, which itself is in the frontier. It is not automatic that dissension and decay happen no matter what. The population centers of USA are on the east coast. New Orleans is the only center west of the Appalachian Mountains, for many decades after Mexican Independence. What's true is that US had a settler migration, while Mexico did not. A better run Mexico would not have lost Texas, and would not have lost the rest of their north.
The church is a huge factor in the daily lives of the lower class. A church which supports the monarchy will work to keep the lower class dissension in check.
Walking the tightrope of maintaining peace, assuaging the various factions, and working toward reform is a very difficult task, but a well run (that's the difficult part) monarchy can be a soothing moderating force. A key factor is not allowing the huge schisms to become entrenched. OTL, they were a heart of the independence rebellion and the gov'ts that emerged only made matters worse.
unprincipled peter
Donor
I think they were, to a certain extent. The problem is that they need labor, and the common man was not all that interested in migrating just to be a peasant for a patron, and get no further ahead in life. The Mexican/hispanic model was based on large scale semi-feudal ranching. Some of the settling northward was done with the encouragement of the crown for some of the elite families to establish haciendas. This doesn't really make for population density.
The powers that be had no interest in fostering a movement of the common man to middle class farms in the north (ala the USAmerican movement), as this would drain the labor in the south. The church migrated north, but seemed to be focused on abusing the native force as laborers under the guise of converting them to christianity.
With more stability, I think European migration could be enticed. A mix of encouraged Mexican migration (not so heavy as to drain the south) and European migration could help settle the north and create a quasi Mexican culture. It was hard for Mexico to establish a coherent migration policy with so much unrest in the south/central.
Not saying a European Emperor is going to change all that. The Mexican economic/society model is an obstacle, but one I think can be overcome. A bigger problem is the greedy USA. That greed will be tempered if Mexico is not such an easy target as it was OTL. This will allow a more controlled migration into the north, and time for a Mexico-centric culture to take hold. Sans a Mex-Am War, I don't think California is lost. It's more myth than reality that the USAmerican settlers took control and joined the USA. There was unrest, but I think Mexico still maintained control. The war threw the balance toward the USAmericans and everything was lost in a crushing Mexican defeat.
I think this is a very optimistic view. By the time of Mexico's independence, the US was already experiencing a population boom that OTL Mexico wouldn't match for over a century. That's not a tide that's easy to row against. And not to sound frank, but your claim that the US population was centered on the east coast in 1820 is patently false. By 1820, the US's population center was already crossing the Appalachians into the west, where approximately 25% of the US population was living. That's nearly 2.5 million Americans, or about a third of Mexico's entire population at the time. I'll agree all day that Mexico had opportunities to improve its fortunes and potentially keep more of its northern territories, but the math was never there for it to out-settle the US.
unprincipled peter
Donor
optimistic, yes, but not outlandish.
The USA had no population settlement crunch when they aggressively took northern Mexico.
By your math, 75% of the USA population is still east of the Appalachians. I don't see how that makes my claim false.
OTL, Mexico did a very poor job of managing migration. A better job can keep USAmerican encroachment in check. The odds of Mexico managing its fortunes better aren't good. My point is that if they beat the odds, and do better, it is not inevitable that USA dominates the situation. Beating the odds and managing its fortunes is the hard part. From there, they can keep the USA at bay. They don't have to outsettle the US, they have to manage US settlement, and Mexican migration, better.