WI Mexico delays abolition of slavery?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
OTL Mexico abolished slavery in 1829. This abolition was probably the culmination of a process that had begun during the struggle for independence from Spain. However, I don’t know how overdetermined emancipation was in 1820s Mexico. Slavery remained legal for longer in other newly independent states of Spanish America. The Spanish-speaking states of South America for instance abolished slavery only in the years 1851-1854.

What would knock-on effects of continued slavery in Mexico be? There’s one less point of disagreement between Anglo settlers in Texas and the Mexican government, but is that alone enough to keep Anglo-Texans content to remain part of Mexico? Slavery was a huge economic incentive for independence from Mexico, but I would note several other Mexican states were trying to break away at the time Texas was in OTL (Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas & Yucatan at least I think)

Or, if one assumes it does not change the eventual loss of northern Mexican territories to the United States, does the continued legal status of slavery make it an even bigger target for pro-southern filibusters? Does it make it any more likely California would enter the Union as a slave state?
 
What would knock-on effects of continued slavery in Mexico be? There’s one less point of disagreement between Anglo settlers in Texas and the Mexican government, but is that alone enough to keep Anglo-Texans content to remain part of Mexico? Slavery was a huge economic incentive for independence from Mexico, but I would note several other Mexican states were trying to break away at the time Texas was in OTL (Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas & Yucatan at least I think)

And like the other states Texas will remain part of Mexico. What we are seeing here is a United States that goes ahead and invades Western Canada/Oregon for more land, only for the southern states to break away.
 
I disagree Mexico during this period was wracked by the conflict between centralists and federalists. The northern states all favored federalism while central mexico favored centralism. Unless this is resolved in favor of federalism a break with mexico is virtually inevitable.
 
What would knock-on effects of continued slavery in Mexico be? There’s one less point of disagreement between Anglo settlers in Texas and the Mexican government, but is that alone enough to keep Anglo-Texans content to remain part of Mexico? Slavery was a huge economic incentive for independence from Mexico, but I would note several other Mexican states were trying to break away at the time Texas was in OTL (Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas & Yucatan at least I think)

Well, for one, slavery isn't likely to spread to the whole country in any meaningful form, as it was largely restricted to agriculture before the advent of industrialization. Best thing I can think of, is that Southern slavery hawks might actually be a lot easier on Mexico, despite most Mexicans being "lesser" in the eyes of most of them: "We may not like their skin tone, but at least they're not abolitionists.", or something along those lines, I'd imagine. Though at the same time, it might possibly require either the survival of the Iturbidean Empire, or even the long-term failure of the Mexican Revolution.



Or, if one assumes it does not change the eventual loss of northern Mexican territories to the United States, does the continued legal status of slavery make it an even bigger target for pro-southern filibusters?

Maybe, but the filibusters might actually back off a little, too, and particularly those who are rabidly pro-slavery.

Does it make it any more likely California would enter the Union as a slave state?

And as for California, Unless you flood the territory with pro-slavery Southerners and/or find a way to force slavery on it, the answer is going to be no in that regard.
 
Did Mexico have USA/southern style plantations with slaves before they outlawed slavery? Or did they use slaves in things like quarry and mine work?
For the record, although slavery was technically illegal in Mexico, there were legal and illegal ways around it. Mexico had a rather bizarre law that allowed 99 year indentured servant contracts, and some of the slaves that were brought into TX were disguised as that. If they even bothered; there was out and out open slavery in TX, and a complete lack of bother on the part of Mexico's government to go in and find out about it. There was also a small population of slaves among the wealthy families in Mexico itself; apparently, there was a small but thriving business in kidnapping the children of native Americans and raising them to be house servants. Again, this took place openly, right under the nose of the Mexican government, and nothing was really done about it...
 
Did Mexico have USA/southern style plantations with slaves before they outlawed slavery? Or did they use slaves in things like quarry and mine work?
Both. Though, the ones enslaved back in the colonial days were African slaves, as the enslavement of the indigenous population was (technically) forbidden by law.

The abolition of slavery was more or less a mean by Miguel Hidalgo to bring more manpower into his army.

And as for Texas, I don't really think so. The conflict began out of the sudden centralization of power staged by the Conservatives, which made the Texans feel themselves with no representation. Give them their own little Texas and they will stay put... for the time being.
 
And as for Texas, I don't really think so. The conflict began out of the sudden centralization of power staged by the Conservatives, which made the Texans feel themselves with no representation. Give them their own little Texas and they will stay put... for the time being.

I always thought the Texan rebellion was remarkably similar to that of the 13 colonies in the ARW, in how they started... basically, both were distant outposts that were mostly ignored by the home governments, given special tax and tariff privileges, and then rebelled when the home government decided to change all that and crack down...
 
Even though slavery was dejure illegal in Mexico, in actuality much of the country was in peonage which was still a form of involuntary servitude. Very little will change internally.

I agree with danwild6 that the dispute between the centralists and federalists was the major factor for Texas leaving Mexico. If anything, keeping slavery legal will alienate the liberals in Mexico even more than IOTL so that when the spark does go off, Mexico might implode even more than it did in 1835.
 
Top