WI: Mexico w/ Louisiana Terr.

WI: The French Revolution successfully establishes its exact goals, and this causes Mexico to keep the Louisiana Territory? How does this huge Mexico affect N. America?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Still has to be populated, and given the

WI: The French Revolution successfully establishes its exact goals, and this causes Mexico to keep the Louisiana Territory? How does this huge Mexico affect N. America?

Still has to be populated, and given the realities of the history of New Spain/Mexico from 1803 onwards, seems very unlikely New Spain/Mexico can "hold" Louisiana any more effectively than New Spain held Mexico, Mexico held Texas or the Cession territories, Spain held Florida, Central, and South America, etc.

Best,
 
Still has to be populated, and given the realities of the history of New Spain/Mexico from 1803 onwards, seems very unlikely New Spain/Mexico can "hold" Louisiana any more effectively than New Spain held Mexico, Mexico held Texas or the Cession territories, Spain held Florida, Central, and South America, etc.

Best,

Mexico may be able to hold the south, but I agree, the north is gonna go. Of course, it would probably be renamed to something like "Illiña" (as the French pronunciation for Illinois is "Illinwa"). It would lead to interesting butterflies.
 
But what about Tejas? Could it stay with Mexico if the Americans' settlement is concentrated on Lousiana?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The problem for New Spain/Mexico, however, is that

Mexico may be able to hold the south, but I agree, the north is gonna go. Of course, it would probably be renamed to something like "Illiña" (as the French pronunciation for Illinois is "Illinwa"). It would lead to interesting butterflies.

The problem for New Spain/Mexico, however, is that very few people wanted to emigrate there, period, in the Eighteenth Century, and even fewer who did were likely to be loyal to New Spain/Mexico.

The entire "settled" population of the Cession territories before Guadalupe Hidalgo (and predating the California gold rush), for example, was in the tens of thousands ... and something like 90 percent of those who had been Mexican citizens (and before that, if they were old enough, Spanish subjects) chose to become US citizens.

The northern borderlands of New Spain/Mexico were about as far, in terms of travel time, in the 1820s as one could get in the Spanish Empire or Mexico ... and very few people who were identifiably "Spanish" or "Mexican" had much interest in emigrating there. Same for Florida prior to 1819, of course.

Not going to be much different on the upper reaches of the Mississippi or Missouri.

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Austin et al were invited to settle by the Spanish/Mexican

But what about Tejas? Could it stay with Mexico if the Americans' settlement is concentrated on Lousiana?

Austin et al were invited to settle by the Spanish/Mexican authorities for a reason, however.

There weren't large numbers of Spanish/Mexicans looking to do the same in the period, and the Spanish/Mexicans were hoping the Americans would hold off the Comanche, etc.

Best,
 
on the one side, you have Mexico, which can't get enough people to settle TX, much less LA and is prone to endless sectional strife.. On the other side is the USA, booming in population, united (for the moment), and very expansionist; plus, they really really want New Orleans. Bound to be conflict there...
 
The problem for New Spain/Mexico, however, is that very few people wanted to emigrate there, period, in the Eighteenth Century, and even fewer who did were likely to be loyal to New Spain/Mexico.

The entire "settled" population of the Cession territories before Guadalupe Hidalgo (and predating the California gold rush), for example, was in the tens of thousands ... and something like 90 percent of those who had been Mexican citizens (and before that, if they were old enough, Spanish subjects) chose to become US citizens.

The northern borderlands of New Spain/Mexico were about as far, in terms of travel time, in the 1820s as one could get in the Spanish Empire or Mexico ... and very few people who were identifiably "Spanish" or "Mexican" had much interest in emigrating there. Same for Florida prior to 1819, of course.

Not going to be much different on the upper reaches of the Mississippi or Missouri.

Best,

Yeah, that's probably true. In addition, the US has a population boom. But it would still have some interesting butterflies.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Yep; for a variety of reasons, the sort of "westward movement"

Yeah, that's probably true. In addition, the US has a population boom. But it would still have some interesting butterflies.

Yep; for a variety of reasons, the sort of "westward movement and settlement" pattern that was integral to the history of what became the US was never really mirrored in New Spain/Mexico, certainly not to the percentages/numbers of (north) Americans who flooded up and over the Appalachians, down the Ohio, and into points west...

Best,
 
I won't swear to it, but I thought I had read somewhere that the mexican population tended toward urbanization, whereas the US population tended toward rural/farming, which naturally led to an unending thirst for land.

there was definitely two different trends. US were expansionist. spanish weren't.
 
Top