WI: Spain keeps the Americas

So I was doing research into the European Restoration era and came across Spain's attempted reconquista campaign in the Americas. Now I knew that Spain attempted to retake their colonies after Fernando VII's restoration but didn't realize that at in 1816 the Spaniards had established control of all of their South American colonies. In fact, chances are the Spanish would have managed to keep control if Haiti hadn't given many of the independence leaders, including Simon Bolívar sanctuary and a base to launch a counter offensive.

So lets say those who took refuge in Haiti never make it there: some could be captured, Bolívar could be successfully assassinated in Jamaica or a freak accident sinks ships their on. The point is Spain is able to cement their restored hold in South America. Would this effect what New Spain does? How long could Spain maintain control? Would we see Spanish Dominions emerge in the model of Canada, Australia and the other British ones? Or was such a loss inevitable by 1814 and would only postpone the inevitable?
 
I don't know enough to really form an informed opinion, but I don't imagine Spain will keep them for long. Autonomy can only go so far, and although on the surface it might seem an easy fit for the Spanish colonial model in the Americas (with conquistadors and other governors running things like their own private fiefdoms), I can't see the Spanish Crown wanting to relinquish too much control for fear of loss of prestige. Additionally, granting autonomy is basically paving the way for independence, which was certainly the case in the British dominions, which were, in fact, independent in everything except foreign policy matters (and even then, if Britain called them war and they decided against it, there's little the British would actually do except to maybe cut various economic and defence ties).

Plus, with the rise of the United States, you'll see more nations in Latin America "joining the cause", so to speak. The only difference is they might attempt more peaceful avenues before taking the road to violent insurrection. I think the other reason dominion status wouldn't be ideal for Latin America is simply that, as far as foreign policy goes, the nations of America are going to have very different priorities to Spain, which has always been a very European-focussed country. In any case, you'd eventually see a lot of tails wagging dogs if Spain managed to cling on.
 
The colonies, especially Mexico and South America are lost to Spain. Spain has been devastated from years of war, they are no longer in any position to fight and retake its territory in the Americas. Its not going to happen. There is a chance in some of the lesser populated colonized territories in Central America, but by and large Spain does not have a chance. Even if it fought for say Panama or other parts of Central America, Mexico and South America could see this as a threat and move to liberate the area.
 
What if Spain tried to be an actual Empire, and reinstate the title Imperator totius Hispaniae. In that once a colony became established enough they send over which ever spare son they had to act as its King or Duke (depending on the colony) They would act as head of state under the grace authority of the Emperor.
 
What if Spain tried to be an actual Empire, and reinstate the title Imperator totius Hispaniae. In that once a colony became established enough they send over which ever spare son they had to act as its King or Duke (depending on the colony) They would act as head of state under the grace authority of the Emperor.

Then you're well set at one point for acting head of state to usurp the position of the foreign power at any time. By this point, the American nations were too difficult and costly to effectively control, especially as the population of the American nations continues to increase.

The issue is that there is not a single nation has ever existed in which two large population centers managed to stay united while separated by thousands of miles of ocean. The best examples for success, in the long term, would be the French; they absorbed a large number of former colonies, although the majority are islands. Portugal did this for a few years before Brazil gained independence. The US currently could be argued, considering its population centers are on its two separate coasts.

At best, you'd need a Spain that would be willing to not overextend itself and recognize that maintaining the entire of the former Empire is too much. It might be able to maintain dominions so long as Spain itself doesn't undergo revolution, but that seems unlikely to happen considering OTL. That and, in the long-term, they have to either avoid the US's interest, or being strong enough to fight them off. Avoidance seems to be the better of the two options, which would suggest that Mexico is a lost cause. That, and the more the US is opposed to Britain, the more interests they may share with Spain. Perhaps, in that way, it might engender a population transfer akin to Revolutionaries and Loyalistsin the American revolution, with Spanish Loyalists all fleeing to one or two colonies while the revolutionaries leave for others.

Let's just assume that is the route. With Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Santo Domingo being the easiest parts to keep Spanish, the best of the former Empire would either be Gran Colombia/New Granada, the Captaincy/Kingdom of Guatemala, and Peru. Everything else in America would, essentially, be overstretching too far. Consolidate the holds, make it as loyalist as possible, and go from there. Keep the US on your side by not caring what they do with Mexico (after all, it did break away from the imperial crown and adopted a revolutionary government; there is no reason for Spain to intervene) Perhaps, if the US takes even more from Mexico, then they may desire other free states to balance out the slave states, and they turn their eyes north; Spain can take advantage of this. Maybe they can reaffirm the claims in Oregon and encourage 54 40 or Fight. And, above all, avoid revolutions in the homeland and avoid European Entanglements.

Just my two cents of speculation.
 
How much was Fernando of Reconquista doing to rally the Goths and reconcile the Creoles to the central government?
In 1820, it was precisely the Spanish mainland revolution that provoked Mexico to independence: the Goths did not want to be ruled by a liberal Spanish Cortes, even if they had a minority representation there, so they preferred to try and rule Mexican Empire.
 
What if Spain tried to be an actual Empire, and reinstate the title Imperator totius Hispaniae. In that once a colony became established enough they send over which ever spare son they had to act as its King or Duke (depending on the colony) They would act as head of state under the grace authority of the Emperor.

This at most merely changes the inevitable independent republics into independent kingdoms. These kingdoms, with a high degree of autonomy and experienced leaders with semi-stable hierarchies already in place prior to independence could I think become more successful than the OTL dictatorships - some might obviously become autocratic feudal backwaters and others see the monarchs overthrown as happened to Brazil in OTL, but there'd probably be a couple more success stories this way around.
 
La Plata (argentina/Uruguay/Paraguay) was lost. the colonials were in firm control. very, very slim chance Spain is retaining that neck of the woods.

There were areas of royal support, and Spain probably could have maintained some nominal control, but it's doubtful they'd have kept a firm colony/master relationship for long, if at all. those days were gone. Spain would want more control than the colonials (and there were a bunch of flavors of them) would accept and visa versa
 
If the Habsburgs shipped off their extra sons(not that their were many) to act as the monarch of some of their oversea colonies(they could find brides from the local nobility), having more branches to the family may prevent the Habsburgs from losing control of Spain to the Bourbons. One of the biggest issues around the war of Spainish succession is that by the time peace was declared the family didn't have any eligible candidates for the crown of Spain left.
 
La Plata (argentina/Uruguay/Paraguay) was lost. the colonials were in firm control. very, very slim chance Spain is retaining that neck of the woods.

There were areas of royal support, and Spain probably could have maintained some nominal control, but it's doubtful they'd have kept a firm colony/master relationship for long, if at all. those days were gone. Spain would want more control than the colonials (and there were a bunch of flavors of them) would accept and visa versa

I'd argue that La Plata is probably the area that the Spanish have the best shot at reconquering in the future assuming that they can reestablish firm control of Peru and Colombia. Mexico would be hell to resubjugate, but La Plata's main population centers are concentrated on a few specific regions and the population isn't particularly large either. An army from Peru/Bolivia, an invasion force for Buenos Aires, and the ability to freely strangle it economically...I'd say that a large part of it could be subjugated.
 
EMT,
have to agree to disagree.
All of OTL Argentina is in the hands of caudillos, and a lot of territory. I think the loyalist army did attempt to reconquer Argentina, and failed. the loyalist forces in Uruguay were the last bastion of Spanish power in La Plata, and they were powerless to do anything more than hang on for dear life til they gave out.

You are quite correct that IF Peru/Bolivia loyalist forces have the upper hand, there's a possibility that reconquest is on the table. but it's a low margin of possibility.

Maybe if, (insert ASB here) Ferdinand VII is a magically great, or even marginally reasonably competent leader who somehow manages to bridge factions in Spain, there's some sort of chance he, by cult of personality (because he doesn't have much resources) inspires the colonies, he could get them to hang with the mother country. but that goes against the entire reason there's colonist discontent. that discontent isn't going away.


but, if you accept that POD, it's still going to take a lot of muscle to retake La Plata.

It's interest to think how that affects Brazil. Portugal/Brazil took Uruguay because the Caudillos couldn't handle it and would rather see it in a foreign power than part of La Plata. Brazil losing a war of Uruguayan independence played a large part of Brazil's issues in independence.
 
OK I don't understand why everyone is so dismissive of the idea of Spain keeping the Americas. Like I said above by 1816 Spain had managed to retake control over most of South America. And Mexico was still nominally loyal to Madrid, so why couldn't Spain restore its empire?
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
OK I don't understand why everyone is so dismissive of the idea of Spain keeping the Americas. Like I said above by 1816 Spain had managed to retake control over most of South America. And Mexico was still nominally loyal to Madrid, so why couldn't Spain restore its empire?

Spain was in severe dire straits after the Napoleonic Wars. It would be likely that even if they managed to hold on to their American colonies, they'd have lost them a few decades later anyway.
 
Spain was in severe dire straits after the Napoleonic Wars. It would be likely that even if they managed to hold on to their American colonies, they'd have lost them a few decades later anyway.

Could they hold onto the Colonies until Fernando's death, when a (hopefully better) monarch takes the throne? If so could we see Spanish versions of the British dominions come into being? Or at the least more autonomy be granted?
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
Could they hold onto the Colonies until Fernando's death, when a (hopefully better) monarch takes the throne? If so could we see Spanish versions of the British dominions come into being? Or at the least more autonomy be granted?

Considering Spain in the 19th century that's unlikely.
 
Could they hold onto the Colonies until Fernando's death, when a (hopefully better) monarch takes the throne? If so could we see Spanish versions of the British dominions come into being? Or at the least more autonomy be granted?

What if Fernando agrees to the title of Emperor of Mexico as the Mexicans wished (the next candidates were D. Carlos, D. Francisco de Paula, and so on), and that the two realms would separate on Fernando's death. His eldest son would become king of Spain (plus all the bits not whatever), and the second son would become Emperor of Mexico. Of course, if it goes like OTL, Fernando only has daughters, so Isabel II becomes queen of Spain, while D. Carlos gets sent across the pond to become Emperor of Mexico. The OTL Carlists get removed from Spain, and get a crown of their own. Their conservatism (more Catholic than the pope and more royal than the king) would go over better in Mexico, as opposed to Maximilian's liberalism that went over well with nobody. And Isabel still rules the other Spanish colonies.

Then there's the idea for the United Kingdom of Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia being created for either Luisa Fernanda, duchesse de Montpensier or for one of Isabel's uterine half-brothers, which can take care of the northern part of South America.

Granted, it's a pretty tall order to get the Felon King to even consider allowing this in the first place, but the ideas existed OTL, so one simply needs to make sure that he's got a little more incentive than there to get them to work.
 
It's not impossible for Spain to hold onto the colonies, but there are huge obstacles:

First, I think you're vastly overstating the degree of 'control' Spain had. 'loyalty' can mostly be translated to any given class thinking that's the best for them maintaining position. Virtually no one gave a hoot about any sacred idea of having a mother country. Spain was on the outs in some spots, barely holding on in others and in reasonably good shape in others. the area of good shape was not all that great.

Second, Spain itself was in shambles. having a long line of idiot kings, and a devastating civil war which shows no sign of ending will do that.

third, there's this world wide movement towards a notion that being controlled from afar is bullstuff, with an equal and opposite notion that colonies being self governing/having rights is bullstuff.

Fourth, the world has no interest in Spain regaining greatness. the world wants to exploit weakness.

any individual one of these is possible to deal with. you have to reverse virtualy every aspect of the situation to have a good outcome for Spain holding on to the colonies.

Certainly, Spain could have done better. It's almost ASB (if it hadn't actually happened) how much they goofed/had bad luck at almost every turn for well over a couple hundred years. but with such a late POD in that time, it would be miraculous if they did much better.

You need an earlier POD, with a better showing from 1790 and beyond. once the peninsular war starts, it's too late to realistically expect much better.
 
OK I don't understand why everyone is so dismissive of the idea of Spain keeping the Americas. Like I said above by 1816 Spain had managed to retake control over most of South America. And Mexico was still nominally loyal to Madrid, so why couldn't Spain restore its empire?

In the 19th century, Spain is weakened, drained by years of slow decline, and is upset by turmoil and revolution quite a lot. The mainland is incredibly weak and rules over a large number of rich colonies. Even if Spain is still strong, their colonies are distant and cannot be adequately defended with Spain's current resources, while at the same time being filled with revolutionaries who desire home rule, which is inevitable at this point. Part of the problem is demographics: in 1800, Spain had a slightly higher population, but by 1900, the UK had double the population. I think this is due to the emergence of the industrial revolution and the increased population growth caused by it (although Spain had problems retaining people).

Spain needs to consolidate its empire, not reclaim everything in sight. It may not be the same situation, but compare it to the UK and Canada; Canada essentially began its genesis when the loyalists fled the US and settled in the Maritimes and what became Upper Canada. That, and the presence of an expansionist US on its border, kept it in the UK's camp for quite a long time. It was the UK's decision to favor the US in US/Canada disputes that helped Canadian nationalism to coalesce and when they began to pursue their own administration and independence.

Again, Spain's strength is the Caribbean; it'd be best for them to maintain their own rule centered in that same Caribbean basin. Again, New Granada and the Captaincy of Guatemala are the easiest locations that said control might be maintained (and arguably gives a similar border curiosity, with Mexico interested in expanding into Guatemala and Brazil pushing further into the Amazon). It's hardly perfect, as New Granada was incredibly rebellious as well, but it is best positioned for support from Europe. Rio de la Plata could be maintained, but the British are interested in the River Plate themselves and it is incredibly remote, compared to the remainder of Spanish colonies and ports.

Spain needs some way to do the following things:
1. Ensure no European Entanglements.
2. Avoid constant internal strife and revolution in the motherland.
3. Consolidate holdings so that they are sufficiently loyal.
-a. Also to ensure that they remain out of local sphere of influence (U.S., perhaps Brazil)
4. Engender good will among local nations and, more importantly, engender ire against competitors. (U.S. vs U.K. for Canada instead of vs Spain for Cuba, for example)
5. Industrialize in the homeland when the time comes.
 
Top