Spain keeps Mexico

[Ricardolindo]

I posted a thread about this almost 2 years and a half ago on 19 March 2020 (how time flies), https://forum.sealionpress.co.uk/index.php?threads/spain-keeps-mexico.2466/ and now decided to post one again. What if the liberal Riego Revolution didn't happen or failed and the Mexican conservatives led by Agustín de Iturbide didn't switch sides and, thus, Spain kept Mexico? A big question is how the United States of America would have expanded. There certainly wouldn't have been a successful Texas Revolution under Spain. As for a Spanish-American War, the Spanish Navy was still pretty good at the time and would have made any attempt to take Veracruz and reach Mexico City from there impossible.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

It would be funny if New Spain ended up the Canada to the rest of Latin America.

Though Peru was the true royalist stronghold.

 

[Japhy]

The most likely outcome is they lose it a few years down the road.

 

[Ricardolindo]

The most likely outcome is they lose it a few years down the road.

Why so? Spain had practically defeated the
Mexican rebels by 1820 and only lost Mexico because the conservatives led by Agustín de Iturbide switched sides following the Riego Revolution.

 

[Japhy]

Why so? Spain had practically defeated the
Mexican rebels by 1820 and only lost Mexico because the conservatives led by Agustín de Iturbide switched sides following the Riego Revolution.

Because Imperialism is a rotten project and there's no reason to assume that the Spanish regimes would improve the conditions of the vast majority of Mexicans. And winning in 1820 will mean nothing in 1850, or even 1830.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

The Brits held on to Canada all of this time, and the Portuguese made do with Brazil for quite some while. So it's not impossible. That said, the Spanish monarchy was ruled by a lot of dummies at this time, from what I understand, so I dunno how they could improve things.

That said, maybe having to do the same thing that the Braganza did and having to flee to New Spain during the Napoleonic invasion might help them consolidate their hold there... or even pass some reforms.

 

[Stikfigur]

Why was Peru a loyalist stronghold, may I ask?

 

[Ricardolindo]

Why was Peru a loyalist stronghold, may I ask?

Peru was a very important colony for Spain and had privileges like the monopoly over trade with the Philippines which made the Criollos more royalist. Another factor was the large Native American population which the Criollos were afraid of.

 

[Indicus]

Why was Peru a loyalist stronghold, may I ask?

The Quechua and Aymara rebellions, respectively, of Tupac Amaru II and Tupac Katari in the 1780s pitted indigenous peoples against white elites, and it diminished the power of the former and made the latter more fearful of the order being upended by revolution. This meant independentist movements were weaker. Though they did emerge, such as with the 1814 rebellion, they were much weaker and were defeated. As a result, Peru was instead made independent by Argentinian and Gran Colombian invasion.

 

[raharris1973]

Peru was a very important colony for Spain and had privileges like the monopoly over trade with the Philippines

This Peruvian-Filipino tie was a thing?

Never heard of it. I always though the Philippines were more tied to New Spain (Mexico), and weren't the main Manila galleon routes always Manila-Alcapulco, not Manila-Peru?

 

[Ricardolindo]

This Peruvian-Filipino tie was a thing?

Never heard of it. I always though the Philippines were more tied to New Spain (Mexico), and weren't the main Manila galleon routes always Manila-Alcapulco, not Manila-Peru?

I was hesitant to write that. I read it once at alternatehistory.com but it contradicted other things I had read and searching, it turns out that there was trade between Peru and the Philippines but it was illegal.

 

[SinghSong]

The Quechua and Aymara rebellions, respectively, of Tupac Amaru II and Tupac Katari in the 1780s pitted indigenous peoples against white elites, and it diminished the power of the former and made the latter more fearful of the order being upended by revolution. This meant independentist movements were weaker. Though they did emerge, such as with the 1814 rebellion, they were much weaker and were defeated. As a result, Peru was instead made independent by Argentinian and Gran Colombian invasion.

Would it be plausible for these to be similarly significant rebellions by indigenous leaders in Mexico/New Spain in roughly the same time period, then, leading to the formation of a similar dynamic which greatly weakens Mexican independence movement by lessening its support among the 'New Spanish' white elite population in the same way?

 

[Indicus]

Would it be plausible for these to be similarly significant rebellions by indigenous leaders in Mexico/New Spain in roughly the same time period, then, leading to the formation of a similar dynamic which greatly weakens Mexican independence movement by lessening its support among the 'New Spanish' white elite population in the same way?

From what I understand, Mexico did not have the same indigenous co-opted aristocracy that Peru had. And that was really what the 1780s rebellion in Peru gathered around.

 

[Ricardolindo]

@JesterBL Considering your posts at https://forum.sealionpress.co.uk/index.php?threads/wi-larger-mexican-cession.5741/, do you have any thoughts on this?

 

[Ricardolindo]

Regarding Northern Mexico, at this point, the Spaniards had a deal with the Comanche in which they paid them tribute in exchange for them not raiding their settlements. The population of Northern Mexico was growing. With the Spaniards having lost South America, I think they would shift their interests to Northern Mexico, which could prevent the United States from taking over the Mexican Cession.