The Spanish Empire without the Peninsular War

[Ricardolindo]

Without the Peninsular War, for how much longer would the Spanish Empire in the mainland Americas have survived?
For how long can Latin American independence be delayed?
Is it possible that the Spanish colonies would become monarchies in personal union with Spain, like the British dominions?

 

[Ricardolindo]

Without the Peninsular War, for how much longer would the Spanish Empire in the mainland Americas have survived?
For how long can Latin American independence be delayed?
Is it possible that the Spanish colonies would become monarchies in personal union with Spain, like the British dominions?

Could Spain have kept the Southwestern United States?
Spain had bought off the Comanches, Spain paid the Comanches tribute in exchange for them not raiding Spanish settlements. Thus, Northern Mexico's population was growing. However, following independence, because of its instability, Mexico saw itself unable to continue paying the Comanches which led to them resuming the raids.

 

[ChrisNuttall]

Interesting question

I always had the impression the colonies were on shaky ground even before the Spanish were invaded by Napoleon – I don’t recall any real objections to Louisiana being transferred to France and then sold to America, although I could easily have missed something. Assuming the Spanish stay out of the Napoleonic Wars, and get left alone by Napoleon (which isn’t a given) or Britain (ditto, as the price for being left alone by Napoleon would probably be declaring war on Britain), it seems reasonable to assume they’d maintain control of the empire for much longer.

However, there would still be deep discontent in Mexico and Spanish Louisiana and the Spanish ability to maintain control of both colonies and the rest of Spanish America will be very limited. The Spanish didn’t, IIRC, make any large-scale attempt to actually colonise Louisiana, which means the territory would be inhabited by restive natives, threatened by the onrushing Americans and – with unrest in Mexico too – probably on the verge of revolution in the 1820-1840s period anyway. The Spanish wouldn’t have lost their own country, as happened in OTL, so they might be able to make a series of concessions, but I doubt they would have the ability to realise what they’d need to do and offering concessions could easily backfire if the dissidents demanded more concessions. I suspect there would still be a war of independence anyway, as well as something akin to the Texan Revolution in Louisiana – it would be interesting to see how that developed, as slavery was nowhere near so developed at the point and the Spanish might try to lure black slaves away from their masters.

Very different world, in some ways.

Chris

 

[Indicus]

This is a very interesting WI with a wide cone of plausibility, I think. The effects of the Peninsular War on the Spanish Empire can't be underestimated with the mass formation of juntas and collapse of "legitimate" authority and all, and before that point most discontent against the Spanish Empire consisted either of conspiracies planning revolution or of local rebellions against Bourbon centralism. I suppose the main exception to this is Argentina, where after the 1806 British invasion there was a massive surge of local pride that concluded with the Viceroy of the Rio de la Plata being deposed and replaced with a local popular military leader, with the Spanish authorities accepting this. That's the sort of precedent that might conclude with independence if the Spanish eventually try to truncate this sort of pseudo-autonomy and mess it up hard. Another thing to keep in mind is that, during the Napoleonic Wars even before the Peninsular War, there was a massive spike in smuggling to British and American markets. So if the Spanish try to deal with that and mess it up, that's something that might create dissent. But other than that, it would be a long process - decades, I think - to get the critical mass for independence, and liberalism and nationalism would both be far weaker forces in the Spanish Americas. I suppose Britain would also be eager to egg on the independence movements to commercially dominate the newly independent states - a policy which Lord Selkirk wanted - and that will have some effects.

Now, would Spain see the tides coming and commit itself to reform? Well, I don't know, this is something that would totally and utterly change the character of the Spanish government. Charles IV is likely king to his death, with Spain just trotting along, and Ferdinand VII would be king for a comparatively shorter period. I think the ideological foundations of the First Carlist War don't exist here with a significantly different (and probably more conservative w/ no Cadiz Cortes) Spain - but would Ferdinand VII have a son instead of Isabella II, would he have no children and so the crown goes to the Don Carlos of Carlist fame? Well, this is all post-POD, it's whatever you want I think. I have a strange image in my head of Don Carlos getting the throne and repealing the Bourbon reforms, and along with it giving the Viceroyalties fueros giving them similar feudal autonomy which allow for them to get independence like British dominions. But that's just one possibility (and I don't know if Carlos would be as into fueros without the same circumstances). But that's just one possibility, and it would be very much in character for the Spanish monarchy to alienate the Americas. But again, it might be decades before that comes to pass.

As for the American Northwest, well I suspect Spain won't colonize it much. Perhaps the missions in California get expanded northwards - hell, perhaps with no or an alternate Adams-Onis Treaty due to Spain having a stronger position, it builds some in Oregon - and, with Northern Mexico less disrupted by Comanche raids, there's some ranching expansion northwards (along with the fur trapping in New Mexico) but beyond that, Spain has very little reason to focus there when it has such a large empire elsewhere. I think when the gold gets discovered in California (perhaps with Spain discouraging settlement in favor of its missions, gold gets discovered first in Oregon and tapped in CA later?), there's going to be an uncontrollable wave of settlement. Sure, more of that is going to be in the Pacific part of the Spanish Empire here - more than the important Chilean migration - but a lot of Americans would still come in with large numbers, and that would destabilize it. And while Spain is likely to be a lot more restrictive to American settlement in Texas, it's still going to be coveted and face filibusters and the like, and if there's a Californian crisis American designs on Texas are going to come up.

I don't really think Louisiana is important to this anyways, as it was never treated by the Spanish as much more than a shield for its much more important colonies in the Caribbean.

 

[Ricardolindo]

As for the American Northwest, well I suspect Spain won't colonize it much. Perhaps the missions in California get expanded northwards - hell, perhaps with no or an alternate Adams-Onis Treaty due to Spain having a stronger position, it builds some in Oregon - and, with Northern Mexico less disrupted by Comanche raids, there's some ranching expansion northwards (along with the fur trapping in New Mexico) but beyond that, Spain has very little reason to focus there when it has such a large empire elsewhere. I think when the gold gets discovered in California (perhaps with Spain discouraging settlement in favor of its missions, gold gets discovered first in Oregon and tapped in CA later?), there's going to be an uncontrollable wave of settlement. Sure, more of that is going to be in the Pacific part of the Spanish Empire here - more than the important Chilean migration - but a lot of Americans would still come in with large numbers, and that would destabilize it. And while Spain is likely to be a lot more restrictive to American settlement in Texas, it's still going to be coveted and face filibusters and the like, and if there's a Californian crisis American designs on Texas are going to come up.

I assume you mean "Southwest", not "Northwest"
There was increasing Spanish settlement in the Southwest at this time as Spain had bought off the Comanches.
The Spanish population of New Mexico had finally outnumbered the Puebloans.
Also, how successful would the Spaniards have been dealing with the Navajo and Apache?
There were Navajo and Apache slaves in New Mexico, known as Genizaros. The Spaniards captured them in warfare.
Following Mexican independence, Governor of New Mexico José Antonio Vizcarra wanted to settle the Navajo in pueblos and convert them to Catholicism but the Navajo declined, resuming the warfare.

 

[Ricardolindo]

Now, would Spain see the tides coming and commit itself to reform? Well, I don't know, this is something that would totally and utterly change the character of the Spanish government. Charles IV is likely king to his death, with Spain just trotting along, and Ferdinand VII would be king for a comparatively shorter period. I think the ideological foundations of the First Carlist War don't exist here with a significantly different (and probably more conservative w/ no Cadiz Cortes) Spain - but would Ferdinand VII have a son instead of Isabella II, would he have no children and so the crown goes to the Don Carlos of Carlist fame? Well, this is all post-POD, it's whatever you want I think. I have a strange image in my head of Don Carlos getting the throne and repealing the Bourbon reforms, and along with it giving the Viceroyalties fueros giving them similar feudal autonomy which allow for them to get independence like British dominions. But that's just one possibility (and I don't know if Carlos would be as into fueros without the same circumstances). But that's just one possibility, and it would be very much in character for the Spanish monarchy to alienate the Americas. But again, it might be decades before that comes to pass.

An often forgotten fact is that the Criollos actually had some participation in the Spanish colonial administrations during the Habsburg era, it was the Bourbon reforms that limited the administrations to Peninsulares.

 

[Wendell]

The problem with the lack of a Peninsular War is that it might mean the British fully back Miranda in which case most of Spanish America is ultimately headed towards independence. You'd need a different POD, such as Napoleon backing the wrong potentate who then ends the alliance with France and thereby sees Britain not back Miranda. But this changes other things beyond recognition.

 

[Indicus]

The problem with the lack of a Peninsular War is that it might mean the British fully back Miranda in which case most of Spanish America is ultimately headed towards independence. You'd need a different POD, such as Napoleon backing the wrong potentate who then ends the alliance with France and thereby sees Britain not back Miranda. But this changes other things beyond recognition.

I doubt that - Miranda wouldn’t have anywhere near enough support without the Peninsular War tearing royal legitimacy apart. In its absence his conspiracies would have remained conspiracies, and there would not be enough support for them to turn into revolution. I can’t really see much more than a British in Venezuela, in the style of their brief occupation of Buenos Aires - and the severe problems of that show they would likely be defeated - and that certainly would not kick off a cascade of juntas and revolutions the way the Peninsular War did.