WI: More Empresarios?

[SinghSong]

IOTL, when the First Mexican Empire gained independence from Spain, the new country was very sparsely populated, with a total population of 6.2M, and almost 10% of the population, primarily young men – having been killed during the Mexican War of Independence, leaving the young nation with a labour shortage. Mexican liberals argued in favor of allowing foreigners to immigrate; citing the opportunity to emulate the United States' booming population and economic growth, which was largely attributed to immigration. However, opponents claimed that it'd be too difficult to attract settlers, and that these immigrants wouldn't assimilate into Mexican society.

Emperor Agustin de Iturbide made colonization a priority for his administration; appointing a government commission, headed by Juan Francisco Azcárate y Ledesma, to come up with a plan, which recommended following the precedent of the Spanish policy of allocating Empresarios (as well as the revision of said Spanish policy in 1820, and which had made it more flexible, and allowed colonists of any religion to settle there, rather than requiring any settlers to be Catholic as had previously been the case), and inviting foreign settlers to help colonize Coahuila, Nuevo Santander, Baja California, Alta California, New Mexico, and Texas. The proposal suggested that Europeans and American citizens be recruited for most of the states and provinces, but recommended sending Mexican convicts and recruiting Chinese settlers for California (Baja & Alta) instead. However, Iturbide's primary concern was stabilizing the new government, and the Imperial Colonization Law was not signed until February 18, 1823; with Iturbide overthrown only a month later, and the law being annulled shortly thereafter.

The newly proclaimed Republic of Mexico did approve immigration on a wider basis once more a year later, but unlike the Imperial Colonization Law of 1823, its successor, the General Colonization Law of 1824, required immigrants to practice Catholicism and stressed that foreigners needed to learn Spanish. This statute also banned foreigners from gaining titles to land that was within 20 leagues (84km) of the border of another country or within 10 leagues (42km) of the coast; but in most other respects, there were markedly fewer specifics, with states being directed to design their own statutes to implement the federal law (or not to implement it, as the case may be). And accordingly, the northern state of Coahuila y Tejas was the fastest to pass its own state law implementing the federal plan on March 24, 1825; with this ultimately leading to the Republic of Texas' secession, and the newly independent Texas continuing its own version of the Empresario program until its accession to the United States of America.

So then, what do you think might have happened, in an alternate TL where the First Mexican Empire endured for at least a few more years, and the original Mexican Imperial Colonization Law was actually brought into effect in accordance with the original plans of Azcárate y Ledesma? What might have been the impact of extending the scope and scale of the Mexican Empresario Programs ITTL- would it strength, or weaken, Mexico's relative strength ITTL compared to IOTL? And even if it did wind up weaken Mexico's control over the areas settled under TTL's greatly expanded Empresario programs instead, and result in all of these hitherto largely unpopulated northernmost territories breaking away much like the Republic of Texas did IOTL (and the Republic of Fredonia tried and failed to do before that), what might be the fate of these multiple 'Empresario Republics'? Particularly the proposed Empresarios in the Californias ITTL, predominantly populated by Chinese settlers as had originally been planned by Imperial Mexico. What do you think their fate might be?

 

[raharris1973]

Mexican liberals argued in favor of allowing foreigners to immigrate; citing the opportunity to emulate the United States' booming population and economic growth, which was largely attributed to immigration.

If this was an argument they were making in the 1820s, they were making it on flawed data. US population growth up to 1820 and into the 1820s was overwhelmingly from natural increase of the domestic population. There was very little immigration in the decades prior to 1820, and even after 1820 it took a long time to ramp up to the truly high levels of transatlantic migration of the 1840s and 1850s and beyond.

 

[SinghSong]

If this was an argument they were making in the 1820s, they were making it on flawed data. US population growth up to 1820 and into the 1820s was overwhelmingly from natural increase of the domestic population. There was very little immigration in the decades prior to 1820, and even after 1820 it took a long time to ramp up to the truly high levels of transatlantic migration of the 1840s and 1850s and beyond.

This isn't really true, since slavery was still a form of immigration; albeit one where the immigrants had no say in the matter. And though the U.S. Congress outlawed the African trans-atlantic slave trade in 1808, this was doubly true of domestic slavery, and domestic immigration in the American South. IOTL, the explosion in the population of the adjacent Louisiana territory (increasing from c.8k to 60k within a year of the purchase) had been dominated by the establishment of plantations and the importation of slave labor, with slaves comprising c.50% of the Louisiana Territory's population. And that was basically the goal of the policy; to try and keep the population & economic growth of 'Upper Mexico', which had previously been comfortably greater than that of the Louisiana Territory under French rule, as close to being on a par with the growth of the Louisiana Territory as possible, in an effort to maintain the status quo and maintain its otherwise indefensible northern borders.

 

[Charles EP M.]

My first thought, based off how Texas seceded, is if you allow lots of European and white North American immigration and aren't yet a strong state, you get a lot of people who might get ideas about their settlement not being Mexico's. Enforcing the state's will could then provoke a response from the US and Europe in defence of their 'oppressed citizens'.

 

[SinghSong]

My first thought, based off how Texas seceded, is if you allow lots of European and white North American immigration and aren't yet a strong state, you get a lot of people who might get ideas about their settlement not being Mexico's. Enforcing the state's will could then provoke a response from the US and Europe in defence of their 'oppressed citizens'.

In which instance, you could well have a bunch of 'Empresario Republics' seceding and declaring their independence, in a manner vaguely akin to the Boer Republics, rather than just the Republic of Texas as was the case IOTL. And these could either go it alone, form their own federal republic (i.e, 'Greater Texas'), or seek annexation by the USA (or the Empresarios' European Colonial nations; which would be interesting to say the least). But the place I'd be most interested in ITTL would be the Californias, where it wouldn't have been lots of European and white North American immigration, but was instead planned to be a majority Asian (with the term 'chinos' translating as 'Chinese', but used by Mexico and the Spanish to refer to any Asians brought to Mexico via the Manila Galleon route, who were of diverse origins and predominantly Filipino alipins, or bonded serfs, 20% of whom were female) settler population.

Even if they did similarly get ideas about their settlements not being Mexican, could you possibly provoke a response from their parent countries in Asia (if/where they even exist, in cases such as those of the Qing Dynasty, or the Moro states, whose economy a small Chinese merchant elite would take control of in the after the advent of steam-powered naval ships in the 1800's, using steamers to ship goods for exporting and importing across the Spanish blockades, predominantly trading guns to the Moros in exchange for slaves) in defense of their 'oppressed citizens', or a popular movement there in favor of Qing annexation which had any realistic chances of success? And even if they succeeded in winning their independence, and applied to be annexed by the USA or the British Empire, would either of them be willing to admit a rebellious North American territory inhabited overwhelmingly by Asian settlers?

 

[Gary Oswald]

Even if they did similarly get ideas about their settlements not being Mexican, could you possibly provoke a response from their parent countries in Asia (if/where they even exist, in cases such as those of the Qing Dynasty, or the Moro states, whose economy a small Chinese merchant elite would take control of in the after the advent of steam-powered naval ships in the 1800's, using steamers to ship goods for exporting and importing across the Spanish blockades, predominantly trading guns to the Moros in exchange for slaves) in defense of their 'oppressed citizens', or a popular movement there in favor of Qing annexation which had any realistic chances of success? And even if they succeeded in winning their independence, and applied to be annexed by the USA or the British Empire, would either of them be willing to admit a rebellious North American territory inhabited overwhelmingly by Asian settlers?

Be certainly interesting to combine that with your California annexed by the UK in the late 1830s idea.

 

[Charles EP M.]

All good points, I could see a 'chinos' majority California being more easily kept within Mexico for those reasons. That then gives you a very different Mexico: retained land and resources, a sizeable ethnic minority(ies) population and immigration waves it didn't have OTL, new people and ideas in culture and politics, possible political ties in Asia.

Probably also alters America's Chinese immigration history if Mexico is more open to you moving there than the US is.

Double-fun if this happens at the same time as "Boer-Tex" Republics, with 'chinos' now held up as Good Immigrants within Mexico, not like those bastard Euro-Yank protestants (some catholics counted as honourary protestants) in a reversal of how it worked up north.

 

[JesterBL]

The treatment of Chinese workers IOTL's Mexico (and Latin America more broadly) was not any better than their treatment in Anglo North America. It is hard for me to see an intentional effort at Asian colonization being sustained, especially if local Spanish speakers and internal migrants petition as they likely would.

 

[SinghSong]

The treatment of Chinese workers IOTL's Mexico (and Latin America more broadly) was not any better than their treatment in Anglo North America. It is hard for me to see an intentional effort at Asian colonization being sustained, especially if local Spanish speakers and internal migrants petition as they likely would.

Certainly, it wasn't that much better. If anything, it was worse; the 'chinos' (a misleading term, since most were Filipinos, even if the slave merchants whose ships exported them from the Philippines were mostly Chinese) brought to Mexico via the Manila Galleon route were basically the Mexican equivalent of the 'negroes' who were brought to the USA via the transatlantic slave trade. Unlike in the USA though, in Mexico, second generation 'chinos' were assimilated into the general population via mestizaje (racial mixing), and by passing as indigenous indios, who were legally protected from chattel slavery in Mexico.

Recent studies have shown that about a third of people sampled from Mexico have Asian ancestry, with genetic markers tracing this predominantly back to the Philippines and Indonesia, with this being a legacy of the enduring colonial period. This is most true on the West Coast of Mexico, particular in the states of Guerrero (the largest city of which is Acapulco) and Colima, the general populations of which have been shown through genetic studies to trace between 25-50% of their ancestry and origin back to the Philippines. And this can be traced back to the Manila-Acapulco Galleons, which had only been brought to an end less than a decade prior, when the Spanish crown took over direct control of the Philippines from Mexico in 1815, having been running on an annual or bi-annual basis for the past 250yrs.

So really, it wasn't a proposal born out of benevolence or any sentiments of racial equality; more along the lines of asking:
"Ever since the USA purchased the Louisiana Territory from the French, it's overtaken the population of Upper Mexico so quickly, and shows no signs of slowing down! How's that possible? How can we possibly emulate that?"
"With their plantations, and their slaves; more than half of the Louisiana Territory's population's comprised of their slaves now! But we don't have those numbers of slaves to ship up north. And we can't hope to compete with the Americans to buy more, even from Cuba..."
"Besides, the British are our closest allies, remember!? Even if we wanted to buy more from Africa, think of the diplomatic fallout! Besides, rebellions here in Mexico are bad enough as it is without adding slave revolts to the mix. And we want to keep pace with the gringos, not become them..."
"How about bringing in more chinos, then? We've been doing it for the past 250yrs, before the Spanish took Manila and the Spanish East Indies away from us. The chinos have never given us any trouble, never caused any civil unrest; they all assimilate, become fully Mexicanized, with no problems at all. And everyone knows there are more serfs in Asia than in Africa and Europe combined; more than enough to match any pools of immigrants the Americans can tap into..."
"True. The chinos do readily become mestizos quickly enough, without any fuss or hassle. They are good, faithful Catholics. And the East Indies- they were governed by us, administered over from right here in Mexico City under the Viceroyalty of New Spain, for all those 250yrs. The Americans and British may dominate the Atlantic, but across the Pacific- that's where our greatest source of historical strength and wealth lies. Why shouldn't we tap into it, bring in more chinos...?"
"For that matter, why don't we also give them more rights, make them feel more valued and give them greater comradery with us, their brethren and rightful leaders? The Philippines, and the rest of the Spanish East Indies, will rebel and breaking away from Spain eventually, just as we did- it's only a matter of time. And even if we didn't support them directly, after inviting more chinos in to help populate Upper Mexico, surely these chino settlers could be encouraged to send funds, arms and vocal support to their brethren back in the Philippines of their own accord, to hasten the process..."
"Ah, I like your thinking! And then, when they do, as the rightful successors of New Spain, and the facilitators of their freedom, we can welcome them with open arms, and admit them as free and sovereign states of our constitutional Mexican Empire, governing over them all from Mexico City once more as it should be. Yes, that's what we should be doing!"