Holy hell, this is masterfully well-done. Good job!Excerpts from "Historia General de México, 1800-1900", done in 2019, by Ignacio Bernal.
The Independence of Central America and its subsequent annexation to the Mexican Republic were not necessarily hyper-violent processes like what happened in New Spain itself, but neither were they peaceful and, of course, there were times when everything could have gone to hell, as what happened in the specific case of Costa Rica during the collapse of the royalist order. Official history tends to omit this detail, partly to make the Mexican state look in a good shape, but it is the duty of every historian to present the facts as objectively as possible. In any case, what can be taken for granted, is that the unification went better than expected, partly thanks to the concessions made to reduce the power of Guatemala over the rest of the region, and partly because of the evident supremacy of the Mexican Army over any militia that could raise Central America; which allowed the guarantee of giving loyalty to the Constitution to proceed with the unification, which would lead to the formation of the already known hybrid of central federalism. But we are getting ahead of ourselves.
Contrary to what happened in the rest of New Spain, the situation in the Captaincy General of Guatemala (also called the Kingdom of Guatemala) was less dramatic or violent, at least at the beginning. The events of 1808 in Spain and the actions of Hidalgo in 1810 did not have a decisive influence on the daily life of the Central American population initially, thanks in part to the autonomous character of the Captaincy General. The seizure of power by the insurgents in 1811 and the formation of the Supreme Junta were not recognized by Captain General Antonio Gonzalez Mollinedo, who also served as president of the Royal Audiencia of Guatemala. This Audiencia, which had political control over the whole of the Captaincy, exercised power quasi-independently of what the novo-Hispanic Viceroy could or could not do, since the Captain General (and President of the Audiencia) had the powers of viceroy, even if de jure he was not [1]. It is under this argument that the captain decided not to abide by the Supreme Junta, declaring his loyalty to the Spanish Crown, accusing the insurgents of "afrancesados", among other things.
Don Antonio decided to fight with a contingent created under his command against the Supreme Junta, proceeding to an unsuccessful attempt to capture the city of Oaxaca in mid-1811 thanks to the actions of Morelos, who was campaigning for the capture of Acapulco at the time, after which he was captured, but not before delegating his functions indefinitely to José Bustamante y Guerra, the latter becoming the new Captain General of Guatemala. The Supreme Junta purposely kept Don Antonio alive under a regime of house imprisonment in Oaxaca (despite the objections of Morelos, who demanded his execution) [2], in a gesture of goodwill towards the Royal Audiencia of Guatemala, which was however rejected by Bustamante, who maintained the stance of his predecessor. The only real difference undertaken by Bustamante, a peninsular Spaniard, was to gradually abandon any negotiations with the Creole elites about autonomy which ironically led to their radicalization.
Antonio Gonzalez Mollinedo and José Bustamante y Guerra, respectively.
One of the most famous examples is the so-called "Revolt of 1811", which is often considered the first attempt at independence rebellion in Central America. This event occurred in El Salvador in November of that year as a result of a series of internal problems between the capital of the then intendancy, San Salvador (the intendancy was also called San Salvador at that time, but to avoid any confusion, we will use the modern name for the region, and only San Salvador for the city), and the excessive Guatemalan influence and interference in the region. [3] However, emphasis must be placed on the notion of a revolt: although it had a popular character, the events of 1811 in San Salvador did not impact greatly on the rest of the Intendency at least initially, on the one hand, and on the other, they did not seek the independence of the region, but only the conformation of a municipal (not even provincial) junta, which continued to mention its loyalty to King Ferdinand VII. Moreover, it was not a violent event, since the protests were of a peaceful nature. Even so, we could thank the leaders of the Salvadoran junta, because their actions inspired others, whether Creole or not, to seek the formation of their own local juntas throughout El Salvador, varying in radicalism and racial integration, with special mention of the riots in Santa Ana and Metapan, where indigenous and mulatto participation was crucial, these being the protagonists of these riots. [4] A piece of information that the Mexican government used to its advantage to gain political power after the unification of Central America with the rest of the country were the alleged letters sent from El Salvador to the insurgent government around 1813 after the proclamation of the Republic, but it is not known for sure if these letters were real, or if it was an attempt of forgery made by the Captaincy General to delegitimize the Creole aspirations. Even assuming their veracity, it cannot be so stated because the letter did show an independence intention, if not rather it was only interest in the events in Mexico [5].
The Revolt of 1811
Similar events occurred in Nicaragua, between 1811 and 1812. Likewise, it was not an independence insurrection, but rather one that was part of the disputes between peninsulars and Creoles in the region. However, while the events in San Salvador ended under negotiations between the cabildo and the government of the Captaincy General, in the case of Nicaragua (where both the cities of León and Granada were involved) open repression was manifested against the so-called free cabildos resulting from the uprisings, partly due to the radical character of these, while the plebe (Indians and blacks, among others) were co-participants and demanded the end of slavery and, in general, different reforms, which were appropriated by the Creoles to demand autonomy. The response was especially harsh in Granada, justified from the point of view of the government of the Captaincy General given the attempts of the Granadines to forcibly confiscate arms for the arming of the local population [6]. Bustamante y Guerra, who had agreed to negotiate with the rebels in San Salvador, ordered the arrest and imprisonment of those involved in the events in Granada, as well as threatened an intervention in León, as a result of the fact that after the conformation of the cabildos abiertos, no one recognized the new authority from León, causing the Intendency of Nicaragua to be in open rebellion practice. [7]
Here it is necessary to understand a point of view more attached to the modern, scientific consensus: The events in Nicaragua, as well as the continuous demands from Mexico City to recognize the Supreme Junta that were rejected, forced Bustamante to adopt much more aggressive measures against any Creole or caste attempts to demand autonomy or independence [8]. While one could speak of a dictatorship, it must be emphasized that, in the face of the continuing threat of intervention from Mexico City, Bustamante's actions were understandable from the point of view of a realist. Certainly, if any of us, dear readers, were in his shoes, under the same circumstances and political beliefs, we would probably have done the same thing. That does not mean that we personally should agree in a strict sense, although we should thank Mr. Bustamante, since his actions only radicalized ambivalent Creoles, such as what happened in Tegucigalpa in 1812, a sign that liberal ideals were spreading, albeit gradually. [9]. An example of double-edged actions on the part of Bustamante is the positive vote of the Royal Audiencia of Guatemala for the conformation of a superintendence that acted with a police character with emergency powers, or the patriotic donations quasi-mandatory for the maintenance of the loyalist militias. [10] In this sense, the most resounding example for most of us, and main factor for the Mexican intervention, was the Conjuration of Belén, in conjunction with the deliberate rejection of certain precepts of the Constitution of Valencia.
As far as is known, the Constitution of Valencia was only pronounced at the beginning of November 1812 in Guatemala City, due to the difficulties in terms of communication because of the delicate situation in New Spain. Although the Supreme Junta in Mexico City did not reject the Constitution as such, its struggle against the peninsulars and the gradual radicalization of the Junta in favor of Independence meant that its validity was not proclaimed, so only the articles that coincided with the objectives and plans of the Junta were taken into account. Therefore, the Mexican authorities did not give notice of the Constitution to the Captaincy General, being forced to ask for information about it to Cuba, which sent copies of it for its immediate application. Although Bustamante was not against its application in times of peace, the situation in Central America was certainly not peaceful, which alarmed him, since the Constitution guaranteed freedom of the press and gave Creoles the opportunity to gain access to government positions in a much easier way. Bustamante was aware that not implementing the Constitution would provoke them even more, but neither could he allow anti-government or radical expressions, especially when there were confirmed reports at the beginning of April 1813 that the insurgents in Mexico City had proclaimed a Republic, and not only that, but that a good part of the New Spanish Creoles were aligned to this new republican project (it should be emphasized here that in some cases it was real alignment, and in others, opportunism or fear).
This situation meant that, although the Guatemalan government could not (at least not completely) ignore the Constitution of Valencia, it did not allow the full enjoyment of the social rights guaranteed therein. It neither promoted nor rejected it, at least initially. This situation of ambiguity and continuous attempts to prevent the rise of the Creoles in the region only caused some of them to decide to have clandestine contact with the republican government in Mexico. This is where the so-called conspirators in the convent of Belén in Guatemala City came in. The so-called Conjuration of Belén, as it is usually known, was the first serious attempt on the part of the Creole elites to stage a coup against the Guatemalan government and contact the insurgent forces in Mexico City, although the details of whether they were seeking independence or not are not entirely clear [11]. The plan was relatively simple: take advantage of the Christmas festivities to stage a coup against Bustamante with the help of militias favorable to the movement, free any political prisoners that might exist (many of whom were those accused of the events in Nicaragua last year), and promote the formation of a provisional government led by Creoles, inspired in part by the actions and laws of the republican government in Mexico, without explicitly mentioning the formation of another republic, or guaranteeing the social rights stated in the Constitution of 1813.
On December 24, 1813 the attempted coup d'état took place. The conspirators managed to convince certain militias unhappy with the local administration to support the seditious actions, and with the implicit endorsement of the local cabildo, an attempt was made to proceed with the arrest of Bustamante, by force if necessary. However, given the lack of organization of the conjurors, Bustamante managed to escape to Antigua Guatemala, the former capital before 1776 [12], from where he called for a fight against the insurgent elements. The situation was complicated, since, while the fighting to recover the capital was taking place, the Creole elites found themselves divided between supporting the coup plotters or joining Bustamante in exchange for concessions and the correct application of the Spanish Constitution. Finally, by mid-February, the insurrection had been practically defeated. While it is true that they did not have the ability to win, they hoped that other major cities would rise up in arms and give allegiance to their government, but with the exception of a few towns, plus the participation of San Salvador, which rose up again as in 1811, deposing the intendant of the region [13], most criollos preferred caution. The leaders of the Conjura were charged with sedition and, although they were sentenced to death or, at best, an exile in Spain for a process that would normally take months, Bustamante advocated even more extraordinary measures, so most sentences were handed down by June 1814.
The joint actions between what happened in El Salvador and Guatemala ended up destroying any Creole autonomist attempt, since, once the abolition of the Constitution of Valencia was confirmed in August, Bustamante could act practically without legal obstacles to pacify the region. Or so he thought, since while the constitutional guarantees were abolished, the Mexican government was already preparing a contingent of troops to request the annexation of the region.
View attachment 882821
Areas of unrest in Central America between 1811 and 1814.
[The map comes from José de Bustamante and Central American Independence, T. Hawkins.]
Mexican authorities were informed of the events in Guatemala about a month after the summary trials took place. However, given the priority over operations in Veracruz, Mexican troops could not directly intervene and take control of Central America. However, the information of such trials was dictated to be transmitted, especially directed towards the Creole population in the country, so that they would see beforehand the terror to which their Central American peers were subjected, and more quickly embrace the Republic as an ideal model. Certainly, the relative details as to whether the so-called martyrs of Belén were autonomists or not were ignored, since it was necessary to support the propaganda that would give legitimacy to the independentists. In any case, the clandestine contacts existing between different Creole groups and the directorial government were successful enough to convince the former of the need for a revolution, but it was made clear that any prospect of that nature would be destroyed without Mexican intervention, partly due to the pro-royalist militias known as the Volunteers of Ferdinand VII [14], which had been sufficiently effective in suppressing any Creole or caste attempts since 1812.
When the Constitution of Valencia was abolished and its repeal became effective in Guatemala in August, several criollo groups protested and demanded its restoration, only to be accused of sedition and arrested. Those who did not, were between a rock and a hard place, for although they were aware that autonomy was no longer a viable condition for the defense of their interests against the Peninsulares, neither did they advocate a republic, much less a republic as radical as the one that existed in Mexico. Some sympathetic criollos warned that, unless the castes united on their side, there would be no possibility of removing Bustamante. Thus, they could either accept the facts and be forced to accept the new republican reality, in exchange for radicalizing these groups that were normally content with minimal concessions, or they could ignore them and promote a purely Creole revolt, at the cost of their own annihilation. The Mexican government promoted the first option, encouraging the Central American Creoles to take it, since literally it was forced to do so by being subordinated to the Constitution, so moderate measures such as maintaining the caste system in exchange for a gradual political opening were out of the question once the unification was done which, they warned, was not a negotiable option either.
The news of the fall of Veracruz in November alarmed the Guatemalan authorities. They knew the enemy was approaching, and they were quite right. The Directory, under the auspices of the nascent Supreme Congress, made official a petition (more like an ultimatum) to the local authorities to abolish the Captaincy General, and delegate power to "the children of our Mexican Americas" (Creoles, mestizos, castes and blacks). In exchange, the Peninsulares could return peacefully to Cuba, or even stay in the country in exchange for swearing allegiance to the republic. Should the request be denied, then the Mexican Army would enter and forcibly detain the Bustamante government until the annexation was a fait accompli. At the same time, the Mexican government dictated to its Creole sympathizers to prepare for a conflict that seemed inevitable, and to recruit as many as they could: the Directory saw no hope for a fully peaceful unification.
On the morning of January 14, 1815, a contingent of Mexican troops entered the Intendancy of Chiapas, after the request was rejected. News of the invasion reached Guatemala City on the 16th, which quickly sent communiqués to the local governments of the Captaincy, calling for the recruitment by levy and the total mobilization of the volunteers of Ferdinand VII. On the 20th Juan de Dios Mayorga, a politician of Guatemalan origin living in El Salvador who had recently been released from prison for his pro-autonomist activities in 1811 and 1812 proclaimed the birth of the Republic of Central America in the town of Metapán, which added to the slave uprisings throughout Central America. Mayorga was one of the Creole sectors in Central America that had quickly become disillusioned with autonomism, fully embracing republicanism. Some politicians and religious prisoners quickly tried to promote an insurrection in Guatemala City, which added to the calls of people like José Matías Delgado for a peaceful surrender. Caste and indigenous groups - not necessarily pro-independence - took advantage of the situation to "render personal accounts" against Peninsulares in various towns in Nicaragua and Honduras (which resulted in several assassinations of Peninsulares), which effectively reduced the de facto control of the royalists in various parts of the region. Evidently, some towns positioned themselves in favor of the status quo. In the Province of Costa Rica, Creole groups found themselves in opposing positions, since while some were pro-republican, others preferred either the status quo or the promotion of a monarchy, which quickly devolved into factional struggle.
Bustamante's government initially did not give in, ordering conscript regiments to defend the Captaincy from Mexican invasion. However, by the 31st the fall of Ciudad Real [15], the capital of the Intendencia de Chiapas, was reported. Increasingly confusing reports, and the establishment of a free cabildo in San Salvador that supported Don Mayorga's calls made it clear that, outside Guatemala, Central America was mostly a battleground between royalists and independentists, ignoring the opportunists that used the situation to commit crimes or kill their own enemies. Faced with the critical situation, the cabildo in Guatemala City advocated the release of political prisoners and the arrest of Bustamante, in exchange for the Mexican authorities to stop and allow a negotiated resolution. On February 2, such an event, informally known as the second Conjuration took place, and the released prisoners quickly called for a general insurrection. Manuel José Arce, one of those freed, and a relative of Matías Delgado, advocated the establishment of a federal republic, as a model that ensured the autonomy of the constituent parts of Central America was more acceptable than monarchical or central despotism, which contradicted the centralism stipulated in the Mexican Constitution. Bustamante fled on the 3rd to Antigua Guatemala, while Mexican troops advanced towards Tapachula.
View attachment 882823
Manuel José Arce, one of the de facto co-founders of the short-lived Republic of Central America, and apparent creator of the flag of the country, which used the colors of the Mexican flag.
However, unlike what had happened months before, this time there was no possibility of retaking Guatemala City. The royalist militiamen battled as heroically as one could imagine, even earning the respect of some independentists, but with the Guatemalan government apparatus "decapitated", it was only a matter of time before the ambivalent Creoles decided to go for the highest bidder. On February 14, Bustamante called for surrender, once Mexican troops entered Quetzaltenango, Guatemala. However, fighting between royalists and independentistas did not cease until mid-May, when all rebellion was destroyed once and for all. Bustamante agreed to be guaranteed exile, partly to avoid further bloodshed. The Guatemalan Creole authorities, for their part, summoned various representatives from throughout the region to formalize the birth of the Republic of Central America, as well as its status with respect to Mexico.
Excerpts from "The development of Mexican-style federalism in the 19th century" by Alejandro Gonzalez Fuentes*.
When the Mexican authorities arrived in Guatemala City in March, they were surprised to discover what had happened, since the locality now hosted a provisional government that gave allegiance to the so-called Republic of Central America. Apparently, representatives of the various parts of the Republic were divided over whether to join Mexico, as the Mexican government demanded, or to preserve their new independence. It was not that they were against the Mexican government per se, since various parts of the Constitution of 1813 had been used as provisional documents or laws in the nascent Republic, including the total abolition of slavery and the form of indirect elections for the election of deputies; but there was the problem that many Central American Creoles and mestizos advocated a political autonomy that the Mexican Constitution did not strictly guaranteed in strict sense. Therefore, they requested the Mexican Directory the formation of a Committee between the Mexican and Central American representatives that could reach a consensus to achieve unification. For their part, the Mexican authorities reacted contradictorily: members of the Supreme Congress advocated that the requests made by the Central Americans were opposed to the ideal of a stable and strong republic, which could guarantee happiness for all its citizens without distinction. Members of the northern provinces (as well as representatives of the California and New Mexico territories), for their part, called for a model similar to that of the United States, rejecting outright both full centralism and a confederation. The situation worsened since in May, with the gradual pacification of Costa Rica, several free cabildos were invoked to vote, since a referendum was called to decide what would the Central American government do, with the most voted options resulting in either annexation with or without conditions, and with the former option being ultimately victorious against the latter. [16]. The Central American representatives, among whom were Juan de Dios Mayorga, Juan de Dios Campos, Benito Soto [...] among others, representing the constituent governments of the nascent Republic, moved from petitions to demands.
Although the experience of the Constitution of Valencia, of which the Mexican government was already aware, was sufficiently relevant to have sufficient material basis to support some kind of decentralization, it was feared that the excessive delegation of various powers to state governments could undermine both the effective capacity of the national state to maintain its borders and stability, and there were also those who rejected the complicity of the Creole elites in favor of federalism, since it actually benefited them. The Directory was forced to intervene, after which the following arguments were given:
The Central American authorities, although not totally convinced by the Mexican offer, agreed with the concessions made, and finally gave their approval to the unification, which was ratified on October 2, 1815, the 5th anniversary of the beginning of the War of Independence, with the Act of Unification between the Mexican Republic and the Republic of Central America. Once the annexation was ratified, the national census was carried out between October and December, and, in turn, the Supreme Congress was convened to modify the Constitution in accordance with the points of agreement with Central America [...].
Although there was no official symbolism during the signing of the unification between the Central American and Mexican republics, in recent years there has been attempts to create some unique symbols that represent, in a way, such event. This is one of them, simply being called "La Unificación".
And with the signing of the Act, Mexico was finally free from Spain. But the Mexican Century had only just begun.
Map of the Mexican Republic in 1830.[1] According to the HGIS of the Indies, in the specific case of the Audiencia of Guatemala, it possessed attributions of a much more autonomous/quasi-independent character with respect to the Viceroyalty of New Spain. The "Recopilación de Leyes de los Reinos de las Indias" in its Book II, Title XV, Law VI confirms this, by mentioning the following: "And we order that the governor and captain general of the said provinces, and president of the royal audience of them, have, use and exercise by himself the governance of that land and all its district, as our viceroy of the New Spain has it, and provide the distribution of Indians and other offices, as it used to do the said royal audience [...]", so the Captain General of Guatemala had the powers of viceroy, and the Audiencia did not report to the New Spain government in practice, but to the Council of the Indies.
[2] Morelos ordered the execution of Gonzalez Mollinedo OTL, after unsuccessfully attempting to repel an insurgent offensive on Oaxaca in 1812. That event occurs here a year earlier, but with Don Antonio acting as the invader, not the defender.
[3] San Salvador had a sophisticated network of Creole families, including politicians and clergymen, who sought to control the city. These families were hurt by the interference of Guatemalan traders, who fixed indigo prices in the region. This, in addition to the events in New Spain and the already known Creole-Peninsular dispute, led to the aforementioned events.
[4] The events in San Salvador inspired other towns to form their own local juntas, which in some cases went beyond the political and demanded the end of tributes and alcabalas, something similar to what happened in New Spain. In some cases, as in San Miguel, the opposite occurred: locals opposing such juntas and calling for the defense of "God, king and country".
[5] According to T. Hawkins in his book "José de Bustamante and Central American Independence[...]", at least one letter was sent to Morelos on May 1, 1813, as well as plans to form a constitution that would result in an elected junta and a three-person Executive. I will assume that in this timeline the letter is real and is sent with tones of sympathy for the republican government, judging from the reference in the supposedly extant OTL content.
[6] Some sources mention that on January 8, 1812, the Grenadians seized Fort San Carlos, located at the exit of the San Juan River, on Lake Cocibolca, captured the Spaniards and took their weapons, which was used as a "casus belli" to intervene in Granada. Since I confirmed the existence of said Fort, I will assume that the information is true.
[7] In the case of León, the Intendant of Nicaragua, José Salvador y Antoli, was removed and replaced by Nicolas García Jerez as interim Intendant. In addition, a Government Junta was formed, which was not recognized by the other town councils in Nicaragua, being forced to be dissolved by García Jerez due to the threat of the Captain General. In the case of Granada, an open cabildo was called, led only by Creoles, which gave fidelity to the Junta of León, and once this disappeared, they rejected the authority of García Jerez, Granada being functionally a self-government, which derived in a military intervention.
[8] In OTL, this is also the case, but the difference is that, in general, Bustamante's actions are not unique, as the Novo-Hispanic government also resorted to increasingly extremist tactics to destroy the insurgents and their sympathizers. Here, Bustamante stands alone. This is, more or less, the POD with respect to Central America: the isolation of the Captaincy makes Bustamante more and more intransigent and refuses all compromise since, to be fair, he is isolated. However, since there is no viceregal government to help (and influence) him, counterinsurgency actions are less effective, beyond the suppression of individual liberties that could legally exist, as well as the generalized increase of repression at the hands of loyalist militias, acting as police bodies with extraordinary powers, which is certainly not to the liking of the majority of Creoles.
[9] In January 1812 Tegucigalpa suffered a rebellion of pardo (descendants of Europeans, indigenous and blacks together) and ladino (mestizos) origin led by the Creoles Julian Romero and José Antonio Rojas. Although the rebellion originally had a moderate objective (the deposition of two ordinary mayors), the two aforementioned individuals attempted to steer it in a more radical direction (schooling for caste children, representation of the "lower classes" (castas) in local government, etc.).
[10] The Royal Audiencia rejected the OTL superintendence for fear that Bustamante's government could be seen as a despotic government. Here, under the situation of total isolation, the Audiencia accepts. The patriotic donations, on the other hand, are unchanged.
[11] As far as is known, the members involved in the so-called "Conjuration" met from October 28 until the end of December 1813 in said Convent, but it is not known what they discussed there, beyond complaints about the situation between Creoles and Peninsulares, and the need for reforms. Once detained, the government of Bustamente accused them of sedition for planning a coup d'état and seeking independence. There are also mentions that they may have recited a proclamation (it is not known which one in particular) by Morelos, but this is nothing more than speculation. The situation in Mexico here allows me to use this information vacuum to give the Conjura a little more radicalism and that the accusations made against them OTL are actually true here (TTL): an armed rebellion.
[12] The present capital is "Nueva Guatemala de la Asunción", or simply Guatemala City. The "Antigua Guatemala" mentioned here still exists, and is officially called "Santiago de los Caballeros de Guatemala". An earthquake in 1773 left the old capital severely damaged, which was the perfect excuse to build a new capital in a more suitable location, resulting in the founding of Guatemala City.
[13] In January 1814, the city of San Salvador again rebelled to oust the Salvadoran intendant, José María Peinado. Apparently, the local government had held elections, largely won by Creoles, who were in constant friction with the mayor. Here, the rebellion occurs more or less in a similar way, although there is some solidarity between the Salvadoran and Guatemalan rebels. In addition, the seizure of control of the city of San Salvador lasts somewhat longer (OTL did not last more than a week).
[14] This corps also existed in New Spain OTL, in this case it was dismantled for the most part after Hidalgo's victory in 1811.
[15] Currently San Cristobal de las Casas. Ciudad Real was its name until 1829 OTL.
[16] The opposite happened OTL when Central America joined the First Mexican Empire. Here, with the Republicans having political supremacy, they are more likely to demand an autonomous situation.
[17] If federalism was able to be implemented in Mexico OTL, it was because the joint effects of the Bourbon reforms, the Cadiz Constitution and the administrative configuration created a series of regional oligarchies, which negotiated among themselves to form the so-called Federal Pact. A more radicalized and independent Mexico ahead of time may limit to some extent (but not eliminate, since this is impossible) the regionalism of such groups of oligarchs, since Creole exclusionism is less prominent.
The Mexican Century: An Alternate Mexican History
- Thread starter AlexGarcia
- Start date
Yes!, I don't like the Great Man theory that much, but I deemed necessary the survival of both Issac Brock and Tecumseh for the events of the War of 1812 happening differently, and with a British advantage. The Americans are also forced to negotiate with the Mexican government (even before they declare independence officially) to have gold and silver to maintain the war economy. This results in, among other things:
1. American defeats in New York (the state);
2. The quasi-collapse of the American economy, once the nascent republican government in Mexico discovers that Andrew Jackson entered Mexican territory (Florida) to kill natives (de iure Mexican citizens) and kidnap freedmen and fugitive slaves (also considered Mexican citizens as a result of the abolition of slavery) and stops sending gold and silver to the US;
3. Better British morale and discipline which results in the successful capture of New Orleans.
All of this basically nullifies any Era of Good Feelings, and saves the Federalists from being extinct, along with the Native Confederacy also surviving by becoming a British protectorate.
Thank you!
A British victory at New Orleans could have some interesting results. For starters, London can declare the Louisiana Purchase null and void -France had no right to sell that which they didn't own in the first place. And yet, Spain is in no shape to do anything about the area either.
Enter Mexico. The new Republic might just like a land connection between its otherwise separate holdings, and handing it over for a nice sum in precious metals would help Britain pay for this whole mess.
The question is thus, would Mexico be willing to buy, and would London be willing to sell.
Enter Mexico. The new Republic might just like a land connection between its otherwise separate holdings, and handing it over for a nice sum in precious metals would help Britain pay for this whole mess.
The question is thus, would Mexico be willing to buy, and would London be willing to sell.
The main problem I see is that Mexico has not the capacity (at the moment) to send missionaries and settlers to Louisiana, and even if they did have such capacity, I think they would respect that fact that Spain didn't reclaim the region anymore to simply not try and reclaim territory, contrary to what happens in Oregon, since Spain actually had reclamations over the region, reclamations that Mexico can perfectly re-adopt (and, spoiler: they will). Nonetheless, even if the British decided to nullify the buy of Louisiana, I don't think the Americans will simply sit and not expand anymore. Of course, their advance would be more cautious, but the region is so vast that makes any British attempt to actually enforce their demands almost impossible.
I agree, but the natives can demand the British to intervene in their favor and expel (or at least keep in check) the American settlers. My perspective is that the Americans will try to de facto ignore the fact they lost and were humiliated, and still try to continue the expansion to the West, just in a more cautious way. That's why in the map you can see that the borders of the Confederacy are "non formalized": there are no actual borders.
Now that the Mexican War of Independence is officially over, what would you like to be mentioned/developed by me that is related to Mexico (like the material conditions, the average life of the Mexican of that time, the question of the natives, the women's question, the Constitutional changes after the integration of CA, etc., etc.) ? And similarly, what would you like to be developed that doesn't occur in Mexico, but in other countries?
Another thing that would be interesting to see are the political developments in Mexico, since Iturbide and his moderates are still there, like how successful are they, do they ever get into power, how prominent is political violence here compared to otl, the church question, etc.
as for foreign events I am interested in how the surviving federalists and the lack of major expansion west affects the Slavery issue
This is a good question. I personally believe Britain and France are going to be the most interested European countries, as in OTL. The thing here is that Mexico also requires to defend its nascent industry from being overtaken by them (or in other words, develop its own national market capable of defending against the flow of goods from them). OTL, this protectionism and national investment was more of a Conservative idea (most Liberals adopted laissez-faire instead), with Lucas Alamán creating the Banco de Avio to fund such industry, with moderate success. Although I need to define which sectors can Mexico use in its own favour to industrialize that are not linked to mining, I'm checking if it's possible to go for an American System of sorts (high tariffs to imports and exports to have the money to maintain and create infrastructure, a decent army, and, evidently, a relatively modern industry), but the main problem is that Britain will not like that, haha.
Political infighting is still going to be an issue, especially due to some factors that I would like to explore:
1. The US influence in Mexico, which OTL made the Liberals try to copy paste the American model, without taking into account the different conditions Mexico had;
2. Masonic Logias influencing the Mexican politicians;
3. Caudillismo/the Army strengthening gradually and becoming an issue;
4. The Church being a constant pain in the ass haha
I already have made some solutions to diminish this problem, like exiling Santa Anna, and diminishing the Creole influence a bit, but you can imagine that the root of the problem (the own material conditions of the country) can't be eliminated as much as I would like to.
The Church question will surely be mentioned. It's ironic because originally the Church was not that powerful, so a more prepared federal government can maintain the Church as a loyal institution and gradually diminish its power. Freedom of religion won't be a thing initially (unfortunately), but I prefer that to a situation akin to the Guerra de Reforma.
As for the US political aspects, yes, I'm planning already what to do with the Federalists
I intend to make Mexico help the South American Wars of Independence (once the country fixes all the inmediate economic mess), especially the Colombian one (for obvious reasons -distance is closer-), but I haven't defined yet how much Mexico will influence the development of Gran Colombia when it comes to the dispute between federalists and unitarians. When it comes to Haiti, my personal intention is to avoid the constant mess that the country suffered OTL (especially the stupid "Independence Debt" France wanted from them). The question is how to make such thing in a way that can be realistic from the perspective of the timeline.
Honestly, I'd rather not do something like "American System" since that isn't known for helping the economy in the long term... hell, America's economy has a long history of crashing so... I think going a mix of protectionism and laissez-faire would probably help our economy and not make Britain (and other European nations) dislike as much since we're gonna need allies against America with their "Manifest Destiny"...
Maybe you are misunderstanding what I refer to, since from my perspective the American System was a model proposed by Whigs like Henry Clay that de facto wanted an interventionist government that was able to strengthen the national market, while not rejecting exports and imports per se. Other proposals included the birth of a national bank to create and regulate a single currency that would stabilize the economy if necessary. Finally, with the tariffs on such exports and imports, infrastructure and transportation would be maintained, repaired, and renewed/created, so the influx of internal goods would increase, and the country would have a better path to industrialize.
I agree that free trade/laissez-faire can't be rejected fully because I agree that capitalism must be developed as much as possible to eliminate any feudal remnants that could exist in Mexico. But at the same time, Mexico needs to protect its internal market from the British goods, which requires a sufficiently strong national/federal government that guarantees the development of the Mexican market and can maintain a stable monetary currency (which requires a national bank).
EDIT: in fact, OTL Mexico industrialized during the 20th Century using the Import substitution industrialization model, or ISI, which is essentially what the American System proposed, just in a bigger scale and with influence from Keynesianism.
Last edited:
I would be very interested in seeing the economic improvements, but also demographic ones. I want to see how much immigration Mexico can get with all that Northern land and a more stable and economically prosperous govt.
Also, probably the most interesting thing is: how the heck is the silver industry doing? If it largely continues to produce good coinage, then that will have HUGE global economic effects, especially in China, where the currency crises causes by the lack of good quality American silver is thought to be a major reason for the Taiping Rebellion and decline of the Qing.
Also, probably the most interesting thing is: how the heck is the silver industry doing? If it largely continues to produce good coinage, then that will have HUGE global economic effects, especially in China, where the currency crises causes by the lack of good quality American silver is thought to be a major reason for the Taiping Rebellion and decline of the Qing.
Ah ok that makes sense now but I'm still against copying everything from America since I'm for creating our own system.
--
Speaking of the Northern Territory and immigration, I'm for giving the Native Americans a protection statues.
Oh, for sure, the demographic development is going to be something I will explain later in detail. In fact, I already have a perspective on how Mexico can benefit from European immigration, but that requires some changes to the US when it comes to nativism. In fact, the map from the last post already shows some hints towards my idea: In Texas you have cities like Dublin (Irish) or Pequeño Egipto, Little Egypt (Freedmen/Blacks). In Baja California, you have San José de los Chinos (literally: "Saint Joseph of the Chinese"). That may give you an idea on what I intend for such regions in terms of migration. And the better part is that my basis comes from OTL documents and plans that were scrapped or failed, so it's actually realistic!
Now, when it comes to the production of silver, I'd say it's not as bad as OTL with the mines being abandoned and destroyed, but it's also not in a good shape. The Independence occurs in less time than OTL, but it's also more violent in some aspects. I'm not going to lie: when it comes to the Qing, I haven't researched in detail why the Qing economy started to gradually collapse, aside from the obvious problems as a result of the Opium Wars. If you can handle to me some info. about the correlation between silver (especially the American one) and the Qing economy, I'd appreciate a lot!
Ah, for sure, I agree, Mexico is not the US, and precisely, one of the reasons the country was in a constant state of chaos was because Mexico tried to copy-paste the Americans and the British, especially in economics (laissez-faire).
Speaking of the natives, I'd also like to have some protections towards them ideally, but unfortunately, I tend to go for a realistic view. And in that case, the natives will not be in a good condition, especially the natives living in the Northern Territories. I'm checking options on that matter, but, as someone told me, "If you receive something you must give something", or in this case, "economical development [capitalism] in exchange for the natives not having a good time, unfortunately".
I mean it could probably be a better than the US, especially with the "Trail of Tears" OTL... hopefully...
Haha I like those hints!
Interesting, though with easier (relatively) independence, I think there is a possibility that rebuilding the silver industry could be more successful.
This paper and some other research I've done on the subject show how the Qing basically completely relied on Spanish silver as a standard currency, which the Chinese never had until the late 19th century AFAIK. The lack of good quality silver mostly from Mexico, due to the government's instability and inability to mine it, caused a reduction in quality which put the brakes on economic activity in the Southern China. While in the US, the absence of silver (which the Americans traded a lot of around the world) forced them to do currency reform to the US dollar (which of course was based and initially pegged on Spanish/Mexican coins).
So if the independent republics can establish stability and good quality currency later on, global trade will seriously benefit. Especially for the Americas, who would be able to import goods from Asia, including India and the East Indies, and Europe with their abundant silver. The paper also states that China was generally exporting silver after the British got the Chinese addicted to Opium, so some conflict is inevitable I think, but you could seriously reduce economic turmoil by having the Mexicans keep their coinage good quality.
It's not an easy read, but I recommend it if you can because there is a lot more nuance in it than can be said here.
From this here, it seems US nativism is going to be heavily anti-Catholic (well, even moreso than in IRL), which combined with things like Dublin in Texas sounds like more Catholic leaning populations will end up in Mexico. That could mean a pretty sizeable Italian population ends up in Mexico as well.
Victoria 3 Brain triggers.
"I hate Landowners I hate Landowners I hate Landowners I hate Landowners I hate Landowners..."
Thanks, I'm going to read the paper!
It depends really. The Mexican policy towards natives during the 19th Century was sometimes contradictory:
1. Sometimes they glorified the "Ancient Past" and their civilizations (like the Aztecs/Mexicas) meanwhile at the same time ignoring the current natives, whom they considered to be barbaric in nature and needed to be civilized to be part of the Mexican people (the government, while abolishing the casta system, also considered natives to not have an special status due to their own ethnicity). This also meant some Vice Royal measures like publishing both in Spanish and Nahuatl (or Mexicano, since that's how it was called at that time, and acted as lingua franca) were scrapped, and full Hispanization took place.
2. Sometimes they deemed certain natives as too problematic to be civilized and the government enforced an active/semi-active extermination policy. I'd say this only occurred specifically with the Mayans in Yucatán, which led to the Caste War, and the Apaches. Northern states paid people if they brought hair (scalp purchase) from deceased Apaches. The Yaquis sometimes were treated like this.
Natives were only starting to be considered as what they were with their own conditions (language, traditions, form of life) during the 20th Century.
Jesus, I think you got the idea I have for the US, but yes! Texas will have lots of Irish population, in part due to nativism in the US, and in part due to some...unfortunate things happening in Ireland itself during the 1840's. Other European Catholics are going to be attracted as well, although Italians were not in my plans ngl. I'll check now if there's possible to attract them in due time.
Speaking about landowners, yes, I hate them both in V3 and in real life haha.
The status of the settlement/colonization of the Northern territories. Maybe earlier California gold rush?