Canada and Mexico with no USA

[Napoleonrules]

Many threads talk about the individual states if the USA doesn't adopt the US Constitution and go their own way (either independent, 3 or 4 or more confederations, etc); but what would happen to Mexico and the Canadian provinces? Without a large and threatening USA to the south, would Britain have Quebec, Ontario, the Maritime provinces develop separately and not as a confederation? Would Mexico have rebellions such as Yucatan, Texas, Sonora, California, and New Mexico? IOTL there were of course the Texas rebellion, but also Yucatan 1842-8, Republic of Rio Grande in 1840, with rebellions in Zacatecas, Tabasco, Chihuahua, Durango, and New Mexico as well. Would a weaker North American situation and no expanding nation with a Manifest Destiny, mean a proliferation and almost HRE magnitude situation of states to proliferate? Or do you believe that Britain would still want a unified Canada to better police the situation of the 14+ states to the south?

 

[AcaciaSgt]

Hmm, this could go... many ways.

Mexico's rebellions were a result of the ideological clash between Federalism and Centralism. It's hard to say if such a conflict would really be repeated with no US, considering this is a PoD way before Mexico's own independence. So the rebellions could or could not. One thing for sure, no US means nothing like the War of 1812 happens, so no Panic of 1819, so no Americans moving into Texas (or at least, as early as 1820). So even if the Tejanos still rebel against Centralism like OTL, it won't be an independence movement (or like in cases like Yucatan, they'll rejoin once Federalism is back).

 

[unprincipled peter]

Mexico also had very serious liberal vs conservative divisions. The Spanish had also left it with major flaws in infrastructure such as education, transportation, etc. Even with a POD before Mexican independence, there's no real reason to think the revolution is less violent, so you still see the massive destruction. Mexico will still be a hot mess. So, regardless of whether OTL rebellions happen, it stands to reason there's going to be strife and unrest somewhere. remote areas, such as Texas, are still going to be difficult to control. They might get lucky and have a competent leader emerge to either minimize the damage of revolution, or do a better job of healing and running the country afterward.

Things that are massively changed for New Spain: a non unified British NA means Spain can be more assertive in making good on territorial claims (everything south and west of the Tennessee river) and in control of the Mississippi River. IF Napoleon still dupes Spain out of Louisiana and then tires of it, you have the often debated question of what happens to LA. With no one to sell it to, he may give it back to Spain, or just hold on to it, and Spain may get it back in 1815 (if no other major power has claim, Spain is first in line to retrieve it. Or, if Nap still tries taking over Spain, New Spain could probably easily take it back themselves (if they ever stopped governing it in the first place). Even if they don't want it, hard to see them refusing to take it back. Unless Mexico gets it act together better than OTL, this just adds a much larger region with limited control from Mexico City. AH.com may just get the independent Louisiana it is pining for. It'll be mid 1800's, though.

 

[AcaciaSgt]

Mexico also had very serious liberal vs conservative divisions. The Spanish had also left it with major flaws in infrastructure such as education, transportation, etc. Even with a POD before Mexican independence, there's no real reason to think the revolution is less violent, so you still see the massive destruction. Mexico will still be a hot mess. So, regardless of whether OTL rebellions happen, it stands to reason there's going to be strife and unrest somewhere. remote areas, such as Texas, are still going to be difficult to control. They might get lucky and have a competent leader emerge to either minimize the damage of revolution, or do a better job of healing and running the country afterward.

That's a big assumption to make. Mexico in OTL only got as bad as it is due to a very specific set of circumstances. You could easily have, say, Hidalgo change his mind in 1811 and continue the advance to Mexico City, avoiding 10+ years of strife and warfare, leaving the country in much better shape. You could have Carlos IV avoid his capture and succesfully flee to New Spain, preventing most if not all of the uprisings, at least during the 1810's. So really, for a PoD that back, it's hard to say things are that set in stone.

 

[unprincipled peter]

That's a big assumption to make. Mexico in OTL only got as bad as it is due to a very specific set of circumstances. You could easily have, say, Hidalgo change his mind in 1811 and continue the advance to Mexico City, avoiding 10+ years of strife and warfare, leaving the country in much better shape. You could have Carlos IV avoid his capture and succesfully flee to New Spain, preventing most if not all of the uprisings, at least during the 1810's. So really, for a PoD that back, it's hard to say things are that set in stone.

you can change a character in the play, but the set is going to be the same, and it's just basic reality that Mexico had real problems from the way Spain had used it as a colony. I'm not saying it's set in stone that Mexico suffers, but you can't get rid of the problems just by having Carlos IV make it to the coast (actually, I have a very, very low opinion of Carlos, so I can easily see the situation getting worse). I agree that avoiding or minimizing the destruction involved in gaining independence changes a lot, and it's a huge boost to Mexico. Of course, if things change a little the other way, maybe Mexico stays a colony. That might be better for the country than OTL. Then again, you run into the problem that there's a dunce (IMO) on the throne, followed by another dunce.

 

[AcaciaSgt]

you can change a character in the play, but the set is going to be the same, and it's just basic reality that Mexico had real problems from the way Spain had used it as a colony. I'm not saying it's set in stone that Mexico suffers, but you can't get rid of the problems just by having Carlos IV make it to the coast (actually, I have a very, very low opinion of Carlos, so I can easily see the situation getting worse). I agree that avoiding or minimizing the destruction involved in gaining independence changes a lot, and it's a huge boost to Mexico. Of course, if things change a little the other way, maybe Mexico stays a colony. That might be better for the country than OTL. Then again, you run into the problem that there's a dunce (IMO) on the throne, followed by another dunce.

With Carlos IV, it's not about getting rid of the problems, but rather delaying them, with the chance of reducing them slightly. The coup against him and subsequent take-over by Napoleon sparked the 1808 Political Crisis in Latin America, which was one of the steps that led to independence. Creating a similar situation like what happened with Brazil would've certainly pushed back when the viceroyalties rebelled if they still do so.

 

[herkles]

One question of course is what happened to the USA?

 

[Lusitania]

One question of course is what happened to the USA?

The independent states would not only squabble amongst themselves but from all I have read eventually fight one another just like in Europe.

What will not change is the movement of people west and who ever holds LA and other territory will be inundated by constant migration of people, unless thy willing to defend the borders with fire power. New countries or independent states will spring up thoughout the continent and instability and war will follow.

Unfortunately I see it even worse than iOTL.

 

[oshron]

as for the alternate North American geography, i could see Mexico getting more of formerly Spanish America in independence (or else the rest of it would become independent just like the rest of their empire--Florida is probably the outlier here) and maybe even retaining Louisiana while, assuming this is a failed-American-Revolution dealie, the Thirteen Colonies are satellite states of Canada or something, though realistically that would probably be more the reverse since Canada was never going to have as high a population as what would become the early United States.

 

[AcaciaSgt]

The independent states would not only squabble amongst themselves but from all I have read eventually fight one another just like in Europe.

What will not change is the movement of people west and who ever holds LA and other territory will be inundated by constant migration of people, unless thy willing to defend the borders with fire power. New countries or independent states will spring up thoughout the continent and instability and war will follow.

Unfortunately I see it even worse than iOTL.

What are the chances they can be as succesful as OTL? Considering the natives' opposition and the settlers wouldn't have the same backing from back home. The Indian Wars would be more in favor for the Native Americans, as even if they still loose on the long-run, it would take much longer. There's also the matter that there won't be as big of a push as OTL. It was things like the Lousiana Purchase and the Panic of 1819 that fueled the desire to move westward. Without those things, you won't see as many people moving west. Even in OTL, most of the west was very sparsely settled until the transcontinental railroads were built. You had a few forts and a settlements here and there, but mostly people would just skip all that and head straight for the coast. But in this case, there won't be much driving them there. Heck, I see the Native tribes of the southeast going west first, since they're likely to still be expelled from their lands. OTL, the ones that moved before the Trail of Tears headed straight to Texas, Missouri, and Arkansas. I see the Spanish, and later Mexico, using them to create buffer zones for when the Americans do come.

 

[Lusitania]

What are the chances they can be as succesful as OTL? Considering the natives' opposition and the settlers wouldn't have the same backing from back home. The Indian Wars would be more in favor for the Native Americans, as even if they still loose on the long-run, it would take much longer. There's also the matter that there won't be as big of a push as OTL. It was things like the Lousiana Purchase and the Panic of 1819 that fueled the desire to move westward. Without those things, you won't see as many people moving west. Even in OTL, most of the west was very sparsely settled until the transcontinental railroads were built. You had a few forts and a settlements here and there, but mostly people would just skip all that and head straight for the coast. But in this case, there won't be much driving them there. Heck, I see the Native tribes of the southeast going west first, since they're likely to still be expelled from their lands. OTL, the ones that moved before the Trail of Tears headed straight to Texas, Missouri, and Arkansas. I see the Spanish, and later Mexico, using them to create buffer zones for when the Americans do come.

The initial drive till the Mississippi River will still happen but you are right in that they will be less organized but the drive could even be greater if people are fleeing conflict and war.

As for west coast it will still be desired location once the eastern half is filled as people escape situation in their respective states not realizing they are going to setup similar conflicts where they go.

 

[AcaciaSgt]

The initial drive till the Mississippi River will still happen but you are right in that they will be less organized but the drive could even be greater if people are fleeing conflict and war.

As for west coast it will still be desired location once the eastern half is filled as people escape situation in their respective states not realizing they are going to setup similar conflicts where they go.

Well, that's if they get engaged in war with each other for so long. Also, it's not guaranteed they'd flee deep into the continent if they're fleeing at all. Certainly, there might be conflicts over the ownership of ther northwest territories, and then trans-Appalachian conflict. I think the Spanish had plans to support any rebels that rose west of the mountains. Here, they might consider it as well. But if the Spanish can pay attention to the area, they won't allow the Americans coming in into the Luisiana. That was a big priority for them.

 

[Lusitania]

Well, that's if they get engaged in war with each other for so long. Also, it's not guaranteed they'd flee deep into the continent if they're fleeing at all. Certainly, there might be conflicts over the ownership of ther northwest territories, and then trans-Appalachian conflict. I think the Spanish had plans to support any rebels that rose west of the mountains. Here, they might consider it as well. But if the Spanish can pay attention to the area, they won't allow the Americans coming in into the Luisiana. That was a big priority for them.

The issue would be Spain’s limited resources. The Napoleónic Wars and French Revolution May happen like iOTL since we talking about post 1777 POD which means the ingredients for the French Revolution have been sown.

The weakening of Spain and subsequent New Spain independence will almost be assured. Following the Napoleonic Wars Spain’s resources would be much more limited and without Haiti French North Smerica was worthless to the French. Remember they were not interested in settler colony. Never have been classicalexampme being New France that they prevented settlers to go.

So either France or Spain would be too weak to stop migration of “Americans”. Also a way to galvanize Americans against a RuropeAn power would be that European power attack innocent American civilians.

 

[AcaciaSgt]

The issue would be Spain’s limited resources. The Napoleónic Wars and French Revolution May happen like iOTL since we talking about post 1777 POD which means the ingredients for the French Revolution have been sown.

The weakening of Spain and subsequent New Spain independence will almost be assured. Following the Napoleonic Wars Spain’s resources would be much more limited and without Haiti French North Smerica was worthless to the French. Remember they were not interested in settler colony. Never have been classicalexampme being New France that they prevented settlers to go.

So either France or Spain would be too weak to stop migration of “Americans”. Also a way to galvanize Americans against a RuropeAn power would be that European power attack innocent American civilians.

Yeah, the revolution is still on board to happen. But at this point, we are entering gray-ish areas. Too many variables can still do different even if the PoD itself doesn't affect them. It's not guarantee Spain could fall as OTL, or Carlos IV doesn't fail to flee to New Spain pulling a Portugal-Brazil, or other things going on. And also there's still no guarantee Americans will be moving westward. If trans-Appalachian conflict doesn't happen, you'll see first the Natives moving west than the Americans as they'd first take over the former's lands. And would the Americans really move into places already filled by Native settlers, and likely backed by the Hispanic authorities? Because the Spainsh were on board accepting them, to avoid an American takeover. They already feared that since the US was free. Even if shattered and disunited, that worry would still be there.

If trans-Appalachian war happens, the people west of the mountains would fight first than flee and let the people east win. Or you have something like Tecumseh's Confederation still rising in this scenario also being a barrier for westward expansion. Once again, too many variables, don't take it for granted things will still go as OTL.

 

[ennobee]

I think the big picture is still what will happen to the French holdings in North America, or for that manner even the Native American Nations like the Iroquois federation? I can easily see a Mexico now occupying everything south of Georgia, or east of New Orleans, but for every other part of the continent, I can only guess

 

[ennobee]

Ps, what if a newly independent Mexico/New Spain would end up too big and too diverse and would fall apart into a dozen autonomous states like Bolivar's Gran Columbia did in the South?

 

[AcaciaSgt]

Ps, what if a newly independent Mexico/New Spain would end up too big and too diverse and would fall apart into a dozen autonomous states like Bolivar's Gran Columbia did in the South?

Hmm, it's possible. In the chance the Louisiana remains Spanish or France gives it back once they loose Haiti, it's likely it may break away like Central America did. That's assuming New Spain goes independent. In the chance it doesn't, depending how it doesn't rebel, it might remain all united. After all, for all we know, here the plan to turn the colonies into proper kingdoms goes through, ensuring they hold themselves together even if they still do break away from Spain. Once again, this is filled with variables. It could go anywhere.

 

[unprincipled peter]

The independent states would not only squabble amongst themselves but from all I have read eventually fight one another just like in Europe.

What will not change is the movement of people west and who ever holds LA and other territory will be inundated by constant migration of people, unless thy willing to defend the borders with fire power. New countries or independent states will spring up thoughout the continent and instability and war will follow.

Unfortunately I see it even worse than iOTL.

Not everyone who moved west did so with an eye to rebelling. You're assuming a mindset of rebellion by those who are moving. OTL, you have a fantastic, growing nation with an idea of manifest destiny. In this TTL, you have failed ideas of greatness, and a fracturing of the British peoples. Now, people don't get this idea that it's a good idea to free themselves from mexico and join the US.

And, if you get a different leadership, you may avoid some of the pitfalls of enmity to the mother nation.

Many people who moved to Louisiana Mexico did so with the thought of becoming model citizens in a new country, the same way their fathers and mothers came from Europe.

Can't make a major change and assume the peoples respond the same way.

 

[unprincipled peter]

with the POD, US countries have borders on the Mississippi. That's a lot of land to populate. The British Americans have several generation before they start getting crowded. That's a long time for the Spanish Americans to grow into the Louisiana Territory. New Orleans likely resumes being a boomtown, and St Louis is likely to be one, too. With the advent of steam, the Mississippi becomes a northbound highway, and Arkansas and Missouri are likely to be populated. The region can become loyalist Spanish. With a growing economy, more resources will be put into the region.

Or, Spain/Mexico could screw the pooch and muck the whole situation up.

Or they could muddle through, and with a little time, luck their way into holding onto the region.

I'm more a believer in the muck or muddle, but it's not fair to assume the fate of ATL mexico is just as bad as OTL.

 

[Lusitania]

Not everyone who moved west did so with an eye to rebelling. You're assuming a mindset of rebellion by those who are moving. OTL, you have a fantastic, growing nation with an idea of manifest destiny. In this TTL, you have failed ideas of greatness, and a fracturing of the British peoples. Now, people don't get this idea that it's a good idea to free themselves from mexico and join the US.

And, if you get a different leadership, you may avoid some of the pitfalls of enmity to the mother nation.

Many people who moved to Louisiana Mexico did so with the thought of becoming model citizens in a new country, the same way their fathers and mothers came from Europe.

Can't make a major change and assume the peoples respond the same way.

As I mentioned in other threads that “Americans” moved for a better life but when the critical mass of English speaking reached a certain point they aspired to have similar institutions and government that existed in the US. The people in the USA used the manifest destiny to take up their cause and “liberated” them from foreign oppression.

Where the English speaking population did not become large enough they either accepted local customs and governance or moved.

Here I have been saying that the desire for people to have their own place and start new will still exist. People will move west. First over the Appalachian mountains and into the Ohio valley and Midwest. These lands had only natives living in them a few forts. Who owns these forts is irrelevant and the natives while in this tL able to resist the settlers longer or better will over time be overtaken.

Will they adapt like the southern civilized tribes who in this TL might be able to resist since they will be fighting individual state militias instead of federal troops?

As for either French or Spain being able to either prohibit these settlers or push them away that is debatable. As history showed that when the number of these settlers reached a point where they formed a majority they would demand self government and freedoms that European powers were not providing.

As other posters have pointed out that the movement of people would of been delayed and I agree with that. But over time the lands till the Mississippi would of eventually been settled.

Since the lands west of Mississippi were generally viewed as not able to support farming and people travelled to the west coast I could even see the power who controls LA charging a toll fee to cross their territory.

I do not see new Spain or Mexico able to hold more lands. They did a poor job of settling the northern provinces and it was that one reasons so many English speaking settlers moved there.