Smaller Mexico, fragmented New Spain (Gran Colombia but in Mexico) - Better outcome?

[zarathustra]

Most Alt-history narratives explore the scenario of Mexico remaining a vast "empire", potentially rivaling the United States in power. This speculation is cool indeed, but here I would like to think about a smaller Mexican State. At the time of its independence, Mexico was indeed enormous, and even today it remains a large country, with its population predominantly concentrated in the central region. Historically, Mexico has experienced numerous revolts, not all of which were separatist, particularly in its peripheral areas and one could even argue that modern Mexico is indeed "Balkanized" with semi-autonomous cartel'states' controlling various regions...

During the post-independence era, we saw the fragmentation of all Spanish viceroys into smaller countries, primarily due to internal conflicts (e.g., Gran Colombia), yet New Spain managed to retain much of its original territory until it faced the war. It's worth noting that the northern part of Mexico - mostly sparsely populated desert - was governed differently than the 'Aztec' core (the Kingdom of Mexico) for some time, so I think we already have something to start. Maybe this smaller state managed to be stabler in the long run, then attracting more immgirants? We could end up with a Irish or German Catholic minority in "Mexico" like Brazil . A more straightforward "solution" would be just the US taking more land than Texas and California, but I'm really sure we could work with a more intricate internal division, starting with a different Spanish division of the territory. When did the "Mexican Identity" solidified? Maybe we could see an early Northern State/Region forming with Texas, California and the Northern parts, in a alternative Rio Grande scenario, thus , the "Core Mexico" state nucleus would shift more towards the south/central America(that is still part of Mexico). however, I don't know what the Spanish were doing up there in the desert back then, that could lead to such state emerging

Considering a POD in the early 17th century, a lot of things can change. This Northern "Texas-California-Sonora-Mojave-Chihuahua" state-territory-region maybe could end up housing a bigger US native population? Then, after the gold rush, a considerable Chinese pop too, idk. I'm sure manifest destiny would be different, as the Civil war, so I don't even know if we would have a "United States" or "Texas" as we know (This desert would eventually be annexed tho). Apologize if the dates don't match, but Mexican history is not something I know a lot

I know I just threw a lot of random stuff there (some almost ASB ) but I have some ideas for different scenarios, other than "Mexico won the war and now its big forever" that I would enjoy discussing

tl;dr
- Grand-Colomby New Spain as early as possible
- Smaller would-be Mexican State
- Implications of More nations in New Spain

Some threads related:

WI: Centralist Mexico completely collapses in 1830s-1840s

In OTL, the Centralist Republic of Mexico once formed, faced various revolts and secessionists, like in the Zacatecas Rebellion of 1835, the Texan Revolution, the Republic of Rio Grande, a Alta-California Independence Movement in 1836, the New Mexico Revolt in 1837, a rebellion by Federalists in...

www.alternatehistory.com

Smallest possible Mexico

What's the smallest possible Mexico?

www.alternatehistory.com

Effects on Mexico if the US annexes more of northern Mexico?

So, what would happen to Mexico economically and culturally , should the US annex this much, minus Yucatan? Also, as a bonus, what would be the effects of the US gaining all the Oregon territory? Like how would both Canada and USA be affected by this in terms of economy and other subjects, like...

www.alternatehistory.com

Catholic Migration to Mexico

How to stimulate Catholic European migration to Mexico? So Italians, French, Irish, Albanians, Croats, Hungarians, Lithuanians, Polish, Spanish etc. PoD is 1820

www.alternatehistory.com

 

[zarathustra]

Hmm...reading this now I realized is a bit too convoluted...maybe there was a better way to organize all this ideas
But the main points are indeed Smaller Mexico and its implications

 

[Fatt Shea]

Well the Yucatan and maybe Chipas could have become independent in the early years, they would probably be viewed as just more central American republics.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

Well the Yucatan and maybe Chipas could have become independent in the early years, they would probably be viewed as just more central American republics.

Maybe Tabasco as well. Super deep cut and micro-detail, but I always recall in @rfmcdonald's Tripartite Alliance Earth timeline, Tabasco is seized by an independent Yucatán republic that later gets made into a French satellite. For some reason Chiapas was also previously independent and also gets conquered by the Yucatecans. I suppose that would be a situation where Mexico's "tail" are just a bunch of Central American jungle republics, like the actual countries of OTL. Would have to study the specifics of those states to see which ones might plausibly not have been part of the USM.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

Looks like Chiapas could've gone independent, or more like part of Guatemala and/or the Federal Republic of Central America, though as in the case of the Texas republic, elites who want to unite with a larger country are hard to beat. A district of Soconusco was also in play, joining Los Altos as forgotten regions related to the UPCA/FRCA.

Following the end of Spanish rule in New Spain, it was unclear what new political arrangements would emerge. The isolation of Chiapas from centers of power, along with the strong internal divisions in the intendencia caused a political crisis after the royal government collapsed in Mexico City in 1821, ending the Mexican War of Independence.[15] During this war, a group of influential Chiapas merchants and ranchers sought the establishment of the Free State of Chiapas. This group became known as the La Familia Chiapaneca. However, this alliance did not last with the lowlands preferring inclusion among the new republics of Central America and the highlands annexation to Mexico.[25] In 1821, a number of cities in Chiapas, starting in Comitán, declared the state's separation from the Spanish empire. In 1823, Guatemala became part of the United Provinces of Central America, which united to form a federal republic that would last from 1823 to 1839. With the exception of the pro-Mexican Ciudad Real (San Cristóbal) and some others, many Chiapanecan towns and villages favored a Chiapas independent of Mexico and some favored unification with Guatemala.

Elites in highland cities pushed for incorporation into Mexico.[15][20] In 1822, then-Emperor Agustín de Iturbide decreed that Chiapas was part of Mexico. In 1823, the Junta General de Gobierno was held and Chiapas declared independence again.[15] In July 1824, the Soconusco District of southwestern Chiapas split off from Chiapas, announcing that it would join the Central American Federation.[20] In September of the same year, a referendum was held on whether the intendencia would join Central America or Mexico, with many of the elite endorsing union with Mexico. This referendum ended in favor of incorporation with Mexico (allegedly through manipulation of the elite in the highlands), but the Soconusco region maintained a neutral status until 1842, when Oaxacans under General Antonio López de Santa Anna occupied the area, and declared it reincorporated into Mexico. Elites of the area would not accept this until 1844.[15][25][26] Guatemala would not recognize Mexico's annexation of the Soconusco region until 1895, even though the border between Chiapas and Guatemala had been agreed upon in 1882.[20][26] The State of Chiapas was officially declared in 1824, with its first constitution in 1826. Ciudad Real was renamed San Cristóbal de las Casas in 1828.[16]

Tabasco would be a harder case, as historically it was a founding state of Mexico. But map aesthetics speaking it would be weird if it was the only Mexican state in the region.

The first insurgent during the Mexican War of Independence in the state was José María Jiménez, who declared the state's independence in 1815. However, Jiménez was soon jailed and local authorities proclaimed allegiance to the Crown.[21] At the end of the war in 1821, Tabasco became one of the first fourteen states under the 1824 Constitution. The first state constitution was ratified in 1825. In 1883, the state was divided into seventeen municipalities.[22][23]

Political instability in the state and an outbreak of cholera forced Tabasco to rejoin the federation. In 1836, a group of Conservatives took control of the federal government, but Tabasco Liberals decided to rebel against this government until they were defeated.[24]

Maybe they join a more cohesive FRCA after the Mexican-American War? But that might make Mexico go to war with Central America. Anyway this is a lot of overthinking about a marginal region, and ignoring butterflies caused by a more divided New Spain in the first place. So that's all I've got on that region.

During the Mexican–American War, troops under Matthew C. Perry arrived in Tabasco in 1846. Other ships arrived soon after and took possession of the port of Frontera.[25] On their first attempt to take Villahermosa upriver, they failed. The second attempt bombarded the city before successfully taking it. However, the Tabascans formed guerrilla groups and this along with the inhospitable climate forced the U.S. military to withdraw soon after.[18]

After the Americans left, Tabasco governor Justo Santa Anna rebelled against Mexico City over its lack of support during the war. The Americans returned in 1847 to attack the capital. It was defended by local troops, but they did not have the necessary supplies. The Americans occupied the capital for another thirty-five days, causing great destruction.[25]

 

[unprincipled peter]

there is a sizeable Irish population, OTL. It would be larger if the country was more stable.

balkanization is feasible, but I don't know that it is a path to stability.

The northern sparsely populated countries are going to be at the mercy of the larger neighbors. USA will be salivating at the idea of such easy pickings. So, I'd guess USA takes what it wants - pretty much OTL, and maybe even more.

The instability was caused in large part by the massive divide between the haves and the have nots. That doesn't go away just because there's less territory. I suppose not having to deal with the lesser regions would allow the core to be kept under control. As soon as the core is under control, though, they're going to start looking to re-absorb neighboring territory. The neighbors may seek to be absorbed for protection from the land greedy USAmericans.

One big difference is that the core won't be subjected to a devastating loss in the Mex-Am War.

 

[zarathustra]

The northern sparsely populated countries are going to be at the mercy of the larger neighbors. USA will be salivating at the idea of such easy pickings. So, I'd guess USA takes what it wants - pretty much OTL, and maybe even more.

One big difference is that the core won't be subjected to a devastating loss in the Mex-Am War.

yeah, I was thinking something on these lines: this northern state would be eventually annexed to the US. But maybe not in a war.
I imagine this region to be like bigger Texas - while being undeniable part of the United States, still maintaining a strong separated identity

I suppose not having to deal with the lesser regions would allow the core to be kept under control. As soon as the core is under control, though, they're going to start looking to re-absorb neighboring territory. The neighbors may seek to be absorbed for protection from the land greedy USAmericans.

Who knows? depending on the demographics and history, maybe this region is more interested in being under American influence, other than Mexican. I also see this Mexico "growing imperialistically" towards central America and the Caribbean instead of the Northern desert