How The North American Continent Would Be if it was Colonized by Spaniards?

[Daco Celtic]

A Berid in the White House, running a country founded by WASP, cool!

He has my vote.

[Daco Celtic]

HAHAHAHA... very funny. Though I don't think all North America north of Mexico would be occupied by only one or two countries, but something like this:

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...ge12/post #115

The southwestern one would be the best place to live. Most of the west coast. Add Spanish Hawaii to that country.

[Viriatus91]

The question is why would have they wanted to? The perception of North America was that it was not very valuable, the only reason the Dutch, English, French and Swedes bothered in the seventeenth century is because the resource rich lands to the south had been occupied. As things were, the Spaniards held claim to most of the Continental U.S. up until the nineteenth century. By the late eighteenth century they already held claim to the modern-day Southwest and acquired Louisiana Territory from the French in 1763 and held it until 1801 when it was ceded back to France. They did little with the territory as it was not valuable compared with the silver and gold producing regions of the empire, or even the sugar producing regions of the West Indies. It was only useful as a buffer to Anglo-America.

Only if the Spanish had been beaten to Central and South America would they bother investing in North America. Even for the French, their vast North American holdings could never produce the value of goods that a single Caribbean Island could in white gold (sugar). The same was true for the British, with Barbados being far more valuable than New England for instance.

[Tietar]

Yes it would mean that because Spaniards never planned in staying and creating a mass white population. They were the ones all for the promotion of mix racing, hence why their colonies are all majority mix race

false

https://www.alertanacional.es/la-lim...cion-espanola/

[Thetruth]

Depends how the area now known as the US and Canada is colonized given that the Spanish colonial regions Balkanized into smaller countries after they’re independence and never remained united, Eastern USA and Southeastern Canada(Similar to Argentina, Uruguay and Southern Brazil), Southern USA(Dominican Republic, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Colombia, Venezuela and Panama), Western USA and Northwestern Canada(Mexico, Central America and Andean countries).

Also if we’re including Mexico as part of North America which it is then the Southwest/Midwest of USA and Praires of Canada be mostly Euro-Mestizo/Mestizo/White like parts of Chile, Paraguay, Northern Mexico or Costa Rica given that the people of the regions were smaller tribes but lived farther from the east which is Europe making most of the people more closer to the industrial centers of eastern North America then Europe

In either scenarios the Native people get mostly colonized even places like Southern Mexico where the natives were more advanced and more similar to those in Peru while the rest of country had smaller native tribes roaming Western USA which were all divided making it easier to for the Spanish to conquer and mix with them which will ultimately end up with a Mestizo/Euro-Mestizo population.

[Thetruth]

The question is why would have they wanted to? The perception of North America was that it was not very valuable, the only reason the Dutch, English, French and Swedes bothered in the seventeenth century is because the resource rich lands to the south had been occupied. As things were, the Spaniards held claim to most of the Continental U.S. up until the nineteenth century. By the late eighteenth century they already held claim to the modern-day Southwest and acquired Louisiana Territory from the French in 1763 and held it until 1801 when it was ceded back to France. They did little with the territory as it was not valuable compared with the silver and gold producing regions of the empire, or even the sugar producing regions of the West Indies. It was only useful as a buffer to Anglo-America.

Only if the Spanish had been beaten to Central and South America would they bother investing in North America. Even for the French, their vast North American holdings could never produce the value of goods that a single Caribbean Island could in white gold (sugar). The same was true for the British, with Barbados being far more valuable than New England for instance.

It’s a hypothetical scenario sir, in this scenario clearly that Spanish did and beat the English to it

[Thetruth]

The southwestern one would be the best place to live. Most of the west coast. Add Spanish Hawaii to that country.

I mean Spanish Hawaii is literally Eastern Island, Chile lol

[alnortedelsur]

Depends how the area now known as the US and Canada is colonized given that the Spanish colonial regions Balkanized into smaller countries after they’re independence and never remained united, Eastern USA and Southeastern Canada(Similar to Argentina, Uruguay and Southern Brazil), Southern USA(Dominican Republic, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Colombia, Venezuela and Panama), Western USA and Northwestern Canada(Mexico, Central America and Andean countries).

Also if we’re including Mexico as part of North America which it is then the Southwest/Midwest of USA and Praires of Canada be mostly Euro-Mestizo/Mestizo/White like parts of Chile, Paraguay, Northern Mexico or Costa Rica given that the people of the regions were smaller tribes but lived farther from the east which is Europe making most of the people more closer to the industrial centers of eastern North America then Europe

In either scenarios the Native people get mostly colonized even places like Southern Mexico where the natives were more advanced and more similar to those in Peru while the rest of country had smaller native tribes roaming Western USA which were all divided making it easier to for the Spanish to conquer and mix with them which will ultimately end up with a Mestizo/Euro-Mestizo population.

You should not put Puerto Rico, Colombia, Venezuela, Panama, Dominican Republic on the same sentence, as if they were the same, since all these countries have significative racial differences with each other. Cuba has considerably more whites and full blacks than Colombia, Venezuela, and Costa Rica which in turn have way more mestizos, harnizos and castizos than any insular Caribbean country. Then, Dominican Republic and Panama are far much blacker than Colombia, Venezuela, Costa Rica or Puerto Rico. Colombia and Venezuela are similar but Colombia has more mestizos, less triracials and more heavily black people than Venezuela, and so on.

You shouldn't put in the same sentence, as if they were the same, to Mexico, Central America, Central Andean countries and Chile as if they were the same either, since we know the considerable differences between Mexico and Guatemala, Peru, and Chile, are significant.

Not saying that your analysis is all wrong, since its general outline is similar to mine.

What's your opinion of this analysis of mine:

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...12/post%20#115

[Thetruth]

Exactly, people here do not know what they are talking about
Spain ordered Mexicans from different states to settle Southwestern USA, they didn't bring in Spaniards from Spain or called in Criollos to repopulated those unsettled areas lol
that is why Los Angeles population was made up of Afro Mexicans and indigenous Mexicans, with a few Mestizos, one filipino family and only one single Spanish

New Mexico was settled mostly by those from Chihuahua, Zacatecas and Durango
Southern Texas was majority settled by Northeastern Mexicans

I mean, these people really believed Spaniards would have been immigrating in dozens to the USA
Those colonized Spanish lands would have been governed by Mexico through Mexico City

Let's not forget that Spain would have most likely imported a lot more black Africans, twice the amount that was imported to Mexico
I am sure black Africans would have been found all over the nation, tons of mix race populations etc

I feel like USA would have been between Brazil and Mexico, divide into two major demographics, the mestizos and pardos
with a large minority black and Amerindian population

I find it funny how people think the entire USA would be like Argentina as if parts of the country like the South have a more similar history to Cuba and the Southwest to Mexico not all a whitey white country being filled with Iberians instead of anglos.

[Thetruth]

You should not put Puerto Rico, Colombia, Venezuela, Panama, Dominican Republic on the same sentence, as if they were the same, since all these countries have significative racial differences with each other. Cuba has considerably more whites and full blacks than Colombia, Venezuela, and Costa Rica which in turn have way more mestizos, harnizos and castizos than any insular Caribbean country. Then, Dominican Republic and Panama are far much blacker than Colombia, Venezuela, Costa Rica or Puerto Rico. Colombia and Venezuela are similar but Colombia has more mestizos, less triracials and more heavily black people than Venezuela, and so on.

You shouldn't put in the same sentence, as if they were the same, to Mexico, Central America, Central Andean countries and Chile as if they were the same either, since we know the considerable differences between Mexico and Guatemala, Peru, and Chile, are significant.

Not saying that your analysis is all wrong, since its general outline is similar to mine.

What's your opinion of this analysis of mine:

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...12/post%20#115

I didn’t mean to say that they were the same only they had a similar component in that the south of USA had massive slavery like the regions of those countries even if African ancestry is higher in one then the other, while for Mexico, Peru, Bolivia and Central America I just mean it would be a region mainly composed of Whites-Mestizos-Amerindians in different levels not that they were the exact same