I was just wondering...

Would it be possible for an ATL where: The CSA is independant, Germany and Britain are allied against France, There is no WWI and Communism is only the preserve of Asia?

I was thinking something along the lines of the US-Mexican war leaves the US with northern Mexico (their diplomat (Trist?) is killed before settling the peace and Winfield-Scott takes more terriotory before things are sorted out) the resulting land is organised into territories (which didn't vote in elections?) and things trundle along to the crisis of 1860. The former Estadoes eventually join the Confederacy in '63/'64 and swing the balance in the CSA's favour. The British and the French recognise CSA independance in '64/'65 and send Ironclads to brake the blockade of the South - their support ends things bar the shouting. The War of Southern Independance ends in '66 and the two nations seperate along (roughly) the Mason-Dixon line. Washington DC is a partitioned city (aka Berlin) and the Capitals are Austin and Phillidelphia respectively. The USA - CSA 'cold war of 1870's/ '90's ignites in 1898 when CSA declares war on Spain over Cuba (CS ship explodes in Havana harbour) and the US/CS go to war on the mainland as well. Britain intercedes on the side of CSA and France on the side of the USA (not militarilly - just calls for ceasefire etc) the treaty cedes Cuba to the CSA on payment of reperations to Spain. The US retreats to lick it's wounds for a few years and come out of isolation in 1912 to 'impose order' in Central America - the CSA objects and helps the 'freedom fighters' it see fit and the Monroe Wars begin. USA Navy and Army with French military advisors inflict stinging losses on CSA in 1st MW and the CSA turns to Britain for help in the 2nd MW (1914) the British urge the Confederacy to utilise the Blacks as a military force and the Confederate Black Legion (CBL) is formed to fight the increasingly unpopular war in Nicaragua. Those Blacks that fight untill ceasefire is signed are granted freedom and resettled in southern Confederacy. The 3rd MW (1915) is kind of stalemate affair as both nations loose interest - the peace accord returns status quo and USA is left with Panama as client state as is the Confederacy with Nicaragua.

That's kinda as far as i've got so far, but i think it lays the basis for British/French distrust - possibly no Entente or a more shaky one for sure. Just not sure how to bring Germany and Britain together with Wilhelm II on the throne. If he dies/is assassinated in, say, 1904 would that make British/German raproachment more likely?

I don't see how mexican territories will tilt the favor to the CSA.

Faeelin said:

I don't see how mexican territories will tilt the favor to the CSA.

Click to expand...

That was the point of me posting this ATL, to see if anyone could pick holes in it! I was suggesting the extra manpower provided by the population of the former Mexican Estadoes tilting the balance in the favour of the CSA in the essentially limited front that the Civil War was fought. The men from the Mexican territories would bolster the Army of Northern Virginia / Tennesse, no? If not, could you suggest another POD that would gain the same result? (excepting the CSA winning Getysburg which has been done to death in my view!)

I don't see why the Mexicans would fight for the Confederacy. The Mexicans were anti-slavery. If they would side with the Confederacy it would be more that they would gain their independence as well.

How about an enemy of my enemy approach. If the US before the ACW were more aggressive in it's attention to the internal affairs of Mexico, perhaps involving itself more frequently in cross border skirmishes, then maybe the CSA and Mexico could make common cause over certain things.

Perhaps the CSA could promise to Mexico the return of certain lands it viewed as being stolen.

But this would be tough, because if you go to far down that path the Mexicans will demand Texas back.

That's exactly the kind of thing I was thinking of. If the Mexican terriories were taken as 'punishment' for the killing of the US ambassador and a means to teach Mexico a lesson, then the US government would be harsh in their treatment of the Mexicans, no? After all this is the same military mindset that came up with the destruction of the deep South in the ACW (OTL) and before that the Anaconda Plan. And in OTL President Jackson was apparently furious when he discovered Trist had concluded the peace to his original terms when the chance to conquer all of Mexico was there for the taking. The Confederacy was formed along loose lines anyway, so the rich affluent Mexicans (Spanish landlords/their desendants) would probably be happy in a Country where they are second in the pile with a fairly large population below them to be used as the whipping boys (no pun intended). As part of what would be seen as a 'developed' country (with European backing) they would have the chance to advance themselves above the heights attainable by simply being Spanish cast-offs.

Maximilian makes that rather difficult, no?

First off aplogies, it was President Polk not Jackson!

Maximillian or someone of his ilk would have made that difficult but he was only placed on the throne in 1864 by the French (he was an unemployed Habsburg). The Americans with half of OTL Mexico under their sway would have almost definitely had a say in the controlling party. Who knows, with greater American influence earlier on, the Three Years War may never have been fought. Or Juarez would have been the outsider attempting to gain power later on. After all, it was America and the Monroe Doctrine that ended French influence in Mexico.