Mexico Ascendant: The Tale of a Failed Texan Revolution

[Georgia2003123]

Eagerly awaiting full update

 

[theman7777]

I'm very sorry, but I just noticed that the name Wilson still appeard to the left of Maryland above Roosevelt

Fully fixed now

 

[Dan1988]

Yea, the CSA is unstable, but intense nationalism and militarism manages to (barely) keep the lid on the boiling pot of dissent. They remain a democracy, which helps keep the enfranchised population happy. Trust me though, they won't be able to keep the lid on for much longer.

Only on page 24 of an otherwise great TL (and congratulations to yourself for this ) bbbbbuuuuuuttttttt I'm waiting for Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Hispaniola to bail out and become independent nations (and in the case of Hispaniola, once again) at the first opportunity they take (and the Civil War was a wasted opportunity in that sense). Also would like a clarification of the administrative divisions and territorial structures of Mexico. Is it federalist or not? If federalist, is it the traditional Latin American definition of federalism (which is basically centralism in all but name, even with regional autonomy) or something else? If centralist, does it retain the departments, or does it go back to states and territories? If the latter, how is that reconciled with Mexico's centralist orientation? Just one thing I'm not really clear on as a first-time reader.

 

[theman7777]

Only on page 24 of an otherwise great TL (and congratulations to yourself for this ) bbbbbuuuuuuttttttt I'm waiting for Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Hispaniola to bail out and become independent nations (and in the case of Hispaniola, once again) at the first opportunity they take (and the Civil War was a wasted opportunity in that sense). Also would like a clarification of the administrative divisions and territorial structures of Mexico. Is it federalist or not? If federalist, is it the traditional Latin American definition of federalism (which is basically centralism in all but name, even with regional autonomy) or something else? If centralist, does it retain the departments, or does it go back to states and territories? If the latter, how is that reconciled with Mexico's centralist orientation? Just one thing I'm not really clear on as a first-time reader.

Mexico has all the same administrative system as after Santa Anna's constitutional reforms of 1835.

 

[theman7777]

23: American Front

​

To understand outbreak of war in North America one has to understand the political situation prior to hostilities. In Mexico, the rising star of the Americas, things were focused on an avoidance of foreign entanglements. While Mexico did venture outwards in the late 1800s, it was mainly for purposes of power projection, nabbing Hawaii and several other Pacific Islands to increase its influence in the Pacific. Mexico’s sense of exceptionalism drove itself towards darker pursuits. It’s increasingly large population convinced the government to turn against its one-time allies in the Comancheria territory. They first merged the territory with Nuevo-Mexico, and later admitted it as the state of Pueblo. This state was joined by Colorado, Nuevo-Mexico, and Deseret, all states created from the former Territorio de Nuevo México. This was followed by a harsh assimilation policy against the former inhabitants of Comancheria.

States in Northern Mexico​

In the United States internal politics had shifted greatly since the Civil War. The Republican Party had fallen apart in the aftermath of the Civil War. After this, various parties rose to challenge the Democrats, but none managed to remain a powerful 2nd party for more than a few elections. By 1912, a new powerful party had arisen to contest the Democrats. The Progressives, led by jingoistic Theodore Roosevelt, had risen to great popularity before the election. Roosevelt was a well-known veteran of several colonial campaigns in Africa, and was in many people’s eyes an American hero. In the election of 1912 he easily defeated the Democrats, and became President. His foreign policy was made clear in a 1913 speech, in which he declared his intention to see the United States span from the Arctic Circle to San Juan. This, for obvious reasons, hurt relations with America’s neighbors, and further cemented the Franco-American alliance. By the beginning of the Great War, the US was itching for battle.

US 1912 Election

US War Aims (ignore Midwest states)​

In the CSA politics had remained a parallel of the 1860 election. The Southern Democrats and the Constitutional Union parties had challenged Lincoln in the 1860 election, and became the major political parties of the South in the aftermath of secession. In the CSA election of 1912, Woodrow Wilson, a Southern Democrat who had already been President for a previous term, faced off against Oscar Underwood, the Constitutional Union nominee. Despite a tough campaign, Wilson won big, and put another term under his belt. The South saw a coming war as a means to strengthen their faltering economy, and to unite the nation. They foresaw a quick victory over the North, and a restoration of previously claimed areas, bolstering their smaller population. Just like the Union, the Confederates too believed that war was inevitable, but they saw themselves as the victor.

Confederate Election 1912

The Confederacy's War Aims​

The Confederates, ready for the United States’ declaration of war, launched a major offensive northward to capture the Union capital of Philadelphia. While it gained ground quickly early on, it was eventually crushed by the superior numbers of the Union troops. Building off of this victory, the US pushed into Virginia, but were eventually bogged down by machine guns and artillery from the Confederate defenders. The Confederates revised their strategy with an offensive into Missouri, to take the heat off their troops in Virginia. Missouri was chosen because of its Confederate sympathies, a border state that almost joined the CSA. This offensive, while somewhat successful, was also bogged down by Union trenches. In Canada, similar situations were developing as the once rapidly advancing American troops were forced to dig into trenches in order to keep their gains. As the land war solidified into trenches, at sea, massive battles raged between French and American ships versus British and Confederate ones. Naval battles even took place in the Great Lakes, where small ships bombarded each other's coastlines. Despite massive losses of life, the war both on land and at sea remained inconclusive.

Front Lines in North America, Early in the War​

 

[Georgia2003123]

Great stuff go confeadracy and go Canada

 

[AcaciaSgt]

I suppose this has to be the time the Caribbean islands revolt, if there's still sentiments of rebellion. Considering all the decades that have passed... hmm...

Well, I'll root for the US either way. At least mostly as far as vs the CSA goes, heh.

 

[Dan1988]

Mexico has all the same administrative system as after Santa Anna's constitutional reforms of 1835.

In that case - while there have been unitary states in Latin America that have had territories alongside their usual territorial setup (historically, in particular, Colombia and Chile), in this case in future "departments" should be used instead of states, especially true of election infoboxes. Unless you want a movement towards decentralization and/or federalism clamoring from below, but apart from that, . . .

Nevertheless, keep it up!

 

[rush4you]

The CSA won't hold for that long if it lacks access to materials for making ammunition. OTOH, I hope that Canada manages to remain strong and consolidates it's independencs ITTL. A US that annexes both Canada and the CSA will be strong enough to hit Mexico in WW2.

 

[AcaciaSgt]

The CSA won't hold for that long if it lacks access to materials for making ammunition. OTOH, I hope that Canada manages to remain strong and consolidates it's independencs ITTL. A US that annexes both Canada and the CSA will be strong enough to hit Mexico in WW2.

I would think Canada is probably biting more than they can chew. Reconquering the CSA is likely to be their highest priority throughout the war, and what they'll seek most during the post-war negotiations, depending on their position.

Hmm, way I see it, if they are in a position to demand something from Canada (as I don't see "All Canada"), it would be the bits they lost in the Oregon War, plus Oregon itself. Mostly since it's the only areas they can justify reclaiming (Oregon was a joint-occupation, so it counts to an extent).

 

[Deleted member 67076]

I suppose this has to be the time the Caribbean islands revolt, if there's still sentiments of rebellion. Considering all the decades that have passed... hmm...

Well, I'll root for the US either way. At least mostly as far as vs the CSA goes, heh.

There would be an itch for revolt. The CSA has less chance of assimilating them than the Ottomans do their Armenian population.

 

[Dave Howery]

Um... I'm going to object again to the US declaring war on Britain and Germany... the US might be 'spoiling for a fight', but this is also the nation that lost every war since 1830. At the least, they are going to be a bit cautious in taking on three large powers all at the same time. They would have every reason to adopt a 'one at a time' policy... first the CSA, then Britain/Canada. And why war on Germany at all? They have a dubious reason to take on Britain, having been beaten by them in one war and bossed around after that, but Germany? What's to gain?

 

[Historyman 14]

USA! USA! USA!!

 

[tuxer]

I will resonate the opinion of others and say that the US is being too jingoist for a nation that has had suffered half a dozen or so military defeats for nearly sixty years. TTL US is culturally distinct of the OTL counterpart who gained victory after victory with only minor setbacks that did nothing to stop Yankee expansion.

Declaring war on the Confederacy is one thing, but war against a Anglo-German alliance is too much. It's simply not realistic, the shock of suffering so many defeats would result in the death of a hawkish foreign policy.

Also I question the Confederate's "abolition" of slavery- a nation whose sole purpose was to protect slavery, to the point their constitution created clauses protecting it- goes against everything the CSA stood for. The CSA would have not abolished slavery and would have doubled down on authoritarian measures to prevent slave rebellions.

 

[Count of Crisco]

Also I question the Confederate's "abolition" of slavery- a nation whose sole purpose was to protect slavery, to the point their constitution created clauses protecting it- goes against everything the CSA stood for. The CSA would have not abolished slavery and would have doubled down on authoritarian measures to prevent slave rebellions.

Perhaps Europe put pressure on the CSA to end it. Both diplomatic and economic. Or perhaps Britain said "Hey we like you and all, we would even like to be allies maybe. But you cant have slaves" Considering their neighbors I could see them abolishing slavery if it meant protection from the USA

 

[Historyman 14]

Also I question the Confederate's "abolition" of slavery- a nation whose sole purpose was to protect slavery, to the point their constitution created clauses protecting it- goes against everything the CSA stood for. The CSA would have not abolished slavery and would have doubled down on authoritarian measures to prevent slave rebellions.

Perhaps Europe put pressure on the CSA to end it. Both diplomatic and economic. Or perhaps Britain said "Hey we like you and all, we would even like to be allies maybe. But you cant have slaves" Considering their neighbors I could see them abolishing slavery if it meant protection from the USA

Then what is the point of the CSA then? What reason does the South have to be a nation without slavery?

 

[tuxer]

Perhaps Europe put pressure on the CSA to end it. Both diplomatic and economic. Or perhaps Britain said "Hey we like you and all, we would even like to be allies maybe. But you cant have slaves" Considering their neighbors I could see them abolishing slavery if it meant protection from the USA

That's a big perhaps. Why would Britain do that? There's very little of value that the CSA can offer to the UK and, as OTL showed, there are many places from where to get cotton from such as Egypt and India.

So why would the UK put pressure on a backwater and economic basket case like the CSA? The British never did anything that would not benefit them economically (a practise the USA picked and expanded upon) and pressuring a nation would be a waste of time and political capital when Whitehall had more important things to do.

Plus the abolition of slavery would mean the abolition of the CSA- preserving that barbaric practise was their raison d'etre after all.

 

[Count of Crisco]

That's a big perhaps. Why would Britain do that? There's very little of value that the CSA can offer to the UK and, as OTL showed, there are many places from where to get cotton from such as Egypt and India.

So why would the UK put pressure on a backwater and economic basket case like the CSA? The British never did anything that would not benefit them economically (a practise the USA picked and expanded upon) and pressuring a nation would be a waste of time and political capital when Whitehall had more important things to do.

Plus the abolition of slavery would mean the abolition of the CSA- preserving that barbaric practise was their raison d'etre after all.

I have no reasons as why that would happen. I only said a way of it happening. And yes I dont see Britain doing anything to aid the CSA if it was not of benefit to them.

 

[theman7777]

In that case - while there have been unitary states in Latin America that have had territories alongside their usual territorial setup (historically, in particular, Colombia and Chile), in this case in future "departments" should be used instead of states, especially true of election infoboxes. Unless you want a movement towards decentralization and/or federalism clamoring from below, but apart from that, . . .

Nevertheless, keep it up!

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind for further updates.

Um... I'm going to object again to the US declaring war on Britain and Germany... the US might be 'spoiling for a fight', but this is also the nation that lost every war since 1830. At the least, they are going to be a bit cautious in taking on three large powers all at the same time. They would have every reason to adopt a 'one at a time' policy... first the CSA, then Britain/Canada. And why war on Germany at all? They have a dubious reason to take on Britain, having been beaten by them in one war and bossed around after that, but Germany? What's to gain?

The USA's losses have made them highly revanchist. Their army and population is also much larger than their neighbors (except Mexico). The US wants to show the world that they may have lost some territory, but they are still a great power. As for a declaration against Germany, the US only did that because they new Germany would declare war on the US by the terms of the Anglo-German alliance.

Declaring war on the Confederacy is one thing, but war against a Anglo-German alliance is too much. It's simply not realistic, the shock of suffering so many defeats would result in the death of a hawkish foreign policy.

I disagree, I see that throughout history it is common to see that a relatively powerful country that losses a war and territory will often desire revenge. If what you said was true here, Germany would decide after WW1 (OTL) that it is clear that war isn't the answer, and the militarists would diminish into the shadows. As we know today, this is not accurate.

Also I question the Confederate's "abolition" of slavery- a nation whose sole purpose was to protect slavery, to the point their constitution created clauses protecting it- goes against everything the CSA stood for. The CSA would have not abolished slavery and would have doubled down on authoritarian measures to prevent slave rebellions.

International pressure forced the CSA to abolish slavery. They need the help of foreign powers like Britain, who saw them as a means to weaken the USA, but also was very anti-slavery. However, the abolition was pretty much only in name, things barely improved for the South's black populace. Also, by this point, the South has an even more unique cultural identity than OTL. This means that the population sees "Yankees" like Americans see the Brits today. While they share a language, there are a lot off increasingly prevalent cultural differences.

 

[Dave Howery]

The USA's losses have made them highly revanchist. Their army and population is also much larger than their neighbors (except Mexico). The US wants to show the world that they may have lost some territory, but they are still a great power. As for a declaration against Germany, the US only did that because they new Germany would declare war on the US by the terms of the Anglo-German alliance.

I'm not going to scream too much, but I don't see the USA being that crazy... attacking the CSA, sure, they can win that one. Attacking the UK, maybe, they might win that one. But both at once, and then throwing Germany into the mix too? Hawkish as they are, I think they would settle into a 'one at a time' policy... CSA first, Canada second. Losing 3 wars in a row has to make them somewhat leery of taking on too much at once. But it's your timeline, and I do find it interesting (although it's time you got back to Mexico ). So carry on...