1858 : an alternate Second Mexican Empire

This reflexion is based on an idea I had long ago.

The Reform War (guerra de reforma) was a civil war that took place from 1858 to 1860 and set the ground for the French Intervention.

The first cause of this war was the adoption of a constitution in 1857 providing for a reform of church properties and hit big landowners privileges.
A conservative coup triggered a civil war that was ultimately won by Liberals under Juarez.
My idea is to have the Conservatives winning early; I did think that the post civil war settlement could lead to a restoration since monarchism had gained some traction, and that by compromising with France to regain power, the Conservatives discredited themselves.

The scenario for the victory is based on the early momentum got by Conservatives after their coup.

In march 1858, after repeated defeats of Liberals at the hands of General Osollo (Celaya and Salamanca), the fleeing government of Juarez (capital at Guanajato then at Guadalajara) was made prisoner during a mutiny of the garrison of Guadalajara under Antonio Landa. It's the POD.
IOTL, the poet Guillermo Prieto convinced the soldiers to spare them : los valientes no asesinan .
latest
ITTL, they're shot.
Such an event would for sure cause Liberal positions in central Mexico to collapse. Veracruz wouldn't be hard to take with demoralized forces.
The only organized resistance would be in northeast, in the provinces controlled by Santiago Vidaurri and his general Zuazua. Although some residual resistance may last in central Mexico (Santos Degollado showed IOTL great resilience despite crushing defeats), there wouldn't be great chance that Vidaurri and Zuazua may resist an expedition against Monterrey. All in all, it's likely the civil war before the year's end.

Given the chronic instability of Mexico, the idea of restoring the monarchy, set an experienced European prince on the throne to bring development and stability (order and progress), could very well come over the top. But finding a suitable prince is another matter.
The houses of Bourbon or Braganza may be considered, but I find that the Italian princes who lost their throne during the unification of the peninsula are the most promising pool.
There is Francis V of Modena, Ferdinand IV of Tuscany and Francis II of Two-Sicilies; as for Robert I of Parma, he is too young.

> Francis II of Two-Sicilies is the latest candidate who could come into consideration since he lost his throne in 1861. He is a Bourbon and his wife Maria Sophie is the sister-in-law of Emperor Franz Josef, but he looks a weak willed man, much dominated by his wife. Still, Maria Sophie might push her husband to show interest in the Mexican proposal.
> Francis V of Modena has perfect conservative credentials but he is the heir to Jacobite claims which, although this means little, could yet cause some frictions with the British.
> Ferdinand IV of Tuscany remains my favorite. He has good relations with Franz Josef and might be proposed the Mexican throne in compensation for his lost duchy by Napoléon III. Such a proposal could be made to Francis V of Modena but Ferdinand IV is more likely to be offered this than him.

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_War
http://www.antorcha.net/biblioteca_virtual/historia/anales/1_5.html (chronicles)



 
The problem with Francesco II is that OTL he and Maria Sofia only had one child - a shortlived daughter, and otherwise she seemed more interested in the guardsmen than her husband (who was shy and awkward (think 19thc's Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, without her being faithful)

But otherwise, this looks interesting. Can't wait to see what you've got planned
 
This is a discussion, not a TL.

Beyond the civil war and the restoration of the monarchy, I've thought of the economic development of Mexico going a similar way as the Porfiriato IOTL. Aside of a conservative regime willing to use force without restraint to quell dissent, on the economic side, it could go the ultra liberal way to attract foreign investment into the country.
I imagine the long planned Mexico to Veracruz railroad would finally be completed by the 1860's and with other railroads, Mexican economy would experience a revival with mining and agriculture now having the possibility to make huge profit through exports, especially the great landowners, including the Church, and abolishing internal customs would improve the situation. Beside that, railroad would unite the country and allow the government to exert a more efficient control and react quickier.

However, this development would be more unequal than the Porfiriato was IOTL, possibly bringing an earlier and more violent revolution (or rather a civil war), by the eve of 20th century I would say.
 
You should do it, man. That sounds like a fantastic TL. I've read about the Reforma War to make a TL about an earlier Juarez victory, but for some reason never thought about a Conservative one.
 
I don't consider doing a TL out of this for the time being; I've not enough material to work on (my knowledge of the porfiriato is at best superficial) and I actually plan this as part of a larger late 19th century global TL.
 
another timeline about the Empire of Mexico? With Juarez out of the picture from the beginning?

yes, count me in.
 
In march 1858, after repeated defeats of Liberals at the hands of General Osollo (Celaya and Salamanca), the fleeing government of Juarez (capital at Guanajato then at Guadalajara) was made prisoner during a mutiny of the garrison of Guadalajara under Antonio Landa. It's the POD.
IOTL, the poet Guillermo Prieto convinced the soldiers to spare them : los valientes no asesinan .
latest
ITTL, they're shot.

I read about this event on passing this last summer and thought about making a WI out of it. Don't know why I didn't. Though I was under the impression that this happened in Veracruz. In any case, there is a potential first butterfly that we must address first, because Juárez, in the desperation of the situation, had signed a very unequal treaty with Buchanan's presidency in exchange for funds and diplomatic support, which gave the US extraterritorial rights about a transoceanic canal to be built in the isthmus of Tehuantepec among other concesions I don't quite remember. IOTL, this resulted in the US Navy hunting down a Mexican ship whose crew had defected to the Conservatives after believing that a Liberal defeat was imminent and that Juárez had designed a pirate vessel. Yet as we know, as Juárez bounced back from his dire situation and the Mexican civil war ended in 1861, the US happened to fall into a small internal matter of its own that would keep it occupied for four years. After its end, Lincoln an the rest that followed chose to act like the treaty had never existed.

However in TTL, the Mexican war is finished in 1859, with the Conservatives in charge instead. Maybe the US, more especifically the Southerners who were mostly pushing for that treaty in the first place, decide to threaten the new Mexican government into accepting the terms even if it was Juárez who signed it and they consider all his acts as president null and void... and this in turn causes a crisis in the US that spirals into an alternate beginning of the ACW when the Northerners refuse to engage in what they see as a pretext for a last ditch effort to gain territories for Southern slavery? Is this plausible?

I understand that this is not what you had in mind when you proposed Italian candidates, but I think that in this climate the Conservatives - if they don't drop their plans for a monarchy altogether - would use it as a way to seek foreign support, and in this case the main candidates are France and Spain, as IOTL.

  • Napoleon III would probably propose Maximilian as IOTL. France's government and military are the most prestigious in the world in this time, but for sake of novelty, let's suppose that the Conservatives don't go with it because they don't need a foreign army in home soil as IOTL. Or they find that France is a little too interesting in grabbing Mexican resources for itself. Whatever.
  • Isabella II had two candidates in mind for the Mexican throne and she would likely also stick to them TTL:
  1. Her sister, Luisa Fernanda, married to Antoine Marie, Duke of Montpensier... aka "The Great Conspirator", who spent his whole life yearning for a throne to claim as his own. OTL he vied for the Mexican throne but Napoleon was hostile to him, a member of the House of Orleans, ever gaining one. If he were to somehow succeed in TTL, the first beneficiary would be Isabella II but in a way she has no way to realize it: Because cut from gaining any other throne, Montpensier turned to conspire to gain the throne of Spain itself, and had a hidden hand in the lead up to the 1868 revolution that dethroned Isabella II. Unfortunately for him, almost nobody in Spain wanted him as king.
  2. Her daughter, Isabel de Borbón y Borbón. The main problem: She was born in 1851. IOTL she married a minor Sicilian prince.
 
I ruled Maximilian out of consideration because he has a reputation of being liberal, too much for the Conservatives. IOTL, the Conservatives hadn't much choice but to 'gladly' welcome Napoléon III's suggestion. Here, since they have won the civil war by themselves, they have more freedom.

I didn't think of Montpensier, and he could have been a good choice if not for the hostility of Napoléon III you mention. I imagine the Mexicans would want a prince that doesn't put them at odd with a major European power ie not Francis V of Modena because he is the heir to Jacobite claims and also probably Montpensier because Napoléon III is hostile to the Orléans.
As for the infanta, even if I don't consider whether or not Mexican conservatives could accept a woman on the throne, her age is an obstacle; one of the main objectives of Mexicans is enthroning a European prince who has some experience in the ways of ruling, so to bring the stability that Mexico's government lacks, a strong man reigning.
That's why I considered the deposed Italian princes as a primary source of contenders. The Mexicans may feel being on the same boat as them since the Italian revolutionaries encroached on Papal states too (the enemy of my enemy kind of), not counting Napoléon III would be too happy to offer a compensation that don't cost him anything, for promises he didn't respect.
 
Top