Confederate party politics.

[Reggie Bartlett]

So after a CS victory, we'll say its an 1862-1863 victory. The party in question, descendents of pre-War Southern Democrats, is starting to see a split in it's ranks.

The split of course, is the pro-Davis and anti-Davis factions that existed in Richmond and among the Confederate armies. So what kind of political structure are we looking at for party politics?

We have the Confederate Democratic Party, this one is the party of Davis, they are the direct descendents of the pre-war Democrats. And among it includes generals the likes of Robert E. Lee, John C. Breckinridge, Wade Hampton, Thomas Jackson, Braxton Bragg, Nathan Bedford Forrest and statesmen like Judah P. Benjamin, and Isham Harris. This party is very pro-State's Rights, pro-Slavery, Nationalist, etc. Their strongest support is in the Deep South, Middle and Western Tennessee and Kentucky and tidewater regions of Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia as well as large chunks of Arkansas. Whatever regions the CSA expands westward into largely going to effect this as well. They can and will appeal themselves to the conservative voter base of the Blue Collar south and the planter class.

The opposition party, some names thought up for it on AH.com would be the Liberty Party, or possibly called Constitution Party or Conservative Party made up of wartime opponents of Davis, like P.G.T. Beauregard, Joseph E. Johnston, James Longstreet, Robert Rhett, Alexander Stephens, Zebulon Vance. This party may organize right after the CSA's first true electoral Presidential Election in 1867. This party also stresses State's Rights, but also is a remnant of the pre-War Southern Whigs in it's ranks, Vice President Alexander Stephens the most notable. The party tries to be the more "liberal" of the two parties, pushing to industrialize and modernize the CSA, they are for Congressional dominance and Protectionism. The party's stance on slavery, contrasted with some of it's internal elements may cause a factionalizing within this party. Even among this party's ranks is wartime former Unionists in places like Tennessee and Kentucky, maybe even former US Senator William Brownlow, their bases for support are the mountainous regions of their Applachian and Ozark mountain states even the more budding industrial places like New Orleans and possibly in any Mexican states the CSA can grab. They will appeal to the immigrants already in the CSA, but I can imagine a former Know-Nothing faction within the party. I even think that decades down the road the factional split within this party may produce a Huey Long-esque populist party that could gain steam among blue collar Confederate voters.

Right out the gate these two parties are going to clash, modernization is going to push the slavery issue, the Boll Weevil is going to push the slavery issue. I think the Confederate Democrats are going to stick to their guns, while the Whig-ish Liberty/Constitution/Conservative party slowly evolves a limited abolition on a state-by-state basis. What do you see of this?

 

[Johnrankins]

So after a CS victory, we'll say its an 1862-1863 victory. The party in question, descendents of pre-War Southern Democrats, is starting to see a split in it's ranks.

The split of course, is the pro-Davis and anti-Davis factions that existed in Richmond and among the Confederate armies. So what kind of political structure are we looking at for party politics?

We have the Confederate Democratic Party, this one is the party of Davis, they are the direct descendents of the pre-war Democrats. And among it includes generals the likes of Robert E. Lee, John C. Breckinridge, Wade Hampton, Thomas Jackson, Braxton Bragg, Nathan Bedford Forrest and statesmen like Judah P. Benjamin, and Isham Harris. This party is very pro-State's Rights, pro-Slavery, Nationalist, etc. Their strongest support is in the Deep South, Middle and Western Tennessee and Kentucky and tidewater regions of Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia as well as large chunks of Arkansas. Whatever regions the CSA expands westward into largely going to effect this as well. They can and will appeal themselves to the conservative voter base of the Blue Collar south and the planter class.

The opposition party, some names thought up for it on AH.com would be the Liberty Party, or possibly called Constitution Party or Conservative Party made up of wartime opponents of Davis, like P.G.T. Beauregard, Joseph E. Johnston, James Longstreet, Robert Rhett, Alexander Stephens, Zebulon Vance. This party may organize right after the CSA's first true electoral Presidential Election in 1867. This party also stresses State's Rights, but also is a remnant of the pre-War Southern Whigs in it's ranks, Vice President Alexander Stephens the most notable. The party tries to be the more "liberal" of the two parties, pushing to industrialize and modernize the CSA, they are for Congressional dominance and Protectionism. The party's stance on slavery, contrasted with some of it's internal elements may cause a factionalizing within this party. Even among this party's ranks is wartime former Unionists in places like Tennessee and Kentucky, maybe even former US Senator William Brownlow, their bases for support are the mountainous regions of their Applachian and Ozark mountain states even the more budding industrial places like New Orleans and possibly in any Mexican states the CSA can grab. They will appeal to the immigrants already in the CSA, but I can imagine a former Know-Nothing faction within the party. I even think that decades down the road the factional split within this party may produce a Huey Long-esque populist party that could gain steam among blue collar Confederate voters.

Right out the gate these two parties are going to clash, modernization is going to push the slavery issue, the Boll Weevil is going to push the slavery issue. I think the Confederate Democrats are going to stick to their guns, while the Whig-ish Liberty/Constitution/Conservative party slowly evolves a limited abolition on a state-by-state basis. What do you see of this?

Any party that is for protectionism and limited abolitionism is not going to have Rhett as a member. He hated Davis but that was because he was even more pro-slavery than Davis. The man wanted to re-introduce the Atlantic Slave Trade! He was also a hard core free trader. He would either form a third party or run as an independent in your scenario. The CSA will get Mexican states the day after Hell freezes over not before. The South had no immigrants to speak of and would get less in the future. The boll weevil will do nothing. It will simply force certain planters out of business and have the foreclosing banks sell the slaves to the highest bidder.

 

[Reggie Bartlett]

Any party that is for protectionism and limited abolitionism is not going to have Rhett as a member. He hated Davis but that was because he was even more pro-slavery than Davis. The man wanted to re-introduce the Atlantic Slave Trade! He was also a hard core free trader. He would either form a third party or run as an independent in your scenario. The CSA will get Mexican states the day after Hell freezes over not before. The South had no immigrants to speak of and would get less in the future. The boll weevil will do nothing. It will simply force certain planters out of business and have the foreclosing banks sell the slaves to the highest bidder.

Which in turn will lead to factionalism within this new opposition party.

The South did too have immigrants, and may attract a few via New Orleans, but not nearly as much as the Union.

The Boll Weevil is going to be far more economically destructive than what you would like to handwave. And the Mexican states issue could go either way.

 

[M79]

Nuevo Leon and Coahuila would be fairly easy to grab as the governor was pro-CSA, Chihuahua and Sonora would be the rebel strongholds under Juarez in a few years, and not sure what would come of Baja California and Tamapulias.

So KY is in this CSA, I would presume Indian Territory is as well? What about western VA and the Arizona territory?

 

[Johnrankins]

Which in turn will lead to factionalism within this new opposition party.

The South did too have immigrants, and may attract a few via New Orleans, but not nearly as much as the Union.

The Boll Weevil is going to be far more economically destructive than what you would like to handwave. And the Mexican states issue could go either way.

Or more likely a third and possibly a fourth party, particularly at the beginning when no one knows how things will pan out and what the second dominant party will be.

I didn't say the South didn't have any immigrants but that there wasn't a significant number. It would be like a modern US party pandering to Sikh-Americans. They are around and might make a difference in a few local elections but there aren't enough of them to have either major party make a serious effort to get their vote.

So it's economically destructive. So what? That doesn't mean slavery goes away it means slaves will be doing other things than picking cotton.

There was no ground support in Mexico to be part of the CSA and the CSA would be too broke and have too few troops to occupy parts of Mexico while worrying about the Union to the north. You would have endless guerrilla war in the area if the CSA tried that.

 

[Johnrankins]

Nuevo Leon and Coahuila would be fairly easy to grab as the governor was pro-CSA

So what? Most of the population WASN'T. The governor was one man and his selling out his people to slave owning gringos would NOT be accepted by the people at large. He would get some support but not enough to matter.

 

[Will Kürlich Kerl]

If the Socialist movement develops as OTL, we might see a Socialist party form and a lot of poor whites join it.

 

[Reggie Bartlett]

Nuevo Leon and Coahuila would be fairly easy to grab as the governor was pro-CSA, Chihuahua and Sonora would be the rebel strongholds under Juarez in a few years, and not sure what would come of Baja California and Tamapulias.

So KY is in this CSA, I would presume Indian Territory is as well? What about western VA and the Arizona territory?

Nuevo Leon y Coahuila was pretty much one territory under the control of one governor. Sonora and Chihuahua may be harder to tell, because if the CSA's support was able to solidify France's control of Mexico, Juarez may already be in French or Confederate custody or hiding somwhere in the deserts of Sonora or Chihuahua.

And yes, the CSA holds KY, Arizona and the Indian Territory. West Virginia exists in TTL as a US state, albeit missing some Eastern counties.

Or more likely a third and possibly a fourth party, particularly at the beginning when no one knows how things will pan out and what the second dominant party will be.

I didn't say the South didn't have any immigrants but that there wasn't a significant number. It would be like a modern US party pandering to Sikh-Americans. They are around and might make a difference in a few local elections but there aren't enough of them to have either major party make a serious effort to get their vote.

So it's economically destructive. So what? That doesn't mean slavery goes away it means slaves will be doing other things than picking cotton.

There was no ground support in Mexico to be part of the CSA and the CSA would be too broke and have too few troops to occupy parts of Mexico while worrying about the Union to the north. You would have endless guerrilla war in the area if the CSA tried that.

It means that slavery is hindered in a way that it never was before in the Deep South in TTL.

There were significant German, Irish, French, Spanish, Italian, Cuban, and Hispanic communities in the CSA. You fail to realize that. Many of them were situated in New Orleans, Mobile, Charleston and Savannah.

A Rhett led Nationalist third party may be a good indicator of a sort of Confederate Fire-Eater subgroup movment, that would be an interesting scenario.

So what? Most of the population WASN'T. The governor was one man and his selling out his people to slave owning gringos would NOT be accepted by the people at large. He would get some support but not enough to matter.

Thing is about far Northern Mexico, it's largely feudal, and held a "loyalty to one's state" mentality not too different from that of the American South. The landowners in places like Sonora and Chihuahua controlled everything, I can see the Confederates trying to appeal to them. Those states, would be a stronghold for any Confederate oppostion party to the Democrats and would create their own voting bloc.

 

[Johnrankins]

Nuevo Leon y Coahuila was pretty much one territory under the control of one governor. Sonora and Chihuahua may be harder to tell, because if the CSA's support was able to solidify France's control of Mexico, Juarez may already be in French or Confederate custody or hiding somwhere in the deserts of Sonora or Chihuahua.

And yes, the CSA holds KY, Arizona and the Indian Territory. West Virginia exists in TTL as a US state, albeit missing some Eastern counties.



It means that slavery is hindered in a way that it never was before in the Deep South in TTL.

There were significant German, Irish, French, Spanish, Italian, Cuban, and Hispanic communities in the CSA. You fail to realize that. Many of them were situated in New Orleans, Mobile, Charleston and Savannah.

A Rhett led Nationalist third party may be a good indicator of a sort of Confederate Fire-Eater subgroup movment, that would be an interesting scenario.



Thing is about far Northern Mexico, it's largely feudal, and held a "loyalty to one's state" mentality not too different from that of the American South. The landowners in places like Sonora and Chihuahua controlled everything, I can see the Confederates trying to appeal to them. Those states, would be a stronghold for any Confederate oppostion party to the Democrats and would create their own voting bloc.

How is the CSA getting KY and AZ? Black Magic? KY is barely doable and AZ not at all.

Hindered how? Slaves can be used for far more than picking cotton! Off the top of my head there are other crops, mining, tree cutting, and housework. OTL some slaves even did skilled labor such as blacksmithing and carpentry. The decreased price of slaves makes slavery viable in areas where it wasn't before.

There were some communities but of no real importance. They were ignored before, during and after the ACW in the South because they didn't matter.

Feudal does not mean peopled by robots. If the governor sells out to slave owning gringos who consider Mexicans as an inferior race there would be a revolt. People don't like being sold out, particularly to people who belittle them.

 

[AtriumCarceris]

So what? Most of the population WASN'T. The governor was one man and his selling out his people to slave owning gringos would NOT be accepted by the people at large.

According to who? The most easily accessible demographics for Coahuila only go back to 1895, in which there were 242,021 people. This is a very small number of people, and compared to the Confederacy in the 1860's would put Coahuila as the smallest by population except for Florida. Unfortunately I must point out again this is the 1895 numbers. After 1895, the population of Coahuila rose pretty steadily by about 20% every decade. Extrapolate back and you only have about 140,045 people, which is slightly smaller than Florida.

Nuevo Leon is likewise small in population. 311,665 in 1895. It's unfortunately a bit more varied in its later population growth so I won't hazard a guess other than to say it'd probably be about 200,000 people, as compared to how it relates to Coahuila. Then there's that there was significant power within the Mexican governors at the time. All the Northern States at the time might as well have been de-facto independent from the main government, which was having issues deciding if it was French or not.

So first of all, it's a small population. Even if the entirety of the provinces hated the Confederacy, it could be stopped if the Governor and the Confederacy wanted it, considering that the majority of the populations are concentrated in small urbanised zones and the rest is mostly desert.

Secondly, why should I believe you that the majority of the population would hate this? All of them had greater ties to the United States than with Southern Mexico (but this timeline would suppose then the northern US states are now CS states), in culture and trade (this is still the case, Northern Mexico is full of white people who sometimes aren't seen as true Mexicans by people closer to Mexico City), and we're talking a time when Mexico was in chaos and getting caught in warring sides could happen any time. Annexation into a more stable power might look attractive. Further, as stated, a large portion of the population there is white, they aren't getting annexed by "a bunch of gringos" and nobody would think this at the time.

 

[GrandpaTanaka]

According to who? The most easily accessible demographics for Coahuila only go back to 1895, in which there were 242,021 people. This is a very small number of people, and compared to the Confederacy in the 1860's would put Coahuila as the smallest by population except for Florida. Unfortunately I must point out again this is the 1895 numbers. After 1895, the population of Coahuila rose pretty steadily by about 20% every decade. Extrapolate back and you only have about 140,045 people, which is slightly smaller than Florida.

Nuevo Leon is likewise small in population. 311,665 in 1895. It's unfortunately a bit more varied in its later population growth so I won't hazard a guess other than to say it'd probably be about 200,000 people, as compared to how it relates to Coahuila. Then there's that there was significant power within the Mexican governors at the time. All the Northern States at the time might as well have been de-facto independent from the main government, which was having issues deciding if it was French or not.

So first of all, it's a small population. Even if the entirety of the provinces hated the Confederacy, it could be stopped if the Governor and the Confederacy wanted it, considering that the majority of the populations are concentrated in small urbanised zones and the rest is mostly desert.

Secondly, why should I believe you that the majority of the population would hate this? All of them had greater ties to the United States than with Southern Mexico (but this timeline would suppose then the northern US states are now CS states), in culture and trade (this is still the case, Northern Mexico is full of white people who sometimes aren't seen as true Mexicans by people closer to Mexico City), and we're talking a time when Mexico was in chaos and getting caught in warring sides could happen any time. Annexation into a more stable power might look attractive. Further, as stated, a large portion of the population there is white, they aren't getting annexed by "a bunch of gringos" and nobody would think this at the time.

I was going to say something similar. These states were sparsely populated at the time, it's a bit anachronistic to say "a bunch of gringos", and I don't see how the Confederacy saw Mexicans as an "inferior race" (the pop. of this area was and is overwhelmingly white). However, I have some issues with what you have said too.

-Northern Mexicans are absolutely seen as "true Mexicans". Not sure where you got that.

-There is still the issue of religion. They may be white, but they're Catholic. That would not be particularly popular in the Confederacy and the Mexicans wouldn't love being part of a Protestant nation.

-Most importantly: I still don't see the CSA taking Mexican states. Not easily anyways. I just think the reasons people have are wrong. The local population could possibly be convinced, but they still need to win a war against the Mexican government in DF and the Union may not love the idea either.

 

[AtriumCarceris]

-Northern Mexicans are absolutely seen as "true Mexicans". Not sure where you got that.

Anecdotal evidence mostly. My father is from Northern Mexico, of German Stock, and spent a lot of time further south getting picked on while living in less white neighbourhoods. I've heard similar things from Mexicans from Northern Mexico as well, but it's not like I have an endless drove of people telling me this, nor do I have statistics. It's just came up enough times I noticed.

-There is still the issue of religion. They may be white, but they're Catholic. That would not be particularly popular in the Confederacy and the Mexicans wouldn't love being part of a Protestant nation.

American's feelings on Catholics is overstated. Take note for instance, the Louisiana Purchase, the acquisition of Florida, and the annexation of Northern Mexico after the Mexican-American War. All territories full of Catholics at the time of annexation.

-Most importantly: I still don't see the CSA taking Mexican states. Not easily anyways. I just think the reasons people have are wrong. The local population could possibly be convinced, but they still need to win a war against the Mexican government in DF and the Union may not love the idea either.

It depends on when this happens and what happened in Mexico during the Civil War, including Mexican-CSA relations, and what the CSA army looks like afterwards.

OTL it was considered by the CSA that Juarez might have submitted to the purchase of the Northern Mexican states because one, he could use money, and two, he wasn't anywhere near them and couldn't control them at the time. And even if not, his force was seen as so small he couldn't do anything about it even if he wanted to. In order to look into this and a possible alliance, Robert Toombs sent John T. Pickett to Mexico, who then proceeded to be the worst ambassador ever and was jailed, apparently for threatening Confederate Invasion.

The point is that an agreement really could be made without requirement of war, so long as the CSA remains on good terms with the Juarez government.

 

[Reggie Bartlett]

How is the CSA getting KY and AZ? Black Magic? KY is barely doable and AZ not at all.

Hindered how? Slaves can be used for far more than picking cotton! Off the top of my head there are other crops, mining, tree cutting, and housework. OTL some slaves even did skilled labor such as blacksmithing and carpentry. The decreased price of slaves makes slavery viable in areas where it wasn't before.

There were some communities but of no real importance. They were ignored before, during and after the ACW in the South because they didn't matter.

Feudal does not mean peopled by robots. If the governor sells out to slave owning gringos who consider Mexicans as an inferior race there would be a revolt. People don't like being sold out, particularly to people who belittle them.

John, with cotton gone, there isn't going to be anything viable enough to take it's place for a couple decades economically. And with the little (or perhaps freshly budding) industry in the CSA they won't be all used as factory slaves (because the only nation even close to doing that in OTL was Nazi Germany, and the CSA had a different view on slavery than them), Confederate whites are going to want those jobs in industrial towns like Knoxville, Birmingham, Nashville and etc.

I was going to say something similar. These states were sparsely populated at the time, it's a bit anachronistic to say "a bunch of gringos", and I don't see how the Confederacy saw Mexicans as an "inferior race" (the pop. of this area was and is overwhelmingly white). However, I have some issues with what you have said too.

-Northern Mexicans are absolutely seen as "true Mexicans". Not sure where you got that.

-There is still the issue of religion. They may be white, but they're Catholic. That would not be particularly popular in the Confederacy and the Mexicans wouldn't love being part of a Protestant nation.

-Most importantly: I still don't see the CSA taking Mexican states. Not easily anyways. I just think the reasons people have are wrong. The local population could possibly be convinced, but they still need to win a war against the Mexican government in DF and the Union may not love the idea either.

The CSA wanted the northern tier of Mexican states for the expressed purpose of a Pacific coast. Why would they need to wage a war against the Mexican government if the Mexican government is controlled by an ally? If we are talking about French Maxamillian being in charge here.

On the Catholicism issue, there was one large Catholic enclave in the protestant CSA, New Orleans. Hispanics and Whites in the CSA may rub on it, but they will be tolerated, as the treatment of Hispanics in Texas, Florida and Louisiana were any indication, any Mexicans in Mexican states patriated into the CSA are going to be given full voting rights and given the ability to serve in the Confederate military. They may not be seen as equal to whites, but they'll be seen as civilized.

 

[Japhy]

The main problem Reggie with your ideal is that the Conservative Party you have there.

First: No party after the war is going to be capable of being even "Moderate" on the Slavery Issue.

Two: The Party faces the internal contradiction of being pulled from three separate pre-War Camps. Immigrants and those Tennessee Unionists you mentioned were the types who before the War voted for Douglas in 1860, the Ex-Whigs of course voted for the likes of Bell and the remainder come out of the Breckinridge-camp which mostly went to Davis (Note: Neither party in the 1860's is going to be able to be a One-Man type party so I doubt that things are going to go in such a clear Pro/Anti-Davis bent), the gulfs between these various groups are absolutely massive.

The most prominent example of that is going to be that those oft-urban Immigrant Workers are not going to be anywhere near the Pro-Industrial Growth and Protection Party. Why would those Irish workers ever vote for the party that wants to replace them at their factory, foundry and mine jobs with Slaves? Logically, one faction or the other is going to wind up in your Democratic party, and odds are its going to be the less plugged-in to Anti-Davis factions group --- That is the Ex-Douglas Immigrants. Anything else means they're voting for their own starvation.

 

[Johnrankins]

John, with cotton gone, there isn't going to be anything viable enough to take it's place for a couple decades economically.

Why? The price of slaves would simply drop until they become viable. That is how supply and demand works. The banks would rather get say 30 cents on the dollar than nothing. The slaves would simply be sold by the banks and they would do other things.

 

[GrandpaTanaka]

Anecdotal evidence mostly. My father is from Northern Mexico, of German Stock, and spent a lot of time further south getting picked on while living in less white neighbourhoods. I've heard similar things from Mexicans from Northern Mexico as well, but it's not like I have an endless drove of people telling me this, nor do I have statistics. It's just came up enough times I noticed.



American's feelings on Catholics is overstated. Take note for instance, the Louisiana Purchase, the acquisition of Florida, and the annexation of Northern Mexico after the Mexican-American War. All territories full of Catholics at the time of annexation.



It depends on when this happens and what happened in Mexico during the Civil War, including Mexican-CSA relations, and what the CSA army looks like afterwards.

OTL it was considered by the CSA that Juarez might have submitted to the purchase of the Northern Mexican states because one, he could use money, and two, he wasn't anywhere near them and couldn't control them at the time. And even if not, his force was seen as so small he couldn't do anything about it even if he wanted to. In order to look into this and a possible alliance, Robert Toombs sent John T. Pickett to Mexico, who then proceeded to be the worst ambassador ever and was jailed, apparently for threatening Confederate Invasion.

The point is that an agreement really could be made without requirement of war, so long as the CSA remains on good terms with the Juarez government.

Okay, first off is there an easy way to quote each one of your paragraphs separately? I know I could just copy and paste the html. I am too lazy but it does look better. Any shortcuts for that?

I definitely wouldn't doubt your anecdotal evidence about Northern Mexicans vs. Southern Mexicans but I think it's important to distinguish jokes and the regionalism of fools from reality. Some Mexicans might say "Northern Mexicans aren't real Mexicans" but the same thing happens in almost every country. Even in the US I'm sure you have heard someone somewhere write off an area of the country as "not really America". It's usually done to distinguish regions to outsiders or to remove your area from a prevailing national stereotype. Or, in the case of your father's situation it sounds like it was done by small-minded boys picking on the new kid. I would certainly agree that there was and still is very significant regional divisions in Mexico as long as we can agree that in OTL Northern Mexicans are very much "real Mexicans".

You may be right about the Catholic thing. I figured the CSA may be more anti-Catholic than the USA but that really isn't a valid assumption. I guess New Orleans proves that Catholics can be Confederates but I still think it would be somewhat of an issue. I guess the more important factor would be that they support slavery in their states.

The idea of purchasing states from Mexico is an interesting one. Like you have said, Mexico wasn't particularly stable at the time so they might go along with it. I think it's more realistic than winning it in war. But where would the CSA get the money? I constantly see people on this site talking about how horrendously broke they were.

 

[Japhy]

Why? The price of slaves would simply drop until they become viable. That is how supply and demand works. The banks would rather get say 30 cents on the dollar than nothing. The slaves would simply be sold by the banks and they would do other things.

Also worth pointing out that if anything, the wrecking of the Cotton Economy is going to see slaves sold in greater numbers of Mines, and other Industries in the South, 30 cents on the Dollar is a fair price for *Tennessee Coal and Iron's ATL counterpart to outright buy slaves, just as it was for them when they were simply buying Post-Reconstruction Convict Labor to use as unofficial slaves.

The trend to start using Slaves for such work was already being established before the Civil War, continued to grow during the conflict and without Reconstruction will go on uninterrupted in its growth.

 

[Elfwine]

And since when did the wishes of the poor whites matter to the southern slave owners?

On the issue of Mexico: I doubt that the CSA can just march in and have the locals happily accept foreign rule. Yes, they may not be that crazy about Mexico, but that doesn't mean they'll just happily accept being part of the CSA.

As for doing it by force - that's going to be problematic. Not necessarily impossible, but costs and troubles the CSA doesn't need.

On the Catholic issue: The Louisiana purchase and the areas stolen from Mexico aren't "full of Catholics". They're sparsely populated in the extreme. Hardly a good example of the US happily accepting a population of Catholics.

 

[Anaxagoras]

I don't think that Robert E. Lee would become involved in politics in a million years. I also don't see Forrest or Jackson involved in politics, either. Why would we assume that James Longstreet would align with the anti-Davis forces in the aftermath of the war?

And if a two-party system developed along pro-Davis and anti-Davis lines, I would see the anti-Davis party as being less, not more, "liberal" on the issue of slavery. I would also see the pro-Davis party being stronger in the upper South (Virginia, Tennessee, and maybe Kentucky) while the anti-Davis party would be stronger in the Deep South.

 

[GrandpaTanaka]

The CSA wanted the northern tier of Mexican states for the expressed purpose of a Pacific coast. Why would they need to wage a war against the Mexican government if the Mexican government is controlled by an ally? If we are talking about French Maxamillian being in charge here.

On the Catholicism issue, there was one large Catholic enclave in the protestant CSA, New Orleans. Hispanics and Whites in the CSA may rub on it, but they will be tolerated, as the treatment of Hispanics in Texas, Florida and Louisiana were any indication, any Mexicans in Mexican states patriated into the CSA are going to be given full voting rights and given the ability to serve in the Confederate military. They may not be seen as equal to whites, but they'll be seen as civilized.

-I assumed we were talking about Benito Juarez, not Maximilian. I didn't think they would be buying these states right after the war ended. This really depends on how and when the CSA gets independence.

-I'll buy that Catholics will be tolerated. I think the CSA wouldn't mind because of how relatively small the population was. I'm sure you would see migrations of people from the South into the new states too. I really don't get where "They may not be seen as equal to whites" comes from. They are white. Not everyone of course, but like Texas most of the Mexicans living there were of European decent. I thought we were talking about religion. If you are using Hispanics to mean Spanish-speaking then I don't see why you are distinguishing them from "whites". If you are using it as a euphemism for Mestizo people then I think you are overestimating how many there were in Texas, Coahuila, Sonora, etc.