Could the CSA defeat Mexico.

So I've seen it many times, when the CSA gains independence it starts to expand its territory into the Caribbean and Mexico in order to get a Pacific coast.

But could the Confederacy win a war against Mexico?

I don't think so myself. Cause here without American help the Second Empire survives and both the CSA and Empire would need time to recover from their civil wars and with French investments I could see the Mexicans recovering first. But then again I'm no expert that why I asked the question.

So in a war who would win the Confederacy or Mexico?
 

Philip

Donor
How much of the CSA's forces can be deployed against Mexico? The CSA must at least consider the possibility that USA would invade if the border is left undefended.
 

Pax

Banned
Most TLs have the CSA purchase Mexican territory, which seems likely to me. Chihuahua and Sonora were Republican strongholds, far away from Mexico City's center of control, and weren't really valuable in the 1860s-80s except for Pacific access, which Mexico already has plenty of. It would make sense for Max to sell off those two provinces to make a quick buck (which he really needs) and wipe his hands of the problem of lingering Republicanism. Meanwhile, the population of both provinces was tiny up until the early 1900s, so even if a guerrilla war was waged against the South, it's likely that they wouldn't have enough people to sustain it beyond a few years.
 
The UrS would. Destabilization of its southern neighbors would be a huge benefit to the revanchist Americans.
Would that then be a three way war? Keep in mind the U.S. would also have to recover from the conflict and would have reduced projection power, at least with regards to the central and South America, along with loss of prestige which could mean more push from other foreign powers (like France/UK) against it. There's also dealing with partial failure of Monroe doctrine which could lead to isolationism
With regards to the CSA and SME (second Mexican empire) it would be landbased war would be bottled up along the Texan-nuevo Leonese border or naval battle in the gulf of Mexico so it really depends on whose navy is better at the point .
I would say that Mexico might have the better trained army but it also has very long supply lines , an issue that their enemies won't have to worry about. Really depends on how long this war is and when it happens
 
Would that then be a three way war? Keep in mind the U.S. would also have to recover from the conflict and would have reduced projection power, at least with regards to the central and South America, along with loss of prestige which could mean more push from other foreign powers (like France/UK) against it. There's also dealing with partial failure of Monroe doctrine which could lead to isolationism

Britain, if she's really invested in the CSA as a way to balancing rising American commercial-industrial power: a distinct possibility since, if her power projection towards Latin America is blunted, her energies are going to be channeled more towards the north and west-Pacific... areas Britain is in, could very well press her thumb on the scales. But France? Mexico is a French ally/client, so a CSA with expansionist intentions towards it and into France's new Central American zone of interest (Particularly since she's more likely to maintain the Panama Canal rights in a surviving SME scenario) would be a natural rival to Paris. If anything, I could see the French diplomatically sympathizing with the US and, if Nappy III/IV has built a little more steel in his spine from a more successful imperial policy, offering to mediate (with a pro-American slant) a peaceful solution to the war, or working out a co-ordinated intervention if the CSA looks like it's winning and likely to snatch up Mexican territory.
 
In isolation I would say yes, the Confederates could probably defeat Mexico in an offensive war (and certainly defensively). In reality the CSA cannot ignore the possibility of armed US intervention after the war with Mexico starts, nor the possibility that the Great Powers (and the CSA’s largest trade partners) would act against the expansion of slavery into new territory. Not to say that the CSA definitely wouldn’t try to conquer Mexican territory; governments make dumb choices all the time.

In contrast to Turtledove in T-191, I don’t think a surviving Mexican Empire would sell territory to the CSA. Since Maximilian is already
a foreign puppet his domestic support can’t survive doing something so blatantly unpatriotic.
 
Why does the Confederacy need a pacific coast? Why do people instantly put them into expansionist mode?

Much depends on the manner of independence. Is it a negotiated, peaceful separation of the Union? Is it a violent, hard fought independence? a short-medium kick the North's arse? a long, drawn out wear out the North?

If it's a long, drawn out affair, the South will not be in any shape to do much more than hunker down and recuperate for a decade or two. If it's a peaceful, negotiated separation, they won't have built the war machine capability to go on an offensive expansion war. If it's a short-medium kicked the North's arse deal, then the South is going to be a force to reckon with. They'll also likely come out of the war in possession of the west, so they'll have lands to populate/consolidate/take advantage of, so they won't need to go on wars of conquest. If they do, though, the Northeastern section of Mexico (Monteray area) is ripe for takeover: lightly populated and good for agriculture.
 

Deleted member 67076

Depends on when the war happens. If its in the late 1800s then well the CSA wont be having it easy. At all.

The Porfiriato rebuilt Mexico's army into a modern force, the issues of identity had been dealt with already, El Norte is being settled with immigrants, rail was massively expanded, and extensive foreign investment was being poured into Mexico, giving foreign powers an incentive to protect their investments in Mexico.

If anything this would cement Porfiro's rule and unite Mexico.
 
The Confederacy is far too populated, industrialized and wealthy to be defeated by Mexico, either offensively or defensively.
Well Mexico(1865: 8.259.080) and the CSA(1860:9.103.000) have more or less the Same population, plus mexico don´t have a huge slave population that could be aroused to fight, and have is more or less the same level of industrialization than the CSA, so if anything if stupid for and independent CSA declare a war against Mexico
 
Well Mexico(1865: 8.259.080) and the CSA(1860:9.103.000) have more or less the Same population, plus mexico don´t have a huge slave population that could be aroused to fight, and have is more or less the same level of industrialization than the CSA, so if anything if stupid for and independent CSA declare a war against Mexico

Let's also not forget that, in all likelyhood, you'd see something similar as to what happened following the American Revolution where a chunk of the loyal population of the South migrates North to remain part of the Union, particularly from the Upper South. That's going to give a modest hit to the South's demographics, disproportionately affecting her most industrially developed areas and those least vulnerable to potential disruptions as the result of the war.
 

Deleted member 67076

The Confederacy is far too populated, industrialized and wealthy to be defeated by Mexico, either offensively or defensively.
The problem with the CSA is that any given time it has to be the one to invade (probably with dismal logistics systems), have to keep a bloated military to defend slavery, an their economy is much more fragile given its largely single income export focus.

All the Mexicans have to do is defend the north through chokepoints and gcall for foreign aid. Maybe even arm the commanche to wreck havoc through plantation raids.
 
Well Mexico(1865: 8.259.080) and the CSA(1860:9.103.000)

In 1865, yes, but by 1900 IOTL the former States of the Confederacy had shot up to around 30-40 million to around 10 Million Mexicans.

have more or less the Same population, plus mexico don´t have a huge slave population that could be aroused to fight

It's notable that Union armies advancing over the entire Confederacy failed to engender this, so I'm skeptical fighting localized to Texas would do such.

and have is more or less the same level of industrialization than the CSA, so if anything if stupid for and independent CSA declare a war against Mexico

The Confederacy was 15% of the 1860 Industrial base of the United States and had the second highest amount of railways per capita in the world. Confederate GDP per capita, meanwhile exceeded that of France and Germany into the 1880s and 1890s, as well as that of Fascist Italy into the 1920s. The CSA is far and away more industrialized and better off economically than Mexico is.
 
Mexico won't sell its territory without losing it in a war

Mexico is fucking hard to invade - ask Zachary Taylor, or ask those units told to join up with him by traversing blank spaces on a map that turned out to be mountains so they had to go around

How big is this CSA? Does it include New Mexico and Arizona? If not, then the CSA can ONLY go via Texas, ie Zachary Taylor's route

So it would come down to the navy again and the amphibious capacity
 
In 1865, yes, but by 1900 IOTL the former States of the Confederacy had shot up to around 30-40 million to around 10 Million Mexicans.
As Part of the USA, with the Homestead act, Firmed by Abraham Lincoln, act that was pivotal to attract more immigration to the USA. the CSA didn´t neccesary will have that Law, and such law is against the interest of the Rich slave owners as they "lost" possible bought of more land to exploit with their slaves, Such as was the case with Brazil in the 19 century

It's notable that Union armies advancing over the entire Confederacy failed to engender this, so I'm skeptical fighting localized to Texas would do such.
Did not matter, the mere possibility that there could be a slave revolt will mean that the CSA can´t send all of their troops to fight against Mexico, and will have to maintain and important sized army in the country. the CSA will be fighting with a hand tied in the back

The Confederacy was 15% of the 1860 Industrial base of the United States and had the second highest amount of railways per capita in the world. Confederate GDP per capita, meanwhile exceeded that of France and Germany into the 1880s and 1890s, as well as that of Fascist Italy into the 1920s. The CSA is far and away more industrialized and better off economically than Mexico is.
The question is Will the CSA maintain that trend as an independent country? or, Like Brazil and Argentina, will the Agroindustry will be eat most of the capital and put a damper in the develop of the country? the CSA have a lot of Railways that is true, but most of the railway were Build with northern Capital and industry, and in a way to make easier the export economy.
 
As Part of the USA, with the Homestead act, Firmed by Abraham Lincoln, act that was pivotal to attract more immigration to the USA. the CSA didn´t neccesary will have that Law, and such law is against the interest of the Rich slave owners as they "lost" possible bought of more land to exploit with their slaves, Such as was the case with Brazil in the 19 century

It would come as shock to the residents of Kansas and Nebraska that they are, in fact, former States of the Confederacy. The Homestead Act was for settling the West, not the South, which received very few immigrants in this era.

Did not matter, the mere possibility that there could be a slave revolt will mean that the CSA can´t send all of their troops to fight against Mexico, and will have to maintain and important sized army in the country. the CSA will be fighting with a hand tied in the back

It very much does matter, because they were able to effectively prosecute a four year long industrial warfare along the entire breadth of the Confederacy, complete with amphibious landings without this becoming an issue while fighting Mexico will solely be limited to the Texan border.

The question is Will the CSA maintain that trend as an independent country? or, Like Brazil and Argentina, will the Agroindustry will be eat most of the capital and put a damper in the develop of the country? the CSA have a lot of Railways that is true, but most of the railway were Build with northern Capital and industry, and in a way to make easier the export economy.

It would, as OTL trends advocated. Planters were moving to industrialize Birmingham as early as 1850, and were stopped by the efforts of the Yeomen farmers; this would become a much reduced issue in the aftermath of the Civil War and it shows in that Birmingham began to develop in earnest in 1867/1868. As for the Confederate railways, the value of the Slave system was equal to the entirety of the Northern industrial basis, meaning they have more than sufficient capital to do such projects on their own.

Finally, a review of cotton exports is very telling.
 
So I've seen it many times, when the CSA gains independence it starts to expand its territory into the Caribbean and Mexico in order to get a Pacific coast.

But could the Confederacy win a war against Mexico?

I don't think so myself. Cause here without American help the Second Empire survives and both the CSA and Empire would need time to recover from their civil wars and with French investments I could see the Mexicans recovering first. But then again I'm no expert that why I asked the question.

So in a war who would win the Confederacy or Mexico?
In a defensive war the CSA would definitely crush any Mexican invaders.

In an offensive war then I think Mexico has it, CSA logistics weren't all that good, a matter which would be compounded by the terrain of northern Mexico, so maintaining an occupation force against the ornery inhabitants of the region would be a massive strain, and on top of that a good portion of that would have to be held in reserve in case of US intervention or slave uprising. Furthermore, if Maxy is running Mexico then an attack on Mexico is also a declaration of war on France, and that's just asking for the CSA to be dumped into an early grave.

Actually that's an interest TL in an of itself, Maximilian legitimizing his reign by defeating a confederate invasion.
 
It would come as shock to the residents of Kansas and Nebraska that they are, in fact, former States of the Confederacy. The Homestead Act was for settling the West, not the South, which received very few immigrants in this era.
So by you the Texas population Boom was mostly natural Growth? (600.000 inhabitants in 1860 3.030.000 in 1900), as was the Virginia, Nebraska, Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky Louisiana population growth? come one you can´t expect I believe that the region was not benefited by the general USA immigration policies

And by 1900 the Southern states have some 19.806.000 inhabitans, not the 30 to 40 millions you say, mexico in the same epoch have some 13.600.000 inhabitants (source)

source:https://www.google.cl/publicdata/ex...e&pit=-2190741434000&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false


It very much does matter, because they were able to effectively prosecute a four year long industrial warfare along the entire breadth of the Confederacy, complete with amphibious landings without this becoming an issue while fighting Mexico will solely be limited to the Texan border.
all depend of the year that this war will happen, The close to the XX century the more likely is a general Slave revolt.

It would, as OTL trends advocated. Planters were moving to industrialize Birmingham as early as 1850, and were stopped by the efforts of the Yeomen farmers; this would become a much reduced issue in the aftermath of the Civil War and it shows in that Birmingham began to develop in earnest in 1867/1868. As for the Confederate railways, the value of the Slave system was equal to the entirety of the Northern industrial basis, meaning they have more than sufficient capital to do such projects on their own.

Finally, a review of cotton exports is very telling.

The cottons price failed sharping in the 1870-1900 as your same source indicate, is true that the total between value 1870-1900 rise but the production more than doubled for a little more that the 1,2% increase in the value of the total exported, if anything a independent CSA will have a horrible financial crisis in the 1870-1900 period.
 
Top