While not totally related Santa Anna was out on his ass just over a year later.Then what about the Gadsden purchase?
While not totally related Santa Anna was out on his ass just over a year later.Then what about the Gadsden purchase?
I'm not sure why some people think Max needs to cut ties with France after the Franco-Prussian War.
In my mind, it was the other way around.
What does France stand to gain from adding to their losses?France would be the one cutting ties with Max,
What does France stand to gain from adding to their losses?
Did France completely strip any of its other colonial/imperial ventures of their detachments durring or after the Franco-Prussian War? Only one I know of was the recall of the Roman garrison, but that was moving a relatively small force a relatively small distance and yielding a much less substantial prize.
What does France stand to gain from adding to their losses?
Did France completely strip any of its other colonial/imperial ventures of their detachments durring or after the Franco-Prussian War? Only one I know of was the recall of the Roman garrison, but that was moving a relatively small force a relatively small distance and yielding a much less substantial prize.
I was assuming that in order for 1871 to be a factor to begin with the French-Imperial faction would need to have won at some point (as even without US diplomatic pressure the casualties and expenses associated with the war were wearing the French out). So either a Maximilian who is different enough to be better able to drum up popular support, or the republican faction is somehow incompetent enough to discredit itself.I was operating from the assumption that like OTL, French public opinion had turned against their interests in Mexico.
See above.None of its other colonial ventures had large and troublesome nationalist insurgencies which French liberals sympathized with.
Good thing Max's brother was Emperor of another European great power, should the need to replace France actually arise.
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....
Why would they want to?
Expansionist attitudes in a victorious Confederacy are going to be very different than they were when the South was still part of the Union. The men who wrote the Ostend Manifesto and all that jazz were thinking in terms of creating new slaves states so as to maintain the balance between slave states and free states in the Senate. But if the Confederacy has secured independence from the Union, that will no longer be a factor. Consequently, the desire to expand slave territory will lose much of its impetus.
Where as the CSA and is even weaker has no power projection to speak of...That's a great idea, let's replace our current patron to a slightly worse patron with less power projection and one that was also thumped by the Prussians.
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
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)
all depend of the year that this war will happen, The close to the XX century the more likely is a general Slave revolt.
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.
By 1900, the population of the former Confederacy was 18,975,655, while Mexico had about 13,607,000. That leaves the Confederacy with roughly the same free population as Mexico, which makes for little chance of offensive success for either.
The advance of Union armies didn't trigger a slave uprising, but they did lead to about 500,000 slaves running away and about 100,000 joining the Union Army. It's wildly unlikely that Mexico would be able to advance into Confederate territory, but Texas would probably see a spike in number of slaves running away, with many joining the Mexican Army.
You're overestimating Confederate manufacturing capability. In 1860, the US produced about $1.9 billion in manufactured goods. Roughly $170 million of that was produced in Confederate states, while roughly $1.7 billion was produced in Union states.
Also those Confederate railroads in 1860 didn't even reach Texas, let alone Mexico.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confe...#/media/File:Railroad_of_Confederacy-1861.jpg
To invade Mexico, the Confederacy is going to need better logistics and better offensive commanders than they had in OTL. They'll probably need a real navy, too.
In OTL the American South was expansionistic, before, during, and after the Civil War.
IMO Southerners objected to the Republican party's anti-slavery expansion position not so much because they expected slavery to expand within the current boundaries of the US (which was pretty clearly impossible after Kansas rejected Lecompton) or even because they mecessarily wanted to expand the southern slave system into Latin America--they were actually divided on the feasability and desirability of this. Rather, they objected to it because they considered it a *symptom* of the Republican Party's desire to assure northern control of the federal government, which could then be used for antislavery purposes. William J. Freehling has noted the paradox that the South Carolinians, the most ardent secessionists, were among the most skeptical of territorial expansion. Observing that Calhoun had opposed the drive to acquire All Mexico, Freehling adds:
"Some leading South Carolinians continued to harbor distaste for proposed Caribbean expansion in the 1850s. Mexico seemed full of non-American peons, Cuba full of free blacks, and the Southwest full of coarse frontiersmen. "It is not by bread alone that man liveth," intoned South Carolina's revered Francis Sumter in 1859. "We want some stability in our institutions." 12 South Carolina reactionaries wanted to stabilize their people-—in South Carolina.
"Many South Carolinians opposed a supposedly destabilizing Caribbean empire because they favored a supposedly stabilizing disunion revolution. These disunionists hoped that outside the Union and beyond unsettling northern attacks, a settled South could flourish. They feared that if the Union did acquire vast tropical lands, grateful Southwesterners would never secede and declining Carolinians would never stay east. Still, a taste for staying home and distaste for expansionism swept up the powerful South Carolina Unionist U.S. Senator James Henry Hammond, just as it did the secessionists. "I do not wish," said Hammond, "to remove from my native state and carry a family into the semi-barbarous West." https://books.google.com/books?id=MOainyyGxhsC&pg=PA168
(FWIW, Confederate diplomats during the ACW tried to reassure the Mexicans: yes, we wanted Mexican territory when we were in the Union--but only to counterbalance the political power of the Yankees. Now that we're out of the Union, we have no need for your territory, and it's the Yankees you should fear. Of course, they would say that, wouldn't they? But it was not *necessarily* entirely false...)
Depends upon the exact borders of this Confederacy; adding Kentucky, West Virginia, and Oklahoma gets you to just shy of 25 Million.
You literally tried to claim the CSA's population was DOUBLE the actual population of the region.Except population is not the sum total of military success, hence why everyone has moved away from human wave tactics.
Question was one of industrialization and it would come as a hell of shock to Zachary Taylor he needed a railroad, same for Winfield Scott.
Birmingham is not in Bibb County. Its in Jefferson (as the county seat) and Shelby counties. That source says little about Birmingham at all in fact. And the only 1867 note at all is about selling iron to New Orleans or Saint Louis, and noting how expensive the iron would be to ship.As a political unit, yes but industrialization had begun in 1867.
So...as long as they get given territory they do not control, and cannot take. Got it.
You literally tried to claim the CSA's population was DOUBLE the actual population of the region.
Its almost as if war changed a lot in 30 years.
Birmingham is not in Bibb County. Its in Jefferson (as the county seat) and Shelby counties. That source says little about Birmingham at all in fact. And the only 1867 note at all is about selling iron to New Orleans or Saint Louis, and noting how expensive the iron would be to ship.
After the Civil War, however, the development of railroads within Jones Valley along with the presence of rich minerals nearby paved the way for the founding of a new city.
Recognizing the area's potential, a group of investors and promoters of the North and South Railroad (which later became the Louisville & Nashville Railroad) met with banker Josiah Morris in Montgomery on December 18, 1870, and organized the Elyton Land Company for the purpose of building a new city in Jefferson County.
Now I'm actually laughing at a very amusing thought sparked by the thread: imagine a history where Maximilian recaptures Texas - or the Arizona Territory if somehow the South manages get it.
Sorry, there is so much poetic justice in that, regardless of how unlikely.
What makes you think its unlikely. The CSA is explicitly a slave state, any invasion of another country is an attempt to expand slavery and so anathema to all right thinking people. ( which includes the Tejano population). And if Max is not backed by France ( which he almost certainly would be) he would be backed by Austria.
Most people forget there is a world of difference for European powers between interfering in a disputed US election and intervening in a war of aggression by what is in fact an embarrassment to all civilised nations.
Six words: Garibaldi's Mexican army marches on Houston.
There is, of course, a freed slave division, a Haitian contingent and an international brigade, including Coronel Federico Engels. Why do we never have cool AH? Come on? Why has nobody bothered to write this? No, let's just wank on about slightly different borders of Canada and PEI joining the continental congress. Well, no. I WANT MEXICO'S JUSTIFIED REVENGE, FEATURING GARIBALDI, ENGELS AND JOAQUIN MURIETA WHO IS A REAL PERSON.
Is that too much to ask?