Could the CSA defeat Mexico.

Pardon me for my lack of knowledge, but could you clarify what you by by DoD?
DoD is the Decades of Darkness timeline which can be read in full here:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/decadesofdarkness/

Basic premise is that New England secedes in 1811, taking the abolitionists with them. The United States becomes a massive slaving empire ruling from Alaska and Western Canada to Tierra Del Fuego. The reference above was about the creation of a series of systems to differentiate different types of slaves from one another. Serfs, peons, slaves, etc.
 
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.

My understanding is that it's the opposite - Planters were the ones who prevented the industrialization of Birmingham because they didn't want industrialists to be a potential challenge to their political authority.

----------

My question is - when is this Mexican-Confederate War happening? Is it under Juarez? Porfirio Diaz?

The most likely cause of war, I think, would be the Confederates propping up Santiago Vidaurri in the Mexican North. If the war happens then, then it isn't Mexico vs the Confederates - it's Mexico vs the Confederates and a rebellious Republic of Sierra Nevada. Vidaurri was killed in 1867 however, and I'm not sure the Confederates would be of much help then.


If it's the Confederacy vs the Mexican Empire, the Confederates lose.
If it's the Confederacy vs Diaz's Mexico, the Confederates lose.
If it's the Confederacy vs Juarez post-1867, the Confederates lose.
If it's the Confederacy + Vidaurri vs Juarez pre-1867, then maybe they prop up a satellite state and make marginal border gains that really don't justify going to war when your country already is having massive monetary issues. More likely than not Juarez beats Vidaurri and the pretty much broke Confederates.


The better question is, how much Confederate territory can the Mexicans take back before the US decides to get involved? The Nueces? The San Antonio? The Colorado?
 
Last edited:
Sigh...I suggest History Learner review the literature on the nullification crisis of 1830. Basically South Carolina, supported by a good percentage of the southern political class, wanted to nullify the tariffs instituted by the federal government. This was the major way to finance the federal government, but also encouraged the development of American industry. South Carolina, and the planter class wanted to continue to be able to import British (in particular) manufactured products which tended to be less expensive in exchange for southern agricultural produce. Also in the antebellum period southern politicians worked hard in the Congress to minimize infrastructure financing by the d=federal government - it was only immediately during or following the ACW when the south had no representation in Congress that the Homestead Act and the acts giving land as an incentive for the transcontinental railroad were passed. As far as the "value" of slaves, yes the cash value of the several million slaves in the south was quite high - however unlike capital in railroads and factories slaves had both lower productivity and represented capital that was completely unavailable for other use.
 
The better question is, how much Confederate territory can the Mexicans take back before the US decides to get involved? The Nueces? The San Antonio? The Colorado?

In the end, it won't matter, as the revanchist and rearmed North will be rolling it back to the Rio Grande in the end. Just thing thing to prove that you're liberating Texas.
 
Wouldn't the Confederates have the advantage of better technology, esp. weapons? That's why I guess they'd have an advantage against Mexico. Yes, the US and other states might sell the Mexicans weapons too - but how would the Mexicans pay?
 
Wouldn't the Confederates have the advantage of better technology, esp. weapons? That's why I guess they'd have an advantage against Mexico. Yes, the US and other states might sell the Mexicans weapons too - but how would the Mexicans pay?
How will the CSA pay for better Weapons? or even Why they will have better weapons that the Mexicans?
And Mexico Have silver, Lots of it, they could easily pay for better USA weapons in exchange of the exploitation of the Silver mines in Mexico
 
OK, didn't know details about Mexican economy in the 19th century. - The CSA will pay with cotton, of course. Even if no country wants to sell them weapons officially, smugglers will. Like Rhett Butler.
 
Every country in the 19th century has armourers - this applies even to East Asia, IndoChina etc. The ability to make MANY weapons is probably a greater determining factor than the ability to make quality weapons.
 
OK, didn't know details about Mexican economy in the 19th century. - The CSA will pay with cotton, of course. Even if no country wants to sell them weapons officially, smugglers will. Like Rhett Butler.
the problem with Cotton is that in the 1870-1900 period the Value of the Cotton plummeted, Hard

The price is not adjusted for inflation.
: Price
Year :- per
: Lbs
: Cents
1818 : 32.5
1819 : 14
1840-1850: 10
1855 : above 10
1856 : 15
1862 : 62 high
(can´t find data)
1876 : 9.71
1877 : 8.53
1878 : 8.16
1879 : 10.28
1880 : 9.83
1881 : 10.66
1882 : 9.12
1883 : 9.13
1884 : 9.19
1885 : 8.39
1886 : 8.06
1887 : 8.55
1888 : 8.50
1889 : 8.55
1890 : 8.59
1891 : 7.24
1892 : 8.34
1893 : 7.00
1894 : 4.59
1895 : 7.62
1896 : 6.66
1897 : 6.68
1898 : 5.73
1899 : 6.98
1900 : 9.2
1901 : 7.0

Cornell University
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/data-sets/crops/96120/
 
One thing to note about cotton is that during the war alternative sources got set up (Egypt, India) but the position from before the war had returned then the markets might have come back to them, and thus seen the price be higher
 
One thing to note about cotton is that during the war alternative sources go set up (Egypt, India) but the position from before the war had returned then the markets might have come back to them, and thus seen the price be higher

And if it's a shorter war, less tiem for alternatives to be entrenched, etc.
 
Without George Washington Carver the south won't be doing too well either. The widespread embrace of peanuts, soybeans, and sweet potatoes that Carver put forward OTL won't happen here.
 
And if it's a shorter war, less tiem for alternatives to be entrenched, etc.

How short? You can't end this war in just a few months. At best the Confederates win in 1863 and by that point Egyptian and Indian Cotton is being developed.

In 1861, Egypt had only exported 600,000 cantars of cotton (a traditional measurement equal to about 100 pounds), but by 1863 it had more than doubled this to almost 1.3 million cantars.

Even with an early end to the war, it will be too late for the Confederate Economy.
 
How will the CSA pay for better Weapons? or even Why they will have better weapons that the Mexicans?
And Mexico Have silver, Lots of it, they could easily pay for better USA weapons in exchange of the exploitation of the Silver mines in Mexico
Cotton?
A quick look at production levels in 1870 (yeah, I know, it's an arbitrary date, but still it's useful) show that Mexico mined around 20 million ounces of silver per year between 1870-1875. Roughly, an ounce of silver was worth a dollar at that time. In the same year (after 4 years of war, and an economy devastated by it), the South produced $322 million dollars in cotton. Another way to look at this is that in 1870 Mexico's GDP is less than 350 million dollars (in 1870 value). Using the South's GDP for 1860, it was edging up to $1 billion. A reasonable assumption would have the South's GDP grow very modestly or even shrink slightly, but either way, you're still dealing with an economy that is around 3x larger than Mexico.

The problem that we hit upon is that the inputs that one uses are going to drive the outputs. Even the previous paragraph has 4 different inputs... change them and the outcome shifts. Some folks here are predisposed to nerf the inputs because it fits their view of the world at that time. Others are more liberal with the inputs, like History Learner. The fact is, no one can agree on the inputs because we're all making different assumptions on the terms of a CSA victory. Some folks are convinced a south that wins is completely bankrupt and heading towards Venezuela style economy. Others see nothing but clear skies. A Confederacy that wins late in the war because Lincoln is defeated is an entirely different beast than one that gets a lucky early shot.

As I've said in an early post, the fire-eaters were the biggest proponents of southern expansionism, and even then, there's a body of evidence that supports the idea that their expansionist tendencies were a reaction to the number of free states. In the slave versus free dichotomy, it was expand or die, as they saw it. Remove the free state influence and you remove their necessity to expand. Well, that's one theory. Also, I don't see even the fire-eaters striking out at Maximilian Mexico. The CSA needed the good graces of France and Max was Napoleon's proxy. But lets say we remove all external influences. It's just Mexico and the CSA, 1870s. The US is busy elsewhere and France has left. The CSA would, I think, be able to win a war of limited objectives. Cut off a slice of the north, perhaps. Hold the whole country down? I seriously doubt it.

But wars aren't fought in a vacuum. Throw significant British or US financial support/military advisors into the mix, supporting Mexico and I'd move the needle for CSA success back quite a bit.
 
the problem with Cotton is that in the 1870-1900 period the Value of the Cotton plummeted, Hard

The price is not adjusted for inflation.
: Price
Year :- per
: Lbs
: Cents
1818 : 32.5
1819 : 14
1840-1850: 10
1855 : above 10
1856 : 15
1862 : 62 high
(can´t find data)
1876 : 9.71
1877 : 8.53
1878 : 8.16
1879 : 10.28
1880 : 9.83
1881 : 10.66
1882 : 9.12
1883 : 9.13
1884 : 9.19
1885 : 8.39
1886 : 8.06
1887 : 8.55
1888 : 8.50
1889 : 8.55
1890 : 8.59
1891 : 7.24
1892 : 8.34
1893 : 7.00
1894 : 4.59
1895 : 7.62
1896 : 6.66
1897 : 6.68
1898 : 5.73
1899 : 6.98
1900 : 9.2
1901 : 7.0

Cornell University
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/data-sets/crops/96120/
Here's the missing data from your table, courtesy of "The Growth of the Cotton industry in America" I'm not sure how old the file is, but it's available to download here:
https://www.sailsinc.org/durfee/earl2.pdf
At the tail end of the below image, you can see the progression in the crash of the price.
upload_2018-8-7_13-16-8.png
 
Here's the missing data from your table, courtesy of "The Growth of the Cotton industry in America" I'm not sure how old the file is, but it's available to download here:
https://www.sailsinc.org/durfee/earl2.pdf
At the tail end of the below image, you can see the progression in the crash of the price.
View attachment 400895

Thanks.
So for the source you just give us, the Fall of the Cotton prices is even more sharp, that the one my incomplete data will make us belive
 
Thanks.
So for the source you just give us, the Fall of the Cotton prices is even more sharp, that the one my incomplete data will make us belive

I guess this is kind of a tangent of the thread. The proceeds of cash crops eventually work their way into the economy and into the govt treasury, so the question of cotton production matters when discussing the ability of the CSA to both protect itself and project power (which gets to the heart of the question the OP asked). Overproduction is one of the reasons for the sharp drop in prices from 1876 to the turn of the century. A successful CSA would possibly exacerbate that overproduction during that period. I think it would hasten the destruction of the yeoman farmers who dominated the lower-middle class of the south in the antebellum period, either forcing them into the cities or onto tenant or sharecropping arrangements. It could also seriously affect slavery as well. During much of the antebellum period the price of a slave moved in tandem with the price of cotton.

I guess the take-away is that the further away you get from the point of a CSA victory to an invasion of Mexico the greater the uncertainty about things. No surprise, as every year should introduce more and new butterflies.
 
Without a timeline to critique all of this boils down to navel gazing.

Let's say for a moment that I were to write a timeline in which the CSA invades Mexico (I won't). In this world Bismarck might say, "A special Providence takes care of fools, drunkards, and the Confederate States."

While I would try to keep things logical (people wouldn't automatically do things they are not prone to IRL), the CSA might have caught some amazing breaks and the US might have been considered cursed by the gods. For instance, it would have been Grant dying at Shiloh instead of Johnston. The mental issues that we now understand Sherman to have suffered from would have overcome him, rendering him unfit for command. And despite how cliched it has become (Thanks again, Turtledove), that pesky order 191 doesn't go missing and McClellan's caution costs him the battle... or something along those lines. Lincoln would have kept trying to find a general who could defeat Lee, and heck, just for gits and shiggles, a bullet from a sentry narrowly misses Stonewall Jackson at Chancellorsville. The above are all vagaries of war and could have broke either way.

My point is that Alt history is what the one writing makes of it. Sure, the POD (apart from an ISOT or some other ASB handwaivium) needs to be plausible. The thing about butterflies that we tend to forget is that subsequent events after the POD only need to make sense given the previous divergence. It really doesn't have to make any sort of sense to the original timeline IF it coherently follows on the previous divergence.

If I were writing a TL of CSA invasion, I would find a way to neuter outside intervention, unless the goal of the TL was outside intervention. If I were writing this TL, I would also include a POV that showed the horrors of slavery, probably through the lens of a slave revolt. The point is to show the reader that all isn't well in the story and that while the South may have won their first big fight, there's a larger one on the horizon.

Honestly, if I were writing any CSA victory timeline, there are several things I would want to focus on, first would be to explore more fully Southern views on the role of government in civic life. Many positions the south took at the state and local level tended toward a statist view of things. Sure, they were rabidly anti-federalist, but that's not the same thing as being anti-statist. I'd also explore the tension between those who understood the need to industrialize with those who didn't. Readers would be surprised to learn that there were plenty of folks in the south who understood the dangers of an economy built upon a single export. And lastly, I'd explore how slavery devalued labor and cheapened humanity.

It depends how you see Alt History. If you see it as a fund thought project where you can wank a country or dump it, sure. I'd agree with you. But that's all it is, not an actual possibility and not an actual answer to a "what if" question. Don't get me wrong, those have their merit. For me the value of Alternate Histories is to examine the reasons why things are the way they are. It helps us learn details about history. I see something and I wonder what would happen if a person does something differently so I read about who these people were, what they did, why they did it, and other pertinent facts. It's a fun way to learn about history. A TL can have a sort of art to it as you suggest, but that is what it is. An Art, a story to entertain but still provide some educational value and food for thought. There is a limit to this, because if you go too far, then that means we'd be making things up like say, a CSA population of 40 Million in 1900, or propagating false information which has no value at all.

I've read/am reading a few timelines here and there that are an art and I enjoy them. For the most part they don't take me out of it by being ridiculous, they haven't been ridiculous. But making a successful (forgive me) sea lion operation without any serious changes to Nazism, would be too much to ask.

The OP asked if it is possible, and since this isn't a timeline, we can't conjure up an "artistic" TL to answer in the affirmative. We have to stick with the most possible scenarios and not manipulate the odds and make the CSA win the lottery every time. Because we can play the same game with Mexico and use the CSA victory as a POD/Butterfly that changes Mexico's luck (It has had the worst of luck).

After Juarez the very real threat of CSA invasion begins to sink in and Diaz begins to work closely with the US to build up his industry, and focus on creating a navy (Politics prevented the construction of a defensive navy in the OTL). Maybe even a navy similar to that of Brazil's by 1900. Sure this would strain the government's budget, but some friendly loans from anti-slavery USA and UK would go a long way. I could maybe sway things to say that the UK is so worried that Brazil might ally with the CSA to preserve both country's slavery, that it sees Mexico as a wonderful partner to keep both nations in check. It might spur friendly relations with the US to create a great Anglo-American alliance. Maybe Diaz is so focused on the threat that he agrees to be conciliatory to Madero and prevents the Mexican revolution all together and retires in say...1914 and Madero wins the subsequent elections and begins the democratization of Mexico. The UK and the US help Madero to quickly put down a Huerta coup allowing Madero to rewrite the constitution by 1917 establishing a firm democracy yet avoiding a one party rule. The stability allows increased trade and immigration to Mexico. The new constitution outlines liberal initiatives like education which raise Mexico's literacy. Mexico even sends some symbolic units to fight in WWI, maybe a regiment or two attached to US forces....but this does not answer the OP's question at all, because I made things happen.

But doesn't that answer the OP question? That the CSA would have to be very lucky to be able to do it. It is plausible, but only if it is very lucky and if the butterflies don't make Mexico better due to the rise of a new threat and the US's reactions to the new order.

I guess the take-away is that the further away you get from the point of a CSA victory to an invasion of Mexico the greater the uncertainty about things. No surprise, as every year should introduce more and new butterflies.

I would agree with this. A 1867 Mexico would be the easiest Mexico to invade until 1911. If the CSA won and was expansionist, I doubt that Diaz would just sit with his arms crossed. The USA would definitely be willing to arm Mexico to the teeth and openly trade with them. If Diaz asked the US for warships, the US would only ask how much they could afford. Under Diaz's "presidency" Mexico experienced stability and economic growth and modest industrialization. If the US was helping out Diaz, it could have better growth. The problem is that the longer the CSA waits, the more prepared Mexico and the USA become.

Not to mention, the CSA would need a Casus Belli. What would it possibly be? They have land, we want it? I guess they can just simply declare war...good luck being trusted by other countries because it would now be super easy for any nation to justify material aid to Mexico....like say the USA.
 
Top