CSA vs Second Mexican Empire

[oofo]

Mexico, especially under Maximillian, would be in absolutely terrible condition, likely facing a protracted civil war and would in no way be able to offer effective resistance to an invasion. The Confederacy would win. They would land troops at Veracruz like the US had before and march on the capital. Napoleon won’t bother to help Mexico either, he had already drifted on to other things before Max was installed on the throne and didn’t even bother to help the poor guy IOTL.

Also I don’t see any way this could happen as the CSA and Mexican Empire would likely have amicable relations, and were very friendly during the civil war and I see expansionist ideals in the CSA being curtailed by international opinion against the possible spread of slavery.

 

[Johnrankins]

The British do not want either the CSA or the USA to expand in Latin America. (The idea that "they'll back the Confederates because the Yankees will be making war on the UK to get Canada" is based on a very unlikely assumption--that the Yankees will in fact be doing any such thing. For some reason, the assumption that the US will be hot for a war of revenge against either the CSA or the UK seems widespread here, probably because peace is just too boring for allohistorians…)

They certainly will be against the CSA at least.

 

[Johnrankins]

Constantly on the brink of war with CSA seems reasonable. Canada is a different question. Unless there was open war with Britain during the ACW it seems unlikely, although relations are likely to be somewhat strained at least. As mentioned in the past, the Union as part of the Entente between France and Russia looks likely.

Agreed, unless GB actually goes to war with the US war between GB and the US is very unlikely. If it does then the possibility goes up fast. I think that war is inevitable in that case as the existence of Canada has been proven to be a direct threat to the US.

 

[Johnrankins]

Well, relations with the Canadas after the War of 1812 became relevtivly peaceful post war. By the 1880s, the CSA could possibly have a peaceful northern border with the United States.

Canada was never a part of the US.

 

[Johnrankins]

A peaceful border could come from a negotiated peace. Sherman doesn't get that far, Lincoln loses in the 1864 election to a peace Democrat, etc. Some sort of deal would have to be met over the Mississippi.

The Union and the South do not always have to be at each others throats. It depends on how the War goes down.

Damn unlikely. Unless the US gives up damn quick there will be too much blood spilt not to have hostility between the two countries.

 

[Johnrankins]

Wouldn't those territories belong to the Confederacy if they win?

Only if they are backed by a flock of ASBs!

 

[David T]

They certainly will be against the CSA at least.

Why? The British pretty much acquiesced in US independence after the American Revolution (the War of 1812 is not evidence to the contrary--it was the US that declared war, after all). If the peace treaty sets out US-Confederate boundaries clearly enough, there can be peace, even if a "cold peace," between the USA and CSA. The Democrats will favor good relations with the CSA (whose leaders were once their political allies), and the Republicans will be reluctant to be seen as the party that that led the North into war twice--with no guarantee that the second war would be more successful than the first.

 

[Johnrankins]

Why? The British pretty much acquiesced in US independence after the American Revolution (the War of 1812 is not evidence to the contrary--it was the US that declared war, after all). If the peace treaty sets out US-Confederate boundaries clearly enough, there can be peace, even if a "cold peace," between the USA and CSA. The Democrats will favor good relations with the CSA (whose leaders were once their political allies), and the Republicans will be reluctant to be seen as the party that that led the North into war twice--with no guarantee that the second war would be more successful than the first.

The 13 colonies were just that, colonies, while the Southern states were part of the US. That is a BIG difference.

 

[DG Valdron]

Why? The British pretty much acquiesced in US independence after the American Revolution (the War of 1812 is not evidence to the contrary--it was the US that declared war, after all). If the peace treaty sets out US-Confederate boundaries clearly enough, there can be peace, even if a "cold peace," between the USA and CSA. The Democrats will favor good relations with the CSA (whose leaders were once their political allies), and the Republicans will be reluctant to be seen as the party that that led the North into war twice--with no guarantee that the second war would be more successful than the first.

Americans hold grudges. I don't see the South winning and the Union just going "oh well..."

 

[Johnrankins]

Talking about the situation in the 1860s; the UK definitely wasn't dependent on American corn then.

It needed to import grain to survive. Where would they get it from? Their colonies? That would cause instability in them if it leads to hunger. They fought Russia a decade earlier, do you think they would sell grain to them except at a high price or concessions somewhere else? Poland? Maybe, but they would have to outbid the Prussians.

They would be able to do it but it would cost them a fortune. They were buying from the US for a reason. It was simply the cheapest supply of grain both economically and politically.

 

[David T]

Americans hold grudges. I don't see the South winning and the Union just going "oh well..."

You're forgetting how bitterly divided the North was on partisan lines. The ACW will indeed result in a lot of bitterness in the North--but much of it will take the form of Democrats blaming the Republicans for causing the war (with their "Abolition fanaticism") and wanting to get the North into an even more bloody and just as futile second one.

 

[DG Valdron]

Dreaming

 

[Indicus]

The Second Mexican Empire would constantly be on the brink of destruction.

 

[James Ricker]

Then they can't organize an industrial scale invasion with any hope of success, and they crash and burn even faster and harder than the alternative scenarios. This isent a period where you can just get a bunch of milita was muskets and charge them into a desert and expect good results.

The Confederacy actually tried that with their attempt to invade California. It didn't work out to well.

 

[History Learner]

It needed to import grain to survive. Where would they get it from? Their colonies? That would cause instability in them if it leads to hunger. They fought Russia a decade earlier, do you think they would sell grain to them except at a high price or concessions somewhere else? Poland? Maybe, but they would have to outbid the Prussians.

They would be able to do it but it would cost them a fortune. They were buying from the US for a reason. It was simply the cheapest supply of grain both economically and politically.

Fun fact is the British were already buying grain from the Russians in the 1860s. As for American supplies, they weren't needed; as was already pointed out, you could completely remove American supplies and the British will be reduced to....exactly what they were using in 1867.

 

[Johnrankins]

Fun fact is the British were already buying grain from the Russians in the 1860s. As for American supplies, they weren't needed; as was already pointed out, you could completely remove American supplies and the British will be reduced to....exactly what they were using in 1867.

At a considerably higher price. For one thing IIRC Russia's harvests weren't that good in 1862-63. They didn't buy from the US food to do it a favor but because it was the cheapest by a considerable margin.

 

[History Learner]

I have not misread the citation. It clearly says that Lee had ordered his army to march on the evening of August 18th. It further says that due to Fitzhugh Lee's detour, he was not ready to march at the appointed time, the evening of the 18th, and so the Confederate advance was delayed for couple more days. Without the detour, all of Lee's army would have been ready to march at the intended time, the evening of the 18th, but Pope had already begun his withdrawal at 1:30PM, hours before Lee's intended advance on the evening of August 18.

Pope had ordered the withdrawal at 1:30 PM but didn't even expect to get his logistics train across until midnight; a difference of almost 12 hours. The full body of his command wasn't due to be back across the river until the next day, a difference of almost 24 hours. Lee was planning to attack within a few hours.

Thank you for the correction, I missed the later paragraph. OTOH, it merely says that Britain and France considered offering mediation in 1862, but it does not support your original contention that "IOTL the Anglo-French were prepared to intervene and nearly did so over the historical Second Battle of Manassas".

It actually exactly does, as the Anglo-French presenting themselves as a mediating power and recognizing the Confederacy as independent is a blatant intervention.

 

[History Learner]

At a considerably higher price. For one thing IIRC Russia's harvests weren't that good in 1862-63. They didn't buy from the US food to do it a favor but because it was the cheapest by a considerable margin.

And as I said, completely removing it would not contribute any serious price increase that would in anyway compromise the actions of the British.

 

[History Learner]

Confederate attempts to seize Union territory failed even when they had numerical superiority. At Glorietta Pass, the Confederates weren't facing the full industrial might of the Union, they were facing the Union forces available in Colorado and New Mexico, half of which were territorial militia. Nuevo Loeon and Coahuila had over 3 times the population of the of Arizona and New Mexico, while the whole of Mexico had a couple million more free men than the Confederacy did. Nor does Mexico being weaker than the Union eliminate the logistical problems the Confederacy would face, nor the harsh terrain and/or ocean they would have to cross.

Attempting to use Glorietta Pass as a reason the Confederacy can't defeat Mexico and then backtracking when the specifics of that is pointed out is a blatant cherry picking.

The Confederacy launched a lot more than 3 attempts to capture Union territory.
West Virginia Campaign, 1861, under RE Lee, resulting in failure for the Confederates.
Mill Springs Campaign, 1861, under Crittenden, resulting in failure for the Confederates.
Maryland Campaign, 1862, under RE Lee, resulting in failure for the Confederates.
Heartland Campaign, 1862, under Bragg, resulting in failure for the Confederates.
New Mexico Campaign, 1862, under Sibley, resulting in failure for the Confederates.
Pea Ridge Campaign, 1862, under Van Dorn, resulting in failure for the Confederates.
Gettysburg Campaign, 1863, under RE Lee, resulting in failure for the Confederates.
Chattanooga Campaign, 1863, under Bragg, resulting in failure for the Confederates.
Knoxville Campaign, 1863, under Longstreet, resulting in failure for the Confederates.
Valley Campaign, 1864, under Early, resulting in failure for the Confederates.
Nashville Campaign, 1864, under Hood, resulting in failure for the Confederates.
Missouri Expedition, 1864, under Price, resulting in failure for the Confederates.

I think anybody who has seen a map of which states sided which way in the Civil War can immediately tell how insanely disingenuous this list is.

In all actuality there was three main invasions on the part of the Confederacy against the North: Bragg in 1862 through Kentucky, Lee in Maryland in 1862, and then Lee again into Pennsylvania in 1863. Bragg's command defeats everything the Federals can throw at him, controls all of Kentucky's major cities besides Louisville, and is even in a position to burn Cincinnati when he panics. Lee gets into Maryland, gets into a draw with McClellan but achieves more favorable casualty ratios. Following year, he raids throughout Pennsylvania and secures enough supplies to last his army through the Winter as well as spare Virginia from further campaigning for several months. The AoTP is so damaged that Lee is even able to detach his best commander with his corps for Chickamuaga and then still manages to nearly force another Maryland campaign that fall.

The Union won at Glorietta Pass because their scouts found the Confederate supply train and the Confederates failed to properly guard it. The Confederacy won the battles of Chickamauga, Fredricksburg, and Chancellorsville because Union commanders made mistakes which the Confederates capitalized on. Would you dismiss any of those Confederate victories as the Confederates "getting lucky"?

No, and it should be clear why the situations are not comparable. Glorietta Pass was literally the Confederates defeating the Union, the Federals getting a lucky break and then the Confederates being forced to retreat because of logistics. Those battles you mention had their outcome decided by the overall course of the actual fighting itself.

Comparing a hypothetical Confederate invasion of Mexico with with the Mexican-American War is useful, but you are missing several points. Mexico did not lose the war because their troops were inferior. In the Mexican War, the Mexicans had Santa Anna, one of the worst military commanders in history. A Confederate invasion of Mexico would almost certainly face more competent commanders than Santa Anna. If Maximilian is still in control of Mexico, a Confederate invasion also risks triggering a war with France, possibly also Austria and Belgium, and possibly the Union. In the Mexican War the US had Scott and Taylor as commanders, both of whom were significantly more successful on offense than any Confederate commander. Southern troops did have a larger per capita presence in the Mexican War, but only in Confederate mythology were they better than troops from the free states.

I'd be happy to see why we are making the assumption Mexico would have better commanders or why that would matter. I'd also love for you to make a comparison between Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott versus other comparable Confederate commanders like Lee.

If you take a look at period rail lines, you'd see Confederate logistics would still be based out of Texas and New Orleans. In the Mexican War, the US Navy was essential for maintaining US supply lines, but the Confederacy had no real navy. They could certainly build one, but that would probably require creating a native shipbuilding industry, plus a significant amount of time, money, and personnel to build and train a real Confederate navy. Even then, if the French support Mexico, their navy should overwhelm the fledgling Confederate navy.

The Laird Ram alone given the CSN all it needs to do to Mexico as it pleases. They have nothing comparable.

Looking at available forces, in the Mexican American War the US had a population of about 21 million compared to about 7 million for Mexico. In a hypothetical Confederate invasion of Mexico, the Confederates would have a population of about 9 million compared to about 8 million for Mexico - vastly worse odds. The odds get even worse when you consider that the confederacy's free population would be only around 5.5 million. Also, in 1848 the US did not have to divert significant forces to its northern border to deter British aggression, while the Confederacy would have to keep a significant portion of their military forces on the border with the Union.

There's also disease. In the Mexican War about 17% of US forces died, mainly of disease. Without a Winfield Scott to get them out of the lowlands before fever season starts, Confederate casualties could be even worse.

It would come as shock to everyone in the Boxer Rebellion that China should've won because of their larger population instead of the superiority of the intervening powers in things like firepower (industry) and military capabilities.

In the Mexican war, Scott was able to secure supply lines by enforcing good treatment of the Mexican population and paying them for requesitioned supplies. Confederate currency was not as valuable, reducing the number of Mexicans willing to help the Confederate supply situation. As for treatment of Mexican civilians, OTLs Confederate raiders sometimes massacred Union civilians, like at Lawrence, Kansas. Most Confederate commanders didn't stoop to that level, but if Champ Ferguson, Bill Anderson, or William Quantrill join this war, there will be Confederate atrocities against Mexican civilians.

I like how we're assuming the Confederacy will randomly send guerrilla fighters to Mexico or that Confederate currency will be that low in value.

The Confederacy would be attempting to re-impose slavery on a free country. Even Robert E Lee's forces enslaved free blacks, I'd expect the Confederate invasion force to enslave any black Mexicans they find, as well as many darker skinned mestizos. This will provoke a stronger will to resist than the Mexicans showed in 1846 to 1848. With Britain's anti-slavery views, this also ensures the loss of any British support the Confederacy ever had and possibly triggers British action against the Confederacy.

Except we didn't see this occur in the IOTL Mexican Cession or during the actual Mexican-American War.

Preferring Maximilian is still a long way from being willing to time, money, and lives to prop him up. OTL's Napoleon III appears to have preferred an independent Confederacy, but he spent no French money or lives to prop them up. A country of 9 million successfully annexing a country of 8 million seems very unlikely.

I'd highly recommend you read up more on this then, because France was a massive supplier of weapons, munitions and funding to the Confederate war effort. Numerous French officers served in the Confederate Army and there is speculation that there was direct fighting between French forces and Americans in 1865 during the events surrounding Palmitto Ranch.

 

[Fiver]

Attempting to use Glorietta Pass as a reason the Confederacy can't defeat Mexico and then backtracking when the specifics of that is pointed out is a blatant cherry picking.

I have neither cherry picked nor backtracked, please stop making false accusations. I have consistently pointed out that the Confederacy always failed in it attempts to seize Union territory. I have placed more emphasis on the New Mexico Campaign because the logistical problems and the geography the Confederacy would face in a hypothetical invasion of northern Mexico have a good deal in common with the logistical problems and the geography the Confederacy faced in their failed invasion of Colorado.