Effects of a Mexican Victory on the Confederate States

What would the effects be of Mexico defeating the United States, lets say the original POD is a more hostile Oregon, but no war.

The Brits go in supporting Mexico with "vollunteers" and weapon supplies. For the sake of the scenario lets not pick this POD to death.

The Mexicans manage to retain California, New Mexico, and western Texas, reducing the state to the claims Mexico recognized.

What are the effects of this scenario on the Confederate States/The US Civil War in general?
 
What would the effects be of Mexico defeating the United States, lets say the original POD is a more hostile Oregon, but no war.

The Brits go in supporting Mexico with "vollunteers" and weapon supplies. For the sake of the scenario lets not pick this POD to death.

The Mexicans manage to retain California, New Mexico, and western Texas, reducing the state to the claims Mexico recognized.

What are the effects of this scenario on the Confederate States/The US Civil War in general?

Well, to be quite frank, there might not even be a Civil War. There is no Mexican cession to really instigate the greater crisis out west and the distribution of slave/free states. Instead, Americans of every kind have just reaffirmed that their age old nemesis has somehow come back for round 3, and has managed to somehow effect a victory. Cut off from the virtually empty lands (which means settlers are still going to go across) and potentially cut off from the Pacific entirely, the US will prepare for round 4 (and 2) respectively.

So, slavery extended a few years, perhaps a decade or two. Potential rapid militarization in order to prepare for another fight in five years, with the next war targeting British North America and the upper Mexican territories. I imagine 54 40 or fight is going to make a big comeback. Perhaps even a rhyme with a more southerly corresponding latitude.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The USN was blockading the Mexican ports from 1846

Veracruz prior to the American invasion

The USN was blockading the Mexican ports from May, 1846; in addition, reinforcements and supplies landed on the east coast aren't going to have any impact in Texas, much less New Mexico and California.

Even getting said men and material to northeastern Mexico is problematic.

Only way around that is the RN, and that means war.

Best,
 
The USN was blockading the Mexican ports from May, 1846; in addition, reinforcements and supplies landed on the east coast aren't going to have any impact in Texas, much less New Mexico and California.

Even getting said men and material to northeastern Mexico is problematic.

Only way around that is the RN, and that means war.

Best,

Your missing the bloody point. The question is what happens to the US Civil War, not how Mexico won.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The point is, you need something more than

Your missing the bloody point. The question is what happens to the US Civil War, not how Mexico won.

The point is, you need something more than vague suggestions of British support for Mexico in 1846-48 to create a situation where Mexico holds on to the Mexican northwest/US southwest.

They couldn't hold on to Texas, lost when they tried to reconquer Texas, and barely kept Alta California, Sonora, Yucatan and (what is now) Quintana Roo within Mexico; and yet somehow all that gets handwaved away.:rolleyes:

The bottom line is the US was independent and consolidating itself as nation state, with all the political, organizational, demographic, industrial, and military advantages inherent in such, four decades before Mexico got started on the same path... unless the British are (unimaginably) willing to go to war in 1846 in alliance with Mexico, it's an insurmountable advantage.

Sorry, but "a Mexican victory in 1846-48" - with all else being equal up to 1846 - is up there with ZEELOWE.

Best,
 
Your missing the bloody point. The question is what happens to the US Civil War, not how Mexico won.

But that is an important part of it, as that war did define the latter one. By saying the British helped Mexico to such a degree as to change the war completely, we have to make several assumptions:

The British must have been absolutely they could win the quick war against an unsuspecting US, as a longer war would result in victory for the US.
The British must gain something to make up for the deterioration of the relations with one of their largest trading partners. (If not the largest; I can't remember when the threshold was crossed)

Your assumption is that the British don't fight a war in the Northwest, but the only way that the British could help the Mexicans is by fielding an army, which would be something noticed by the US government. So, by some measure, the British manage to transport thousands of troops across the entirety of the Atlantic, through the US blockade (and if the British ships attack the US ships, the ruse is off) and assemble and integrate into the Mexican army, and are able to defeat several strengthening US invasions in piecemeal.

The ruse won't hold up, and Washington will eventually find out about it. Even if the British manage to be successful enough to cause an immediate withdrawal of forces in the near term, the US still has greater numbers that can be brought to bear. And once it is discovered that Britain is doing this, the first thing that Washington will do is prepare for all-out war.

After all, the gold rush should still happen in California, which means it is still going to be inundated with American settlers. Oregon, being more hostile and never having a line between both sides delineated, is very hazardous for US settlement (depending on how hostile). So, the US is nearly completely cut off from the Pacific, has been stabbed in the back by their largest trading partner, and finds its citizens migrating to foreign territory in order to seek the wealth of that land.

All that will happen is, once Britain commits to the Crimean War, the US will leap at the chance to pay Britain back. And, given the choice between keeping Russia penned up, and maintaining their North American territories from the large, populous, and motivated opponent, they will choose one thing. And it will not end in Canada's, or Mexico's, favor. The US will be united by patriotic fervor for the next twenty or so years, by which slavery will slowly become obsolescent and, perhaps, be eliminated peacefully. But that is too far in the future to judge.

-

Now, I imagine that the scenario you're positing is quite achievable, if all you're wondering is what would happen to the US without the Southwest in the Civil War (which can be done without Mexico winning the war. After all, that war didn't have to be fought). The South would continue to push for the trade to be extended, especially as there aren't many territories left that would qualify. You might see the South push for a war with Spain to get Cuba (Ostend Manifesto writ large). The president and the prevailing mood would also determine quite a lot. If there isn't as much fear that the government would forcibly free the slaves, you might have some of the Upper South states stay in the union (Tennessee, North Carolina, or Arkansas) That can happen if it happens earlier or later. Really, it just depends on how desperate the slavers get, so earlier seems likely.
 
Top