Effects of French Mexico

In the 1860s, a coalition of France, the UK, and Spain invaded Mexico to make them repay European loans. Now, early in the war, the UK and Spain realized the French had aims on conquest, not just the loans, and dropped out. But, what if they stay unaware until after, say, an ATL Battle of Puebla wherein the Allies are victorious. This could result in an earlier taking of Mexico City, and possibly lead to Diaz joining Maximilian's side. This could in turn butterfly into Juarez accepting the presidency when Maximilian offered it. Finally, another idea could be that Max doesn't issue his "Black Decree", and communicates his liberal-leanings to the enemy, causing quite a few to come over to his side.

A Maximilian-Juarez collaboration could also turn out quite well for Mexico in the long run. There would be multiple reforms, and I recall hearing that Max created a Merchant Marine for the nation that was sold off once he lost power. There could also be limited French colonization and greater European trade, which would also be great for the nation.

What would be the long term effects of such a Mexico?
 
I imagine the US would be hostile to it, given that it would be an effective puppet of France, which goes against the Monroe Doctrine, and the fact that i is monarchist. The threat of French military power would be instrumental in preventing a US invasion. The US would likely harbor anti-monarchist rebels, and the state would face a crisis during the early 1870s, as the French are distracted by the Franco-Prussian War, assuming that isn't butterflied.

Assuming Napoleon III falls as OTL, the state would face hard times after he falls, since a republic might be unwilling to support a monarchy on the other side of the Atlantic. If Maximilian can build a solid local base of power that does not depend on French troops before that, then he will survive. If not, then he falls.

I think, if he survives, it will prove better for Mexico. A liberal monarch and President would make better rulers than Diaz. The problems come when French support is cut off, and the US remains hostile to it.
 
Oh, heck yes. One of my favorite topics.

Don't forget, a big part of Louis-Napoleon's strategy was to prop up King Cotton, the Confederate States. He planned to use it as a means of bullying the US into a peace. A British Canada, a Confederate South, and a French Mexico might lead the Union to getting the snot beaten out of it. Oh, and don't forget the heavy anti-Union sentiment in Brazil, likely ending in an agreement between Mexique and Brazil to cut up South America like a very large turkey. After CSA independence, a French "Mexique" might thrive. An industrious relationship with the South, and its cotton plantation owners, to the north and plenty of room for expansion in Central America and the Caribbean would mean, possibly, a highly successful, totally different Mexico. The Franco-Prussian War likely would have been a larger conflict, and, depending on who won, we might have a German "Mexiko" below the South, which would likely mean a Confederate-German War in the late 1800's, much like the Spanish-American War.

Cheers! :D
 
I sincerely doubt Prussia would take Mexico as spoils from the war, if only because a) not legally french ground, and b) an American colony that massive would give Bismark a heart attack.

Also, I don't see how a stronger French position in Mexico butterflies into European intervention in the ACW. Napoleons still not willing to go without British support, and it would take something dramatic to sell supporting slavery to the largely abolitionist British public.
 
I sincerely doubt Prussia would take Mexico as spoils from the war, if only because a) not legally french ground, and b) an American colony that massive would give Bismark a heart attack.

Also, I don't see how a stronger French position in Mexico butterflies into European intervention in the ACW. Napoleons still not willing to go without British support, and it would take something dramatic to sell supporting slavery to the largely abolitionist British public.

Its rather interesting. I read a biography of Charles Francis Adams a few months back. A great, and largely overlooked, figure in my opinion. Anyway, one of the things that the author made the point of stressing was that, at least in the first few years of the Civil War, the British publish did not look at the conflict as a war between abolitionists and slaveholders. They saw it, instead, as a natural conflict stemming from the two very different societies that existed within the US, and felt it was practically predestined that the South would win. Many were sympathetic to the South, at least in the upper classes, because they saw the Southrons as men attempting to create their own government and live their lives, much as the US had done during the Revolutionary War.
Although the lower classes leaned in favor of the Union, it wasn't until later that the conflict took on the "Free the Slave' attitude. I doubt that Britain would get involved as long as the Union seems to be holding its own, but its important to remember that, as much the Britain might favor abolition, they also saw the South as a group of rebels fighting for their own independence. At least for a while.
 
Well, first of all it would'nt be a French Mexcio, it would be a Second mexican Empire that was established with the support of/by the French.

Now, aside from that, while at some point Mexico may allow France to use ports or give them some favorable economic status, that's about as far as French involvement in Mexico after the war is over is going to go, aside from perhaps helping put down the revolts in the next few years after the war.

As for Mexico itself, well it'll be more stable and more prosperous, though I think at some point the Federal system will be put back in place as Mexico is simply to large, populace and diverse to govern as a Unitary state.
 
Top