Harry Turtledove WI United States wins Second Mexican war against Confederates?

[Incanian]

So for any of you who have read how few Remain by Harry Turtledove in the Southern victory series, the Confederates won the American civil war, and in the 1880s, the Confederates wanted to purchase Chihuahua, and Sanora from the Mexican empire, so the Confederates can expand, and the Mexicans can get out of debt. Ultimately, the South prevailed, and the U.S with terrible military practice lost again to the underpopulated, under-industrialized Confederates. Ultimately, Britan took parts of Maine, and President Blaine's presidency was ruined. The Confederates then were given a transcontinental railroad, and the privilege to say that the Confederates ran from sea to shining sea. The French, English, and Confederates humiliated the Americans. America would later find allies in the German Empire and the Austro-Hungarian empire.

But what if in this alternate alternate history, the Americans won the Second Mexican-American war? What would be the future of the CSA now that they don't have the land they purchased? Would the Confederates go back to slavery now that they lost? Would America still join the Central Powers? And how would this affect world war 1, Jake Featherstone rise to power, World war II, Japan, and the rest of the world?

 

[dianaswordofsappho]

Belongs in books and media

@CalBear

 

[Incanian]

Belongs in books and media

@CalBear

Ah Okay, how do I move it to books and Media?

 

[dianaswordofsappho]

Ah Okay, how do I move it to books and Media?

Just ask an admin

 

[dianaswordofsappho]

But either way


I think the USA might grab BC and the territory the CSA wanted in the war

 

[Incanian]

But either way


I think the USA might grab BC and the territory the CSA wanted in the war

Baja California would make sense, but would America really be ambitious enough to take Sonora and Chihuahua? I don't think the Confederates would accept that. I think it'd be Status Quo except the U.S would invade Baja California. What about the Territory America would take from Canada?

 

[Nephi]

I always found that kinda strange in the books why didn't it include Baja anyways?

Also was it really that plausible would Mexico have really sold that? maybe a strip that gave them a coast but not the entire states.

 

[Incanian]

I always found that kinda strange in the books why didn't it include Baja anyways?

Also was it really that plausible would Mexico have really sold that? maybe a strip that gave them a coast but not the entire states.

It's still a lot of land for a lot of money, and Mexico would still want land. They would still want to be involved in American politics.

It also is pretty plausible they would sell the land. It was pretty useless, but they'd get out of debt, and could finally rise to prominence in the Western hemisphere again.

 

[Ariosto]

Baja California would make sense, but would America really be ambitious enough to take Sonora and Chihuahua? I don't think the Confederates would accept that. I think it'd be Status Quo except the U.S would invade Baja California.

It's been a while since I read it, but it wouldn't make sense for the United States not to annex Sonora or Chihuahua; control of those States as well as the Baja Peninsula would give them a stranglehold over all Pacific-bound trade from the Confederacy. It also would apply economic pressure upon the Mexican Empire as they no longer have those limited economic gains from Confederate tariffs, enough that it might finally just tip over and collapse, forcing the French out.​

 

[wcv215]

Also was it really that plausible would Mexico have really sold that? maybe a strip that gave them a coast but not the entire states.

No, its not. Even setting aside the idea the CSA would have had the money to pay for that much land (they probably wouldn't), the idea that Mexico would sell of the northern states is nonsensical. They had already lost the entire northern section of the country to the US. Even the relatively minor sale of land in 1854 angered the Mexican people toward Santa Anna, who wasn't even a foreign despot. Can you imagine the reaction if Maximillian was stupid enough to sell off THAT MUCH land.

And that was with the US overpaying for the land.

Anyhoo, on topic the easiest way is probably just have Britain refuse to join the war. They had no reason to as is, and since the Confederate Constitution bans the outlawing of slavery (something Turtledove ignored because...I don't know, he didn't care probably) the support for another war would be at an all time low. Toss in the risk of an American alliance with Germany (which should have the ENTIRE government shitting their pants in terror) and there was nothing to be gained by Britain joining the CSA yet again. And since France would have had no reason to enter either (no, not even some alliance with Mexico since Maximillian was backed by Napoleon III, and he was ousted during the Franco-Prussian War.)

Throw in some of the more competent US commanders (who despite still having won in their regions still aren't in the US as higher ups for...uh...reasons. So you'd have Ulysses S. Grant leading the primary American campaign, Washington DC actually defended (but apparently the most fortified city in the world as of the ACW can fall to half a dozen men without a fight...), etc.

In the end the CSA is losing Kentucky (can't understand how they got it in the first place), Oklahoma (ditto). Cuba probably goes independent (and again, how the fuck did they even get it?). They'll be banned from purchasing any Mexican territory, and likely have to agree to level no tariffs on trade through New Orleans.

Mexico will lose no territory to the US, but Emperor I'm-an-idiot gets ousted (by his own people for his hair-brained scheme realistically), and is likely made an American ally to contain the Confederacy.

Following the war I could see a rapprochement with Britain as whatever government is in charge apologises for backing the slavers, and the US continues to be withdrawn from the world stage going forward. I don't see American entry into the Great War's equivalent in the future, which means that conflict is up in the air.

 

[Dave Howery]

Following the war I could see a rapprochement with Britain as whatever government is in charge apologises for backing the slavers, and the US continues to be withdrawn from the world stage going forward. I don't see American entry into the Great War's equivalent in the future, which means that conflict is up in the air.

I always thought that the USA was likely a big trading partner of the UK before and after the war anyway... both sides have a lot of economic interest in the other. With this war won, the US has no need to seek out Germany as an ally to distract the UK and France... but the USA also has no particular incentive to ban trade with either side when WW1 rolls around. The real question mark is the CSA.. will they be looking for revenge when war breaks out in Europe?

 

[benjamin]

Totally agree with wcv215. The entire premise of the Second Mexican War was near ASB. I’m somewhat more willing to give the CSA, if we already make the implausible step that they win, the claimed Arizona and Indian Territories (we’d need a post 1864 election Treaty where peace Democrats, not McClellan but true Doughfaces, have power) and squeak out Kentucky by a probably rigged plebiscite. No chance at getting Missouri or Maryland of course.

So back on track...say the CSA squeaks together enough hard currency to entice the Mexican Emperor into selling. It’s not too far fetched as northern Mexico is probably where the anti-imperial forces are holed up and handing that problem over to the CSA might seem like a good idea. The US threatens war and Britain, with post-Napoleon France tagging along, says “Now wait a minute valuable trade partner and huge investment market; we love our slave holding dead weight ally!” WHY?!

What on Earth does Britain gain here? Sure the cotton and tobacco are nice, but replacement sources are cropping up all over the world. It’s not like the CSA can afford to boycott Britain for more than a growing season. They need that hard pound currency! Britain on the other hand puts all of Canada at risk, ensures another generation or two of Union hatred, hands Germany (or worse for the 1880s Russia) a very powerful ally all while siding once again with an expansionist slave power. And even if Britain continues to be run by idiots, why didn’t the US (having paid off it’s debts with California gold and by selling land to immigrants) just offer to buy Baja? Surely Mexico with no overland access would sell, and bingo, the US gains strategic control of the Gulf of California.

I find this scenario far more likely and interesting...

1. Mexico agrees to sell Chihuahua and Sonora to CSA
2. US disapproves and threatens war
3. CSA turns to reluctant ally, UK promising to begin emancipation after the war
4. UK voices support for the CSA purchase
5. Secret internal CSA memo surfaces wherein the CSA President assures numerous CSA Senators that the chance of emancipation is less than zero, especially since doing so is illegal. Furthermore support for the Mexico purchase, which is unpopular in the Deep South is predicated upon slavery being introduced into those territories, limitations upon the rights of Hispanics as well as increased slave patrols along the Union border.
6. The secret memo becomes public when someone leaks it to The Times. (This is likely done by Queen Victoria after the British embassy in Richmond gets ahold of it.)
7. Britain rescinds its support for the CSA. British government falls.
8. British banks refuse to loan money to the CSA to complete the purchase.
9. The US, with secret support from the UK, purchases the Baja Peninsula
10. Rebellions begin in Mexico against the Imperial government. US weapons and even volunteers flow into Mexico to help the rebels. Confederate aid goes to the Imperials. The ensuing conflicts makes Bleeding Kansas look like a Church Picnic.
11. In the end the CSA gets bogged down in a costly Mexican Civil War while the US and UK have their Great Rapprochement 15 Years early after they reach an agreement concerning a joint buy out of the French Panama Canal Company.

Benjamin

 

[wcv215]

(or worse for the 1880s Russia)

Right, don’t know how I forgot about them. Russia and the US were already friendly. The prospect of an anti-British alliance between the US and Russia would be a terrifying prospect going forward. And hell in the early 1870s OTL there was an alliance of Germany, Russia, and Austria. Now add the US and Germany getting closer, and you are left with the very real possibility of an alliance between Russia, Germany, AND the United States. AND two of those countries will have explicitly anti-British foreign policies going forward.

If that forms the British Empire is dead. It might not have actually stopped thrashing around yet, but the government might as well have committed national suicide with foreign policy blunders that big.

 

[Incanian]

No, its not. Even setting aside the idea the CSA would have had the money to pay for that much land (they probably wouldn't), the idea that Mexico would sell of the northern states is nonsensical. They had already lost the entire northern section of the country to the US. Even the relatively minor sale of land in 1854 angered the Mexican people toward Santa Anna, who wasn't even a foreign despot. Can you imagine the reaction if Maximillian was stupid enough to sell off THAT MUCH land.

And that was with the US overpaying for the land.

Anyhoo, on topic the easiest way is probably just have Britain refuse to join the war. They had no reason to as is, and since the Confederate Constitution bans the outlawing of slavery (something Turtledove ignored because...I don't know, he didn't care probably) the support for another war would be at an all time low. Toss in the risk of an American alliance with Germany (which should have the ENTIRE government shitting their pants in terror) and there was nothing to be gained by Britain joining the CSA yet again. And since France would have had no reason to enter either (no, not even some alliance with Mexico since Maximillian was backed by Napoleon III, and he was ousted during the Franco-Prussian War.)

Throw in some of the more competent US commanders (who despite still having won in their regions still aren't in the US as higher ups for...uh...reasons. So you'd have Ulysses S. Grant leading the primary American campaign, Washington DC actually defended (but apparently the most fortified city in the world as of the ACW can fall to half a dozen men without a fight...), etc.

In the end the CSA is losing Kentucky (can't understand how they got it in the first place), Oklahoma (ditto). Cuba probably goes independent (and again, how the fuck did they even get it?). They'll be banned from purchasing any Mexican territory, and likely have to agree to level no tariffs on trade through New Orleans.

Mexico will lose no territory to the US, but Emperor I'm-an-idiot gets ousted (by his own people for his hair-brained scheme realistically), and is likely made an American ally to contain the Confederacy.

Following the war I could see a rapprochement with Britain as whatever government is in charge apologises for backing the slavers, and the US continues to be withdrawn from the world stage going forward. I don't see American entry into the Great War's equivalent in the future, which means that conflict is up in the air.

What you're saying I completely agree with. A lot of the things post-war of succession isn't really discussed.

I can understand why Britan joined in the war of Succession, but it's discussed Britan and France want cheaper Cotton, and cash crops to grow than in their own colonies, so they want to keep the CSA alive, and they also want it around to undermine American power.

It's said that Cuba was obtained by the CSA "bullying" Spain out of the colony, which I guess would mean "I'll give you an inflated amount of money for the colony if you would just kindly leave, because if you don't, I will navally invade, and my two friends will support me." It's not explained what happens DIRECTLY after the war, it just skips to 1880, but it's said that Robert E. Lee was put as "president" of the CSA for the rest of his life, till he died, so basically it was under military dictatorship to make sure the unstable CSA could get on its feet.

Maybe America would still join in an alliance with Germany, and Austria-Hungary because America probably REALLY wants the rest of their former Territory, and Britan and France might still flip flop, and join back with the confederates, realizing their mistake, because a German-American-Austro-Hungarian alliance is something Britan and France would still support a Slave economy over.

But if there is still World war I, America already has the rest of Maine, and since the Confederates don't have Sonora and Chihuahua, America can focus all the troops that would be on that front to the heartland of the CSA. And since Kentucky is now U.S territory, America, even with incompotent Generals would still win alot of battles, with manpower alone.

 

[Incanian]

Right, don’t know how I forgot about them. Russia and the US were already friendly. The prospect of an anti-British alliance between the US and Russia would be a terrifying prospect going forward. And hell in the early 1870s OTL there was an alliance of Germany, Russia, and Austria. Now add the US and Germany getting closer, and you are left with the very real possibility of an alliance between Russia, Germany, AND the United States. AND two of those countries will have explicitly anti-British foreign policies going forward.

If that forms the British Empire is dead. It might not have actually stopped thrashing around yet, but the government might as well have committed national suicide with foreign policy blunders that big.

Oh shit dude I forgot about Russia. That would be fun to discuss.

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

Right, don’t know how I forgot about them. Russia and the US were already friendly. The prospect of an anti-British alliance between the US and Russia would be a terrifying prospect going forward. And hell in the early 1870s OTL there was an alliance of Germany, Russia, and Austria. Now add the US and Germany getting closer, and you are left with the very real possibility of an alliance between Russia, Germany, AND the United States. AND two of those countries will have explicitly anti-British foreign policies going forward.

If that forms the British Empire is dead. It might not have actually stopped thrashing around yet, but the government might as well have committed national suicide with foreign policy blunders that big.

See, here with the whole USA-Germany-Russia going on, and I agree by the way - but the question is whether or not you would have a united Germany, or still separate southern/northern German states divided between Austria and Prussia still.

Considering that Napoleon's Mexican Experiment was successful (and having seen it on this board here or there) then France and AH seem to become closer somewhat. That should by and large delay the Austro=Prussian (maybe) and possibly the Franco-Prussian war.

 

[wcv215]

See, here with the whole USA-Germany-Russia going on, and I agree by the way - but the question is whether or not you would have a united Germany, or still separate southern/northern German states divided between Austria and Prussia still.

The OP posits something happening within the Second Mexican War, by which time Germany had already united within How Few Remain.

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

The OP posits something happening within the Second Mexican War, by which time Germany had already united within How Few Remain.

.....

well, that was a brain shutdown moment........

 

[BiteNibbleChomp]

but it's said that Robert E. Lee was put as "president" of the CSA for the rest of his life, till he died,

What? That's not true at all.

The closest thing to this in the books is one of Featherston's speeches in (IIRC) the American Empire series, where he says that "Jeff Davis was a good president, so was Lee, so was Longstreet." I might have messed a couple of words up there but he definitely doesn't name Robert specifically.

Also, in VO, when Featherston is signing the Supreme Court out of existence, it is mentioned that Jeff Davis created the Supreme Court in May 1866, which means he was still in power then, and it is very likely that this means that he completes his term, which by the Confederate Constitution, ends in early 1868. IOTL, Robert E Lee lived until 1870, and I expect that this continues to be the case in TL-191 because Turtledove has so many other people die at the same time as in OTL (Coolidge and Wilhelm II to name two examples). If that's the case, and "President Lee" is Robert E Lee, then he is only in power for about two and a half years, which probably isn't long enough for Featherston to consider him a good president or for anyone to really remember him (seeing as he would have died a half century or more before the speech).

This doesn't even mention the fact that Robert E Lee had no interest in politics. "President Lee" is much more likely to be one of his relatives.

- BNC

 

[Incanian]

What? That's not true at all.

The closest thing to this in the books is one of Featherston's speeches in (IIRC) the American Empire series, where he says that "Jeff Davis was a good president, so was Lee, so was Longstreet." I might have messed a couple of words up there but he definitely doesn't name Robert specifically.

Also, in VO, when Featherston is signing the Supreme Court out of existence, it is mentioned that Jeff Davis created the Supreme Court in May 1866, which means he was still in power then, and it is very likely that this means that he completes his term, which by the Confederate Constitution, ends in early 1868. IOTL, Robert E Lee lived until 1870, and I expect that this continues to be the case in TL-191 because Turtledove has so many other people die at the same time as in OTL (Coolidge and Wilhelm II to name two examples). If that's the case, and "President Lee" is Robert E Lee, then he is only in power for about two and a half years, which probably isn't long enough for Featherston to consider him a good president or for anyone to really remember him (seeing as he would have died a half century or more before the speech).

This doesn't even mention the fact that Robert E Lee had no interest in politics. "President Lee" is much more likely to be one of his relatives.

- BNC

I know Lee didn't have interests in Politics, but that's what I heard from EmperorTigerstar in his youtube video about the history of the books and the world. I didn't remember that there was a Confederate president beforehand sorry.