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

.....

well, that was a brain shutdown moment........
I mean, its a really interesting idea. So Napoleonic France wins in Mexico, and in turn creates closer ties to Austria. Due to this Bismark fails to secure an assurance of neutrality from France, but due to his need to unite North Germany (and trying to contain a liberal legislature) war does break out, and France ultimately declares war on Prussia. Prussia loses, and loses some of its territory to France, a bit more to Austria, and a few more German states are formed from that territory. With Austria now in a dominant position across Germany Prussia, still a power on the level of Austria military speaking is forced to set aside goals of German unification. The lost war completely discredits Bismark, and the King is forced to make concessions to the legislature.

Meanwhile in the United States, the Democratic president following Lincoln was a dismal failure. While the Republicans lost the war they also pointed fingers at the Democrats, accusing them of sabotage, and in 1868 the Republicans spring back, running Ulysses S. Grant for president. Grant was one of the great successes of the war, driving down the Mississippi, forcing surrender after surrender (and okay there were a couple setbacks, but it was in the east the war was lost); and is elected. OTL of course the Grant administration was plagued by corruption, but with the need for reform clear this is significantly lessened. Furthermore, Grant and the Republican Congress decide that in order to prevent another humiliation at the hands of the Confederates and their foreign allies that the United States needs a solid, professional army. They turn to Prussia, which needs cash after the loss to Austria, and is still renowned for military prowess. Congress approves the purchase of designs for Prussian rifles and cannon, and sets up supplies for an expanded US Army, say 75-100,000 men with additional reserves formed from the veterans who were discharged from the Civil War. With Prussian officers providing expertise the US Army professionalizes by 1880, when the CSA decides to approach Mexico and basically force them to sell Sonora and Chihuahua. US President Thaddeus Stevens, facing possible defeat in the November election decides to drum up support by declaring that the United States will oppose any attempt by the CSA to take the two states.

Meanwhile the Confederacy, riding high on its victory returns to the same system of state militias and continues to believe itself invincible against the damnyankees. They ignore it and move in when Maximillian reluctantly agrees, and the United States declares war.

What follows is one of the most one-sided modern wars ever. Britain, its government in a quandary about how to proceed half-heartedly backs the CSA, while France is too distracted elsewhere to get involved. The American Army, and a larger Navy descend upon the Confederacy with a disciplined, well-trained, and well-supplied force. As the Confederate state militias are rallying Kentucky's capital falls, and the Virginia State militia is scattered in one of the only major battles just north of Richmond, having failed to even slow the professional Union men. In ten weeks Richmond falls and the Confederacy is facing utter defeat.

Basically, the equivalent of the Six Weeks War or the Franco-Prussian War by comparison.
 
Meanwhile in the United States, the Democratic president following Lincoln was a dismal failure. While the Republicans lost the war they also pointed fingers at the Democrats, accusing them of sabotage, and in 1868 the Republicans spring back, running Ulysses S. Grant for president. Grant was one of the great successes of the war, driving down the Mississippi, forcing surrender after surrender (and okay there were a couple setbacks, but it was in the east the war was lost);

Considering that Grant was a homeless alcoholic and spoke to Frederick Douglass in HFR, that may be a problem.

when the CSA decides to approach Mexico and basically force them to sell Sonora and Chihuahua.

THis does bring up another point though. Did the Confederates actually use their own money, or do we think they actually secured a loan from GB and France? THe idea of a loan from GB/France is interesting and adds more complexity to the relationship.
 
Considering that Grant was a homeless alcoholic and spoke to Frederick Douglass in HFR, that may be a problem.

I don't get how one of the most successful commanders of the war an probably one of the few bright spots in the War of succession somehow managed to get this way even though Sherman whose career was a mess before he got put under Grant didn't
 
I don't get how one of the most successful commanders of the war an probably one of the few bright spots in the War of succession somehow managed to get this way even though Sherman whose career was a mess before he got put under Grant didn't

Especially consideirng by the POD that it was Grant who really only had the victories. Well, the main ones anyway.
 
I don't get how one of the most successful commanders of the war an probably one of the few bright spots in the War of succession somehow managed to get this way even though Sherman whose career was a mess before he got put under Grant didn't
Because, to be frank, Turtledove isn't really an expert on this era of history. He knows from popular history that Grant was an alcoholic (this was not true exactly, Grant was a light-weight on alcohol, noted to get drunk extremely quickly compared to other people, and this was exacerbated by the misery of his posting and loneliness away from his wife before the Civil War, along with what seems to be a grudge against him by others). So he just thought fuck it let's make him a drunk. It makes no sense, but little in the book does if you stop and think about it.

Don't get me wrong, I actually LIKED How Few Remain, I just don't find it plausible, and the treatment of Grant is a bit of a sore point with me.
 
Because, to be frank, Turtledove isn't really an expert on this era of history. He knows from popular history that Grant was an alcoholic (this was not true exactly, Grant was a light-weight on alcohol, noted to get drunk extremely quickly compared to other people, and this was exacerbated by the misery of his posting and loneliness away from his wife before the Civil War, along with what seems to be a grudge against him by others). So he just thought fuck it let's make him a drunk. It makes no sense, but little in the book does if you stop and think about it.

Don't get me wrong, I actually LIKED How Few Remain, I just don't find it plausible, and the treatment of Grant is a bit of a sore point with me.

I liked the book as well, I wasn't aware of some of the flaws of it until now.

Oh, wait. How would an American victory in the Second Mexican-American war effect the socialist party?
 
I liked the book as well, I wasn't aware of some of the flaws of it until now.

Oh, wait. How would an American victory in the Second Mexican-American war effect the socialist party?

Probably kill it. Not immediately, but a victory in the Second Mexican War would boost the Republicans up much like the OTL Civil War did. They would be the party that beat the south, and would maintain a dominant position for the immediate future in American politics. So the Socialists won't rise, not in the same way at the least, to the big leagues.
 
Probably kill it. Not immediately, but a victory in the Second Mexican War would boost the Republicans up much like the OTL Civil War did. They would be the party that beat the south, and would maintain a dominant position for the immediate future in American politics. So the Socialists won't rise, not in the same way at the least, to the big leagues.

Or the Socialists rise anyway but under different conditions that are much more in line with the history of the US Left than what happened in HFR. There was a very strong labor and socialist movement in the US that would be unlikely to get shut down completely even with defeat in the Civil War especially since a good chunk of its members were European socialists getting out one jump ahead of getting offed back home. With the Republicans now the pre-eminent party and the Democrats having little to show for themselves it's quite possible for the Socialists to carve off the left wings of both, pick up momentum and eventually push either into the electoral arena or through trade union organizing.

Of course that's something Turtledove also shows gross ignorance on, instead doing his whole, "Lincoln makes the socialist party a thing!" BS.
 
Or the Socialists rise anyway but under different conditions that are much more in line with the history of the US Left than what happened in HFR. There was a very strong labor and socialist movement in the US that would be unlikely to get shut down completely even with defeat in the Civil War especially since a good chunk of its members were European socialists getting out one jump ahead of getting offed back home. With the Republicans now the pre-eminent party and the Democrats having little to show for themselves it's quite possible for the Socialists to carve off the left wings of both, pick up momentum and eventually push either into the electoral arena or through trade union organizing.

Of course that's something Turtledove also shows gross ignorance on, instead doing his whole, "Lincoln makes the socialist party a thing!" BS.

Funny thing, I did go to Twitter, and ask Turtledove about some of the effects of a Southern Victory in East Asia, with China, Japan and all, and we got into a bit of an argument. He doesn't seem to take criticism to lightly. I always try to be as nice as possible when criticising. You could maybe ask Turtledove about some of the aspects you question on twitter.

Anyways, the Socialists probably would arise, especially since the Republicans just won against the South, this victory cancels out their failure in the War of succession. The Socialists might still have popularity, but I could see some people wanting to merge the two ideologies. Is it possible the Democrats would fade out like the Whigs? They haven't had much to say.

My Question now is how this American victory in the Second Mexican-American war would affect World war I.
 
Or the Socialists rise anyway but under different conditions that are much more in line with the history of the US Left than what happened in HFR. There was a very strong labor and socialist movement in the US that would be unlikely to get shut down completely even with defeat in the Civil War especially since a good chunk of its members were European socialists getting out one jump ahead of getting offed back home. With the Republicans now the pre-eminent party and the Democrats having little to show for themselves it's quite possible for the Socialists to carve off the left wings of both, pick up momentum and eventually push either into the electoral arena or through trade union organizing.

Of course that's something Turtledove also shows gross ignorance on, instead doing his whole, "Lincoln makes the socialist party a thing!" BS.
Maybe, but the big thing that led to their rise, Lincoln leading a significant part of the Republican Party over won't happen in a TL where the Republicans won a war against the South. So their rise, at minimum, won't be similiar to that of TL-191.
 
Maybe, but the big thing that led to their rise, Lincoln leading a significant part of the Republican Party over won't happen in a TL where the Republicans won a war against the South. So their rise, at minimum, won't be similiar to that of TL-191.

Which doesn't stop other stuff like the Pinkertons & company goons shooting union workers, fueling their rise. Turtledove mentions May Day marches as a thing even though the event that inspired May Day was the Haymarket Massacre in Chicago, 1886. Clearly something like it still happened TTL.
 
Top