There were three routes considered for the canal OTL. One through Nicaragua, one through Panama and the third through Tehuantepec (in Mexico itself). Abd between 1857 and 1882 there was a lot of work done on the Tehuantepec route.
indeed if i am not mistaken Diaz constructed the Tehuantepec railway over the abandoned canal observation areas.
You see all kinds of petty defiance from client states, which the Second Mexican Empire definitely was. In the Warsaw Pact it was routine even though they all backed the Soviets militarily without hesitation when it mattered. The same kind of friction existed between the US and South Vietnam over dozens of issues. Colonial powers often got lip from their client chiefdoms.

That's why there's a difference between outright annexation/colonization and installing allies in power. Each has pros and cons for the great power doing it. In the case of Mexico, the Empire and the French intervention were based in the conservative elements of society, even though Maximilian had a vision to break out of that narrow set of expectations somewhat with his liberal conservatism. That works out just fine for the French, because if the Hapsburgs want to keep the throne against the conservatives, who will want to install the Iturbides after Maximillian, they will have to lean on French influence permanently.
If i am not mistaken, Maximilian I otl wanted to have a baby girl and engage her to one of the Iturbide boys to create a new royal house, something called the House of Habsburg-Iturbide to unite the two houses and create dynastic stability. So if Maximilian I does have a baby girl by Carlotta, then that's a possibility.
The only question is would the United states allow that action. Would they allow a strong mexico, sure Maximilian might do that but the united states can always send supplies at the border to fund and arm the Juaristas. And when the French get out of Mexico in otl the Imperialistas forces are doomed against the modernized Juaristas. Would the united states allow a french client state or a latin american power going strong
the US never brought up the notion of direct interference in Mexico OTL even in 1865 when the Imperials were winning and the USA was still massively mobilized. The public was just not in favor of a war.
 
If i am not mistaken, Maximilian I otl wanted to have a baby girl and engage her to one of the Iturbide boys to create a new royal house, something called the House of Habsburg-Iturbide to unite the two houses and create dynastic stability. So if Maximilian I does have a baby girl by Carlotta, then that's a possibility.
1613807294343.png



the US never brought up the notion of direct interference in Mexico OTL even in 1865 when the Imperials were winning and the USA was still massively mobilized. The public was just not in favor of a war.
I dont mean war. I mean the USA would certainly help the rebels obviously
 
1613807691198.png
Look they are outnumbered and after the ACW the united states would definately help the Republicans to crush the Royalists. And the Empire's armed forces are not modernized Compared to the Juaristas when the usa finishes the ACW when they started helping the Republican forces. And do you think Mexicans would allow themselves to be governed by a foreigner?
 
View attachment 626858Look they are outnumbered and after the ACW the united states would definately help the Republicans to crush the Royalists. And the Empire's armed forces are not modernized Compared to the Juaristas when the usa finishes the ACW when they started helping the Republican forces. And do you think Mexicans would allow themselves to be governed by a foreigner?
I don't think you read the OP properly, a more uniform and ideal mobilization was the major point i touched upon.
OTL, around 1/3 of the Mexican population accepted themselves being governed by a foreigner quite easily. So upping that number through propaganda etc was also touched on in the OP.
 
The only question is would the United states allow that action. Would they allow a strong mexico, sure Maximilian might do that but the united states can always send supplies at the border to fund and arm the Juaristas. And when the French get out of Mexico in otl the Imperialistas forces are doomed against the modernized Juaristas. Would the united states allow a french client state or a latin american power going strong
If Juarez is dead (as @Sārthākā wants), then who does the US back? And Sart has highlighted modernizing and expanding the imperial armies, so these "modernized" Juaristas would be rebels fighting against an army who is better trained, better equipped. Mexico can easily turn into an earlier Vietnam:

Juarists: The US backed regime in Mexico was widely respected, he told the POTUS. Juarist troops were winning on the battlefield. The imperial government were disgraced and disrespected. Stay the course.
vs
The US Ambassador: The US backed regime in Mexico was corrupt and coming apart. The Juarists was losing battle after battle. The imperial government was gaining respect. Disaster was imminent.

Probably no other President of Mexico has been so celebrated and deified to such an extent as Benito Juarez. To be politically correct in modern Mexico is to hold Juarez sacrosanct and anyone who questions his preeminence should be prepared to be considered a traitor. In his own time he was called (by northern Americans) the “Abraham Lincoln of Mexico” and that comparison endures to this day. However, as is often the case with celebrated republican leaders, the facts do not match the propaganda. In truth, Juarez was a duplicitous, anti-clerical, power hungry hypocrite who, despite being hailed as a champion of democracy, was never fairly elected by the majority of Mexicans and who frequently flouted his own constitution when it pleased him. Despite being upheld as the champion of Mexican sovereignty against foreign intervention he sold out the sovereignty of his country in a treaty that would be considered the most reprehensible in Mexican history if anyone bothered to remember it.

As Juarez was using military force to stamp out all conservative opposition to his rule, and amassing huge debts in the process, he assumed vast powers on the basis of a national emergency. He sold out to the United States by signing the often overlooked McLane-Ocampo Treaty which stipulated that the USA would pay Juarez $4million in return for perpetual rights of transit across the isthmus of Tehuantepec, protected trade routes in certain areas and ports on both coasts, the right of the US to intervene militarily at the request of Mexico if trade were threatened or even without the request or permission of Mexico if there was an “emergency”. Juarez also gave the US the right to send in military forces on this transit routes as the US saw fit, Juarez promised that no other nation would be given the same preferential treatment and Mexico would effectively be under the protection of the United States. The American plan at the time was to eventually construct a railroad across Tehuantepec or a canal and thus make vast amounts of money on the lucrative trade with and through Central America (a sort of forerunner of the Panama Canal idea). The extent of this treaty was never completely formalized but it nonetheless demonstrates something which would shock any patriotic Mexican; that is that Benito Juarez was willing to totally sell out the sovereignty of his country to the USA for $4million to ensure victory in a war he was waging for his own power against his own people.

Thus is it not surprising that the US government always supported Juarez against his conservative rivals and the Emperor Maximilian. Juarez occupied Mexico City in January of 1861 and then claimed to be the properly elected president after an election which was conveniently held under the constitution of 1852 and which was done after the conservatives had been defeated in battle and all of their leaders killed, imprisoned, forced into hiding or chased into exile; still not exactly a fair example of democracy in action. He then defaulted on the debts Mexico owed which prompted the French intervention. The conservatives allied with them and the result was, eventually, the coronation of Emperor Maximilian. One of the main supporters of intervention was the Empress Eugenie of France who supported intervention on behalf of the Catholics of Mexico of whom Juarez was an avowed enemy. Not only was Juarez a mason who had secularized the country and nationalized Church property, at one point he even attempted to set up his own government ruled church in Mexico with a pliant bishop as the national “pope” but his plan was thwarted when Pope Pius IX refused to ordain the man and forbid any Catholic to go along with such a move and even among those most inclined toward the liberals the common people were overwhelming Catholic and would not go along with outright break with Rome. Thus Mexico was soon at war again between Juarez and his liberal republicans on one side and the French and conservative Mexicans on the other.

Juarez and his forces were soon defeated by the French, but before fleeing, however, the liberal controlled Congress granted Juarez dictatorial powers for the duration of the national emergency. To the unbiased eye in might seem rather odd for the self-proclaimed champion of democracy and republicanism to be granted absolute power for the second time in an over extended presidency to which he was never fairly elected by a majority of all people. However, an even more significant action by Juarez had already taken place when he issued an order in 1862 that any foreigner taken in arms in Mexico would be shot, any Mexican opposing his regime taken prisoner armed would be shot and any Mexican citizen who gave any aid to any of these people would also be shot. Today history still condemns Emperor Maximilian for his "Black Decree" of October 1864 (which was rarely enforced as Maximilian was constantly granting pardon to captured rebels) which stated that any rebel taken in arms would be shot within 24 hours. However, very few historians are honest enough to relate that Juarez had issued a far worse decree years earlier, which violated his own constitution and which meant death not only for all prisoners of war but even for any citizen who so much as gave them food or water! This is the side of the Juarez regime that is never talked about.

As to Max and Juarez working together:
Juarez also spurned all offers of clemency, pardon and peace from Emperor Maximilian to end the war and reconcile the country. He even offered him the post of prime minister but Juarez refused, still claiming to be president of the whole country and unwilling to accept any lesser office.

On November 8, 1864 in yet another trampling of his own democratic propaganda, Juarez had his term in office extended because of the continuing war, even though that war had basically been reduced to raids by irregular forces and self-serving civilian bandits and brigands who merely paid lip service to the republican cause. He was, once again, violating the terms of his own constitution. Fortunately for Juarez, time was on his side as his friends in Washington DC were on the cusp of victory over their own southern enemies. 1865 was one of the darkest years for Juarez but by the spring he had the greatest victory his cause would ever have. Oddly enough, it did not take place in Mexico but in southern Virginia at a little town called Appomattox Court House where the primary Confederate army under General Robert E. Lee surrendered to Union General Ulysses Grant; effectively ending the American Civil War. By 1866 the United States used strong-arm diplomacy to block the Emperor of Austria from sending his brother additional troops and demanded that the French withdraw their forces as well. With a massive US army dispatched to the south Texas border for the intimidation factor and with problems in Europe mounting, Emperor Napoleon III felt he had no choice but to cut his losses and abandon Mexico.

As to Juarez being a figure for "unity" to Max's government

With all of this support, having Emperor Maximilian outmatched in every way thanks to his big brother north of the border, Juarez defeated the imperial forces at Queretaro on May 15, 1867. As we all know, soon thereafter Juarez had Emperor Maximilian executed by firing squad along with his top generals Miguel Miramon and Tomas Mejia. It is worth remembering at this point that this was yet another violation of the very constitution Juarez had enacted which had abolished the death penalty. However, just as he had continuously violated his own rules to stay in power and keep his dictatorial powers he did so again to eliminate Maximilian and his loyalists.
Of course, the brief unity enjoyed by Juarez while the Emperor lived was also cut down with the crack of rifle fire on the Hill of Bells at Queretaro and President Juarez immediately had to deal with internal rebellions with reared their head again almost as soon as Maximilian was dead. After numerous other Mexican monarchists were killed, again, all in violation of the very constitution Juarez had enacted, factions amongst the republicans began to battle for power in states as well as on the national level when General Jesus Gonzalez Ortega rose up to challenge Juarez for the presidency which he continued to hold in spite of numerous violations to his term limit.

As to film, Juarez and it's portrayal, it's interesting to note that:

Juarez explains to poor, ignorant, Porfirio that Maximiliano duped him. When Diaz explained how honest and sincere the Emperor was, Juarez responds that, "virtue is a powerful weapon in the hands of an enemy" which is meant to sound "wise" but is absurd if you think about it for more than a second. It essentially says that Maximilian is wrong regardless of whether he is wicked or virtuous. He says that the unbridgeable gulf between himself and Maximilian is "democracy" and that this is the right of men to rule themselves. He explains that since a man never rules himself into bondage, freedom flows from democracy like the rivers flow from the mountains, just as naturally and serenely. This is, of course, quite hilarious given that Mexico itself democratically voted itself into bondage more than once. The PRI, for example, held tyrannical control over Mexico for the better part of the last century. Yet, the current President of Mexico was the leader of the PRI, voted back into power after a break of only two non-PRI presidents. It is also extremely laughable in the context of Juarez, a man who came to the presidency not by election, speaking to Porfirio Diaz who would go on to lead a rebellion against Juarez, then run for president himself, winning on the promise that he would serve only one term, only to then rule as dictator of Mexico for the next 35 years!

It is quite a howl that virtually everything Juarez and Diaz talk about in these scenes as being the major problems of their country; too much land owned by too few, a privileged elite prospering while the masses are impoverished, freedom of speech being suppressed, even selling out to foreign influences (such as the French) are ALL accusations made by many against General Diaz himself during his hold on power from 1877 to 1911 (with a small break in there). At the end of the scene, Juarez says, again -so profoundly, that when a monarch misrules, he changes the people but when a presidente misrules, the people change him. A perfect ending really, given that the liberal-democratic leaders of North America and Western Europe are doing precisely what Juarez said the wicked monarchs do, they are changing out their peoples for a new batch that will keep them in power. Irony doesn't begin to describe it.
 
View attachment 626858Look they are outnumbered and after the ACW the united states would definately help the Republicans to crush the Royalists. And the Empire's armed forces are not modernized Compared to the Juaristas when the usa finishes the ACW when they started helping the Republican forces. And do you think Mexicans would allow themselves to be governed by a foreigner?
Think the US numbers are wrong:
Officially, of course, the US was neutral but went to little effort to hide their favoritism toward Benito Juarez. Tens of thousands of rifles and artillery pieces were sent to Mexico including the most modern Henry repeating rifles and parrot rifled artillery so that the northern republican army had every advantage over their imperial enemies. Uniforms, equipment and supplies of every kind were sent to Juarez so that many of his troops were fighting in complete Union blue US Army uniforms with US stamped buckles, belts, ammo boxes and so on. Even troops were sent over, unofficially. These were men who would often be given leaves of absence on the understanding that they would go to Mexico to fight for Juarez. Others were listed as deserters who would return when the war was over and who were never punished. In all, it is estimated that some 3,000 Union army veterans served with the forces of Juarez against Maximilian. In a study undertaken by the United States roughly 109,000 US soldiers expressed their willingness to fight in Mexico if needed to ensure the victory of Benito Juarez. Surely such numbers should give any proud Mexican pause.
 
If Juarez is dead (as @Sārthākā wants), then who does the US back? And Sart has highlighted modernizing and expanding the imperial armies, so these "modernized" Juaristas would be rebels fighting against an army who is better trained, better equipped. Mexico can easily turn into an earlier Vietnam:
its not exactly dead i want. Dead is fine, but captured and then exiled works too.
 
its not exactly dead i want. Dead is fine, but captured and then exiled works too.
I suspect imprisoned will work better. Dead Juarez becomes a martyr, exiled Juarez becomes the leader of foreign opposition to Max. Since Juarez will no doubt go into exile in the US. Where he'll be able to stir trouble
 
If Juarez is dead (as @Sārthākā wants), then who does the US back? And Sart has highlighted modernizing and expanding the imperial armies, so these "modernized" Juaristas would be rebels fighting against an army who is better trained, better equipped. Mexico can easily turn into an earlier Vietnam:

Juarists: The US backed regime in Mexico was widely respected, he told the POTUS. Juarist troops were winning on the battlefield. The imperial government were disgraced and disrespected. Stay the course.
vs
The US Ambassador: The US backed regime in Mexico was corrupt and coming apart. The Juarists was losing battle after battle. The imperial government was gaining respect. Disaster was imminent.
What i mean there is the republican forces are still holding the republican forces that are still fighting
 
And do you think Mexicans would allow themselves to be governed by a foreigner?
What, exactly, makes Mexicans so special and unique compared to the countless other peoples who have been conquered over the ages? I keep seeing this claim time and again but it seems so vague as to be pointless.
 
What, exactly, makes Mexicans so special and unique compared to the countless other peoples who have been conquered over the ages? I keep seeing this claim time and again but it seems so vague as to be pointless.
Perhaps determinism? Or the belief that the US would never allow another stable country in the Western Hemisphere? Particularly one so large and socnearby?
 
The only question is would the United states allow that action. Would they allow a strong mexico, sure Maximilian might do that but the united states can always send supplies at the border to fund and arm the Juaristas. And when the French get out of Mexico in otl the Imperialistas forces are doomed against the modernized Juaristas. Would the united states allow a french client state or a latin american power going strong
If Juarez dies or is captured, the opposition splinters and probably collapses. America might not like it, but they're not going to have anyone to back with arms for the immediate aftermath.
 
If Juarez dies or is captured, the opposition splinters and probably collapses. America might not like it, but they're not going to have anyone to back with arms for the immediate aftermath.
You know, I have a thought about this...Could Maximiliano attempt to ingratiate himself with the U.S. in the event of an Imperial victory. Given that the Emperor would likely try to start moving out of French influence, it could be a thought to attempt something, given that the U.S. wouldn't immediately go for a plan to invade Mexico to restore the republic, and a shattered republican movement would make it difficult to send critical support.
 
Could Maximiliano attempt to ingratiate himself with the U.S. in the event of an Imperial victory.
Sure he could, but it wouldn't be immediate. Eventually, even without Maximilian putting any effort into it, diplomatic relations between the Empire and the US would normalize, as they did between the US and UK after the War of 1812. You can't stay hostile to your neighbors forever, political and economic/trade considerations simply won't allow it.
 
Top