If the US took Sonora, Chihuahua and Baja California in the War Question

Butterflies aside, do you think Maximilian would be in a better or worse position to remain in power if he still became Emperor of Mexico in this scenario?

If he hasn't captured or killed Juarez by the time the American Civil War ends he's pretty well pooched. Juarez is the key to the rebellion, if he gets killed the movement might splinter, and if that happens the rebels become more of a nuisance than a genuine threat.

In the long run though I suspect he's in a bad place. Max signed some disastrous deals with France as far as finances went and without the mineral wealth in the northwest he'll have a tough time paying it back.
 
Last edited:
Butterflies aside, do you think Maximilian would be in a better or worse position to remain in power if he still became Emperor of Mexico in this scenario?

If he hasn't captured or killed Juarez by the time the American Civil War ends he's pretty well pooched. Juarez is the key to the rebellion, if he gets killed the movement might splinter, and if that happens the rebels become more of a nuisance than a genuine threat.

In the long run though I suspect he's in a bad place. Max signed some disastrous deals with France as far as finances went and without the mineral wealth in the northwest he'll have a tough time paying it back.

As noted it would essentially make no difference. Chihuahua was key to Juarez, particularly when smuggling US arms, but that can easily be replaced by anyone; the north east is likely to remain heavily pro-republican, and so any point on Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, or Tamaulipas can work for that.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
"The rebellion"?

If he hasn't captured or killed Juarez by the time the American Civil War ends he's pretty well pooched. Juarez is the key to the rebellion, if he gets killed the movement might splinter, and if that happens the rebels become more of a nuisance than a genuine threat.

"The rebellion"?

Interesting way to describe the legitimate government of Mexico; Juarez was elected president in 1861.:rolleyes:

Best,
 
IF Texas doesn't secede, based on the premises listed above; might that lead to an earlier railroad? No CSA Texas would reduce the direct military threat to the rail line itself. The existing impetus to connect the west coast to the east via the Midwest was there from Gold Rush days, to some extent.

OTL, the ACW broke the deadlock between proponents of north, central, or south transcontinental routes. A couple of more southern states would not be enough to break the deadlock. With no or fewer southern states seceding, the stalemate also remains. Texas itself as a beginning point for a transcontinental RR is really a non starter. It is simply too far away from potential eastern connections. Saint Louis would be a plausible starting point but trying for anything farther south is not going to really work.
 
Top