Legal Status of Confederate Mexico

Someone's being rather vindictive...it's been made perfectly clear that the United States would not automatically punish the actions of a usurper government in Mexico City while the legitimate government makes its allegiance perfectly clear (Juarez was pretty much pro-Union).

Been made perfectly clear by whom?

Saying something will happen is not the same as endorsing it, so there's no need to claim moral fault on the person here for doing nothing worse than thinking people from the 1860s would do something "vindictive."
 
Someone's being rather vindictive...it's been made perfectly clear that the United States would not automatically punish the actions of a usurper government in Mexico City while the legitimate government makes its allegiance perfectly clear (Juarez was pretty much pro-Union).

What you're suggesting is akin to the CSA attacking the Bahamas (zero plausibility aside) and Britain punishing Washington for it. If anyone is at fault in anything it's the idiots in Richmond.

True enough, but I think there are a lot of hot heads around. They will be given a particularly strong voice if the potential opposition looks weak. One thing I have learned in life is that it is NOT fair.
 
Been made perfectly clear by whom?

Saying something will happen is not the same as endorsing it, so there's no need to claim moral fault on the person here for doing nothing worse than thinking people from the 1860s would do something "vindictive."

Thanks, that is indeed my point. That is why I said "Who cares about fair?". I don't it would be fair nor do I think they would care, they would feel vindictive.
 
I don't understand how you reached either of your conclusions (viz. that Britain and France needed another country to legitimise the CSA first, and that recognising the CSA would therefore count as an act of neutrality). First of all, if a legitimate treaty with a sovereign nation is all that is needed to make a government legitimate, why didn't Britain and France just be the first ones to sign the treaty, thus legitimising the CSA, thus automatically legitimising their own actions? And if the treaty with Mexico automatically legitimises the CSA, why do France and the UK even need to declare recognition, if it is therefore automatically applied worldwide? If it only takes one nation, then there is no need for any successive recognitions. It's not like there can even be some moral high ground argument here, since it would be pretty freaking obvious from the start that they were just looking for an excuse to legitimise the CSA under your notion.

Secondly, how would this be an act of neutrality? It would be directly weighing into a war by declaring one nation to be in favour while taking a course of action which seriously hinders the other. It's not an act of war, sure, but it's about as much an act of neutrality as the US cutting its imports to Germany to ramp up to focus on British trade in 1915, or signing the Lend Lease agreement to sell Britain 50 destroyers in 1940. About the most unneutral neutral act they could really do, honestly.

I'm taking into consideration the action of US Ambassador to Great Britain Charles Francis Adams who worked hard to prevent British diplomatic recognition of Confederacy and the general actions of US Secretary of State William Seward.
 
It wasn't very friendly to patrol aggressively into disputed territory and then using a skirmish as a casus belli to snarf half of Mexico, but the U.S. still did it in 1848-9.

Why don't you bring up an example a bit more contemporary to the discussion as well as more relevent? Your talking about a situation involving the conflicting claims of three nations.
 
I'm taking into consideration the action of US Ambassador to Great Britain Charles Francis Adams who worked hard to prevent British diplomatic recognition of Confederacy and the general actions of US Secretary of State William Seward.


Mexico was far, far less powerful than GB. British recognition would likely be followed by others,with Mexico it is far less likely.
 
Mexico was far, far less powerful than GB. British recognition would likely be followed by others,with Mexico it is far less likely.

True to the point of being self evident. However, one is trying not to get the proverbial ball rolling at all. I've always wondered what if some small German principality did recognize the Confederacy - exactly what sort of pressure - if any - could the US have done about it.

I think in such a situation a diplomat has to worry about small leak that leads to more leaks and then the dam breaks situation. The way that the French were probably setting Imperial Mexican foreign diplomacy it wouldn't seem too far fetched that Napoleon III would use Maximilian as a way to coerce Europe into recognizing the Confederacy. Mexico City signs a treaty with the Confederacy, thereby recognizing it as a sovereign nation, thus permitting Napoleon III to try to persuade Palmerston, its easier to be the follower on such a venture when using a stooge as the leader.
 
True to the point of being self evident. However, one is trying not to get the proverbial ball rolling at all. I've always wondered what if some small German principality did recognize the Confederacy - exactly what sort of pressure - if any - could the US have done about it.

I think in such a situation a diplomat has to worry about small leak that leads to more leaks and then the dam breaks situation. The way that the French were probably setting Imperial Mexican foreign diplomacy it wouldn't seem too far fetched that Napoleon III would use Maximilian as a way to coerce Europe into recognizing the Confederacy. Mexico City signs a treaty with the Confederacy, thereby recognizing it as a sovereign nation, thus permitting Napoleon III to try to persuade Palmerston, its easier to be the follower on such a venture when using a stooge as the leader.

Palmerston wasn't an idiot and neither was Napoleon III. Palmerston wasn't about to fall for that one. He isn't about to change his foreign policy on account of MEXICO.
 
Top