Mexico becomes involved in the American Civil War

The point of divergence for this is that in 1844, James K Polk is not elected President of the United States. Instead, Henry Clay wins the presidency and as a result, Texas is not allowed to join the Union. This butterflies away the Mexican-American War.

Texas spends the next sixteen years hanging on by a thread. There is trade with Texas, but it is not enough to stop Texas from falling into poverty.

When the Confederate States forms in 1860, Texas applies to join the Confederacy. Unlike the US sixteen years before, the CSA welcomes Texas with open arms as a slave state.

But, there is a problem with this. Mexico never fully recognized Texan independence and it would not tolerate their land being swallowed by a foreign country. Mexico decides to go war against the CSA at the same time as the Union.

So, what if Mexico became involved in the American Civil War?
 
It turns into an eventual American-Mexican war would be my guess

Confederacy is destined to lose against America alone, with Mexico in there it's no contest
 
It actually doesn't matter in the long run which side Mexico joins. The North has much more resoruces than the CSA and Mexico combined. And with them on the side of the north, it's a slaughterfest
 
Does timeline butterfly away Mexico's troubles with Europe to? Because if I remember correctly the French overthrew the Mexican government during the ACW and installed Maximillian as emperor.
 
Does timeline butterfly away Mexico's troubles with Europe to? Because if I remember correctly the French overthrew the Mexican government during the ACW and installed Maximillian as emperor.

which is the reason why Mexico couldn't take advantage of the situation, nor could the US aide the Mexican rebels.
 
The point of divergence for this is that in 1844, James K Polk is not elected President of the United States. Instead, Henry Clay wins the presidency and as a result, Texas is not allowed to join the Union. This butterflies away the Mexican-American War.

Texas spends the next sixteen years hanging on by a thread. There is trade with Texas, but it is not enough to stop Texas from falling into poverty.

When the Confederate States forms in 1860, Texas applies to join the Confederacy. Unlike the US sixteen years before, the CSA welcomes Texas with open arms as a slave state.

But, there is a problem with this. Mexico never fully recognized Texan independence and it would not tolerate their land being swallowed by a foreign country. Mexico decides to go war against the CSA at the same time as the Union.

So, what if Mexico became involved in the American Civil War?

Mexico had its own Civil War with Imperial vs Rebels plus the French Army and its mercenaries on its soil. The French are a faction as well here. Legends has that during the Palmito Ranch battle, Imperial Dragoons attacked as a third party.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
No Mexican War probably butterflies away the Civil War, or at least assures that the Civil War would take place at a different time and in very different circumstances.
 
The point of divergence for this is that in 1844, James K Polk is not elected President of the United States. Instead, Henry Clay wins the presidency and as a result, Texas is not allowed to join the Union. This butterflies away the Mexican-American War.

This is not a butterfly, it is a knock-on.

A butterfly consequence is the elimination of some highly contingent event which was improbable, or its replacement by a similar but different event, due to the alteration of a myriad incalculable conditions. For instance, suppose Princess Charlotte had not died in childbirth in 1819; instead, the child died, and she was left infertile, dying a few years later. A butterfly effect of this could be that her uncle Edward's child Victoria, born in 1820, is instead Victor.

A knock-on is a predictable consequence like Clay's election followed by no Mexican War - like billiard balls striking one another. Or as a knock-on from the butterfly above, obstruction of Bismarck's program for the unification of Germany by Prussia, because King Victor, unlike Queen Victoria, is King of Hanover.

As to the original question: if there is no Mexican War, the entire shape of U.S. history in the 1850s is radically altered and the Civil War as we know it doesn't happen. This is a knock-on. So the question is impossible.
 
Without the Mexican War, it is unlikely that the ACW *in the form it took and at the time it broke out* would have happened.

It was the Mexican Cession--the product of the War--which introduced the explosive issue of the expansion of slavery into places where it did not formerely exist. This led to the controversy over the Wilmot Proviso, with southerners threatening to secede if it passed. The solution that was eventually found in 1850--"popular sovereignty"-- was then extended to Kansas in 1854 with disastrous results for the Union, as it led to the formation of the Republican Party. The system of bisectional parties that had existed for decades was therefore replaced by one where a major party had virtually all of its support in the North, with many people in the South regarding the possible triumph of such a party as adequate grounds for secession.

Now it is possible that even without the Mexican War, there would be an ACW--but it would not come about in the same way, or (in all likelihood) at the same time. For the ACW *as we know it* the Mexican War and the territorial issue it created, and the doctrines that came out of the Mexican Cession controversy were crucial. (These doctrines ranged from [1] the Calhounite doctrine that the federal government had to positively protect slavery in *all* the territories to [2] the Wilmot Proviso proohbiting slavery in the territories--with [3] "popular sovereignty" somewhere in the middle, a doctrine which really did not satisfy either North or South, which had a number of ambiguities, and which in any event was very hard to administer "on the ground" as Kansas showed. All three of these theories had their origins in the controversy over slavery in the Mexican Cession. Before then, virtually everyone thought the Missouri Compromise had solved the problem of slavery in the territories. A few southerners did doubt its constitutionality but for the most part even they were willing to live with it.)
 
The point of divergence for this is that in 1844, James K Polk is not elected President of the United States. Instead, Henry Clay wins the presidency and as a result, Texas is not allowed to join the Union. This butterflies away the Mexican-American War.

Texas spends the next sixteen years hanging on by a thread. There is trade with Texas, but it is not enough to stop Texas from falling into poverty.

When the Confederate States forms in 1860, Texas applies to join the Confederacy. Unlike the US sixteen years before, the CSA welcomes Texas with open arms as a slave state.

But, there is a problem with this. Mexico never fully recognized Texan independence and it would not tolerate their land being swallowed by a foreign country. Mexico decides to go war against the CSA at the same time as the Union.

So, what if Mexico became involved in the American Civil War?

I dunno, TBH.

For one, contrary to popular James K. Polk was not actually all that gung-ho for California, etc.(in fact, he kinda stumbled into it more than anything)-his main goal really was just getting Texas and as much of the Oregon Country as possible(It's why "54'40 or Bust!" was a thing), and Clay was not totally opposed to westward expansion himself-his main reservation at the time was over concerns over slavery, which, IIRC, he himself did not want spreading any farther than it already had.

Also, why would Mexico get involved in the Civil War, especially if there's civil unrest in their home country, as in OTL?

This is not a butterfly, it is a knock-on.

A butterfly consequence is the elimination of some highly contingent event which was improbable, or its replacement by a similar but different event, due to the alteration of a myriad incalculable conditions. For instance, suppose Princess Charlotte had not died in childbirth in 1819; instead, the child died, and she was left infertile, dying a few years later. A butterfly effect of this could be that her uncle Edward's child Victoria, born in 1820, is instead Victor.

A knock-on is a predictable consequence like Clay's election followed by no Mexican War - like billiard balls striking one another. Or as a knock-on from the butterfly above, obstruction of Bismarck's program for the unification of Germany by Prussia, because King Victor, unlike Queen Victoria, is King of Hanover.

As to the original question: if there is no Mexican War, the entire shape of U.S. history in the 1850s is radically altered and the Civil War as we know it doesn't happen. This is a knock-on. So the question is impossible.

TBH, while I least agree that the shape of U.S. history would have been at least somewhat significantly altered minus California + the Southwest.....to be honest, as for the Civil War, while it might well have been somewhat different, particularly in regards to when it broke out and who seceded first, and perhaps a certain few other things, would almost certainly still occur and would likely be at least largely similar to OTL.
 
Top