Mexico vs The Confederate states.

  • Thread starter Deleted member 67076
  • Start date
Didn't at least one of the northern Mexican Governors (Santiago Vidaurri) favor having his states join the Confederacy? If the CSA cuts a deal with him and the other border state governors they might have more support in northern Mexico than the Mexican central government.



I can't see the Confederates taking on Mexico if Maximillian is in power but even in a CSA wins scenario how long is he likely to last? France is bound to lock horns with Prussia sooner or later and whenever that happens the French will pretty much have to pull troops out of Mexico to defend France. Even with a few extra years in power to stabilize his rule, I doubt Maximillian can hold on without French troops.

So what about this scenario:
1870-France withdraws its troops from Mexico due to impending war with Prussia.
1871-Maximillian overthrown. Juarez takes power and moves to arrest Governor Vidaurri for treason. (Vidaurri had sided with the French during their occupation.) Vidarri (who has also been dealing with the CSA) declares independence for Coahuila and Nuevo León and calls on the CSA to annex his states. The CSA agrees and declares war on Mexico.

Assume also that the US has a Peace Democrat in office at this time (Seymour or Pendleton or Bayard) who is not interested in intervening in the conflict.

So under those circumstances who wins between the CSA and Mexico?

In that case the Mexicans win. The CSA had proven time and time again that they had very little power projection capability. The Mexicans didn't have that either so the CSA is kicked out with the borders very little changed.
 
.

Assume also that the US has a Peace Democrat in office at this time (Seymour or Pendleton or Bayard) who is not interested in intervening in the conflict.
How the heck does this take place with so many democrats leaving with the South and the party being seen as the party of traitors?:confused:

Johnson was a fluke caused by Lincoln's assassination, there won't be redeemer democrats the party itself would likely not survive in the USA.
 

bguy

Donor
How the heck does this take place with so many democrats leaving with the South and the party being seen as the party of traitors?:confused:

Johnson was a fluke caused by Lincoln's assassination, there won't be redeemer democrats the party itself would likely not survive in the USA.

You don't think the Republicans would be discredited in the immediate aftermath of losing the Civil War? They'll eventually recover but losing the 1864 and 1868 presidential elections seems a pretty likely consequence of their botching the Civil War and that is all that is required for a peace Democrat to be in White House for an 1871 CSA-Mexico war.
 
You don't think the Republicans would be discredited in the immediate aftermath of losing the Civil War? They'll eventually recover but losing the 1864 and 1868 presidential elections seems a pretty likely consequence of their botching the Civil War and that is all that is required for a peace Democrat to be in White House for an 1871 CSA-Mexico war.

Even then they are biting off more than they can chew. Every invasion of the Union ended in miserable failure. The CSA just doesn't have the logistics to pull this off.
 
You don't think the Republicans would be discredited in the immediate aftermath of losing the Civil War? They'll eventually recover but losing the 1864 and 1868 presidential elections seems a pretty likely consequence of their botching the Civil War and that is all that is required for a peace Democrat to be in White House for an 1871 CSA-Mexico war.
I don't care how discredited a party is itself that won't send people flying to the party of traitors especially since most of them and their supporters are now Confederates, this would more likely open the door to a third partier or independent.

Most of the Democratic base is in the CSA now so their support is mostly gone. Those that remain will be hounded and will find it easier to immigrate South or switch parties to a new one.

The main goal of peace Democrats was to restore the South to the Union by reinstituting slavery across the nation. They argued the South would stay and could be bargained with if this was done. They were seditious as hell during the war encouraging desertion and worse. They were only strong in the North when the US military was doing bad against the South and Americans feared the Union would break. If the CSA breaks away anyway then they lose any leverage they had if the CSA states it won't rejoin the Union.
 

bguy

Donor
I don't care how discredited a party is itself that won't send people flying to the party of traitors especially since most of them and their supporters are now Confederates, this would more likely open the door to a third partier or independent.

McClellan (admittedly a War Democrat but one who was running on a Peace Democrat platform) was able to get 45% of the vote in 1864, even when it was clear the North was winning the war. Seymour (one of the most prominent Peace Democrats) was able to get 47% of the vote in 1868 even when running against the great hero of the war. Those are respectable performances which show the Democrats were still competitive in the North even when the US won the Civil War. They'll do even better in a timeline where the US loses the war, because the Republicans will look incompetent, and all of their more controversial policies (suspension of habeas corpus, conscription, abolition) won't have been vindicated by victory.

Most of the Democratic base is in the CSA now so their support is mostly gone. Those that remain will be hounded and will find it easier to immigrate South or switch parties to a new one.

The Democrats still have a very large base in the North. Catholic immigrants will still overwhelming vote Democrat as will the Butternut population of the Mid-West states. That's enough for them to potentially win New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. They also are competitive in Connecticut, Maryland, Oregon, and California, and Kentucky and Delaware are pretty much safe Democrat states. That's more than enough electoral votes to win Presidential elections when the Republicans are being blamed for having lost the war.

The main goal of peace Democrats was to restore the South to the Union by reinstituting slavery across the nation. They argued the South would stay and could be bargained with if this was done. They were seditious as hell during the war encouraging desertion and worse. They were only strong in the North when the US military was doing bad against the South and Americans feared the Union would break. If the CSA breaks away anyway then they lose any leverage they had if the CSA states it won't rejoin the Union.

They will still have constituencies for their domestic policies though: westward expansion, low tariffs, low taxes, liberal immigration (save for Confederate blacks who the Democrats will doubtlessly try to keep out of the United States) and opposing a national bank. (They may also take on an increasing populist turn and come out in support of greenbacks, and greater regulation of railroads and trusts.) And their message of peaceful coexistence with the CSA will certainly have some appeal to Northern voters (who aren't going to want another war.)
 
Even if they are allies that doesn't mean Mexico is willing to sell part of its land to the CSA.

You seem to have this bizarre notion that allies are willing to part themselves to their allies. They are not. France did not put a puppet on the throne so as to sell Mexico (or even part of it) to the CSA. If Max is ruling the FRENCH will control it not the CSA

Even if it were willing where is the CSA going to get the money buy it in the first place? Even in 1862 it is deeply in debt and its creditors (which includes Frenchmen and rich planters) will want to get paid first.

At this point we might as well point that the French tried IOTL to get the Sonora silver mines for themselves (lease? sell? it's the Age of Imperialism, they are the same thing!) and Maximillian refused saying that he had not come to butcher Mexico.

(historical tidbit I always found amusing, on light of TL-191's premise)
 
McClellan (admittedly a War Democrat but one who was running on a Peace Democrat platform) was able to get 45% of the vote in 1864, even when it was clear the North was winning the war. Seymour (one of the most prominent Peace Democrats) was able to get 47% of the vote in 1868 even when running against the great hero of the war. Those are respectable performances which show the Democrats were still competitive in the North even when the US won the Civil War. They'll do even better in a timeline where the US loses the war, because the Republicans will look incompetent, and all of their more controversial policies (suspension of habeas corpus, conscription, abolition) won't have been vindicated by victory.



The Democrats still have a very large base in the North. Catholic immigrants will still overwhelming vote Democrat as will the Butternut population of the Mid-West states. That's enough for them to potentially win New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. They also are competitive in Connecticut, Maryland, Oregon, and California, and Kentucky and Delaware are pretty much safe Democrat states. That's more than enough electoral votes to win Presidential elections when the Republicans are being blamed for having lost the war.



They will still have constituencies for their domestic policies though: westward expansion, low tariffs, low taxes, liberal immigration (save for Confederate blacks who the Democrats will doubtlessly try to keep out of the United States) and opposing a national bank. (They may also take on an increasing populist turn and come out in support of greenbacks, and greater regulation of railroads and trusts.) And their message of peaceful coexistence with the CSA will certainly have some appeal to Northern voters (who aren't going to want another war.)

In the end that won't matter as the CSA can't beat Mexico anyways. It simply doesn't have the logisitical capacity.
 
At this point we might as well point that the French tried IOTL to get the Sonora silver mines for themselves (lease? sell? it's the Age of Imperialism, they are the same thing!) and Maximillian refused saying that he had not come to butcher Mexico.

(historical tidbit I always found amusing, on light of TL-191's premise)

Well, that should be that then. France would have 100X more pull than the CSA ever could.
 
Even if they are allies that doesn't mean Mexico is willing to sell part of its land to the CSA.

You seem to have this bizarre notion that allies are willing to part themselves to their allies. They are not. France did not put a puppet on the throne so as to sell Mexico (or even part of it) to the CSA. If Max is ruling the FRENCH will control it not the CSA

Even if it were willing where is the CSA going to get the money buy it in the first place? Even in 1862 it is deeply in debt and its creditors (which .

includes Frenchmen and rich planters) will want to get paid first.

There is literally nothing significant standing in the way of Maxamilian Mexico selling the CSA land.

The French invaded Mexico in their bid for another empire, if that ends successfully Mexico is just an extension of France essentially, what does Paris care for Nuevo Leon, Sonora an Chihuahua? The CSA isn't vying for Mexico as a whole, just a patch of land to gain a Pacific coast.

I don't know why you keep going circular with this John.
 
There is literally nothing significant standing in the way of Maxamilian Mexico selling the CSA land.

The French invaded Mexico in their bid for another empire, if that ends successfully Mexico is just an extension of France essentially, what does Paris care for Nuevo Leon, Sonora an Chihuahua? The CSA isn't vying for Mexico as a whole, just a patch of land to gain a Pacific coast.

I don't know why you keep going circular with this John.

Because he wasn't willing to sell to FRANCE who put him on the throne and could do 100X more for him then the CSA ever could.
 
There is literally nothing significant standing in the way of Maxamilian Mexico selling the CSA land.

The French invaded Mexico in their bid for another empire, if that ends successfully Mexico is just an extension of France essentially, what does Paris care for Nuevo Leon, Sonora an Chihuahua? The CSA isn't vying for Mexico as a whole, just a patch of land to gain a Pacific coast.

I don't know why you keep going circular with this John.

Maximilian won't sell the CSA land because they won't sell land to France OTL.

At this point we might as well point that the French tried IOTL to get the Sonora silver mines for themselves (lease? sell? it's the Age of Imperialism, they are the same thing!) and Maximillian refused saying that he had not come to butcher Mexico.

(historical tidbit I always found amusing, on light of TL-191's premise)

Why would they sell land to a slave-owning, agriculturally dependent, debt-ridden, backwards country, if they wouldn't sell land to a prosperous, anti-slavery, developed nation?

Don't forget that Meximilian was a very liberal person, and he wouldn't be keen on letting slavery expand.
 
Is there any way for someone to make a map of a CSA-Mexican War aftermath in which the US gives aid to Mexico (but is not one of the major belligerents until near the end of the war).

How would the former CSA be split if it is split between the two? Is there anyway for the CSA to retain any land for themselves or could two rump states be made from the ashes - an American South and a Mexican South? If not, where do the Confederate refugees go? Someplace in the West not yet completely claimed by the US or Mexico?

I haven't read the whole thread, but I wanted to see someone's idea of a map.
 
Is there any way for someone to make a map of a CSA-Mexican War aftermath in which the US gives aid to Mexico (but is not one of the major belligerents until near the end of the war).

How would the former CSA be split if it is split between the two? Is there anyway for the CSA to retain any land for themselves or could two rump states be made from the ashes - an American South and a Mexican South? If not, where do the Confederate refugees go? Someplace in the West not yet completely claimed by the US or Mexico?

I wonder how willing the United States would be to give territory it considers to be in rebellion (if an extended rebellion going well for the rebels) back to the nation from whom it was originally taken. I think Texans, especially, would be VERY unwilling to return to the rule of Mexico, and would petition to return to the Union or declare the return of the Republic of Texas, before they'd accept the return of Mexican rule. The fact that a Habsburg monarch would be over them would probably make it even less palatable to the Texans. With that huge tract of land in the way, being such a potential problem for Mexico, I think they'd think twice before trying to annex it.
 
I wonder how willing the United States would be to give territory it considers to be in rebellion (if an extended rebellion going well for the rebels) back to the nation from whom it was originally taken. I think Texans, especially, would be VERY unwilling to return to the rule of Mexico, and would petition to return to the Union or declare the return of the Republic of Texas, before they'd accept the return of Mexican rule. The fact that a Habsburg monarch would be over them would probably make it even less palatable to the Texans. With that huge tract of land in the way, being such a potential problem for Mexico, I think they'd think twice before trying to annex it.

My thinking was if the US lost the civil war, and jumped into the Mexican-Confederate War late, they wouldn't have a lot of bargaining chips to begin with.

The best they could hope for would be that the victorious Mexico would recognize their assistance was a necessity for victory - thus recognizing some former US territory as still being "in Rebellion."

This doesn't mean all of the CSA though, surely, since the Mexicans were the hurt party, and whooped the Confeds fair and square.

Texas would be tough, but it is large enough for the US to get a little sliver or chunk in the north, Mexico to take some more port territory and maybe a little of the Southwest touching modern day Arizona and NM (which I assume will go to Mexico here), and the rest can become the Republic of Texas (filled with CSA refugees, at that.)

How much of the CSA would Mexico be willing to share with the US in light of their valuable (but late in coming) assistance?

Any good mapmakers around?

EDIT: Something occurs... in this scenario Texas has plenty of port space both on the rivers and in the gulf, but... absolutely no allies. It's the last Slave State in North America and its not too friendly with either the US or Mexico... how could Texas survive independently in this scenario - or could it?
 
I wonder how willing the United States would be to give territory it considers to be in rebellion (if an extended rebellion going well for the rebels) back to the nation from whom it was originally taken. I think Texans, especially, would be VERY unwilling to return to the rule of Mexico, and would petition to return to the Union or declare the return of the Republic of Texas, before they'd accept the return of Mexican rule. The fact that a Habsburg monarch would be over them would probably make it even less palatable to the Texans. With that huge tract of land in the way, being such a potential problem for Mexico, I think they'd think twice before trying to annex it.

The US would re-annex any land that was previously part of the US, Mexico would get nothing outside the land it started with, the CSA either is a rump state or totally re-absorbed.
 
The US would re-annex any land that was previously part of the US, Mexico would get nothing outside the land it started with, the CSA either is a rump state or totally re-absorbed.
ahh... no. This isn't OTL the Union lost whether it stalemated or was defeated doesn't matter it didn't annex the CSA and so it lost.

Unless mexico didn't do anything, than they are the ones occupying the CSA (at least the south-west) and so they will dictate all the US wants is the core of its territory back since it has been defeated well enough to keep it from taking it all why would 2/3 of it be good enough?

Because it can take all the territory? That isn't good enough to enlightened people.
 
The US would re-annex any land that was previously part of the US, Mexico would get nothing outside the land it started with, the CSA either is a rump state or totally re-absorbed.

Even in a scenario when the Mexicans were deliberately attacked and the US didn't throw their support in until later in the war? I'm not so sure that's how that has ever worked...
 
Even in a scenario when the Mexicans were deliberately attacked and the US didn't throw their support in until later in the war? I'm not so sure that's how that has ever worked...

It comes down to military power in the end and in virtually any realistic scenario it will go like this
1) The US
2) The CSA
3) Mexico

The problem for Mexico is that the US is more than powerful enough to kick Mexican troops off of any land it wants.
 
Looking at a map right now:

In a scenario in which Mexico managed to occupy most of the Southern CSA, including Louisiana and the US was tangled up until the very end of the war (or was otherwise unable to initially assist.)...

I could see the US easily getting back VA, TN, SC and NC (probably AK too).

Mexico easily gets a hold of the Southwest territories: Otl's AZ and NM.

Now, if Mexico really stomped the CSA and the timeframe (though not the manpower and munitions) that the US donated was negligible, there may be a fight at the peace talks over the Deep South (including LA and FL).

I see two intriguing possibilities:

A. The CSA could be allowed to survive as a buffer state consisting of MS, AL, and GA (giving it a port at least). No one is happy, least of all the CSA - and future hostilities are damn near an inevitability.

B. If the US pushes hard and Mexico is generous, Mexico keeps all or most of FL (The panhandle?), and the southern halves of LA, MS, AL, and GA - giving the US the top halves over an arbitrary line - essentially cutting the South into halves. They both get ports, although Mexico takes the Gulf ports pretty handily.

Mexico takes the southern third of Texas, and the US takes the top square bit of it, incorporating it into the OK territory. Texas is allowed to remain an independent state (with a small number of port cities near LA) populated by CSA refugees and Texans, and has trouble stopping immigration by filibusterers from both the US and Mexico for years.

Hostilities are inevitable in this one as well. Sooner or later, the US is going to want its Gulf Ports back and both the US and Mexico will crave the failing Texas.

The next war would be pretty brutal, perhaps a civil war in Texas between Mexicans, USers, and the hybrid culture of longtime native Texans and their newcoming Confederates. This triggers a Second Mexican American War and all bets are off as to who comes out ahead (while the easy answer is the US, it's never all that easy. Mexico has had the increased port space and revenue to build quite the navy since the Mexican-Confederate War.)

If the US is the aggressor but cannot keep up and Mexico wins, there could very likely be a push for Mexico to claim most of the former CSA (maybe minus VA, TN, and the Carolinas.) The occupation of the former CSA by Mexico would be extremely difficult, but handled ideally could result in anyone not wanting to be a part of Mexico fleeing north and any Mexican farmer fed up with the arid conditions of original Mexico taking their place. After a generation or two, (say by the 1910's or so) Mexican control over what was once US then CS then US again and now Mexican would be if not ideal, than mostly manageable.

And going a little TOO far here, but...

After the Second Mexican-American War ends in a decisive and crippling Mexican victory, a far better off economically and militarily and slightly more Anglicized Mexico enters a golden age of World Power, while the US devastated by economic sanctions and a loss of territory, military strength, and manpower undergoes years of revolutions, with her former master the UK and her only friendly neighbor Canada providing the only aid. This forms a necessary series of economic alliances with (and burdens to) Canada, who will - along with the UK - by the mid twentieth century essentially own the US.

Meanwhile, Mexico flourishes, has all the best European allies, and its biggest concern other than intense political rivalries is the sheer magnitude of American immigrants stealing into Mexico by the hundreds or even thousands.

The former US may eventually bestow its intense independent streak and elements of its constitution to the US-Canadian culture that is being subtly and organically crafted, while sacrificing some fealty to the Crown as a dominion. A necessary evil for a once great nation now at the brink of collapse.

Eventually, of course, The United Provinces of Canada and America (or whatever) will become completely independent from the Crown of the UK and take on an identity dominated by Canadian culture but with plenty of aspects of Northern US. Canada and Mexico are the only two North American countries and they're both extremely successful.

Bingo: Mexico and Canada wanked. (Has that ever happened with a POD this late?!)
 
Last edited:
Top