Mexico vs The Confederate states.

  • Thread starter Deleted member 67076
  • Start date
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.

Not here it isn't.

The US has been devastated (and humiliated) by the defeat of the CSA and the European powers recognizing - however nominally - Confederate independence (especially if Abe is assassinated here too, Johnson could not rebuild a split nation that additionally had so much less support from overseas).

Sure, the North can bounce back and presumably will (it has the industrial capability to do so) but it can't provide a lot of help if the CSA has gotten involved in its own losing war against Mexico.

In this scenario, the US waits to help so it can get ANY of its old territory back, because it knows the CSA will be defeated by Mexico and it knows it can't really help that much.

The US will push, but Mexico has already won pretty much all it wants (that it can realistically hold).
 
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.
ok, since you appear to be some form of american nationalist i say there is no need to argue with someone who will not except that US isn't made up of Kryptonians (we can loose a war BTW.)

and you appear to not understand this isn't mexico vs. the US but mexico vs the CSA, winning, and then the US being butthurt (and thats all, it already lost to rebels) because mexico gets to reannex some territory (which i dont think the US would, it hasn't been american for very long.)

Since you appear to believe americans are the ubermench maybe we should not reply to you with plausibility?
 
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.)

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?!)

There is no way for Mexico to get AZ and NM unless it wants all out war with the US because there is no way in Hell the CSA has that. That would be US territory.
 
ok, since you appear to be some form of american nationalist i say there is no need to argue with someone who will not except that US isn't made up of Kryptonians (we can loose a war BTW.)

Since you appear to believe americans are the ubermench maybe we should not reply to you with plausibility?

The US isn't made up of ubermench but we aren't talking about Britian, France or Prusia here but the CSA and Mexico. The first had about 1/10 the industrial power of the Union States and the other maybe a 1/20 or 1/30.If the CSA had very little logistical capacity neither did Mexico. The US in 1860 was either the 2nd or 3rd largest industrial power in the world. The CSA would be around 10th or so, Mexico far lower than that. The first had well connected railroads, a large manufacturing base and a sophisticated financial system the other two do not. It isn't hard to figure out who will be the strongest military power of the three.
 
There is no way for Mexico to get AZ and NM unless it wants all out war with the US because there is no way in Hell the CSA has that. That would be US territory.

I was assuming since it gets essentially cut off from the US after the Civil War, and the US has to agree to humiliating terms that it could be once again unclaimed territory - nominally US at best (for the US) and nominally Mexican or CS at worst (for the US).

I also just edited the thing you quoted (although it's not the most plausible in the world, I'm using not impossible cause and effect here) so would you mind snipping?
 
Not here it isn't.

The US has been devastated (and humiliated) by the defeat of the CSA and the European powers recognizing - however nominally - Confederate independence (especially if Abe is assassinated here too, Johnson could not rebuild a split nation that additionally had so much less support from overseas).

Sure, the North can bounce back and presumably will (it has the industrial capability to do so) but it can't provide a lot of help if the CSA has gotten involved in its own losing war against Mexico.

In this scenario, the US waits to help so it can get ANY of its old territory back, because it knows the CSA will be defeated by Mexico and it knows it can't really help that much.

The US will push, but Mexico has already won pretty much all it wants (that it can realistically hold).

Neither the CSA or Mexico would have much of logistical capability. Mexico could kick out the CSA from its land but it can't carry the fight far into the CSA and vice-versa.
 
The US isn't made up of ubermench but we aren't talking about Britian, France or Prusia here but the CSA and Mexico. The first had about 1/10 the industrial power of the Union States and the other maybe a 1/20 or 1/30.If the CSA had very little logistical capacity neither did Mexico. The US in 1860 was either the 2nd or 3rd largest industrial power in the world. The CSA would be around 10th or so, Mexico far lower than that. The first had well connected railroads, a large manufacturing base and a sophisticated financial system the other two do not. It isn't hard to figure out who will be the strongest military power of the three.

I'm going to push it once again, but I had a scenario a while back where a compromise was found between the Republicans and the Monarchists during the French Intervention. A Constitutional Monarchy is formed, with full support of European powers, but the Republicans are effectively still in control.

If, following this scenario the US is humiliated by the CSA, Lincoln is killed, Europe throws most of its support behind the new CSA and then the Confederates become in the following decade or so the aggressor in a Mexican-Confederate War I think my above scenario is at least not impossible.

Or at the very least, damn interesting...

I mean who doesn't want to see Mexico and Canada wanked while also taking on the "best" aspects of the CSA and the USA respectively?

Or is it just me?
 
I was assuming since it gets essentially cut off from the US after the Civil War, and the US has to agree to humiliating terms that it could be once again unclaimed territory - nominally US at best (for the US) and nominally Mexican or CS at worst (for the US).

I also just edited the thing you quoted (although it's not the most plausible in the world, I'm using not impossible cause and effect here) so would you mind snipping?

Why? How is it cut off? The US has a much larger population and a much larger logisitical capacity than the CSA. It could and would build a number of railroads into the region if need be. Neither the CSA nor Mexico would have that capacity.
 
Why? How is it cut off? The US has a much larger population and a much larger logisitical capacity than the CSA. It could and would build a number of railroads into the region if need be. Neither the CSA nor Mexico would have that capacity.

I thought we were discussing a scenario in which the CSA wins handily, the US is thrown into temporary devastation, and Mexico fares better following the Intervention. (Or at least, I wanted to talk about that. More likely we were discussing the scenario from the perspective of a worse off US and a better off CS... Still...)
 
I'm going to push it once again, but I had a scenario a while back where a compromise was found between the Republicans and the Monarchists during the French Intervention. A Constitutional Monarchy is formed, with full support of European powers, but the Republicans are effectively still in control.

If Maximilian didn't start killing captured Republican soldiers, under the advice of his conservative advisors (which pissed off Juarez really badly) and approached Juarez with a sufficiently sincere and tempting offer as Prime Minister (which he did IOTL) and a promise to bring the kind of reforms that Juarez wanted (many of which Maximilian agreed with; he was quite a liberal monarch), it's my opinion he may have been able to unite some of the more liberal (or just opportunist) elements of the aristocracy and the Republican forces under Juarez. A Constitutional Monarchy with Max on the throne and Juarez as Prime Minister would have brought together enough forces to set up a stable, united Mexico (IMHO.)

EDIT: Btw, Admiral Hook, I would LOVE to read that scenario you mentioned about the Mexican Constitutional Monarchy. The story of Maximilian and the Second Mexican Empire is one of the things that got me interested in Alternate History. I think Maximilian was a great person who legitimately had the best interests of the Mexican people at heart, who was dealt just about the crappiest hand in history.
 
Last edited:
If Maximilian didn't start killing captured Republican soldiers, under the advice of his conservative advisors (which pissed off Juarez really badly) and approached Juarez with a sufficiently sincere and tempting offer as Prime Minister (which he did IOTL) and a promise to bring the kind of reforms that Juarez wanted (many of which Maximilian agreed with; he was quite a liberal monarch), it's my opinion he may have been able to unite some of the more liberal (or just opportunist) elements of the aristocracy and the Republican forces under Juarez. A Constitutional Monarchy with Max on the throne and Juarez as Prime Minister would have brought together enough forces to set up a stable, united Mexico (IMHO.)

My first TL was about that exact thing. I never finished it, but looking at this now...

I think I might cherrypick some of this and appease all those people on the board tired of the extremes of "balkanized America" on one side and "Ameriwank" on the other.

A Mexico-Canada wank with the CSA as the root cause is tantalizing.
 
If, following this scenario the US is humiliated by the CSA, Lincoln is killed, Europe throws most of its support behind the new CSA and then the Confederates become in the following decade or so the aggressor in a Mexican-Confederate War I think my above scenario is at least not impossible.

Or at the very least, damn interesting...

I mean who doesn't want to see Mexico and Canada wanked while also taking on the "best" aspects of the CSA and the USA respectively?

Or is it just me?

Why would Europe do this? What is in it for Europe to back a pro-slavery, aggressive (Nobody would forget about the South's tendency toward filibustering), backwards state against a free soil to abolitionist, somewhat less aggressive modern state?
 
My first TL was about that exact thing. I never finished it, but looking at this now...

I think I might cherrypick some of this and appease all those people on the board tired of the extremes of "balkanized America" on one side and "Ameriwank" on the other.

A Mexico-Canada wank with the CSA as the root cause is tantalizing.

Please keep me in the loop on that. I'm all for a timeline in which Max doesn't get royally screwed over and is able to establish a liberal, stable, Mexican Empire.
 
I thought we were discussing a scenario in which the CSA wins handily, the US is thrown into temporary devastation, and Mexico fares better following the Intervention. (Or at least, I wanted to talk about that. More likely we were discussing the scenario from the perspective of a worse off US and a better off CS... Still...)

Just HOW does the CSA pull that off? Confederate soldiers didn't bounce bullets off their chests and RE Lee is not God no matter what Jubal Early thought. The North had 10X the industrial capacity and 3X times the free population of the South. So how is the South going to win handily? Every time it invaded Union territory it ended in disaster. It might have done somewhat better, it was in no position to win handily. The best it can hope for is to squeak out a win.
 
Please keep me in the loop on that. I'm all for a timeline in which Max doesn't get royally screwed over and is able to establish a liberal, stable, Mexican Empire.

I can see that happening as well. What I can't see is a CSA that can win handily and devastate the US. It has neither the manpower or the industrial resources to do that.
 
Why would Europe do this? What is in it for Europe to back a pro-slavery, aggressive (Nobody would forget about the South's tendency toward filibustering), backwards state against a free soil to abolitionist, somewhat less aggressive modern state?

Well, I'm not one of those UK and France WOULD throw support to the CSA in the event of an impending victory people, but iirc, Spain and some others were considering it and at the very least, France should support a buffer state between their (now stable) constitutional monarchy in Mexico and the very anti monarchical US. So... we'll say that's why.

France (and to a lesser degree Spain) recognize the CSA after some earlier victories but don't provide any support until it looks like the US is done for in this conflict. They send some aid at the same time that the UK nominally accepts the CSA's existence, and the US gets beaten back to occupation just as Lincoln (and Seward as well for good measure?) get assassinated.

The CSA are tough on the US at peace talks, and meanwhile begin to form more lasting alliances with Euro powers with the unspoken rule that they will begin to phase out slavery.

The US has come-back power, but lie pretty low for the next decade while they rebuild. By the time they're ready for round two the Mexican-Confederate War is coming to a close with Mexico occupying much of the overconfident CSA aggressors, although victory is nowhere near assured for them until the US entry.

Please keep me in the loop on that. I'm all for a timeline in which Max doesn't get royally screwed over and is able to establish a liberal, stable, Mexican Empire.

Will do, buddy. I'm a big Max fan, myself.

Just HOW does the CSA pull that off? Confederate soldiers didn't bounce bullets off their chests and RE Lee is not God no matter what Jubal Early thought. The North had 10X the industrial capacity and 3X times the free population of the South. So how is the South going to win handily? Every time it invaded Union territory it ended in disaster. It might have done somewhat better, it was in no position to win handily. The best it can hope for is to squeak out a win.

Handily might have been an overstatement, I'll admit. At least the worst case scenario for the Union so that it can stay out of a Mexican conflict long enough for this to be plausible.

I can see that happening as well. What I can't see is a CSA that can win handily and devastate the US. It has neither the manpower or the industrial resources to do that.

Conceded. However, a worst plausible case scenario for the US makes a very interesting and not impossible Mexican-Confederate War scenario work.

I can take my idea elsewhere if I'm (unintentionally) antagonizing you or derailing the thread. I just had what I thought was a cool idea and thought you guys might be interested in it too.
 
I can see that happening as well. What I can't see is a CSA that can win handily and devastate the US. It has neither the manpower or the industrial resources to do that.

I know I'm doing a lot of manipulating of events before the fact to make my idea fit and I know that's rule number one of "Don't do that" in TLs, but...

Maybe a different kind of ACW? One in which border states secede or something like that. I could do a quick check of worst case scenarios for the Union in the ACW if it would help... it may even allow the Mexican intervention ideas we've had fit better and the French throwing at least recognition of the CSA more feasible...

Just a thought.
 
Handily might have been an overstatement, I'll admit. At least the worst case scenario for the Union so that it can stay out of a Mexican conflict long enough for this to be plausible.



Conceded. However, a worst plausible case scenario for the US makes a very interesting and not impossible Mexican-Confederate War scenario work.

I can take my idea elsewhere if I'm (unintentionally) antagonizing you or derailing the thread. I just had what I thought was a cool idea and thought you guys might be interested in it too.

The very worst case scenario I could possibly see is that the CSA gets all 11 of the original states + Kentucky and that would take a great deal of doing.

The most Europe would do for the CSA is to break the blockade. Neither Palmerston nor Napoleon were stupid enough to send troops. Even the most gung-ho Pro-CSA British MPs denied they were out and out willing to go to war with the US over the CSA. Even in 1860 the US wasn't Zanzabar, a full fledged war would be bloody and expensive.
 
I know I'm doing a lot of manipulating of events before the fact to make my idea fit and I know that's rule number one of "Don't do that" in TLs, but...

Maybe a different kind of ACW? One in which border states secede or something like that. I could do a quick check of worst case scenarios for the Union in the ACW if it would help... it may even allow the Mexican intervention ideas we've had fit better and the French throwing at least recognition of the CSA more feasible...

Just a thought.

Even with ALL the border states in the CSA the South couldn't devastate the North. The North had just too big of an industrial advantage. It COULD win independence what it couldn't do is march on DC and demand a surrender. There is only so much you can do when the other side has 10X the industry you do. You would need a very early POD where the South is much closer than the North in industrialization. But history would be much different and Lincoln's presidency would almost certainly be butterflied away.
 
I'm going to push it once again, but I had a scenario a while back where a compromise was found between the Republicans and the Monarchists during the French Intervention. A Constitutional Monarchy is formed, with full support of European powers, but the Republicans are effectively still in control.

If, following this scenario the US is humiliated by the CSA, Lincoln is killed, Europe throws most of its support behind the new CSA and then the Confederates become in the following decade or so the aggressor in a Mexican-Confederate War I think my above scenario is at least not impossible.

Or at the very least, damn interesting...

I mean who doesn't want to see Mexico and Canada wanked while also taking on the "best" aspects of the CSA and the USA respectively?

Or is it just me?
Sea Lion is also in the realm of possibility if one cherry picks like a mad man.

If Maximilian didn't start killing captured Republican soldiers, under the advice of his conservative advisors (which pissed off Juarez really badly) and approached Juarez with a sufficiently sincere and tempting offer as Prime Minister (which he did IOTL) and a promise to bring the kind of reforms that Juarez wanted (many of which Maximilian agreed with; he was quite a liberal monarch), it's my opinion he may have been able to unite some of the more liberal (or just opportunist) elements of the aristocracy and the Republican forces under Juarez. A Constitutional Monarchy with Max on the throne and Juarez as Prime Minister would have brought together enough forces to set up a stable, united Mexico (IMHO.).
This is the most plausible scenario for Maximilian Mexico's rise to greater importance. The CSA would still not win but it might stale mate against Mexico too.

Very well Operation Gulf Dixie is a GO!
 
Top