No Civil War, But A Second Mexican-American War

WI William Henry Seward is elected in 1860 and somehow manages to avoid the Civil War (perhaps he follows a strategy of allowing slavery to die out on its own, as Lincoln was considering).

In OT, Lincoln had supported Juarez, but was unable to invtervene due to the Civil War. After the war, President Andrew Johnson did send 50,000 troops under the supervision of Grant and led by Philip Sheridan, where they ran patrols to threaten the French.

Without the Civil War, however, it's possible that the United States might have been directly involved in a war against the French in Mexico-perhaps with Grant and Lee commanding their two armies on the same side! Not to mention the skills of some of the other Southern Generals (who would probably be Colonels here) since some of them, including Lee, were veterans of the Mexican-American War.

The war lasts from 1862-1865 (or thereabouts). It has the effect of turning America into a world power thirty years before the Spanish-American War, and perhaps gives the United States an earlier excuse to annex Cuba and the Philippines. The Southern states, having been cut off from the West, try to find a new source for cotton plantations (and the de facto expansion of slavery) in South America, but the War of the Triple Alliance puts an end to such plans. By the 1870s, slavery is a dying institution and ends altogether in 1877 (although the struggles of African Americans parallel those in OT otherwise).

Thoughts and comments are welcome!
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Sure, what's a better opportunity to strike then when it's stable in your country, and full civil war in you neighbor's. A US intervention to get some more Mexican soil would have been very possible.
 
Just a question - what do you mean by the Southern states being cut off from the West ?

Oh, and amusingly, there would be no such place as West Virginia :)

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Sure, what's a better opportunity to strike then when it's stable in your country, and full civil war in you neighbor's. A US intervention to get some more Mexican soil would have been very possible.
Why?

The same reasons why the US didn't simply demand more during the first war are even truer now: a larger Mexican population in the remaining areas, much of the nearest area not being all that attractive, determined resistance from the New England block.
 
Why?

The same reasons why the US didn't simply demand more during the first war are even truer now: a larger Mexican population in the remaining areas, much of the nearest area not being all that attractive, determined resistance from the New England block.

Not to mention an intervention in Mexico to "save" it from the French that ends in annexation of Mexican soil looks so much hypocrite, even to 19th cent USA standards. And Lincoln, Lee, Grant and many others had problems with the "First" Mexican War, actually...
 
Slavery was still an extremely profitable institution in 1860, and the core of the economy for most of the nation's richest states. Why on Earth would it die out by 1877?
 
WI William Henry Seward is elected in 1860 and somehow manages to avoid the Civil War (perhaps he follows a strategy of allowing slavery to die out on its own, as Lincoln was considering).

Given that Seward was MUCH more radical and hated in the South even more than Lincoln, this POD is a non-starter. If he is elected, the South secedes. Of course, it is still possible that war might be avoided after the secession, but the rest of your post would seem to indicate that the South stays in the Union, which is basically almost ASB if Seward is elected.

In OT, Lincoln had supported Juarez, but was unable to invtervene due to the Civil War. After the war, President Andrew Johnson did send 50,000 troops under the supervision of Grant and led by Philip Sheridan, where they ran patrols to threaten the French.

Without the Civil War, however, it's possible that the United States might have been directly involved in a war against the French in Mexico-perhaps with Grant and Lee commanding their two armies on the same side! Not to mention the skills of some of the other Southern Generals (who would probably be Colonels here) since some of them, including Lee, were veterans of the Mexican-American War.

Napoleon III would not have gotten involved in Mexico if he thought the United States was in a position to intervene.

The war lasts from 1862-1865 (or thereabouts). It has the effect of turning America into a world power thirty years before the Spanish-American War, and perhaps gives the United States an earlier excuse to annex Cuba and the Philippines.

Why? They Spanish certainly won't be involved in the fighting.

The Southern states, having been cut off from the West, try to find a new source for cotton plantations (and the de facto expansion of slavery) in South America, but the War of the Triple Alliance puts an end to such plans.

Again, why? If the South is still in the Union, how are they going to be cut off from the West? Dred Scott is still in force in this ATL. If the South is not in the Union, they don't need more territory. The impetus for Southern expanisionism in the antebellum period is the need for territory from which new slave States could be formed, to correct the growing imbalance in the U.S. Congress. If they have seceded, they won't be worrying about the balance in the U.S. Congress anymore.

By the 1870s, slavery is a dying institution and ends altogether in 1877 (although the struggles of African Americans parallel those in OT otherwise).

Again, why? Without the pressures created by the Civil War, it is unlikely that slavery would end that soon without a major shift in the economic climate which won't likely come until the late 1890s at the earliest. The end result might be superior, because a lot the really nasty things that happened to blacks in the 100 years after the OTL Civil War can be directly traced to the war and the Reconstruction which followed it. It's unlikely that the "struggles of African-Americans" would parallel OTL in such a case.
 
The Southern states were prevented from expanding slavery into the West, so it's probable they might have tried to find new markets in South America.

I picked 1877 to coincide with the end of Reconstruction, although you're right in that slavery might have lasted longer; the question is would slave-produced goods like cotton have still been commercially profitable by the late 19th century.

Seward was more radical, and outspoken on slavery, than even Lincoln. But perhaps with Andrew Johnson as his Vice President he might have aimed for reconciliation with the South early on. He was also an expansionist, so a President Seward might have ushered in an earlier Age of Imperialism for the United States.

While it's true that the French occupation of Mexico happened partly because America was distracted by the Civil War, it probably would have happened anyway as Juarez suspended interest payments to foreign countries, which was the rationale for the war. (I do wonder if America would have been brought into conflict with Britain, who, along with Spain, supported the French).

Seward did not believe in using force against the South. He was not an abolitionist like Lincoln and thought that slavery would die out due to historical forces. So, perhaps with Johnson's help, he might have resisted calls for war with the South (and the war in Mexico might have had the added effect of uniting the country against a common enemy).
 
The Southern states were prevented from expanding slavery into the West, so it's probable they might have tried to find new markets in South America.

How are they prevented from expanding slavery into the West? The Dred Scott decision protects their rights to take slaves into the Territories. Seward can't do anything about that.

I picked 1877 to coincide with the end of Reconstruction, although you're right in that slavery might have lasted longer; the question is would slave-produced goods like cotton have still been commercially profitable by the late 19th century.

They were in OTL. Indeed, Southern cotton...up until the market collapsed in the late 1890s...still dominated the world market even after the destruction and disruption caused by the Civil War. Without the war, that domination will be even more complete.

Seward was more radical, and outspoken on slavery, than even Lincoln. But perhaps with Andrew Johnson as his Vice President he might have aimed for reconciliation with the South early on. He was also an expansionist, so a President Seward might have ushered in an earlier Age of Imperialism for the United States.

The chance of Seward running on the same ticket as Andrew Johnson is between zero and none. Johnson was a relatively unknown and a Democrat. Neither of these would have recommended him to Seward as a running mate.

While it's true that the French occupation of Mexico happened partly because America was distracted by the Civil War, it probably would have happened anyway as Juarez suspended interest payments to foreign countries, which was the rationale for the war. (I do wonder if America would have been brought into conflict with Britain, who, along with Spain, supported the French).

It is possible that the London Treaty powers will still go and collect the debt like they did in OTL. However, with the exception of France, all the other treaty powers basically stayed in Mexico for less than 3 months and then left. The ONLY reason France stayed was that Napoleon could see the Unted States was too occupied by the Civil War to intervene. That won't be the case in your proposed ATL.

Seward did not believe in using force against the South. He was not an abolitionist like Lincoln..."

Lincoln was not an abolitionist...he was a "free soiler." He was perfectly willing to allow slavery to exist where it currently resided forever, so long as it was not allowed to expand into the Western Territories. Basically he wanted the Western Territories maintained as a preserve for free white labor. Seward was more of an abolitionist than Lincoln was.
 
The Southern states were prevented from expanding slavery into the West, so it's probable they might have tried to find new markets in South America.

I picked 1877 to coincide with the end of Reconstruction, although you're right in that slavery might have lasted longer; the question is would slave-produced goods like cotton have still been commercially profitable by the late 19th century.

Seward was more radical, and outspoken on slavery, than even Lincoln. But perhaps with Andrew Johnson as his Vice President he might have aimed for reconciliation with the South early on. He was also an expansionist, so a President Seward might have ushered in an earlier Age of Imperialism for the United States.

While it's true that the French occupation of Mexico happened partly because America was distracted by the Civil War, it probably would have happened anyway as Juarez suspended interest payments to foreign countries, which was the rationale for the war. (I do wonder if America would have been brought into conflict with Britain, who, along with Spain, supported the French).

Seward did not believe in using force against the South. He was not an abolitionist like Lincoln and thought that slavery would die out due to historical forces. So, perhaps with Johnson's help, he might have resisted calls for war with the South (and the war in Mexico might have had the added effect of uniting the country against a common enemy).

Seward was one of the radicals who were even more vengeful and violent against the South then Lincoln. He certainly would have fought the South if they secaded.
 
I suspect that France wouldn't have chanced her arm without the civil war. Britain and Spain also intervened but having reached some solution to the debt situation withdrew. American might have become involved in negotiations over the debts but if Britain and Spain acted reasnobly there would be no war. If France didn't the Monroe doctrine would be invoked and France would have been expelled probably rather more quickly than the timescale. The threat of war persuaded Napoleon 111 to withdraw his support for Maximillian hence the Manet variation of his painting of the execution of Maximillian with Napoleon 111 in charge of the firing squad
 
Without the Civil War, the French intervention in Mexico probably would not have happened.

That was my first thought as well. I'm interested in good POD's in which a second Mexican-American war could happen though. Without a civil war though, it's hard to see how. With the war, a few doors open up.

Perhaps during the war the Mexican government makes deals with the CSA. Some kind of trade agreement in exchange for land areas being given to Mexican (New Mexico/Arizona ... after the war the US voids the deals but the Mexicans are already there.

Perhaps some kind of desperation alliance or agreement between Spain and Mexico before the onset of the Spanish-American war. The Spanish are desperate to shore up some weight on their side to avoid war while Mexico secures some trade agreements and an opportunity for some possible revenge depending on how the little war plays out.

Perhaps France consolidates its hold on Mexico and by the end of the civil war it's firmly in Frances hands. Governmental reforms win over a large part of the population. French troops are not chasing banditos around the country and the military and government are firmly established in the country. The US feels it must act but any American intervention after that is seen as an invasion of Mexico rather than expelling the French. All are highly unlikely but well worth the thought. Again, keep the 2nd M-A war discussion going!
 
That was my first thought as well. I'm interested in good POD's in which a second Mexican-American war could happen though. Without a civil war though, it's hard to see how. With the war, a few doors open up.

Perhaps during the war the Mexican government makes deals with the CSA. Some kind of trade agreement in exchange for land areas being given to Mexican (New Mexico/Arizona ... after the war the US voids the deals but the Mexicans are already there.

Perhaps some kind of desperation alliance or agreement between Spain and Mexico before the onset of the Spanish-American war. The Spanish are desperate to shore up some weight on their side to avoid war while Mexico secures some trade agreements and an opportunity for some possible revenge depending on how the little war plays out.

Perhaps France consolidates its hold on Mexico and by the end of the civil war it's firmly in Frances hands. Governmental reforms win over a large part of the population. French troops are not chasing banditos around the country and the military and government are firmly established in the country. The US feels it must act but any American intervention after that is seen as an invasion of Mexico rather than expelling the French. All are highly unlikely but well worth the thought. Again, keep the 2nd M-A war discussion going!

Interesting ideas, but impossible.
 
Top