Poll: What happens if a successful Confederacy invades Northern Mexico?

What happens if a successful Confederacy invades Mexico

  • Major Confederate Victory: Takes everything north of Mexico City

    Votes: 18 11.3%
  • Minor Confederate Victory: Border moves 40 miles south

    Votes: 41 25.6%
  • Stalemate

    Votes: 35 21.9%
  • Minor Mexican Victory: Kicks the Confederates totally out and moves the border 10 miles north

    Votes: 37 23.1%
  • Major Mexican Victory: Confederate Army takes huge casualties Mexico takes back half of Texas.

    Votes: 29 18.1%

  • Total voters
    160
To play the devil's advocate, by that point the Mexican War veterans are going to be dead or retired. Their "institutional knowledge" of Mexico's dangers might be lost.

True enough but that wasn't my point. I was just clarifying things. I never thought the CSA would attack the second the ACW ended but some time later. The long term plan of many Confederates was to have a "slave empire" that extended all the way to the cape.
 
About the Confederates' military culture, sanitation, etc., the Confederate commanders were Mexican War veterans. I would imagine they'd have remembered what worked and what didn't last time and taken it into account.

One set of numbers I've seen for the Mexican American War is to 1,192 killed in action, 529 died of wounds, 362 suffered accidental death and 11,155 soldiers died from disease.

My impression is most of the disease casualties happened in Scott's campaign and they would have been a lot worse if Scott hadn't gotten most of his troops out of the lowlands before fever season hit.

Confederate invasion of northern Mexico, like Taylor's MAW campaign would face significantly less problems with disease. OTOH, about 70% of CSA casualties in the ACW were from disease.
 
To play the devil's advocate, by that point the Mexican War veterans are going to be dead or retired. Their "institutional knowledge" of Mexico's dangers might be lost.

Well...not exactly true.

Joe Johnston lived until 1891 and was running all over the country inspecting Railroads for Grover Cleveland's administration and in the late 1870's/early 1880's he was a congressman. In a victorious Confederacy he may remain in the Army until his death, he might become Quartermaster General or Adjutant General or even General-in-Chief depending on his standing with the government. He'd be 73 in 1880 and while that'd be rather an old age to lead an army you have to remember that he was no Winfield Scott in his old age - fat and too ill to take the field - he was an active, workaholic who travelled all over the country right up until he caught pneumonia at Sherman's funeral. EDIT: additionally, Johnston had been through northern Mexico with his brother-in-law in the 1850's to inspect possible routes in the event that the Union gave Benito Juarez regime recognition and military aide, so he was at least somewhat familiar with the area.

Beauregard lived until 1893 and was still living a relatively active life in the 1870's and 1880s as adjutant general of the Louisiana Militia and Commisoner of Public Works. He'd be 62 in 1880, still young enough to lead an army.

Edmund Kirby Smith lived until 1893 and was a university professor from 1875 to his death. In 1880 he would 56 which is a perfectly acceptable age to command an army considering Lee was 55 in 1862.

James Longstreet lived until 1904 and was a major general in New Orleans in the mid-1870's, policing the city and served as an ambassador to the Ottoman Empire in 1880. In 1880 he'd be 59.

Anyway, point is that there will concieveably be Confederate Generals who experianced the Mexican-American War first hand who could be in positions to either influence the campaigns or lead forces in the campaigns in Mexico should a war be fought in the late 1870's and early 1880s.

And the Confederacy in OTL were not bereft of talented young officers - some of who admittedly died during the Civil War - so some of them may rise to prominence in a Mexican war - I'm thinking the likes of John B. Gordon and, if they survived the Civil War, William Dorsey Pender and Patrick Cleburne.
 
Last edited:
Well...not exactly true.

Joe Johnston lived until 1891 and was running all over the country inspecting Railroads for Grover Cleveland's administration and in the late 1870's/early 1880's he was a congressman. In a victorious Confederacy he may remain in the Army until his death, he might become Quartermaster General or Adjutant General or even General-in-Chief depending on his standing with the government. He'd be 73 in 1880 and while that'd be rather an old age to lead an army you have to remember that he was no Winfield Scott in his old age - fat and too ill to take the field - he was an active, workaholic who travelled all over the country right up until he caught pneumonia at Sherman's funeral. EDIT: additionally, Johnston had been through northern Mexico with his brother-in-law in the 1850's to inspect possible routes in the event that the Union gave Benito Juarez regime recognition and military aide, so he was at least somewhat familiar with the area.

Beauregard lived until 1893 and was still living a relatively active life in the 1870's and 1880s as adjutant general of the Louisiana Militia and Commisoner of Public Works. He'd be 62 in 1880, still young enough to lead an army.

Edmund Kirby Smith lived until 1893 and was a university professor from 1875 to his death. In 1880 he would 56 which is a perfectly acceptable age to command an army considering Lee was 55 in 1862.

James Longstreet lived until 1904 and was a major general in New Orleans in the mid-1870's, policing the city and served as an ambassador to the Ottoman Empire in 1880. In 1880 he'd be 59.

Anyway, point is that there will concieveably be Confederate Generals who experianced the Mexican-American War first hand who could be in positions to either influence the campaigns or lead forces in the campaigns in Mexico should a war be fought in the late 1870's and early 1880s.

And the Confederacy in OTL were not bereft of talented young officers - some of who admittedly died during the Civil War - so some of them may rise to prominence in a Mexican war - I'm thinking the likes of John B. Gordon and, if they survived the Civil War, William Dorsey Pender and Patrick Cleburne.


Johnston would be too old for field command. Running around trying to get someone elected is one thing, leading an army is another. He could well be an advisor. I would say the same with Beauregard. They may have been active in their old age but leading in army is asking a lot out of an old man.

Kirby Smith would be fine and Longstreet would be borderline. Did the younger officers have any experience in Mexico?
 
Challenge: CSA invasion of Mexico leads to conflict with British/French there.

I mean, it could happen if a completely ahistorical chain leads to diplomatic snafus and conflict. The Europeans might get annoyed by Johnny Reb messing about with the puppet they're trying to bring to heel.

Imagine, veterans of Sharpsburg exchanging shots with French Foreign Legion forces in Veracruz as the unfortunate Juaristas dive for cover.
 
Johnston would be too old for field command. Running around trying to get someone elected is one thing, leading an army is another. He could well be an advisor. I would say the same with Beauregard. They may have been active in their old age but leading in army is asking a lot out of an old man.

Kirby Smith would be fine and Longstreet would be borderline. Did the younger officers have any experience in Mexico?

You say 73 is too old to command an army but I'll draw your attention to Gerbhard von Blucher who was 73 when he fought Napoleon at Ligny and Waterloo. And as to Johnston's physical health I think its is far more impressive of him that he was inspector of Railroads when he was 76 to 79 years old. From Craig L. Symonds Biography:

In June, he set out on another inspection of western railroads. For a man of seventy-nine, he set a grueling itinerary: "I leave Washington tonight for St. Louis," he wrote to his editor at Century magazine, "where I shall be until Tuesday morning. Shall be at Denver, and remain there three-probably. And then be on the way to Omaha two days and remain there three or four...From Omaha I shall go to San Francisco-in some ten days"

The main problem however with him taking the field would be the fact that he suffered from rheumatism and couldnt read at night even with glasses. Therefore my idea for Johnston was not that he would take the field but that he would be able to influence the campaigns from the Confederate Capitol.
 
Last edited:
the CSA and Mexico I think are much more likely to be allies (anti-USA defensive alliance at least) no matter what.

Any CSA-Mexico "war" would prompty be settled quickly when USA begins to move. Probably a status quo ante bellum.
 
Johnston would be too old for field command. Running around trying to get someone elected is one thing, leading an army is another. He could well be an advisor. I would say the same with Beauregard. They may have been active in their old age but leading in army is asking a lot out of an old man.

Kirby Smith would be fine and Longstreet would be borderline. Did the younger officers have any experience in Mexico?

Not to mention his idea of fighting was the Brave Sir Robin kind, which would be the cause potentially of a Major Mexican Victory. :D
 
If Max is in charge in Mex, the froggies would definitely do

Although the possibility of war with the U.S. played a role in the French evacuation of Mexico, there was a lot of opposition to the French presence in Mexico in France already. It would have probably happened sooner or later.

Maybe the French evacuate Mexico, the Juaristas move on Mexico City from the north, and the Confederacy does a deal with Max?

And even the French are still there, the CSA invasion could turn into a Vietnam situation for France.

And before anyone says the French would suddenly experience a groundswell of patriotic support for a war to keep Max in power, OTL also saw the collapse of the German Empire in WWI and Vietnam (U.S.) and Algeria (France), so wars cut both ways.
 
About war with France, if the French get embroiled in a war with the Confederacy, there's the possibility of trouble with Prussia at home.

A de facto Prussian-Confederate alliance? How's that for overturning the TL 191-inspired Confederate-Anglo-French Entente, U.S.-German alliance paradigm. :D
 
Not to mention his idea of fighting was the Brave Sir Robin kind, which would be the cause potentially of a Major Mexican Victory. :D

Let it go for once! Whatever kind of General Johnston was the point being made was that he was far from dead or retired when the potential Mexican-Confederate war that Jonrankins advocated would be fought and that he could concievably still take the field if he absolutely had to. You dont have to write disparaging remarks about Generals you dont like every time their mentioned.
 
And even the French are still there, the CSA invasion could turn into a Vietnam situation for France.
I'd say that it would be a Vietnam situation indeed ... only France would be playing the China's (or USSR) role.
It's those damned rebel-gringoes [anybody could suggest a better name for them?] who are invading the country: guerrilla actions would be on the Rio Grande against the grey-clad troopers.
Shipments from Paris (or more probably, Brest) would be both of weapons and soldiers, but diplomacy would play a major role.
We make fun of Nappy III and his strange mustaches now, but before 1870 everybody in Europe had an healthy respect of french guns
 
I'd say that it would be a Vietnam situation indeed ... only France would be playing the China's (or USSR) role.
It's those damned rebel-gringoes [anybody could suggest a better name for them?] who are invading the country: guerrilla actions would be on the Rio Grande against the grey-clad troopers.
Shipments from Paris (or more probably, Brest) would be both of weapons and soldiers, but diplomacy would play a major role.
We make fun of Nappy III and his strange mustaches now, but before 1870 everybody in Europe had an healthy respect of french guns

I wasn't suggesting the French military was weak, but that the French public would be opposed to an increased involvement in Mexico. They wanted out OTL when there was only the threat of U.S. intervention but no actual "boots on the ground."

Having to fight an actual war in Mexico might PO a lot of people.

I remember reading about that in Wikipedia somewhere, but I'm having problems finding it and I've got to leave in a few minutes. The gist of it was that there was growing opposition in France to French troops being in Mexico and I read today that the possibility of war with Prussia helped speed the withdrawal.

If Napoleon is frittering away France's military strength in Mexico with the growing Prussian threat next door, people who've got their heads screwed on right are going to be upset.
 
Let it go for once! Whatever kind of General Johnston was the point being made was that he was far from dead or retired when the potential Mexican-Confederate war that Jonrankins advocated would be fought and that he could concievably still take the field if he absolutely had to. You dont have to write disparaging remarks about Generals you dont like every time their mentioned.

I do if the topic is how that general would approach his actual job. Now, someone like Stonewall Jackson or James Longstreet would do things differently. This all depends on how the CS military's set up and why it's invading Mexico in the first place, as well as who is ruling Mexico. The general commanding the army, particularly in the personality-dependent Confederacy is as key as the actual army itself.
 
Some general questions for the "Max collaborates with the Confederacy" scenarios...

Maximillian was apparently a liberal-minded sort who made all sorts of reforms to help poor Mexicans (pissing off Conservatives), but by insisting on a monarchy, he pissed off the Liberals.

(Juarez apparently liked him personally, but killed him to make a point.)

Soo...

1. How willing would Maximillian be to surrender parts of Mexican territory to the Confederates, knowing that they'd expand slavery into it as much as possible and that poor Mexicans might be in danger of abuse?

I'm thinking he might only be willing to surrender underpopulated territory. If he's smart, maybe he can "sell" this to the Confederacy by suggesting they wouldn't face much opposition here.

2. Even if several of the northern Mexican states are lost to the Confederates, will the Juaristas simply continue their war from bases further south? The Mexican Empire crumbled fairly quickly OTL, so even in non-Juarista areas, it's not like Max had a whole lot of support. Rather than squashing the Juaristas on Max's anvil, the Confederates might be the Huns to the Juarista Visigoths, with Max representing the Western Romans.
 
About war with France, if the French get embroiled in a war with the Confederacy, there's the possibility of trouble with Prussia at home.

A de facto Prussian-Confederate alliance? How's that for overturning the TL 191-inspired Confederate-Anglo-French Entente, U.S.-German alliance paradigm. :D

Only if the CSA lasts long enough in the war for that to matter. In all probability the French army would give the Confederacy a defeat as humiliating for it as its victory over the USA would be for the USA. The CSA might be able to win an 1862 war if its cards are played right. Against France? It'd be worse than a 67th Tigers Anglo-US War. :eek:
 
the CSA and Mexico I think are much more likely to be allies (anti-USA defensive alliance at least) no matter what.

Unlikely.

The Union has supported Mexico against foreign invasion.

Significant elements in the Confederacy want to expand to the Pacific. Mexico is in the way of their Manifest Destiny.
 
Top