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
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:

NOTHING is worse than a 67th Tigers Anglo-US war. If you go by him Union soldiers were all incompetant outside of Little Mac and British soldiers could practically bounce bullets off their chests.
 
The general commanding the army, particularly in the personality-dependent Confederacy is as key as the actual army itself.

Quite true. OTOH, no Confederate general in OTL was able to take and hold enemy territory. Their logistics was inadaquate for the task.
 
Would a CSA invasion of Mexico that became a quagmire lead to a coup in Richmond?
Assuming the army was the most significant in an independent CSA, a mutiny led by junior officers fresh from the front could bring down the government. A bit like a 19th century Spanish pronunciamiento coup, say?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronunciamiento
 
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.

Northern Mexico was lightly populated and major portions were desert, so he might be able to rationalize that. To get a route to the Pacific requires the CSA getting Chihuahua, Sonora, and Baja California. Those were strongly Jaurista and the first two have a lot higher population the the US Colorado Territory, which successfully resisted Confederate occupation.

The terrain the Confederate have to cross is known for its harshness.

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?

That or become a government in exile in the US.
 
Let's see

If thy invade while Max is in power then France doesn't support them while Britain might with Max decrying the Slaveocracy and solidifying his support amongst the people.
 
NOTHING is worse than a 67th Tigers Anglo-US war. If you go by him Union soldiers were all incompetant outside of Little Mac and British soldiers could practically bounce bullets off their chests.

Fairly sure this might qualify. France was not equal to Britain, but its army would be so ludicrously beyond any variant of the Confederacy's that this war would be one of the most lopsided gunpowder wars short of the First Opium War. Against both Mexico and France......this is a major CS defeat.

Quite true. OTOH, no Confederate general in OTL was able to take and hold enemy territory. Their logistics was inadaquate for the task.

Which would apply even moreso when CS bureaucracy has to deal with shifting to a war scenario here.
 
  1. The chances of a war erupting between the CSA and Mexico in the first place are woefully small. A CSA that is actually recognized by the USA and at peace is probably the bitch of France and/or the United Kingdom, neither of whom are likely to look positively on Confederate expansionism into Mexico (pre-established business interests, an unwillingness to provoke the US again, Maximilian, etc.)
  2. An independent CSA that isn't beholden to British or French interests probably has as large a budget as Mexico's. 1861 was a defensive war for them, and historically even that was a struggle (and ultimately a failure) for them. How on earth are they supposed to successfully pull off an offensive into territory they are much less familiar with?
  3. Northern Mexico is economically worth jack-squat. Historically, the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad built to Guaymas, a Mexican Pacific port, as their way of building a transcontinental railroad without going into California. They discovered that traffic in and out of Guaymas (and Sonora overall) was an utter dribble compared to Californian traffic. Even if the Confederates do somehow magically win an offensive war against Mexico and the odds, whatever new territories they get are going to be more of a drain on their coffers than a boost to them.
I don't see how the Confederates are likely to win this. I don't see how they could get so deluded as to try in the first place.
 
  1. The chances of a war erupting between the CSA and Mexico in the first place are woefully small. A CSA that is actually recognized by the USA and at peace is probably the bitch of France and/or the United Kingdom, neither of whom are likely to look positively on Confederate expansionism into Mexico (pre-established business interests, an unwillingness to provoke the US again, Maximilian, etc.)
  2. An independent CSA that isn't beholden to British or French interests probably has as large a budget as Mexico's. 1861 was a defensive war for them, and historically even that was a struggle (and ultimately a failure) for them. How on earth are they supposed to successfully pull off an offensive into territory they are much less familiar with?
  3. Northern Mexico is economically worth jack-squat. Historically, the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad built to Guaymas, a Mexican Pacific port, as their way of building a transcontinental railroad without going into California. They discovered that traffic in and out of Guaymas (and Sonora overall) was an utter dribble compared to Californian traffic. Even if the Confederates do somehow magically win an offensive war against Mexico and the odds, whatever new territories they get are going to be more of a drain on their coffers than a boost to them.
I don't see how the Confederates are likely to win this. I don't see how they could get so deluded as to try in the first place.


They had plans to take everything to Cape Horn. That the plan was insane in the fist place is besides the point. The plans were there.
 
They had plans to take everything to Cape Horn. That the plan was insane in the fist place is besides the point. The plans were there.
Yeah, and the United States later had War Plan Red, but that doesn't mean it was at all likely that the US would go to war with Canada and Britain then.
 
The Confederacy's leadership seems actually interested in taking over lands beyond the American South, though.

Not a sign its inevitable, but that and what we know they were willing to bite off OTL seems to indicate that something as mundane as being a weakling power that exists because no one can be arsed to wipe it out wouldn't be nearly as much a reason to not try as it would be for less...um...optimistic people.
 
Yeah, and the United States later had War Plan Red, but that doesn't mean it was at all likely that the US would go to war with Canada and Britain then.

Different circumstance, War Plan Red was in place in case they were needed. There were Fire-Eaters who were strongly in favor expanding slavery outside the CSA/USA area. They may have gotten their way in Northern Mexico which was a technologically backwards and economicly poor area that could look ripe for the picking, particularly after defeating the USA which was MUCH stronger than Mexico.
 
Different circumstance, War Plan Red was in place in case they were needed. There were Fire-Eaters who were strongly in favor expanding slavery outside the CSA/USA area. They may have gotten their way in Northern Mexico which was a technologically backwards and economicly poor area that could look ripe for the picking, particularly after defeating the USA which was MUCH stronger than Mexico.
Hmf. And when did these jingoists expect to go to war with Mexico? 1870, while diplomatic relations are probably still up in the air and an utter mes? 1880, and only just at post-independence normalcy in domestic politics and foreign relations? By 1890 the Boll Weevil is in Mexico and making its way very quickly to the US border; if by then the Confederates are still convinced that Cotton is King, then their economy is going to crumble within five years of then and they'll be in no shape to go on expeditions south of the border.
 
Hmf. And when did these jingoists expect to go to war with Mexico? 1870, while diplomatic relations are probably still up in the air and an utter mes? 1880, and only just at post-independence normalcy in domestic politics and foreign relations? By 1890 the Boll Weevil is in Mexico and making its way very quickly to the US border; if by then the Confederates are still convinced that Cotton is King, then their economy is going to crumble within five years of then and they'll be in no shape to go on expeditions south of the border.

Around 1880 or so. I don't think they would worry too much about foreign relations. They would quickly realize they are international pairahs no matter what they do unless they give up slavery. They would be unwilling to do so a mere 20 years after they fought and died fighting the abolishnists so they can preserve slavery. 1900 is the earliest that would happen, 1920 or later is more likely. They have little to lose in forgein relations by going to war. Everyone will hate them regardless of what they do. As far as domestic politics go only the planter class matters much and if they think they can get away with it they will be all for it.
 
I don't see how the Confederates are likely to win this. I don't see how they could get so deluded as to try in the first place.

Mexico has less than half the population of the Union. The US had won every battle against Mexico in the Mexican-American War.

It seems less deluded than starting a war with the Union.
 
They would be unwilling to do so a mere 20 years after they fought and died fighting the abolishnists so they can preserve slavery. 1900 is the earliest that would happen, 1920 or later is more likely. They have little to lose in forgein relations by going to war.

I think the optimal word is 'may be' in "They may be unwilling to do a mere 20 years after they fought and died fighting..." Nothing is for sure and certain in alternative history.

Unless the Confederacy is going to be entirely self-sufficient, which is possible, but unlikely, they will have a lot to lose in foreign relations by going to war since they will find markets for their exports closed.
 
It is incredibly unlikely that the Confederacy's leaders would become rational, reasonable-minded people when their whole war of independence was based on highly inflated ideas of the threats they faced in some aspects (and equally ridiculous underestimation in others) and the strengths of Southerners and Southern society.

I suppose in twenty years the next generation might be saner, or it might be even worse.
 
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.

Not when it was just a theoretical arguement and nobody was actually saying Johnston was going to command troops in the field. The point I was making was simple, a 73 year old can still concievably take the field, he's not too old so long as he's physically and mentally fit enough to do so however I never said Johnston would. I ruled him out of the running because of his rheumatism and night blindness. If he was still in the Confederate military in the late 1870's early 1880's he would be in the Capital in a staff position or as General-in-Chief, if for nothing else, because of seniority.

There was no need to make disparaging remarks about Joe Johnston in this particular thread. If you had to say something disparaging about one of the Confederates I listed who would lead the troops in the field in a Mexican-Confederate war then you should have said it about Beauregard, Kirby Smith or Longstreet.
 
Not when it was just a theoretical arguement and nobody was actually saying Johnston was going to command troops in the field. The point I was making was simple, a 73 year old can still concievably take the field, he's not too old so long as he's physically and mentally fit enough to do so however I never said Johnston would. I ruled him out of the running because of his rheumatism and night blindness. If he was still in the Confederate military in the late 1870's early 1880's he would be in the Capital in a staff position or as General-in-Chief, if for nothing else, because of seniority.

There was no need to make disparaging remarks about Joe Johnston in this particular thread. If you had to say something disparaging about one of the Confederates I listed who would lead the troops in the field in a Mexican-Confederate war then you should have said it about Beauregard, Kirby Smith or Longstreet.

There are very few old fart generals who make good field commanders.
 
There are very few old fart generals who make good field commanders.

But that doesn't mean that there not capable of taking the field. As I pointed out earlier Blucher was 73 when he fought Napoleon at Ligny and Waterloo and he was hardly incompetant. And Helmuth von Moltke the Elder was 70 when he won the Battle of Sedan in the Franco-Prussian war. Not that I'm comparing either of them to Joe Johnston, I'm using them as evidence that simply being old doesn't make a general ineffective.
 
I think the optimal word is 'may be' in "They may be unwilling to do a mere 20 years after they fought and died fighting..." Nothing is for sure and certain in alternative history.

Unless the Confederacy is going to be entirely self-sufficient, which is possible, but unlikely, they will have a lot to lose in foreign relations by going to war since they will find markets for their exports closed.


If you prefer you can add the words "virtually certain". It would be almost the ultimate longshot that a country formed to fight Abolitionism would itself abolish slavery a mere 20 years later. It is a dead certainty that there would be a lot of social unrest if they tried. Remember that most of the people fighting to do so would still be alive. A lot of them would be saying "I risked my life fighting the Abolitionists and now the government wants to abolish slavery? Some of my best friends died preserving it." A lot of the younger generation would be substituting the words "My daddy" for "I" and saying the same thing. 40 years is the earliest I could see it. You need a most of that generation to die off first.

There probably wouldn't be a whole lot of trade going on in the first place. England would be getting most of its cotton from India and Eygpt by this time. Is the invasion of Northern Mexico certain if the CSA wins? Of course not. Is it probable? No but it is far, far more likely than them winning the war in the first place. Much longer shots have happened in real life.
 
Top