Rough Idea: USA-wank civil war

I have a rough concept in my head that I'd like to hash out:

Basically, a more successful US is able to gain Canada during the revolution, and follows this up with an earlier invasion of Mexico (I'm thinking during Spanish rule), resulting in the US taking all of Mexico. Possibly the rest of Centeal America, too. I know its the stereotypical uber-US, and its not necessarily the most plausible of scenarios. But lets just accept those are the borders we're dealing with, okay? Just going to repeat that: for the sake of this discussion, we get those borders.

However, the US isn't interested in necessarily including all these former Spanish colonial subjects into the full rights as part of the nation, due to all the expected prejudices (race, religion, cultural experience with self-government, etc.) So, the bulk of the territories are set up as autonomous protectorates of a sort. Basically, think Puerto Rico, at large. They're under US control, but have no representation.

Here's where I'm seeing the wheels coming off the bus. As the slavery debate rages (albeit, with a stronger anti-slavery faction, due to canadian states in the Union), unrest grows in the autonomous territories. This results in all sorts of interesting times.

- Those territories rise up in revolt, seeking independence or full admission into the Union.
- The South, or parts of it, also rises up, upon seeing their opportunity to leave the Union and protect slavery. I see this alt-Confederacy being smaller than ours.
- Perhaps a European power decides to meddle in the whole mess.

With all of this, how migh the Union overcome this cluster of epic proportions? The autonomous territories, I could see being won over by making common cause with the factions that want admission rsther than independence. There's also the possibility of the Union actually letting some of the territories go. However, could this be accomplished while also fighting the South? I have to think the focus would be on taking back the South before these more distant territories. There's also the possibility of the alt-confeds making an alliance with the rebels in the former Spanish territories.

Again, just hashing this out in my mind. Thoughts?
 
You should also include a Quebeçois rebellion. Those fellas were none too happy with the Yanks OTL. And maybe some *Canadian States too, full of resentful Loyalists wanting to return to the Crown's rule.

I can see this one spiralling out of control big time indeed. Putting out so many rebellious focus at once will be most unpleasant.

Oregon could seceede too, taking into account their origins as "Whitopia", as the "¡Viva Mexico Fuerte!" TL did.
 
Last edited:
The US taking all of Mexico prior to 1860 is not feasible. The US Army was too small, the area too far away for the transportation at the time, etc. Mexicans would revolt against any conqueror. Maybe if they played "divide and conquer", they could influence sectional leaders that way (akin to my Quasi-War TL's on this site).

Maybe the US annexing the lightly populated North-West (Sonora, Chihuahua, Baja California) and putting a "Republic of the Rio Grand" under a self-governing Protectorate but that is the extent of the US ability to project power prior to the technological, demographic and transportation changes of the mid-19th century.

Politically, the US wouldn't want to annex millions of Spanish-Speaking Catholics either.

I'm not sure how much having Canada demographically could help the union. However, it may help politically, indirectly. Part of Britain's reason to be concerned about the US civil war, beyond trade, was the fear that a strong United States would eventually try to conquer Canada. If the US already possessed Canada, perhaps Britain would be less likely to intervene at all. Note that the US was a rising trading power but one that traded extensively with Britain so Britain would hardly want to damage the US economically. The US also had not bothered to improve their navy in the first half of the 19th century so Britain wouldn't exactly be concerned about a global competitor.

Maybe you can spin a scenario involving a French-occupied Mexico getting involved in a fight with, say, some California Union Troops and France allies with the Confederacy.

Perhaps you can have, as mentioned above, a Quebec rebellion. Personally, I've always been against the idea that Quebec would willingly join the US in the Revolutionary War or that the US could forcibly keep them in during those early decades of the nation.

Maybe a Mormon rebellion in Illinois?

The biggest and most likely danger would be some sort of Copperhead revolt.
 
AHB: As I said, we are presuming those borders. The goal is to have the typical super US scenario go absolutely belly up. However, you seem to agree with me when I suggest the idea of an autonomous protectorate, so I don't see the problem. I'm picturing the US in an early war with Spain (perhaps as part of the alt-Napoleonic wars) and moving into Mexico in conjunction with local rebels, being seen as liberators in the short term, with relations gradually souring as the US continues to treat Mexico unfairly in the eyes of the locals.

As to Quebec, perhaps French medelling there, if transatlantic relations sour?

Could you clarify your concerns about a copperhead revolt?

Other concepts:

Unrest with the American Indian tribes. Or, in a parallel to the Revolutionary War, what if the US maintains better relations with the tribes, which sours relations with the neighboring Mexican settlements? (admittedly, I'm not well-versed in Mexican-Indian relations when it comes to the more nomadic tribes)

Troubles on the Southern border. What if an alt-Gran Colombia takes advantage of the disorder and tries to move in and seize some territory? Or poses as an 'ally' in putting down unrest, and then, for whatever reasons, digs in and occupies the territory they're in?

Some major Supreme Court cases to serve as flashpoints for unrest.
 
Something tells me the Southern gentry will want that Mexican population be included in their peculiar institution...
 
Something tells me the Southern gentry will want that Mexican population be included in their peculiar institution...

Enslaving the Mexicans? I don't think that was ever on the menu historically. Extending slavery into Mexico, sure. Of course, in this scenario, simply making common cause with the Mexican separatists would be likely.

On the other hand, if the Mexicans revolt first, I could see some southernors feeling it would be dishonorable to secede at that point, when the nation would be calling them to defend.
 
The US taking all of Mexico prior to 1860 is not feasible.

Yes it is. OTL Mexican War of 1848... The USA took Mexico City. They took the ports. They could have annexed Yucatan or at least aided in it's independence if they had wished. Republic of Texas had done naval activity jointly with Yucatan and recognized each other. Mexico was a paper tiger as demonstrated in Empires and Eagles by David Clary.
 
AHB: As I said, we are presuming those borders. The goal is to have the typical super US scenario go absolutely belly up. However, you seem to agree with me when I suggest the idea of an autonomous protectorate, so I don't see the problem. I'm picturing the US in an early war with Spain (perhaps as part of the alt-Napoleonic wars) and moving into Mexico in conjunction with local rebels, being seen as liberators in the short term, with relations gradually souring as the US continues to treat Mexico unfairly in the eyes of the locals.

As to Quebec, perhaps French medelling there, if transatlantic relations sour?

Could you clarify your concerns about a copperhead revolt?

Other concepts:

Unrest with the American Indian tribes. Or, in a parallel to the Revolutionary War, what if the US maintains better relations with the tribes, which sours relations with the neighboring Mexican settlements? (admittedly, I'm not well-versed in Mexican-Indian relations when it comes to the more nomadic tribes)

Troubles on the Southern border. What if an alt-Gran Colombia takes advantage of the disorder and tries to move in and seize some territory? Or poses as an 'ally' in putting down unrest, and then, for whatever reasons, digs in and occupies the territory they're in?

Some major Supreme Court cases to serve as flashpoints for unrest.

Well, the Copperheads (mainly Democrats) of the Midwest were anti-war and there was a moderate threat they may try to revolt or secede or just stop cooperating with the national government. However, a couple of Union victories helped discredit them. I don't know if independence was a realistic possibility but they may stop providing funds or troops to the government.

There were always problems with the plains Indians however I'm not sure if it would be anything more than a regional irritation. Montana wasn't a major front in the Civil War. As long as no tribes decide to cut the railroad or something, I don't see a major inhibitor to Union victory.

As for a series of "protectorates" in OTL Mexico, I think it would be unlikely to the point of ASB but OK. Assume that Mexico is broken into four or five "warlord" or "republic" territories. Presumably, they would not be overly interested in helping the Union for its own sake. However, Mexico was very anti-slavery and I don't see any form of formal alliance happening with the Confederacy. Many Mexicans would probably volunteer for the Union as individuals. Depending on the relationship between the Mexican states and the Union, they may react with indifference especially if Southern Slave states had been trying to push the institution upon Mexico.

For any theoretical US "protectorate" system in Mexico (maybe the US helps Mexico with their independence but they agree to the Protectorate system as a compromise?), the US would not be able to enforce any such system for long without the majority of the population finding it acceptable. The cost of a repressive regime would be far beyond the US economy at that point and probably much, much longer. So the US would have to royally screw up relations for Mexico to do anything more than quietly announce their independence. The US would never be able to maintain any significant amount of soldiers in Mexico long term to enforce anything.

There may be an indirect result of such a Mexican protectorate depending how long it was going on. The US would have to have a larger pre-1860 army than OTL for even moderate peacekeeping in Mexico (or pushing out the Spanish or French or British). That would affect the competency of both Union and Confederate armies and leadership early in the war. I would think this would probably help the Union more.

However, any conflict with a European power in the preceding decades may result in that power intervening out of spite. Unlikely, but possible depending on the circumstances.

The alternative is US statehood for some or all the Mexican states. Also a stretch as it would be unacceptable for both sides. While I think just about any government (US, Spanish, French, etc) would be more effective than the mess of Mexico's first fifty years, I don't see even offering full citizenship rights, respect for a dual-language system, large-scale Federal investment in Mexican infrastructure, etc, etc, etc would be enough for Mexicans of this era to accept US citizenship even on fully equal terms.

I don't know if Quebec would come into play here. If Quebec had been a state for this long (75 years), 1860 seems too late for any nationalist revival. They either would have been assimilated, outnumbered, or reached a mutually acceptable agreement for autonomy by American Civil War timeframe.
 
Enslaving the Mexicans? I don't think that was ever on the menu historically. Extending slavery into Mexico, sure. Of course, in this scenario, simply making common cause with the Mexican separatists would be likely.

On the other hand, if the Mexicans revolt first, I could see some southernors feeling it would be dishonorable to secede at that point, when the nation would be calling them to defend.
A good chunk of US-Americans saw Mexicans as merely "half-Indian savages" that needed to be civilized, so it's not a big stretch the Southerners will at least try to take the darker skinned ones, such as the decent amount of non-nomadic Natives used to exploitation and abuse, as slaves.
 
A good chunk of US-Americans saw Mexicans as merely "half-Indian savages" that needed to be civilized, so it's not a big stretch the Southerners will at least try to take the darker skinned ones, such as the decent amount of non-nomadic Natives used to exploitation and abuse, as slaves.

I don't see that as remotely plausible.
 
With the PoD set back during the Revolution, and decades of changed attitudes, it's certainly plausible that the southern elites might try it. It'd make a decent way to touch off the warring, too.
They enslaved Hispanics (Namely Spanish-Speaking Native Americans) in Natchez, IIRC.
 
Rough idea: What if, during some war (possibly when southern states secedes), the US tries to rely on manpower from its conveniently highly populated Mexican Protectorate, which is the spark for an uprising?
 
Top