The Crumble of America: A European influenced America TL

I think it would be because people would not take the US' claim seriously. It was a lofty claim, after all, and you need to be able to at least look like you could back it up. No one would believe the US at all here.

But the British were the ones to enforce the Doctrine early on, and that's been standard practice for decades by this point. It's a change in direction for them without an explanation.
 
I think it would be because people would not take the US' claim seriously. It was a lofty claim, after all, and you need to be able to at least look like you could back it up. No one would believe the US at all here.

I had heard it was more the RN that upheld the Monroe Doctrine for a long time. Namely because Britain was more interested in a Balkanized New World without other Powers planting flags that they could profit from through economics.
 
Well it was always an uphill battle for the South OTL. And I would think being invested in Mexico would make the Alliance less likely to throw valuable resources to the CSA. Upholding slavery was not a popular sell at home with the masses or even many elites.

Hmm, the most I could possibly see would be propping up an independent Texas on the condition it abolished slavery; smaller scale and buffer state. And I don't see such a move being accepted by the Americans would see a republic of Texas as no different a treason from the CSA; or the Texans being willing to concede in time.


If you take into account that you've got Britain (the most industrialized nation at that poin), France (a military powerhouse in Europe) and Spain (a minor power, but still contributes), the resources put into defeating Mexico shouldn't be much, but still enough to set ideologies aside and try to finance the CSA against the Union. The elites would be interested enough in opening and securing a market in Latinamerica through Mexico that they would not care about slavery. And the biggest threat to the Second Mexican Empire would be the US, as the Triple Intervention would be seen as a violation of the Monroe Doctrine.
 
It was the British that upheld the Monroe Doctrine all the way up until around the Spanish-American War, IIRC. The reason the British did so was to be able to force open the Latin American nations' markets and safeguard them from other European powers. The British didn't want to conquer the Latin American nations, as they didn't want to expend resources and political will doing so. However, they didn't want other European powers encroaching on Latin-A, so they just enforced their independence and kept their markets open for trade through other means.
 
It was the British that upheld the Monroe Doctrine all the way up until around the Spanish-American War, IIRC. The reason the British did so was to be able to force open the Latin American nations' markets and safeguard them from other European powers. The British didn't want to conquer the Latin American nations, as they didn't want to expend resources and political will doing so. However, they didn't want other European powers encroaching on Latin-A, so they just enforced their independence and kept their markets open for trade through other means.

Exactly. The British would "abandon" this doctrine in order to maintain a stable Mexico who would want to buy their products.
 
If you take into account that you've got Britain (the most industrialized nation at that point), France (a military powerhouse in Europe) and Spain (a minor power, but still contributes), the resources put into defeating Mexico shouldn't be much, but still enough to set ideologies aside and try to finance the CSA against the Union. The elites would be interested enough in opening and securing a market in Latinamerica through Mexico that they would not care about slavery. And the biggest threat to the Second Mexican Empire would be the US, as the Triple Intervention would be seen as a violation of the Monroe Doctrine.

I think you underestimate the abolitionist influence in Britain and France. Also the South I believe was seen as the aggressor against the legitimate government by several parties abroad due to Sumter.

Also Antietam would have happened by the time of Mexico City's all assuming butterflies have not created a more favorable sequence for the Confederacy. Also by this time the Union war machine is really coming into swing. Grant has taken Nashville and won Shiloh. New Orleans is in Union hands. So while the South is not done it would not be an easy sell, particularly for Britain as it would mean open war on a frontier that has been relatively peaceful for decades and alienating a major trade partner.

So the CSA would have to offer a very sweet pot indeed to get foreign aid in my opinion. A set in stone expiration date on slavery probably being the first item on the list.
 
I'd maintain that the more immediate concern is Mexico. The French wanted to capture Mexican markets, which would require preferential trade barriers. The British wanted to tear down other countries' trade barriers at this time for their own exports. The two would't be able to compromise on this, because that would put their goods in direct competition in Mexico, with the British likely at an advantage. I'm still not seeing the economic basis for a deal here.
 
I quote Wikipedia: "In September 1862, during the Confederate invasion of Maryland, Britain (along with France) contemplated stepping in and negotiating a peace settlement, which could only mean war with the United States. But in the same month, US president Abraham Lincoln announced the Emancipation Proclamation. Since support of the Confederacy now meant support for slavery, there was no longer any possibility of European intervention.[88]". So if Britain, France and Spain want to step in, they need to do so before September 22 1862.

I quote my first chapter:
Between May and September of 1862, the forces of the Pact of London took Southern Mexico and most of Central Mexico. It was at this time that the Second London Convention took place.
So on this Convention, the three powers can decide whether or not they intervene on the ACW, and, because of their troops on the American continent and their fleets on the Pacific, they wouldn't need much time to mobilize.

As ITTL Maximilian would become Emperor by late 1862, bringing with him support from Austria, and at the point of his coronation he has under his reign Southern & Central Mexico, plus the French haven't had as much casualties as IOTL, as the Invasion of Mexico was rather smoothly executed. So, by late 1862 Austrian troops begin arriving to Mexico, the French army is more robust, Maximilian I has more support over Mexico and the London Pact has a lot of fresh troops plus a formidable navy on the Western Hemisphere. So what they just need is to attack on the correct time and hope the elites at home aren't too angered by the London Pact's support for the CSA. But to rally as much of the elites as possible, the London Pact needs to attack before the Proclamation of Emancipation (the one issued 22 September 1862).
 
A quick hypotetical question: would have been hard for Britain, France and Spain to break the Union's blockade on the South? (I'm not a big military expert, so I wanted to ask.) And would have it been worth of a declaration of war by the Union if they did so?
 
Either britain or france would have been more than able to end the blockade. Spain i honestly dont know what the spanish navy looked like in 1860
 
And would have it been worth of a declaration of war by the Union if they did so?
Easily. Simply put, breaking a blockade, one that's pretty clearcut, more or less requires firing on Union ships. The question is, why?

What do the British and French get from allying with the slaving bastards down south that's worth actively going to war with a liberal democracy like the Union?
 
Easily. Simply put, breaking a blockade, one that's pretty clearcut, more or less requires firing on Union ships. The question is, why?

What do the British and French get from allying with the slaving bastards down south that's worth actively going to war with a liberal democracy like the Union?

Why, to break the union of course! Easier to control the continent that way.
 
The only thing the North would lose is the South, they're still an industrial powerhouse in the making.
That literally doesn't answer my point. Britain and the Union had a fair bit of trade going. Breaking the blockade means that trade dries up, loans aren't getting paid back, meaning you now have merchants and bankers very anxious to know why Whitehall just declared war on the Union.
 
That literally doesn't answer my point. Britain and the Union had a fair bit of trade going. Breaking the blockade means that trade dries up, loans aren't getting paid back, meaning you now have merchants and bankers very anxious to know why Whitehall just declared war on the Union.
Britain and the US inclueding the south had a good deal of pre war trade. The south being blockaded ended a good deal of prewar trade.
Why would (did) the brits and french consider the confederacy over the union is easy the south has what they want. Plus an almost dependent market for imported goods. Now please stop hijacking the guys story.
 
That literally doesn't answer my point. Britain and the Union had a fair bit of trade going. Breaking the blockade means that trade dries up, loans aren't getting paid back, meaning you now have merchants and bankers very anxious to know why Whitehall just declared war on the Union.

In the hopes that after the war, they could force the Union to start up trade again (but more unevenly in Britain's favor), and pay back it's loans. They may think that even if the Union wins it'll sink into recession anyway (hurting trade as well).
 
Top