They amend the Constitution. That's how slavery was abolished IOTL.
The real deal breaker for the UK was slave trade. The tension between Brazil and the UK got real high because of Brazil's continued importation of slaves after the 1820's. The Royal Navy started attacking Brazilian ships over it.
But the international slave trade was illegal in the US since 1808 and also illegal in the CS Constitution.
That made a bit of a difference, but I wouldn't count out a CSA relationship with Europe. But I don't think the CSA can have both the French and the British. That's like having cold war US and USSR as your best ally during the Reagan administration.
I think you have a point there, but you're overstating the rivalry between the UK and France.
The French people, even before a Union victory, were increasingly against the large expense France was undertaking it what was a proto-Vietnam war of sorts. Then the French had to also worry about Otto Van Bismarck and his antics a lot closer to home.
Exactly. That's why they would welcome the help.
Not to mention that Maximilian was a staunch liberal.
Not so liberal that he refused the help of defeated Confederates IOTL.
Not to mention Conservatives were fanatical Catholics. Why would they want to ally with anti-Catholic protestants
The Confederacy wasn't particularly anti-Catholic.
The CSA did not have 450,000 soldiers in 1865.
That was never my position. It was in 1863.
So that means sending precious troops to Mexico.
I don't think its reasonable to think that the Confederates are going to fight Mexico
while fighting the US. One war at a time. I was imagining the hostilities between the US and CS ending, and then a demobilizing CS sends an expeditionary force to Mexico.
Personally, I don't think the Confederates can win the war if they
barely win. They can't be scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of manpower like they were IOTL. There would be no incentive for the US to quit if victory is clearly within reach. In order for the Confederacy to win, they have to dominate up until the 1864 election, winning clearly, convincingly, and often enough that Democrats kill it in the 1862 elections, and the North becomes increasingly divided and riven by domestic unrest. Maybe the Confederates don't have to run the table, but they need to run a good 80% of the table.
Before anyone says that's unlikely, I'm well aware. It is absolutely possible for the South to have won the Civil War. It is also
very unlikely. You play the scenario out 100 times, and the South wins five, ten times. But that also means that an extant Confederacy is not going to be an economic and military basket case. At least not immediately.
Who would supply them? The French?
Again, I'm imaging this happening after the war with the US is over. But yes, partly the French. The French, the Mexicans, themselves. All of the above.
The CSA was also practically broke during the war. Even if the CSA got loans from France, they'd be crushed by the interest rates alone.
There would be no incentive for the CS to assist the French and Mexican Empires for a high-interest loan. The idea is that the CS assistance is
mutually beneficial. A low-interest hard money loan to stabilize the currency, loan forgiveness, something like that.
The French don't want to piss away all that blood, treasure, and prestige, so they have to make the deal worthwhile.
Any CSA assistance would have to come after the war.
Absolutely. My bad if I didn't make that understood in the originial post.