WI: Mexican - CSA War (1861)

Let's say Confederate Colonel John T. Pickett's dueling affair illustrated right here ends up far worse. (Say the fight with Bennett escalates where both he and some Mexican employees are shot and killed)

Pickett is arrested; Mexico demands some crazy indemnity; the CSA ignores the demand; Mexico declares war in 1861.

What happens next?

I assume France has to get involved to either broker a quick ceasefire or tacitly support the Mexican government.
 
Last edited:
Presumably the incident comes to nothing as four months later some 6,000 international troops have landed at Vera Cruz. Mexico suddenly has far more pressing problems on its hands than a border skirmish with an unrecognized state.

BUT

Assuming Mexico never gets around to working out some kind of peace with the CSA the CSA approaches France about cooperation on the Rio Grande (or that border in general) to police things and help establish control in the north.

Franco-Confederate forces tenatively cooperate to establish control on the frontier, and then France begins cautiously floating the idea of diplomatic recognition.

It's an interesting idea!
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The Mexicans had other things to worry about in 1861-62

Let's say Confederate Colonel John T. Pickett's dueling affair illustrated right here ends up far worse. (Say the fight with Bennett escalates where both he and some Mexican employees are shot and killed). Pickett is arrested; Mexico demands some indemnity; the CSA ignores the demand; Mexico declares war in 1861. What happens next? I assume France has to get involved to either broker a quick ceasefire or tacitly support the Mexican government.

The Mexicans had other things to worry about in 1861-62, although so did the French - their expeditionary force was months away from being defeated in May at Puebla, but the writing was on the wall to the point the British and Spanish both bailed out on the 1861 agreement as soon as it became obvious what the French were up to...

The Mexicans could certainly have caused problems for the Texans in the Rio Grande Valley; as it was, Cortina et al (who were essentially unofficial) had been raiding into Texas as recently as 1859-61, and the Comanche were active against the Texas frontier as soon as the US Army left in 1861.

Fewer Texans for the rebel forces in Arkansas, Tennessee, and Virginia, certainly.

Best,
 
Last edited:

Spengler

Banned
What could they send to the Rio Grande ins uch a instance? Being that they have much bigger fish to fry? Also beingt hat Mexico was a much tougher nut then the French thought would they really want to divert resources, besides possibly ship with Guns that could be payed for with cotton to the CSA?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
It's worth noting the entire French expeditionary force

What could they send to the Rio Grande ins uch a instance? Being that they have much bigger fish to fry? Also beingt hat Mexico was a much tougher nut then the French thought would they really want to divert resources, besides possibly ship with Guns that could be payed for with cotton to the CSA?

It's worth noting the entire French expeditionary force that made it to Puebla in May of 1862 only to be defeated numbered all of 6,500, and that was six months after the intervention was approved in the Convention of London.

The French lost 500 casualties in the attack at Puebla, against about 3,800 Mexicans, and retreated all the way back to the coast; it took the French another 12 months to rebuild their forces and increase them to the point (28,000 French and 3,000 Mexican Conservatives) where they took their second try at Puebla and besieged it for three months before the garrison surrendered.

Again, interesting real world example of what European powers could manage in the Western Hemisphere in the 1860s. The short answer to your question regarding the French is "not much." For the Texans, it could be considerable, but means the US faces fewer elsewhere. For the Mexicans, considering they managed to mobilize about 32,000 men for the 1863 Puebla campaign against the French, probably a fair amount...

Best,
 
Last edited:
What could they send to the Rio Grande ins uch a instance? Being that they have much bigger fish to fry? Also beingt hat Mexico was a much tougher nut then the French thought would they really want to divert resources, besides possibly ship with Guns that could be payed for with cotton to the CSA?

The troops in Texas historically would be more than adequate for such a mission. The French would absolutely love an assurance for security on their northern border.

If the CSA presented itself as a viable option, France will go for it guns blazing.
 

Spengler

Banned
The troops in Texas historically would be more than adequate for such a mission. The French would absolutely love an assurance for security on their northern border.

If the CSA presented itself as a viable option, France will go for it guns blazing.
The CSA would compromise its position in MO, and AK, leaving the MISSISSIPPI open for a chance at Mexican territory?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Says who?

The troops in Texas historically would be more than adequate for such a mission. The French would absolutely love an assurance for security on their northern border. If the CSA presented itself as a viable option, France will go for it guns blazing.

This all happens in 1861, however, before the French land...

As it was, the Texas frontier was driven back 100 miles by the Comanche during the Civil War - you really think the Texans alone could have held off a Mexican force "equally" well, absent the French having landed?

Best,
 
Last edited:
The CSA would compromise its position in MO, and AK, leaving the MISSISSIPPI open for a chance at Mexican territory?

Texas furnished the Confederacy with 45 regiments of cavalry, 23 regiments of infantry, 12 battalions of cavalry, 4 battalions of infantry, 5 regiments of heavy artillery, and 30 batteries of light artillery, and for home defence maintained 5 regiments of cavalry and 4 regiments infantry.

In total about 70,000 men from Texas fought for the CSA in the war.

French assistance renders even some of that moot. The US couldn't even move against Galveston if French warships are standing by unless they desire to declare war on France.
 

Spengler

Banned
Texas furnished the Confederacy with 45 regiments of cavalry, 23 regiments of infantry, 12 battalions of cavalry, 4 battalions of infantry, 5 regiments of heavy artillery, and 30 batteries of light artillery, and for home defence maintained 5 regiments of cavalry and 4 regiments infantry.

In total about 70,000 men from Texas fought for the CSA in the war.

French assistance renders even some of that moot. The US couldn't even move against Galveston if French warships are standing by unless they desire to declare war on France.
Those troops were sent to fight in Arkansas, which in your scenario will be recieving alot less, what with them going into Nuevo Leon. This really fucks the CSA in Arkansas, and potentially in TN.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Especially because by the end of 1861, the actual Texas troops

Those troops were sent to fight in Arkansas, which in your scenario will be recieving alot less, what with them going into Nuevo Leon. This really fucks the CSA in Arkansas, and potentially in TN.

Especially because by the end of 1861, the actual number of Texans in rebel service was about 20,000; the numbers didn't reach the ~68,000 range until well into 1862:

http://www.texasmilitaryforcesmuseum.org/wortham/4345.htm

What's interesting, of course, is that with the early 1861 POD meaning some percentage of the Texas in confederate service or the state militia on active duty in Texas, on the Rio Grande or in West Texas, or both, in 1861-62, it means that Arkansas and the Indian Territory are both presumably cleared earlier than they were historically, and the Texas units in Tennessee and even Virginia are presumably less; Sibley's New Mexico expedition probably is never even attempted.

Best,
 
I'm guessing we'll at the very least see a quicker ACW with a slight possibility of France getting involved on the CSAs side?

I'm curious though if France jumps in, would we then see Lincoln reach to Mexico City about an alliance.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
There was a de facto one; this situation could lead to

I'm guessing we'll at the very least see a quicker ACW with a slight possibility of France getting involved on the CSAs side? I'm curious though if France jumps in, would we then see Lincoln reach to Mexico City about an alliance.

There was a de facto alliance between the US and Mexico, historically; this situation could lead to a de jure one. The French, presumably, would think more deeply about the correlation of forces in such a situation, and might decide - even before Puebla but possibly afterwards - to refrain from jumping into the quagmire with both feet...

Best,
 
I'd love to see Mexico retake at least a part of it's lost territory. Biting out at least some parts of Texas (at the very least the Nueces Strip) feels just about right.
 
I'd love to see Mexico retake at least a part of it's lost territory. Biting out at least some parts of Texas (at the very least the Nueces Strip) feels just about right.

That's the interesting part. Is it conceivable that the Union would "promise" a return of some Texan territory if Mexico got involved in the conflict.

If so, seem contradictory to the ideals that Lincoln was fighting for...indivisible union and such.
 
Last edited:

TFSmith121

Banned
In Texas? Probably not, given that it

That's the interesting part. Is ithere conceivable that the Union would "promise" a return of some Texan territory if Mexico got involved in the conflict.

If so, seem contradictory to the ideals that Lincoln was fighting for...indivisible union and such.

In Texas? Probably not, given that it was policy to treat the rebel states as US states where (essentially) conspirators had seized power, and which would be maintained as such legally through reconstruction.

However, the federal government held sway over the territories. Their make-up was a matter for the federal government to decide, and treaties could be negotiated and - if ratified by the Senate - allow for changes in sovereignty. The 1818 treaty with Britain that provided for the 49th parallel border west of the Great Lakes - and saw both nations ceding territory north or south of that line - is the obvious parallel.

Hence the agreement (suggested in BROS) between Mexico and the US regarding the Gadsden Purchase territory.

Best,
 
However, the federal government held sway over the territories. Their make-up was a matter for the federal government to decide, and treaties could be negotiated and - if ratified by the Senate - allow for changes in sovereignty. The 1818 treaty with Britain that provided for the 49th parallel border west of the Great Lakes - and saw both nations ceding territory north or south of that line - is the obvious parallel.

Hence the agreement (suggested in BROS) between Mexico and the US regarding the Gadsden Purchase territory.

Best,

Fascinating.
So what could you see Mexico gain in a victory scenario?
Depending on the amount of troops they would commit, I'm assuming it would have be substantial Sq milage in Arizona, New Mexico, or California.
 
Those troops were sent to fight in Arkansas, which in your scenario will be recieving alot less, what with them going into Nuevo Leon. This really fucks the CSA in Arkansas, and potentially in TN.

The potential long term political gain for a desperate CSA is too much to be ignored. Two extra regiments of cavalry wouldn't save Arkansas regardless.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
In BROS, its the retrocession of the Gadsden Purchase

Fascinating. So what could you see Mexico gain in a victory scenario? Depending on the amount of troops they would commit, I'm assuming it would have be substantial Sq milage in Arizona, New Mexico, or California.

In BROS, its the retrocession of the Gadsden Purchase (~30,000 square miles of what was then the New Mexico Territory, today southern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico) which had been purchased in 1853 by the US for $15 million. The goal was to acquire the Mesilla Valley for a southern transcontinental railroad, and was pushed through during the Pierce administration (Santa Anna was the Mexican head of state at the time who signed off on it) for the benefit of the southern Democrats.

By 1862, the American hold is less than a decade old, the area is populated largely by American citizens of Mexican ancestry who were naturalized at the time of the purchase, and it represents the worst of antebellum doughface politics. In BROS, Lincoln and Juarez are fighting their respective wars against European imperialists alligned with local conservative rebels, and so the retrocession (midwifed by Seward as secretary of state) functions to strengthen Juarez against the Mexican Conservatives and is part of a larger deal with the French where - after being defeated at Puebla, and before they (historically) reinforced failure - the US offers to pay off Mexico's debt to France in return for French withdrawal; the Mexicans get the Purchase retrocession and in return, the French and Mexicans open various Mexican ports to neutral flag vessels transhipping various useful cargos to the US overland, including Guaymas on the Pacific coast.

The Mexicans also set up what amounts to a "deniable" force in northeastern Mexico under Carbajal, Cortina, Diaz, and a reconciled Miramon to raid into Texas in 1863, using "captured" French weapons and alongside the Texas Unionists (whose numbers have been bolstered by an anabasis led by Sam Houston). This opens up a second front against the Texans, and along with the Comanche (whose raids have been tacitly encouraged by the US, in the person of Col. Christopher Carson, USV) basically require the Texans to withdraw significant forces from the rebel command in Arkansas, which speeds up Curtis' campaign in Arkansas north of the Arkansas River, which sets the stage for Grant and company to move east across the Mississippi against JE Johnston's westernmost bastion, Fort Pillow and Memphis in Tennessee.

See below for a map of the Purchase.


gadsden-purchase-map.jpg


Best,
 
Last edited:
Top