If the Confederacy wins the American Civil War, is the Union going to become revanchist over the next several decades and beyond?

[History Learner]

Except that Maximilian could easily live another 30+ years by which time if he's been successful then Mexico would be a lot more stable than OTL and his dynasty is going to be generally accepted - leaving aside the possible case of if at a late point he rejects the Iturbide heir at a late stage or something else goes pear-shaped at the wrong time.

Again, there is nothing to suggest he would be able to stabilize his reign:

Shawcross’ book chronicles Maximilian’s multiple missteps: his liberalism won over some Juaristas but alienated the support of conservatives and the Catholic Church. Adopting the grandsons of Mexico’s first, equally unlucky emperor — Agustin de Iturbide, who ruled from 1822–1823 — mystified Mexicans.​

​

By 1865, when Carlota visited the Yucatán, “The empire was so precarious that he couldn’t leave [with her],” Shawcross said. “He did go on a lot of tours. They were practical. He met the people; it was a chance to get to know the country. Critics said they were real tourists, on holiday away from Mexico City.”​

​

In that year, Maximilian’s empire expanded as much as it ever would, but it was also the year of his hated Black Decree, ordering the execution of any Mexicans who bore arms against the imperial regime and refused to surrender, which generally meant a death sentence for Juaristas.​

Actually it doesn't. There's a world of distance between a defeated US ~1865 not being able/willing to intervene to prevent Maximilian cementing his power and that same US some time later having no influence on the CSA they share a very long border with.

We were discussing Mexico, not the C.S. so I'm at a loss as to what you're attempting to argue here?

Plus even if the CSA stays highly centralised as you suggest and put in massive efforts to industrize its still going to have less population and industry that the north. Unless just about everything goes wrong for the north and it ends up the sort of unstable, dysfunctional mess that many predict the south would have been.

Undoubtedly the U.S. would remain larger in raw terms than the C.S.A. until the 20th Century. That does not, however, preclude the Confederacy emerging as a power in its own right just as Germany did to Britain in Europe, for example. By the 1910s, it's very likely the C.S.A. is stronger than all but the United States, the UK and Germany, based on the growth trends laid out by historians, to which I have cited.

It might not be a total pull out since Napoleon III meant underestimated Prussia anyway. Here there is no/much less driver from the US.

It would, indeed, be a total pullout and the C.S. could take the role of the U.S. quite easily:

The Union army also won the U.S. Civil War, and Mexico’s northern neighbor could suddenly pay attention to Mexico again. “They [now] wanted to invade Mexico and drive the French out,” Shawcross said.​

​

Although Americans smuggled weapons to Juárez, in the end, Washington largely used diplomatic pressure. Meanwhile, mounting debts to France violated the terms of the agreement through which Napoleon supported Maximilian.​

​

As the French forces withdrew, Maximilian tried to abdicate on several occasions before being dissuaded — first by Carlota, then by his few remaining supporters.​

Maximilian only arrived in late May 64 so he has had very little time to do anything yet. With a bit more time and success he could get a more secure government, especially without that initial opposition from the US which here isn't able to make practical.

Except, once again, there was nothing Maximillian could do to stabilize his reign. You continue to take it as a given when you cannot even articulate a mechanism through which to achieve those ends; I have the book by Shawcross, would you like a PDF copy?

Which ones are you thinking of?

The Paraguayan War, where Brazil took over all territories north of the Apa River (62,325 km2 in total, almost 80% the size of Great Britain itself).

No its called frustration at your double standards.

There are none here Steve, you advanced a claim and I asked you to back it up. That is normal in a debate.

No their not. We have no idea when things change in the CW but events are changing north of the Rio Grande as well. By the time Maximilian arrived OTL the south was already winning the war so its hostility to his regime is going to have teeth at a fairly early stage in the future. Here that isn't the case.

The South was winning in 1864? Or are you advancing a particular alternative scenario? Regardless, the C.S.A. existed up until 1865, so we can deduce no relative change to the position of the Empire; the buffer of the C.S.A. was there regardless. If you feel otherwise, please explain the mechanism instead of handwaving it away.

Also while Maximilian's policies upset some of the right it also drew the loyalty of a number of Mexicans.

They did not, no.

Well one obvious factor is that Juarez can't rely on US support here and will know it by the time that the offer is made.

He knew it when the offer was made in late 1863 and still refused, multiple times in fact.

It was OTL but isn't here. That's what AH is about after all. The 2nd, well as you admitted the French succeeded in OTL.

The French succeeded in pushing Juarez into the border regions of the Northwest, yes, but what happens when the French pull out? The Confederates can take their place and work to solve the issues raging because they already have connections with the local strongmen and thus the local elites.

There's a difference between a regime that is based in Mexico with broad support, which is the basis of a Maximilian succeeds scenario after all and a foreign neighbour seeking to take over the country. Especially with the passed bad history Mexico has with its northern neighbour - and the CSA will fulfill this role far more than the rump US will. Not to mention issues of religion and slavery.

Except said regime never had broad support, while the C.S.A. had already managed to win over many of the powerbrokers of Northern Mexico in 1861-1862. I do not propose a hostile take over in the form of war, but rather a long ranging process extended out over a decade of slowly coming to control the military, economy and other state institutions of Mexico, while integrating the elite of the same into the C.S.A. structures. Rather many cases of this in history. As for religion and slavery, it would be useful to recall the Juarez Liberals were violently Anti-Clerical and Slavery was a non-issue in the North.

That's your opinion not mine. As I've said from the start I'm assuming that Maximilian obtains his aim of getting a liberal monarchy with broad support. Having the French stay there indefinately would fail.

Indeed that is your opinion and not mind, and it is why I've been showing that it is not based in historical reality. Again, it's clear you have an end goal in mind, but the problem is you cannot explain how to get there.

No I'm not being cryptic at all. I'm talking of the USCW site., which I know your been on the AH pages in the past.

I'm well aware of the site, what I was referring to you is you practice is referencing the opinions of unnamed others, rather than being able to actually explicitly cite historians or the like to base your opinions on. I've done you the respect of citing multiple different historians who have all rejected the thesis of State's Right and Small Government C.S.A. as an invention of the Lost Cause, rather than the reality of a centralized, modern state.

That's an assumption on your part. It's probable that there's a line to the Mexican border in the east but would there be much market for anything else? Something into the New Mexico/Arizona area possibly to secure the CSA claims to the region and exploit any mineral wealth discovered there.

It's not an assumption at all, Confederate planning is something I've cited to you before on the other website you've cited. To re-quote myself from there, I'd recommend you take a look at Colossal Ambitions: Confederate Planning for a Post–Civil War World by Adrian Brettle for one. The C.S.A. explicitly planned for it's own version of a Trans-Continental Railway to the Pacific, and what better outlet than Guaymas, Sonora? Tampico was also one of the main ports for the Confederacy during the Civil War.

Navies are very expensive, especially in a period of drastic technological change. Its going to be a big task for the CSA to not only spend a hell of a lot on development but also on a large and powerful army and also a modern navy, especially one for offensive action. If it does then expect both the US and UK to have reacted. Its not going to have California as that's a free state pre-war so it won't have a supportable Pacific base either, even if its managed to grab an island somewhere.

The Confederacy will be extremely wealthy off the back of cotton exports alone, and most likely would buy vessels off the UK itself until it reaches maturity in its own ship building industry; see the Laird Rams for example.

 

[stevep]

Again, there is nothing to suggest he would be able to stabilize his reign:

Shawcross’ book chronicles Maximilian’s multiple missteps: his liberalism won over some Juaristas but alienated the support of conservatives and the Catholic Church. Adopting the grandsons of Mexico’s first, equally unlucky emperor — Agustin de Iturbide, who ruled from 1822–1823 — mystified Mexicans.​

​

By 1865, when Carlota visited the Yucatán, “The empire was so precarious that he couldn’t leave [with her],” Shawcross said. “He did go on a lot of tours. They were practical. He met the people; it was a chance to get to know the country. Critics said they were real tourists, on holiday away from Mexico City.”​

​

In that year, Maximilian’s empire expanded as much as it ever would, but it was also the year of his hated Black Decree, ordering the execution of any Mexicans who bore arms against the imperial regime and refused to surrender, which generally meant a death sentence for Juaristas.​

​

There's a world of difference between saying that something is certain or impossible as you like to and saying its possible/unlikely. I have noticed you tend to be very dogmatic about your desires.

We were discussing Mexico, not the C.S. so I'm at a loss as to what you're attempting to argue here?

I'm countering your erratic statements as you keeping moving goalposts. Also if we're discussion the chances of a successful CSA taking over parts or all of Mexico then discussion the CSA and the US is definitely significant.

[/QUOTE]Undoubtedly the U.S. would remain larger in raw terms than the C.S.A. until the 20th Century. That does not, however, preclude the Confederacy emerging as a power in its own right just as Germany did to Britain in Europe, for example. By the 1910s, it's very likely the C.S.A. is stronger than all but the United States, the UK and Germany, based on the growth trends laid out by historians, to which I have cited.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't but that's missing or dodging the point. At whatever point your assuming this attack occurs - and your been vague on that - it doesn't mean that the CSA can ignore the actions of other states.

[/QUOTE]

It would, indeed, be a total pullout and the C.S. could take the role of the U.S. quite easily:

The Union army also won the U.S. Civil War, and Mexico’s northern neighbor could suddenly pay attention to Mexico again. “They [now] wanted to invade Mexico and drive the French out,” Shawcross said.​

​

Although Americans smuggled weapons to Juárez, in the end, Washington largely used diplomatic pressure. Meanwhile, mounting debts to France violated the terms of the agreement through which Napoleon supported Maximilian.​

​

As the French forces withdrew, Maximilian tried to abdicate on several occasions before being dissuaded — first by Carlota, then by his few remaining supporters.[/QUOTE]​

Again your 1st sentence is stating an irrelevance. Its not whether the CSA can influence Mexico. Its whether it can take over at least large chunks of it when a number of other, more powerful states are likely to be at the least unhappy with that.


[/QUOTE]Except, once again, there was nothing Maximillian could do to stabilize his reign. You continue to take it as a given when you cannot even articulate a mechanism through which to achieve those ends; I have the book by Shawcross, would you like a PDF copy?[/QUOTE]

Factually inaccurate. Your argue its impossible because it fits your desires. I have stated it as a possibility and ways it could at the least become more likely.

[/QUOTE]The Paraguayan War, where Brazil took over all territories north of the Apa River (62,325 km2 in total, almost 80% the size of Great Britain itself).[/QUOTE]

Was that a deliberate attack on Paraguay for territorial gains or the result of a madman in charge of Paraguay?

[/QUOTE]There are none here Steve, you advanced a claim and I asked you to back it up. That is normal in a debate.[/QUOTE]

No you repeatedly say that only what you want is possible and frequently change course or answer questions that haven't been asked.

[/QUOTE]The South was winning in 1864? Or are you advancing a particular alternative scenario? Regardless, the C.S.A. existed up until 1865, so we can deduce no relative change to the position of the Empire; the buffer of the C.S.A. was there regardless. If you feel otherwise, please explain the mechanism instead of handwaving it away.[/QUOTE]

Sorry a typo on my part. I meant losing, although that should have been obvious, or at least suspected from the rest of what I said. However you decide to avoid what I said in the rest of my reply.

[/QUOTE]They did not, no.[/QUOTE]

Except a number fought on to the bitter end regardless.

[/QUOTE]He knew it when the offer was made in late 1863 and still refused, multiple times in fact.[/QUOTE]

Except again as you keep ignoring things have changed here. Plus are you sure about that date as that was before Maximilian arrived in Mexico?


[/QUOTE]The French succeeded in pushing Juarez into the border regions of the Northwest, yes, but what happens when the French pull out? The Confederates can take their place and work to solve the issues raging because they already have connections with the local strongmen and thus the local elites.[/QUOTE]

Except that would be without US support this time. Or are you saying that Juarez would ally with a CSA that was openly intent on hacking chunks off Mexico?

[/QUOTE]Except said regime never had broad support, while the C.S.A. had already managed to win over many of the powerbrokers of Northern Mexico in 1861-1862. I do not propose a hostile take over in the form of war, but rather a long ranging process extended out over a decade of slowly coming to control the military, economy and other state institutions of Mexico, while integrating the elite of the same into the C.S.A. structures. Rather many cases of this in history. As for religion and slavery, it would be useful to recall the Juarez Liberals were violently Anti-Clerical and Slavery was a non-issue in the North.[/QUOTE]

Well that's the 1st time your given that information. Its less likely to attract external opposition but does give more time for internal opposition to such moves. I doubt such a colonial move would be that attractive to "the Juarez Liberals" who were after all also Mexicans. Also while they were opposed to an overall powerful Catholic church I very much suspect they were in favour of slavery.

In fact what you seem to be suggesting is that the CSA - assuming their still based around a powerful elite - are seeking to appeal to the same aristocratic Mexicans that are being unset by Maximilian's liberalism which is actually a damned good reason for the liberal forces to stick together.

Indeed that is your opinion and not mind, and it is why I've been showing that it is not based in historical reality. Again, it's clear you have an end goal in mind, but the problem is you cannot explain how to get there.

No your been showing its not your opinion and that you can find writers who agree with you. Its clear that you don't want to accept my end goal may be practical.

I'm well aware of the site, what I was referring to you is you practice is referencing the opinions of unnamed others, rather than being able to actually explicitly cite historians or the like to base your opinions on. I've done you the respect of citing multiple different historians who have all rejected the thesis of State's Right and Small Government C.S.A. as an invention of the Lost Cause, rather than the reality of a centralized, modern state.

Because I'm not a professionally trained historician and I have been reading for decades, many of which were library books. As such I have viewpoints and information without being able to cite the exact source. That makes them less value to you but does not invalidate them.

It's not an assumption at all, Confederate planning is something I've cited to you before on the other website you've cited. To re-quote myself from there, I'd recommend you take a look at Colossal Ambitions: Confederate Planning for a Post–Civil War World by Adrian Brettle for one. The C.S.A. explicitly planned for it's own version of a Trans-Continental Railway to the Pacific, and what better outlet than Guaymas, Sonora? Tampico was also one of the main ports for the Confederacy during the Civil War.

I doubt I will have the time but will try and have a look.

The Confederacy will be extremely wealthy off the back of cotton exports alone, and most likely would buy vessels off the UK itself until it reaches maturity in its own ship building industry; see the Laird Rams for example.

Except that would cause problems for them as well - which I will explain when I have time as running late now. Not to mention its still going to be expensive along with a lot of other things your mentioned.

 

[History Learner]

There's a world of difference between saying that something is certain or impossible as you like to and saying its possible/unlikely. I have noticed you tend to be very dogmatic about your desires.

When I'm able to cite historians showing it extremely unlikely, I think it's fair to be insistent you take their arguments seriously rather than handwave them away.

I'm countering your erratic statements as you keeping moving goalposts. Also if we're discussion the chances of a successful CSA taking over parts or all of Mexico then discussion the CSA and the US is definitely significant.

No goal posts have been shifted and if you want to make a point specific about the CSA, feel free to do so but on its own. If we're discussing the political situation in Mexico and you suddenly use a point about the Confederacy which has no bearing that, it's just disingenuous.

It doesn't but that's missing or dodging the point. At whatever point your assuming this attack occurs - and your been vague on that - it doesn't mean that the CSA can ignore the actions of other states.

There has been no vagueness at all, you just, as you usually do, don't read what I post or "forget". I didn't say there would be an attack, I explained the specific timeframe and even directly speculated it would provoke a second war with the United States:

Anyway, in 1876 the Emperor Maxmillian dies without issue or a designated heir (He never had one IOTL and was likely infertile). The Mexican Liberals have long been defeated but the loss of the Monarchy leaves Mexico unstable and in a power vacuum. The Confederate States thus steps in and annexes the country, due to its ties to local strongmen like Santiago Vidaurri as well as heavy influence on the Mexican military and economy. This emerges as a campaign issue for the upcoming 1876 Election in the U.S. and the incumbent Presidency attempts to use it to his advantage, with this resulting in both nations blundering into a war. The U.S. has the numbers and logistics, so it gradually is able to advance into the CSA steadily but at great cost, due to the quality of the C.S. Army and its advantage in artillery.​

​

Ultimately, between the increased demands of the war on railway traffic and political dissatisfaction at the high casualties being taken for an unpopular cause, the 1877 Railway Strikes spark off and are worse than IOTL. With the collapse in their logistics system, the U.S. Army comes to a halt in its advance and the Confederates are able to encircle and destroy several elements in their own ATL Sedan. Adding to the woes of the American military is the need to divert formations to put down communes in cities like Pittsburgh, Chicago and others. In the end, Washington is forced to sue for peace, ending the war with the Confederate annexation of Mexico recognized. From there on, both the C.S. and the U.S. seek to achieve and maintain good ties, as the cost of war for both is recognized as just not worth it.​

Again your 1st sentence is stating an irrelevance. Its not whether the CSA can influence Mexico. Its whether it can take over at least large chunks of it when a number of other, more powerful states are likely to be at the least unhappy with that.

It's completely relevant and I've directly addressed those points. The only powers with the ability to be interested are the U.S. and UK; I've assumed the U.S. would go to war over it. The UK would prefer stability in Mexico over instability and was rather interested in using the C.S.A. as a counter balance to the U.S. in North America. Given the annexation would be mostly peaceful, ensure their economic interests and serve to increase the abilities of the C.S.A. to balance the U.S. I do not see any reason they would become involved beyond brokering peace at the end.

Factually inaccurate. Your argue its impossible because it fits your desires. I have stated it as a possibility and ways it could at the least become more likely.

I'm completely accurate in assessment, it's why I'm the one between the two of us able to cite sources to explain my case and elucidate all mechanisms. You have stated possibilities, but have yet to present evidence they could be made reality by clear mechanisms or acted upon by the intended people.

Was that a deliberate attack on Paraguay for territorial gains or the result of a madman in charge of Paraguay?

An irrelevant distinction, given the UK still accepted the territorial expansion of a slave power, which was the initial point of contention. If you feel the specifics of that situation made the UK more likely to accept, I refer you to the expansion of Slavery via Manifest Destiny in the 1840s and, for the purposes of this counter factual, the circumstances surrounding this Confederate expansion.

No you repeatedly say that only what you want is possible and frequently change course or answer questions that haven't been asked.

No, you made a point and have now switched to critiquing me rather than, as is expected in a debate, defending your own points. That was the point of contention and if you feel I have no answered any points, show me what they are and I gladly will.

Sorry a typo on my part. I meant losing, although that should have been obvious, or at least suspected from the rest of what I said. However you decide to avoid what I said in the rest of my reply.

I did not, but feel free to point me to what points I haven't addressed yet.

Except a number fought on to the bitter end regardless.

Is that why it rapidly fell apart?

Except again as you keep ignoring things have changed here. Plus are you sure about that date as that was before Maximilian arrived in Mexico?

I've directly addressed that several times, the changes overall do not invalidate the assessment on the local level. The C.S.A. was still extant in this timeframe, and thus providing the same geographical buffer as it would be in the ATL; we even have successes at Sabine Pass and Chickamauga to model that waxing Confederate strength would not necessarily impact Juarez.

Except that would be without US support this time. Or are you saying that Juarez would ally with a CSA that was openly intent on hacking chunks off Mexico?

I'm saying political events in Mexico and the situation in Europe will still engender the French leaving, allowing the C.S.A. to fill that void. As for Juarez and the pardon, I think that was a type so my apologies.

Well that's the 1st time your given that information. Its less likely to attract external opposition but does give more time for internal opposition to such moves. I doubt such a colonial move would be that attractive to "the Juarez Liberals" who were after all also Mexicans. Also while they were opposed to an overall powerful Catholic church I very much suspect they were in favour of slavery.

I outlined this in my very first post in this thread. As for the Juarez Liberal faction, by 1865 the French had defeated them; I expect the C.S.A. to keep them down and gradually take over the Imperial Government from within until Max dies.

In fact what you seem to be suggesting is that the CSA - assuming their still based around a powerful elite - are seeking to appeal to the same aristocratic Mexicans that are being unset by Maximilian's liberalism which is actually a damned good reason for the liberal forces to stick together.

I expect the C.S. economy to overtake and integrate the Mexico into their own via financial schemes and settler colonies, to replace the leading role of the French as the military benefactor of Imperial Mexico with ex-C.S. officers effectively taking over the Imperial Army, and for political factions to be bought off and integrate. In the North, this means the strongmen are brought on side, while the aforementioned mechanisms are used elsewhere to establish de-facto C.S. influence and control. It'll take time, but that's all that is needed.

No your been showing its not your opinion and that you can find writers who agree with you. Its clear that you don't want to accept my end goal may be practical.

If by writers you actually meant to say historians, yes, given that's the proper way to settle debates on matters of history. As for your argument, the onus of that rests entirely upon you to make the case; I'm under no requirements to automatically accept your premise in a debate, you're the one who has to make your own case.

Because I'm not a professionally trained historician and I have been reading for decades, many of which were library books. As such I have viewpoints and information without being able to cite the exact source. That makes them less value to you but does not invalidate them.

It makes them less valuable to everyone in a history debate, because that's how this works. I'm not expecting College History 101 or anything like that, but there is a bare minimum standard in that, if you're going to make a claim, be prepared to back it up when someone challenges its validity or even existence. I extend the same curtsy in response.

I doubt I will have the time but will try and have a look.

Understood.

Except that would cause problems for them as well - which I will explain when I have time as running late now. Not to mention its still going to be expensive along with a lot of other things your mentioned.

Cotton was the main U.S. export until the 1930s; it won't be an issue and indeed, will make the C.S. rather wealthy.

 

[WolfBear]

Cotton was the main U.S. export until the 1930s; it won't be an issue and indeed, will make the C.S. rather wealthy.

I'm actually surprised that the US wasn't exporting its industrial goods in huge numbers--or was it?

By the way, how will the Confederacy's black, Native American, and Mexican populations be created over the long(er)-run in this TL?

BTW, you might enjoy this lol :

 

[History Learner]

I'm actually surprised that the US wasn't exporting its industrial goods in huge numbers--or was it?

It was, but cotton remained the single largest export in value until like 1936. Most U.S. industrial production was for internal consumption, for example.

By the way, how will the Confederacy's black, Native American, and Mexican populations be created over the long(er)-run in this TL?

Native Americans probably keep most of OTL Oklahoma to themselves, with a degree of autonomy but highly integrated culturally; the Five Tribes were already Christianized, spoke English and were Southern in most ways, most famously in that they practiced slavery too. Mexican population I see in the medium run getting largely assimilated; many would perhaps move to booming Confederate industrial cities. As for their Black population? Sadly, slavery probably continues until somewhere between 1900 and 1915 I suspect.

BTW, you might enjoy this lol :

Not a fan of it, to be honest.

 

[WolfBear]

It was, but cotton remained the single largest export in value until like 1936. Most U.S. industrial production was for internal consumption, for example.



Native Americans probably keep most of OTL Oklahoma to themselves, with a degree of autonomy but highly integrated culturally; the Five Tribes were already Christianized, spoke English and were Southern in most ways, most famously in that they practiced slavery too. Mexican population I see in the medium run getting largely assimilated; many would perhaps move to booming Confederate industrial cities. As for their Black population? Sadly, slavery probably continues until somewhere between 1900 and 1915 I suspect.

Would Confederates have been cool with miscegenation with Mexicans? Because even in real life, the Southern US had anti-miscegenation laws until the 1960s. Here, they might actually survive until the 21st century. Seriously.

Also, what specifically would result in slavery ending at the start of the 20th century?

Not a fan of it, to be honest.

Why not?

 

[History Learner]

Would Confederates have been cool with miscegenation with Mexicans? Because even in real life, the Southern US had anti-miscegenation laws until the 1960s. Here, they might actually survive until the 21st century. Seriously.

Possibly, for the Black population. Hispanic civil rights was achieved much earlier IOTL and we have documented evidence of Hispanic Colonels in the C.S. military, for example.

Also, what specifically would result in slavery ending at the start of the 20th century?

Growing international pressure and alternative means look more attractive; paying a low wage, while not being legally responsible for the care of their now ex-slaves is a no brainer economically in the long run.

Why not?

It's exceptionally corny as a piece of art in of itself, but specific to the world it creates, it's horrifying. I mean, slavery continued to the modern day is a given and the focal point of the movie is a guy killing himself when it's discovered he has distant non-White ancestors.

 

[stevep]

There has been no vagueness at all, you just, as you usually do, don't read what I post or "forget". I didn't say there would be an attack, I explained the specific timeframe and even directly speculated it would provoke a second war with the United States:

Anyway, in 1876 the Emperor Maxmillian dies without issue or a designated heir (He never had one IOTL and was likely infertile). The Mexican Liberals have long been defeated but the loss of the Monarchy leaves Mexico unstable and in a power vacuum. The Confederate States thus steps in and annexes the country, due to its ties to local strongmen like Santiago Vidaurri as well as heavy influence on the Mexican military and economy. This emerges as a campaign issue for the upcoming 1876 Election in the U.S. and the incumbent Presidency attempts to use it to his advantage, with this resulting in both nations blundering into a war. The U.S. has the numbers and logistics, so it gradually is able to advance into the CSA steadily but at great cost, due to the quality of the C.S. Army and its advantage in artillery.​

​

Ultimately, between the increased demands of the war on railway traffic and political dissatisfaction at the high casualties being taken for an unpopular cause, the 1877 Railway Strikes spark off and are worse than IOTL. With the collapse in their logistics system, the U.S. Army comes to a halt in its advance and the Confederates are able to encircle and destroy several elements in their own ATL Sedan. Adding to the woes of the American military is the need to divert formations to put down communes in cities like Pittsburgh, Chicago and others. In the end, Washington is forced to sue for peace, ending the war with the Confederate annexation of Mexico recognized. From there on, both the C.S. and the U.S. seek to achieve and maintain good ties, as the cost of war for both is recognized as just not worth it.​

​

That is blantently untrue. This is the 1st time I've managed to pin you down to any scenario rather than vague assumptions. Now lets look at this scenario you purpose.
a) Your assuming that Maxmillian dies very young without producing or designating an heir.
b) Your again assuming that the conservatives are the only factor in play and that they will gladly sell their country to the CSA despite the problems that will cause them.
c) Ditto that the bulk of the population is going to accept their new overlords.
d) Then your assuming that the north will be militarily incompetent and also stricken by internal problems that will allow the south to manage a win. Given that they 'lost' in the USCW here its more likely that the north will have the better forces while how is the south securing its increasingly dispossessed white population?
e) Its possible that the CSA might buy new guns from Britain but being able to use them well is a different matter. Not to mention that Britain could also be selling to the US.
e) Also your assuming that Britain will make no response against such a major expansion of the CSA, even when the US is willing to go to war to aid Mexico.

It's completely relevant and I've directly addressed those points. The only powers with the ability to be interested are the U.S. and UK; I've assumed the U.S. would go to war over it. The UK would prefer stability in Mexico over instability and was rather interested in using the C.S.A. as a counter balance to the U.S. in North America. Given the annexation would be mostly peaceful, ensure their economic interests and serve to increase the abilities of the C.S.A. to balance the U.S. I do not see any reason they would become involved beyond brokering peace at the end.

The UK would be interested in preventing a major expansion of a potentially hostile power it has considerable differences with. Also it would prefer a peaceful and stable Mexico not one thrown into chaos and unrest by a foreign invasion. It won't support the CSA even less than the French.

An irrelevant distinction, given the UK still accepted the territorial expansion of a slave power, which was the initial point of contention. If you feel the specifics of that situation made the UK more likely to accept, I refer you to the expansion of Slavery via Manifest Destiny in the 1840s and, for the purposes of this counter factual, the circumstances surrounding this Confederate expansion.

Wrong. Its one thing Brazil making minor gains in an isolated territory as a result of defeating an attack and the CSA making an attack on a major state like Mexico.

I've directly addressed that several times, the changes overall do not invalidate the assessment on the local level. The C.S.A. was still extant in this timeframe, and thus providing the same geographical buffer as it would be in the ATL; we even have successes at Sabine Pass and Chickamauga to model that waxing Confederate strength would not necessarily impact Juarez.

No your ignored it repeatedly. Things will be different here, other than the existence of some CSA state.

I'm saying political events in Mexico and the situation in Europe will still engender the French leaving, allowing the C.S.A. to fill that void. As for Juarez and the pardon, I think that was a type so my apologies.

No doubt but under different circumstances and probably at a slightly later stage. In this scenario with many other differences.

I outlined this in my very first post in this thread. As for the Juarez Liberal faction, by 1865 the French had defeated them; I expect the C.S.A. to keep them down and gradually take over the Imperial Government from within until Max dies.

Except that defeated faction managed to route the imperials OTL so they weren't that heavily defeated.

I expect the C.S. economy to overtake and integrate the Mexico into their own via financial schemes and settler colonies, to replace the leading role of the French as the military benefactor of Imperial Mexico with ex-C.S. officers effectively taking over the Imperial Army, and for political factions to be bought off and integrate. In the North, this means the strongmen are brought on side, while the aforementioned mechanisms are used elsewhere to establish de-facto C.S. influence and control. It'll take time, but that's all that is needed.

And it will be a ticking time bomb until it goes boom. If not straight away.

 

[WolfBear]

An irrelevant distinction, given the UK still accepted the territorial expansion of a slave power, which was the initial point of contention. If you feel the specifics of that situation made the UK more likely to accept, I refer you to the expansion of Slavery via Manifest Destiny in the 1840s and, for the purposes of this counter factual, the circumstances surrounding this Confederate expansion.

Slavery didn't expand all that much as a result of Manifest Destiny. It was already legal in Texas and California was made a free state. The Kansas-Nebraska Act did more for the spread of slavery than Manifest Destiny did. But the US already controlled Kansas and Nebraska even before the 1840s, and ultimately Kansas was made a free state as well (and so was Nebraska, but after slavery was already abolished nationwide, unlike for Kansas).

 

[WolfBear]

An interesting analysis from one AH.com user on this topic:

The USA's Sudpolitik: Revanchism After A Confederate Victory?

So, let's take the typical (and IMO best) POD for a Union victory. The lost order isn't lost, and the CSA wins at *Antietam. The CSA gets Kentucky, Virginia, and Oklahoma, but not Arizona, New Mexico, or West Virignia. [1] But overtime, IMO economics would only favor the USA more and more, as...

www.alternatehistory.com

I think that the two will be mainly hostile but it'd be more North Korea/South Korea in the short term. The Union's going to take an economic hit from loss of the South and have to restructure itself, and will probably be undergoing major military reforms and retooling of its military power relative to the hostile and unstable Southern neighbor, but all that will take at least a generation. So no war between the two for 20-40 years or more.

The Confederacy will place demands on say, Missouri and West Virginia and maybe Maryland, which means that in addition to the USA now requiring a much larger military to police the borders with the Confederacy, the two have obvious focal points of hostility. The Union will, however, face some issues with the new Southern neighbor in regards to both runaway slaves over the US-CS border, and politically for at least the first generation the idea of a military geared to invade the Confederacy as opposed to border defense is not going to politically fly.

Two or so generations down the line, especially if the CSA's internal contradictions make it ripe for the picking, the two are likely to resume war against each other and this conventional victory will be won by the USA and there won't be a CSA, which will have a short and unhappy existence, but the invasion will be as much to end existing border issues as opposed to the endless hostility of TL-191 (which let's face it, the CSA ain't gonna create a WWI army, much less a WWII one). The USA, however, has obvious border issues and the memory of Bleeding Kansas on its own would necessitate a much larger peacetime army, which in turn is likely to prompt an attempt at an arms race from the CSA, meaning that in this sense the two creating a large-scale iron curtain is more likely in the short term than wars for no real reason.