Viva El Emperador ! An alternate TL of Mexico

What do you think ?

  • It is good, keep on !

    Votes: 31 83.8%
  • It's okay...

    Votes: 3 8.1%
  • Should change the focus back to "Leão do Norte".

    Votes: 1 2.7%
  • You should quit both !

    Votes: 2 5.4%

  • Total voters
    37
Prologue
Prologue

In 1821, the Viceroyalty of New Spain was independent and looking for a government, Liberals wanted a Republic and Conservatives wanted a European King, they had neither. They had a Ursuper General called Agustín Ituribe, but he was overthrown little time after taking the throne and a Republic was declared. (First PoD: Central America remained in the Union)

From 1823-1846 Mexico was ruled by a Centralist Republic, controled directly and indirectly by Santa Ana, a powerful caudillo that was a disaster. Under his thumb, Texas, Rio Grande, and Yucatán tried Independence and Texas managed to win against the Federal forces. To avoid a full collapse he gave many concessions to the Central American states, giving considerable autonomy and a special status in the Republic, with their own Parliament.

In 1846 the USA annexed Texas and demanded about Half the Mexican territory, (PoD) but instead of going to fight with a hot head, Santa Ana negotiated a better deal, keeping half of California and the West of the Rio Grande river. President Polk reluctantly accepted due to pressure from the Whigs (PoD: Whigs and moderate Democrats manage to Control Polk's Expansionism.) and the Treaty of Guadaloupe-Hidalgo.

IMG_2338.JPG

Mexico lost tons of territories without a fight, both Liberals and Conservatives used the opportunity for a coup d'etat and finally oust Santa Ana. But for the next decade, Conservatives and Liberals struggled for power. In 1861 the Liberals led by Benito Juarez took the power firmly and suspended the payment of foreign debt.

That was his greatest mistake, Britain, France, and Spain invaded Mexico. He negotiated with the British and Spanish to retreat in return of a great sum of money. But money wasn't enough for the French Emperor Napoleon III, he wanted to create a Catholic Empire in Mexico. The French forces took Veracruz in 1862 and later that year, (PoD) the Mexicans were defeated in the battle of Puebla and Mexico City was taken soon after.

The Mexican Conservatives allied with the French Monarchist Ideas and were now looking for a Emperor for Mexico.
 
1 - An Emperor for Mexico
Napoleon III and the Mexican Conservatives were looking for a noble. A Catholic Habsburg was a preference of the Monarchists, so that is where they went, finding two candidates: Archduke Karl Ludwig and his brother Maximillian.

Maximillian was older than Karl by a year and was excited with the idea of getting a crown, but he was a Liberal Constitutionalist. Karl didn't really care about politics and was considered pragmatic, and he had just secured a heir son called Franz. In the end, Karl was chosen to be Emperor and he accepted the offer some time latter.

The Emperor arrived in Veracruz, the town was watching silent as their new Emperor was guarded by foreign troops. The liberal Port City showed to Karl his image to the Mexican people, that is what he had to change.

Karl started by changing his name to a Spanish version: Carlos Luíz I von Habsburgo. And met with Representatives of the Central American states, promising to increase their status by turning them into a Viceroyalty, the tempting offer was accepted. He also promised greater autonomy to the Yucatán natives and got them by his side. Next target was Benito Juarez that fleed to ciudad Juarez in the North, he offered amnesty and invite him as minister of Justice. An offer he refused.

Carlos made the Palace of Chapultepec his home, and started learning to write and speak Spanish 24/7. Carlos wanted to try to Improve his image to the people, and that was going to be hard.
 
How does Monroe doctrine influence TL? US civil war is likely made shorter IMO and also happens earlier--less territory means less effective safety valve in the west and w/o civil war it is unlikely that Lee ever gains the prestige to delay the inevitable for as long. Thus the US might have a large veteran army and well developed arms industry when Europe invades...
 
The CSA territory is pretty much the same, the union doesn't have California or the money from the gold rush too. The war is happening as historical, I may probably have the South win so the Empire doesn't fall.
 
In 1846 the USA annexed Texas and demanded about Half the Mexican territory, (PoD) but instead of going to fight with a hot head, Santa Ana negotiated a better deal, keeping half of California and the West of the Rio Grande river. President Polk reluctantly accepted due to pressure from the Whigs (PoD: Whigs and moderate Democrats manage to Control Polk's Expansionism.) and the Treaty of Guadaloupe-Hidalgo
ASB,, Santa Ana would be desposed and other would fight instead, people not surrender national territory unless in defeat and why accept an emperor when republic works fine? ASB.
 
ASB,, Santa Ana would be desposed and other would fight instead, people not surrender national territory unless in defeat and why accept an emperor when republic works fine? ASB.
Do you understand a thing about Mexican history ? The Republic didn't work, the Conservatives and Liberals fought a civil war and were confronting for a decade. Plus the Monarchy was Imposed by the French with alliance with the Mexican conservatives, during the French Intervention of 1862.

And is not ASB for Mexico to negotiate with the USA knowing they WOULD HAVE LOST any war against the USA.
 
Do you understand a thing about Mexican history ?
Yes and didn't worked because conservative boycotted it over liberal reforms and laws. and as you say, the monarchy was imposed and never got legitimacy, that is why Suarez was so sucessful, that is ASB, Maximilliam will still get executed, he is far useful in austria that mexico

And is not ASB for Mexico to negotiate with the USA knowing they WOULD HAVE LOST any war against the USA.
That is the issue..NOBODY KNEWS, they've to fight it first and mexican are very patriotic in that regard
 
Yes and didn't worked because conservative boycotted it over liberal reforms and laws. and as you say, the monarchy was imposed and never got legitimacy, that is why Suarez was so sucessful, that is ASB, Maximilliam will still get executed, he is far useful in austria that mexico


That is the issue..NOBODY KNEWS, they've to fight it first and mexican are very patriotic in that regard

1: Read the rest, as I said "But for the next decade, Conservatives and Liberals struggled for power", the 1850s proceeded like usual.

2: It is not Maximillian, it is his younger Brother Karl Ludwig, Maximillian had the support of the Conservatives and Clergy (initially, until his liberal reforms turned them against him). Karl also has this support and he isn't a stupid liberal like his brother, I Plan Karl to be a pragmatic ruler so the Conservatives keep their support.

3: I admit that is not Santa Anna's character but I had to find a way for Mexico to keep part of California, besides, he was deposed because of that anyways. And the Northern Issue is not over yet.
 
The CSA territory is pretty much the same, the union doesn't have California or the money from the gold rush too. The war is happening as historical, I may probably have the South win so the Empire doesn't fall.

The US still has many of the gold mines in its territory by your division including Sutter's Mill. Sutter was there for the Russian Empire so I doubt that the changes would butterfly the discovery of gold as OTL (though the discovery might incite a later war w/Mexico as California's value suddenly appears much greater). Without any claim that California is part of the South--all of its territory is above the Missouri Compromise line--and with no territory to admit as a slave state, Compromise of 1850 will happen as OTL. However, the Northern antislavery types--resenting that they have had to make concessions to admit an unambiguously Northern/free state--will be furious. I would not be surprised if lynch mobs in some Northern towns start going after anyone trying to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, and people like John Brown will get a lot more support than IOTL (though still probably not much overall). With this climate, I would not be surprised if a civil war starts before 1860 if the Southern delegation demands that the Northerners agree to use federal troops to enforce the Act, which the Northerners will refuse to do, leading to secession (or some similar pattern of events). The war starts in, say, 1858 and ends by 1862 if all actions occur as OTL -3 years. However this will decidedly not be the case--Lee and other Southern generals will not have been "discovered" during the Mexican-American war and, with neither side having an efficient general staff, the North's manpower and resource advantages will become telling much sooner. The blockade would still probably occur; even without being a national hero Scott had still been appointed as top dog militarily in 1841 so the Anaconda plan still occurs. Unless the South gets extraordinarily lucky and finds a general officer as skilled at strategy as Lee (possibly Lee himself) by chance, they won't do so well. Butterflies may even result in Lee siding with the Union. Slavery may never be abolished during this civil war though I still think it likely.

However, even if the civil war happens as OTL, the south winning is still ASB without European aid (or massive political collapse on the part of the Union, though I think that rather unlikely). If the French intervene, I'd be willing to bet that Bismark takes his opportunity ten years earlier. If either France or Britain intervenes, there is a high chance that the Russians come to the aid of the US (IOTL they deployed their fleets to New York and San Francisco and helped enforce the blockade to some extent, though mostly indirectly). End result is WWI in 1860, not a Southern victory in anything resembling our Civil War.
 
The US still has many of the gold mines in its territory by your division including Sutter's Mill. Sutter was there for the Russian Empire so I doubt that the changes would butterfly the discovery of gold as OTL (though the discovery might incite a later war w/Mexico as California's value suddenly appears much greater). Without any claim that California is part of the South--all of its territory is above the Missouri Compromise line--and with no territory to admit as a slave state, Compromise of 1850 will happen as OTL. However, the Northern antislavery types--resenting that they have had to make concessions to admit an unambiguously Northern/free state--will be furious. I would not be surprised if lynch mobs in some Northern towns start going after anyone trying to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, and people like John Brown will get a lot more support than IOTL (though still probably not much overall). With this climate, I would not be surprised if a civil war starts before 1860 if the Southern delegation demands that the Northerners agree to use federal troops to enforce the Act, which the Northerners will refuse to do, leading to secession (or some similar pattern of events). The war starts in, say, 1858 and ends by 1862 if all actions occur as OTL -3 years. However this will decidedly not be the case--Lee and other Southern generals will not have been "discovered" during the Mexican-American war and, with neither side having an efficient general staff, the North's manpower and resource advantages will become telling much sooner. The blockade would still probably occur; even without being a national hero Scott had still been appointed as top dog militarily in 1841 so the Anaconda plan still occurs. Unless the South gets extraordinarily lucky and finds a general officer as skilled at strategy as Lee (possibly Lee himself) by chance, they won't do so well. Butterflies may even result in Lee siding with the Union. Slavery may never be abolished during this civil war though I still think it likely.

However, even if the civil war happens as OTL, the south winning is still ASB without European aid (or massive political collapse on the part of the Union, though I think that rather unlikely). If the French intervene, I'd be willing to bet that Bismark takes his opportunity ten years earlier. If either France or Britain intervenes, there is a high chance that the Russians come to the aid of the US (IOTL they deployed their fleets to New York and San Francisco and helped enforce the blockade to some extent, though mostly indirectly). End result is WWI in 1860, not a Southern victory in anything resembling our Civil War.

That is an interesting analysis, do you think it would be possible... that the North states in New England, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, Indiana, New York, and Pennsylvania may declare independence instead of the south ? Say, the government starts to become Dominated by the south and John Breckinridge wins the elections because gerrymandering ?
 
That is an interesting analysis, do you think it would be possible... that the North states in New England, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, Indiana, New York, and Pennsylvania may declare independence instead of the south ? Say, the government starts to become Dominated by the south and John Breckinridge wins the elections because gerrymandering ?

I'd say it seems more plausible for John Hale to run again in 1856 (Free Soil Party either remains or reforms into Republicans more directly than IOTL) and manages to win enough votes that nobody wins outright (& a plurality or even majority of Northern votes). The vote then goes to the House voting by state and all the Southern states plus a couple Northern ones choose Breckenridge (TTL Democratic nominee by butterflies). Northern states especially New England are outraged and a Second Hartford Convention is called...

Whether the North would still win depends on exactly which states secede. I think it fair to say all of New England will, as well as possibly New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. If the Midwest also joins or even remains neutral I'd say that the North has the industrial and naval advantage to win the war (esp. given that IMO the rivers and terrain are more defensible in the North). Food supply would be an issue for both sides; I could picture the North borrowing so heavily from the British to buy Canadian wheat that they essentially become a British puppet.
 
Last edited:
I have only the most general of acquaintances with Mexican political history as a whole, but I've always found the Second Mexican Empire interesting. A less idealistic Emperor than Maximiliano sounds like a good first step to keeping the conservative faction consolidated and invested in the crown. I'm curious about the offer of political authority extended to Juarez ITTL; do you know who motivated that move in OTL? I imagined it was some kind of idealistic attempt by Maximilian to satisfy his own liberal leanings (well-intentioned by foolish before he had his feet firmly under him) while also trying to consolidate the republican faction with his administration (a more practical reason for a strategy that still failed); however, I have absolutely no information to back up that assumption.

I don't know enough to comment on the scenario/s mentioned by @Arcavius but there certainly are a lot of interesting possibilities.

In any case, this seems like an interesting thread; I'm following.
 
2 - A House Divided
In 1846, the Nevada Cession gave the Union the control of a great territory in the West, and with that came new problems related to the slavery issue: Would these states have slavery or not ?

In the 1848 elections, the Democrat Lewis Cass defeated the Whig Winfield Scott in one of the most polarized US elections in history. The (Secretly)Pro-Slavery Lewis Cass was innaugurated and went to solve the Western issue, breaking the Wilmot Proviso and enacting a Compromisse, giving popular sovereignty to determine the slavery issue, the North-West of Texas was taken away in return of the Federal government paying the state debts. But Texas was allowed to keep the Rio Grande as state border in the west.

This "Compromise" caused anger of northerners. And as the 1850s came, more and more the slavery issue divided the American people. The next elections in 1852 saw the rise of the free soil party as many Anti-Slavery Whigs joined them in hope of making a real difference. The Democrat Franklin Pierce won the elections thanks to the Whig-soil split.

In 1856 the Free soil Party reformed into the Republican Party, decided to fight slavery and defending the interests of the Northern Industrials, the Whigs collapsed and most of them joined the rising Republican Party.

The Supreme Court meanwhile, the case Dred Scott v Stanford confirmed several pro-slavery issues, confirming that the Congress could not regulate slavery in western territories and the status of a slave as a Private Propriety, causing uproar in the North.

The elections ended with the Democrat James Buchanan winning elections against John C. Frémont. It would be the last peaceful elections before the War.

Buchanan presidency was a corrupt disaster, with a Economic crisis in 1857, a war against Mormons in Utah, and a civil war in Kansas over slavery. In 1859, after his corruption scandals were revealed, Buchanan suffered an Impeachment procedure by his own party members. John Breckinridge was now President, a radical pro-slavery southerner.

Just the day after Breckinridge became president, the Anti-Slavery radical John Brown, attacked the Harpers ferry Military Armory to incite a slave revolt. He failed thanks for the intervention of the rising Star Robert E. Lee. Breckinridge decided to make an example of him, hanging him with no trial. The fury of the Northerners reached a breaking point.

Representatives of the states of New England, the states of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania met in the second Hartford Convention. And in 24th of November of 1859, the Commonwealth of New England declared secession of the Union.

IMG_2344.PNG
 
Ohhh I'm curious now...

Will the Midwest stay neutral, join the CoNE (almost a mirror of the Northern South joining the CSA), or what?

Edit: I wonder what the lyrics are to John Brown's Body ITTL...

There would definitely be a chance that if they strongly come out as antislavery they might gain British support (particularly if they are also accepting British credit...). On the flip side this might make it harder to get Midwestern support...

& I assume that the Pine Tree Flag will be used for the CoNE?
 
Last edited:
3 - The Secession War I (1859-1860)
The American Civil War, or War of Secession, was a conflict that happened between 1859-1864 as the most devastating war in American History. The founding fathers failed to solve the slavery issue and now the country had to pay the Price.

When the Northern states declared secession, the Federal government moved in troops of the Federal Army stationed in the north to arrest the Governors with charges of treason. But the Federal forces in the north refused to follow these orders and joined the Northerners.

The Northern states decided New York as temporary War Capital, while electing a Provisional Government under the former Republican Candidate John C. Frémont. They hoped that the Great Lakes states would join their new Commonwealth, but inside those states there were clashes between pro-secession and state forces. In the end it was decided Neutrality of those states.

Without the help of the Midwest states, New England turned to the Old England, Asking for the help of the British in the war. Britain maintained Neutrality for now, but a trade deal was made to sell cheap grain to the North during the War, France couldn't care less about this "Yankee Problem" as they were focused on the Italian war of Independence.

New England also decided their flag:

IMG_2346.PNG

The Federal Government remained with most of the Army and General Corps, including some rising Colonels and Commanders Like Robert E. Lee, Ulysses Grant, and Thomas Jackson. But the "Old Man in the Army" Winfield Scott joined the Northerners, bringing him some promising students like Sherman.

There was no action in 1859, both sides took December to consolidate and prepare their forces. In January, the Navy almost entirely sided with the Union, and a blockage of the coast of New England was decreed, being very effective with the relatively small coastline. The Federal Army, with about 84,000 men under the command of General George McLean, marched to Philadelphia first, the New Englander army of 77,000 men waited in the first battle of the war: The first battle of Newark was the first battle of the War.

The inexperience of both sides in modern warfare made both pay the price: Over 40,000 Casualties in a single day of battle. The Federal forces left defeated but both sides were now forced to adapt to modern warfare.

The Second front in the North was the invasion of Ohio, in March, both New England and the Federal forces made the Neutral state a battlefield. The Battle of Cleveland for example, the Union victory gave Robert E. Lee the rank of General due to his brilliant offensive tactics. Grant meet Sherman in the first battle of Hartford in Pennsylvania and both sides ended defeated.

By August, the war already had claimed about 80,000 lives and left many more scarred for life. The deplorable state of the military Hospitals made many injuried wish to die in the battlefield instead. The war wasn't going to have a quick end, both sides were very balanced in Industry and Population. A breakthrough was needed.

Scott took up the Supreme commandership of the Armed forces in the North. Preparing a great offensive to take Ohio, getting about 140,000 men in the largest Army fielded in North America. Following the Erie Lake and attacking the city of Cleveland, defended by General Lee and Major Thomas Jackson with about 68,000 men.

With less than half the men of the New Englander Army, Lee fought a battle of 7 days, fighting for every city block. Until they were forced to retreat to Columbus with about 43,000 men left. Meanwhile the New Englander army won a phyrric Victory, losing about 1/3rd of the army. With about 96,000 men left, the campaign was halted and the New Englander forces Consolidated Western Ohio Valley and one of the main industrial Centers of the Union, but they lost men they could not afford to lose.

In the Union, Breckinridge canceled the elections due to the war, he tried to win the international support by showing it wasn't a war about slavery. The north tried to prove the opposite, declaring the "Universal declaration of the Negro Rights", declaring that the Negro was a human being and not a propriety, issuing a Anti-Slavery Manifesto to all the world, citing the Declaration of Independence that "All men are created equal." While also declaring the reasons of separation from the Union. New England had the sympathy of Europe. But that didn't translate to direct support, for now.

The year ended with a last offensive of the Union, the Winter Campaign in November-December was led by Generals Robert E. Lee, Ulysses Grant, and George McLean. Over 180,000 Soldiers were split in 3 forces: Lee and McLean advanced to Ohio while Grant provided a Distraction in the second battle of Harrisburg.

Grant lost, but he was never meant to win, his battle distracted the New Englander High command from a surprise offensive in the Ohio Valley. Lee managed to retake Mansfield and Canton. But George McLean panicked in the Cleveland attack, he overestimated the size of Sherman's force and feared similar loses that Scott suffered when he took the city, he instead mounted defensive positions 20 miles West of the city and waited for an attack that never came. This gave time to Scott redeploy the forces from the West and send reinforcements that repealed Lee's offensive and brought a total disaster to Union forces. By the end of the New Year, New England won more terrain but paid the price for every inch with blood.
 
Last edited:
Top