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

[stevep]

The biggest problem is that if the south or Dixy leaves you end up removing the big giant restraining bolt that keeps new england from going off the rails.

Let me explain further, this is a region of the country founded by litteral cultists, on the positive side they have all of the energy because cults on the negative side unless they are countered by an equally strong personality (AKA the south) they will run roughshod over every one else and will go off the rails.

Now remove all of the brakes on american culture and hand them a crusade to fight.....

yeah that is not a recipe for peaceful coexistance thats a recipie for a blood fueled crusade where New England uses every method they have to isolate the south before showing up with an industrialized army to obliterate it and remake it in its image. Which is good for no one.

Fact is while losing the civil war was painful for the south it was likely the least worst option they were going to realistically get at that point.

Would have to disagree. By this time New England had lost much of its power. It was already being side-lined by 1812 remember. Also while it might have been founded by Puritans initially Massachusetts at least, which was its centre of power was becoming increasingly Irish Catholic so it had lost much of its unity. Furthermore what would they have to crusade about? As others have said the actual issue of slavery was a relatively minor one for most of the north during much of the war and if they do seek to reconquer the south and free all those slaves what the vast majority of the north won't want would be those blacks heading north where there's more economic opportunities.

By this time power is overwhelmingly in the lower north and increasingly also in the areas further west in the Ohio and Mississippi valleys. They have zero interest in a war with the south if it can be avoided because of the high economic costs to them. Furthermore if the southern victory has been a costly failure for the north while there will be fanatics in the military who might want to gain revenge and seek to wipe out the 'disgrace of defeat' but there will be many people including probably most of the pbi who suffered so much in the war who will be say "hell no. We're not going through that again". Plus as I pointed out an openly and highly revanchist north is going to pay a sizeable cost for such a stance.

 

[WolfBear]

One thing worth noting that I don't see mentioned here. In real life in the pre-WWI era (such as in this US map for 1900), the ex-Confederate parts of the US generally didn't get very many immigrants:

If this pattern will be the same as in real life, then the Union's population advantage over the Confederacy is likely to only grow over time as a result of massive immigration to the Union but not to the Confederacy, unless of course the Confederacy will compensate for this by importing slaves or something, which is probably highly unlikely due to strong British opposition.

 

[stevep]

One thing worth noting that I don't see mentioned here. In real life in the pre-WWI era (such as in this US map for 1900), the ex-Confederate parts of the US generally didn't get very many immigrants:

If this pattern will be the same as in real life, then the Union's population advantage over the Confederacy is likely to only grow over time as a result of massive immigration to the Union but not to the Confederacy, unless of course the Confederacy will compensate for this by importing slaves or something, which is probably highly unlikely due to strong British opposition.

A lot would depend on the circumstances. Even before the USCW I think migrantion to the south was limited because much of the good land was dominated by the plantations and you had a flow of poorer whites northwards which helped with the land hunger in the north as western expansion developed. Also probably with the opposition to slavery being spread further west. As such without significant change the south will be increasingly outnumbered.

However there are a couple of factors to be considered here.
a) Both side would have debts from the war and almost certainly markedly higher military spending compared to the pre-war period. This is going to impose both economic and social costs. For instance if this larger army is a volunteer one its likely to be expensive, both to recruit/maintain and to properly equip and train. Even more so a decent navy if only for attempts to blockade the south. [Which wouldn't be easy with no basis south of Chesapeake Bay and international recognition for the south]. If its conscript on the service that will be cheaper but could deter at least some immigration from Europe. This would be increased considerable if the north was clearly revanchist and militaristic as its likely to deter foreign capital as well as settlers.

b) If the conflict had been decided in part by foreign involvement - either by Britain due to the Trent crisis going hot or a later Anglo-French intervention and especially if its been a long and bloody war before the north is forced to come to terms then the above is going to be greatly magnified. A highly belligerent US also making threats to Britain and possibly France as well is going to face a number of problem.
i) In the short term after the war its going to have problems getting loans from Europe and those it does get will be at markedly higher interest rates. Also you could well see a flow of people who had moved from Britain or Canada prior to the war out of the country, probably to Canada. Also for the duration of this conflict there will be little/no immigration to the union and routes will probably be directed to other areas while the US merchant marine, coastal trade and probably at least some ports are going to suffer badly.
ii) If the US is bellicose for an extended period this is going to be a continued problem for them. Migrants will continue to be discouraged and many end up elsewhere as will capital. Canada was continually weakened OTL as many of the migrants it attracted along with locally born often moving south to better economic conditions so much of that wouldn't happen here and its likely to be markedly stronger demographically and economically. It will still be dwarfed by the US but will of course have Britain and the rest of the empire to call upon.
iii) Also if there's a clear prospect of war with Britain especially but to a lesser degree France then the costs for war planning will be markedly higher. It would need a much bigger navy to seek to protect its coastline and possibly coastal trade and can forget about any ideas of blockading the south unless it manages a successful divide and rule action. At this period a navy capable of putting up a fight against France be blood expensive, especially since with rapid technologically change becoming quickly obsolete quickly. For a force that might put up a fight against the RN it would be a case of forget it or bankrupt the country while such a war would also mean a prolonged northern front.

 

[Sailor.X]

If it is a long war with European interference. Then in the long run the South is screwed. They may win the first war. But the South really didn't industrialize like the North until the Mid to late 20th Century. Planter culture lasted well into the 20th Century. The North will innovate and get more technologically advanced and by the 1890s The shit gets real and the South WILL get wrecked by the 2nd North South War. The North will have way more people to call upon for troops than they did in the 1860s. And the tech difference will be too great.

 

[Buba]

But the South really didn't industrialize like the North until the Mid to late 20th Century.

Simply being part of the USA is one of the causes of this.
An USA without the CSA will have an econmy at least one third - of not more - smaller, while the CSA is almost certain to be more industrialised.

 

[stevep]

Simply being part of the USA is one of the causes of this.
An USA without the CSA will have an econmy at least one third - of not more - smaller, while the CSA is almost certain to be more industrialised.

If it is a long war with European interference. Then in the long run the South is screwed. They may win the first war. But the South really didn't industrialize like the North until the Mid to late 20th Century. Planter culture lasted well into the 20th Century. The North will innovate and get more technologically advanced and by the 1890s The shit gets real and the South WILL get wrecked by the 2nd North South War. The North will have way more people to call upon for troops than they did in the 1860s. And the tech difference will be too great.

A lot depends on the circumstances. For instance taking the most commonly considered scenario of Lincoln screwing up the Trent Crisis. If it means war with the UK then that probably lasts until late 1862 when the union is forced to come to terms. This would probably mean that the south gets pretty much all the territory of the states that seceded - other than probably what became W Virginia, probably the Indian Territory and possibly what became New Mexico/Arizona. Britain/Canada might make some minor territorial gains and say removing US access from the Grand Banks and the American presence from Hawaii. US suffering a rather humiliating defeat but can probably bounce back fairly quickly as long as their not too openly revanchist/militaristic. Migration to the north and investments to it would probably be not much below OTL levels although its likely more settlers going to Canada stay there rather than moving south. The US then becomes a pretty strong power not too much slower than OTL but how much its culture is changes and its attitude to foreign powers and interaction would be difficult to tell. It will be weaker because its lost a good chunk of territory, population [and with that the size of the home market] and revenue.

If it became strongly revanchist then a lot changes. Migration will be greatly reduced and tax revenue will be sucked into military spending - which especially if their trying to maintain a significant regional navy for instance to have the chance to blockade part of the south would be expensive. They will have a markedly larger army but again how is this funded, organised and equipped? They will have to consider a 2-3 front war with possibly both Britain and the south and Britain - unless heavily constrained by a crisis elsewhere - can pull in resources from Britain and across its empire while Canada will also be stronger. Foreign investment in the US is likely to be lower and at a higher cost. How long the US takes such a stance and how other powers react to it could go any number of ways.

Alternatively say the UK and south make a number of mistakes in 1862 and the north is able to limp through until they can produce more materials themselves - most especially gunpowder [or more specifically saltpetre - guns, artillery and possibly horses, lead and other items. Its still likely to be a defeat for the union but a longer war as in 1914-18 is probably going to mean both much more destruction and a harsher peace when the north finally gives in. This is more likely to lead to revanchist feeling in the north but it would be markedly weaker, both immediately post war and in the following decades and also there's going to be a lot of people who have seen the costs of war and will be saying "bloody hell, not again"

Another option is a joined Anglo-French intervention in 1863 which was suggested in some sources. This could again secure southern independence but probably in a truncated form with the north holding on to a good bit of the land they have already occupied. How both north and south feel after that would be difficult to tell as it depends on now both and other groups react to events.

Yet another possibility would be if the southern envoys took a French rather than a British ship from Cuba and it gets stopped and they seized as OTL. France has a smaller fleet than Britain and less bases in the region but it still has a more powerful fleet and a strong army and Napoleon III was eager to recognise the south so he could take this as a casus belli which would lead to a different 'Trent war' scenario. No northern front with Canada but the northern blockade removed and possibly French forces operating from south ports.

If there is a new war between the north and south only, no matter what way the two nations develop then provided that the south isn't in a deep crisis its going to be costly for the north to consider a war. The south will have a smaller military but will have a defensive stance with probably powerful fortifications along key paths, most noticeably the Mississippi valley. The blocking of which for the duration of the war having an impact on the northern states west of the Appalachians. Also since they have formally recognised the south at the preceding peace its going to be harder to impose any blockade on the south, especially if they have no real basis south of the Chesapeake Bay region. It could be if the south is divided and/or the north a lot more powerful and well led that the war could be over within a few months so economic and political damage would be limited but that's by no means certain and also you then have the question of how to rule a probably hostile [black population aside] south who's people have been used to governing themselves.

 

[Sailor.X]

Simply being part of the USA is one of the causes of this.
An USA without the CSA will have an econmy at least one third - of not more - smaller, while the CSA is almost certain to be more industrialised.

Hardly. Dude I am from the South. South Carolina to be specific. The South only got some industralization due to New Deal projects and World War 2 projects. Back when my mother was a kid in the 1930s and 40s. The bulk of people still got around by Horse and Buggy. I shit you not. Damn near all the roads across the state were Dirt Roads and Farming was the chief means of production for the state. The only advanced things were owned by Rich people and the US government. Trust me the South will not industrialize like you think it will.

This was in the standard not the exception.

 

[Buba]

Trust me the South will not industrialize like you think it will.

I bow to your superior knowledge.
Nevertheless, the South has to buy manufactured goods from somewhere. If there is a CSA then it will buy less of the overpriced and shoddy Yankee goods and buy more of high quality, exquisite British, German or French goods it was denied by tariffs set up to protect yesterday news Northern junk from competition. Nor will the money made by the South from selling its cash crops pass through the USA's bank system, thuis there being slightly* less capital available.
With a CSA the USA will not develop as it did in OTL. It will be lesser not only by simple subtraction of what's gone with the CSA's territory, but also due to slower growth with contraction of Southern markets and capital inflow.

* there was a shitload of British money invested in the USA, but the World Wars eliminated British capital from the US economy

 

[S'task]

Hardly. Dude I am from the South. South Carolina to be specific. The South only got some industralization due to New Deal projects and World War 2 projects. Back when my mother was a kid in the 1930s and 40s. The bulk of people still got around by Horse and Buggy. I shit you not. Damn near all the roads across the state were Dirt Roads and Farming was the chief means of production for the state. The only advanced things were owned by Rich people and the US government. Trust me the South will not industrialize like you think it will.

This was in the standard not the exception.

Industrialization in the South was inversely proportional to how good the land was for cotton. The most industrialized State in the Confederacy was Virginia, and Virginia had a lot going for it for industrialization moving forward: easy access to large amounts of coal, rivers that could be used for transport, and easy access to oceanic trade via the Chesapeake. Its growing land was also exhausted from growing crops due to it being some of the oldest settled land under European style farming and so grew very little cotton compared to the rest of the Confederacy.

While I agree with you the Confederacy would overall lag behind the US in industrialization, those states that were outside the cotton belt, mainly the border States that went with the Confederacy, and perhaps Louisiana due top its location at the mouth of the Mississippi would likely industrialize quite a bit compared to the OTL, though rather than use immigrant labor they likely would use slave labor to run the factories.

As to the South only industrializing due to projects in the 20th century in our timeline that is in large part due to the economic free trade zone that is the US. There was no reason to industrialize in the South in the 1900s - 1940s as it was more economical to simply use the South for resource extraction and production (cotton, coal, oil, etc.) and move those to the Industrial Belt of the country (what is now known as the Rust Belt) and then ship those finished goods around the country. It was also preferable to the elites of both those States and the Southern States which used the economic poverty and Jim Crow to maintain political control over the South. You see, the way the Democrats controlled the South was by an alliance of the elites and the poor of a preferred racial demographic, in this case poor whites. As the middle class of a State grew, Democrat control over the state lapsed... there is a direct correlation to the growth of the middle class and Southern states turning Republican and ousting the old Democrat machines. Meanwhile the racial undesirables would end up migrating out of the region under Democrat control looking for work (if this sounds strikingly familiar... well... it is what it is...)

In a timeline where the Confederacy survived, the politicians would have no reason to pursue this purposeful strategy of limited economic growth and development, and would instead be strongly encouraged to build up their own industries that were not dependent on the US. The Confederacy would have the resources, manpower, and economic incentive to industrialize, especially in the border states. The Union's industrialization would also be somewhat stymied, as they'd have harder access to the raw materials that they extracted from the South, and especially Appalachia in this timeline as aside from "Union Virginia" and Kentucky they control very little of the most resource rich regions of those mountains.

 

[Cherico]

Industrialization in the South was inversely proportional to how good the land was for cotton. The most industrialized State in the Confederacy was Virginia, and Virginia had a lot going for it for industrialization moving forward: easy access to large amounts of coal, rivers that could be used for transport, and easy access to oceanic trade via the Chesapeake. Its growing land was also exhausted from growing crops due to it being some of the oldest settled land under European style farming and so grew very little cotton compared to the rest of the Confederacy.

While I agree with you the Confederacy would overall lag behind the US in industrialization, those states that were outside the cotton belt, mainly the border States that went with the Confederacy, and perhaps Louisiana due top its location at the mouth of the Mississippi would likely industrialize quite a bit compared to the OTL, though rather than use immigrant labor they likely would use slave labor to run the factories.

As to the South only industrializing due to projects in the 20th century in our timeline that is in large part due to the economic free trade zone that is the US. There was no reason to industrialize in the South in the 1900s - 1940s as it was more economical to simply use the South for resource extraction and production (cotton, coal, oil, etc.) and move those to the Industrial Belt of the country (what is now known as the Rust Belt) and then ship those finished goods around the country. It was also preferable to the elites of both those States and the Southern States which used the economic poverty and Jim Crow to maintain political control over the South. You see, the way the Democrats controlled the South was by an alliance of the elites and the poor of a preferred racial demographic, in this case poor whites. As the middle class of a State grew, Democrat control over the state lapsed... there is a direct correlation to the growth of the middle class and Southern states turning Republican and ousting the old Democrat machines. Meanwhile the racial undesirables would end up migrating out of the region under Democrat control looking for work (if this sounds strikingly familiar... well... it is what it is...)

In a timeline where the Confederacy survived, the politicians would have no reason to pursue this purposeful strategy of limited economic growth and development, and would instead be strongly encouraged to build up their own industries that were not dependent on the US. The Confederacy would have the resources, manpower, and economic incentive to industrialize, especially in the border states. The Union's industrialization would also be somewhat stymied, as they'd have harder access to the raw materials that they extracted from the South, and especially Appalachia in this timeline as aside from "Union Virginia" and Kentucky they control very little of the most resource rich regions of those mountains.

Id argue one of the biggest things holding the south back after the civil war was the weather and the god damned mosquettos. You notice how the area boomed as soon as air conditioning kicked off?

 

[Sailor.X]

Industrialization in the South was inversely proportional to how good the land was for cotton. The most industrialized State in the Confederacy was Virginia, and Virginia had a lot going for it for industrialization moving forward: easy access to large amounts of coal, rivers that could be used for transport, and easy access to oceanic trade via the Chesapeake. Its growing land was also exhausted from growing crops due to it being some of the oldest settled land under European style farming and so grew very little cotton compared to the rest of the Confederacy.

While I agree with you the Confederacy would overall lag behind the US in industrialization, those states that were outside the cotton belt, mainly the border States that went with the Confederacy, and perhaps Louisiana due top its location at the mouth of the Mississippi would likely industrialize quite a bit compared to the OTL, though rather than use immigrant labor they likely would use slave labor to run the factories.

As to the South only industrializing due to projects in the 20th century in our timeline that is in large part due to the economic free trade zone that is the US. There was no reason to industrialize in the South in the 1900s - 1940s as it was more economical to simply use the South for resource extraction and production (cotton, coal, oil, etc.) and move those to the Industrial Belt of the country (what is now known as the Rust Belt) and then ship those finished goods around the country. It was also preferable to the elites of both those States and the Southern States which used the economic poverty and Jim Crow to maintain political control over the South. You see, the way the Democrats controlled the South was by an alliance of the elites and the poor of a preferred racial demographic, in this case poor whites. As the middle class of a State grew, Democrat control over the state lapsed... there is a direct correlation to the growth of the middle class and Southern states turning Republican and ousting the old Democrat machines. Meanwhile the racial undesirables would end up migrating out of the region under Democrat control looking for work (if this sounds strikingly familiar... well... it is what it is...)

In a timeline where the Confederacy survived, the politicians would have no reason to pursue this purposeful strategy of limited economic growth and development, and would instead be strongly encouraged to build up their own industries that were not dependent on the US. The Confederacy would have the resources, manpower, and economic incentive to industrialize, especially in the border states. The Union's industrialization would also be somewhat stymied, as they'd have harder access to the raw materials that they extracted from the South, and especially Appalachia in this timeline as aside from "Union Virginia" and Kentucky they control very little of the most resource rich regions of those mountains.

Here in South Carolina the old money families that made up a lot of the local and state government at the time and to some extent in some counties still do. Had to be dragged kicking and screaming into industrialization. They fought every damn advance my state tried to make. The old highway system. They fought that. The Dam Projects. They fought that. The interstate system. Oh yeah they fought that too. Bringing major industry to the state. You bet ya they fought that as well. And the main reason they always used was. It would destroy the Southern Charm of South Carolina. No really that was their excuse. That same excuse was used just 10 years ago when were trying to set up the Jafza inland port in Santee. They got overruled by the Working Class and Middle Class Blacks, Whites, Asians and Native Americans. Only now in 2022 are we beginning to see industry set up shop in my home town. Only took them 300 years

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Here in South Carolina the old money families that made up a lot of the local and state government at the time and to some extent in some counties still do. Had to be dragged kicking and screaming into industrialization. They fought every damn advance my state tried to make. The old highway system. They fought that. The Dam Projects. They fought that. The interstate system. Oh yeah they fought that too. Bringing major industry to the state. You bet ya they fought that as well. And the main reason they always used was. It would destroy the Southern Charm of South Carolina. No really that was their excuse. That same excuse was used just 10 years ago when were trying to set up the Jafza inland port in Santee. They got overruled by the Working Class and Middle Class Blacks, Whites, Asians and Native Americans. Only now in 2022 are we beginning to see industry set up shop in my home town. Only took them 300 years

industrialization waxes and wains like the moon. At some point the big urban cities are going to collapse and you'll start seeing more people into the countryside and the suburbs to get away from urban poverty squaller. "Southern charm" will come back.

 

[stevep]

Basically I think it will depend on the circumstances, both in terms of the war and afterwards as to how much the south develops industry compared to OTL and how much the north is restrained in its development by the loss of the south.

For instance on the AH section of a site for the USCW its often suggested that the centralised nature of political and economic power in the south, with so much concentrated in a relatively few plantation families coupled with the weaken position of the central government as the argument for the war was to preserve states rights that the south would be even more backwards socially and economically compared to OTL. Alternatively it could be argued that the need to maintain protection against an hostile north would require a lot of interaction, both militarily and also in economic development.

Similarly with the north. Its lost about a 1/3 of its manpower [although that includes slaves], which also includes them as a captive market, a lot of rich land and control of the lower Mississippi. Those will hurt it. Its almost certainly going to be maintaining a markedly larger military than the entire US did pre-war. Doubly so if either Britain was involved in the conflict or the US has a significant revanchist movement and even more so if both applies. This is going to be a lot more expensive than the US is used to so taxes will have to rise and its doubtful that could all be done by even higher tariffs on imports. Its also going to take those soldiers out of the civilian economy for the duration of their service. [Which is going to be relatively minor unless their seeking to maintain a massive army, unlikely outside an actual shooting war]. There might also be other costs in the event of a war with Britain which means that for its duration and possibly to a degree afterwards a lot of migration and foreign loans could be cut off or at least diminished.

Again it also depends greatly on what leadership emerges from the crisis. You could see both nations at continued odds but also prospering, both suffering significantly compared to OTL whether or not their virtually at daggers drawn or anywhere in between.

 

[History Learner]

Simply being part of the USA is one of the causes of this.
An USA without the CSA will have an econmy at least one third - of not more - smaller, while the CSA is almost certain to be more industrialised.

Exactly right:



Most recent research in the last 20 years is trending in this direction as well; the C.S.A. was extremely centralized and State Capitalist.

If it is a long war with European interference. Then in the long run the South is screwed. They may win the first war. But the South really didn't industrialize like the North until the Mid to late 20th Century. Planter culture lasted well into the 20th Century. The North will innovate and get more technologically advanced and by the 1890s The shit gets real and the South WILL get wrecked by the 2nd North South War. The North will have way more people to call upon for troops than they did in the 1860s. And the tech difference will be too great.

Important reminder the U.S. learned nothing from the Civil War or even the Anglo-French when it entered World War I, resulting in the conception of "Open Warfare" doctrine which was essentially mass human wave attacks in World War I:

 

[History Learner]

A timeline idea I've played around with is an 1863/1864 victory for the CSA. They have over a decade to get the debt paid off and rebuild, while E.P. Alexander is able to get Richmond to buy up the British Armstrong guns when the UK begins to sell them off. Meanwhile in the United States, as a consequence of the war, West Point is shut down; there was a movement to do this IOTL due to the high number of ex-cadets that joined the CSA. By 1875, the C.S. Army has the better officer corps (The Citadel and VMI) as well as better trained infantry (Slave Patrol Militia system) and the more modern artillery due to the Armstrongs. The U.S. meanwhile has the larger overall force, in both Army and Navy, and the better small arms due to their larger industrial base.

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.

 

[Buba]

the C.S.A. was extremely centralized and State Capitalist.

It was waging a national liberation war against an enemy with superior economics ...

 

[History Learner]

It was waging a national liberation war against an enemy with superior economics ...

Indeed, its success depended upon a fabian strategy exhausting the North or foreign intervention. To that end, it's government maximized every advantage it had, but this effort was helped because a lot of these trends existed Pre-War.

 

[Cherico]

Indeed, its success depended upon a fabian strategy exhausting the North or foreign intervention. To that end, it's government maximized every advantage it had, but this effort was helped because a lot of these trends existed Pre-War.

one of the souths major problems was the built in spy network for any enemy the confederacy would have.

 

[WolfBear]

A timeline idea I've played around with is an 1863/1864 victory for the CSA. They have over a decade to get the debt paid off and rebuild, while E.P. Alexander is able to get Richmond to buy up the British Armstrong guns when the UK begins to sell them off. Meanwhile in the United States, as a consequence of the war, West Point is shut down; there was a movement to do this IOTL due to the high number of ex-cadets that joined the CSA. By 1875, the C.S. Army has the better officer corps (The Citadel and VMI) as well as better trained infantry (Slave Patrol Militia system) and the more modern artillery due to the Armstrongs. The U.S. meanwhile has the larger overall force, in both Army and Navy, and the better small arms due to their larger industrial base.

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.

Mexican Emperor Max had a couple of adopted children just for this purpose (succession), no?

 

[stevep]

Mexican Emperor Max had a couple of adopted children just for this purpose (succession), no?

Yes, from the previous emperor Agustín de Iturbide, ruled Mexico for about a year in 1822-23 before being deposed and as Maximilian and his wife had no children they adopted two of Iturbide's grandchild as possible heirs, although there some doubt over this as wiki states

As Maximilian and Carlota had no children, they adopted Agustín de Iturbide y Green and his cousin Salvador de Iturbide y de Marzán, both grandsons of Agustín de Iturbide, who had briefly reigned as Emperor of Mexico in the 1820s. Agustin's mother, Alicia Iturbide, an American who was born Alice Green, agreed under duress to give up her child. Soon after, she pled with Maximilian to renounce the adoption contract, but he had her forcibly deported from Mexico without her child.[42]

Agustin and his cousin were granted the title Prince de Iturbide and the style of Highness by an imperial decree of 16 September 1865, and were ranked next in line after the reigning family.[43] Apparently, the royal couple intended to groom Agustín as heir to the throne. Maximilian never really intended to give the crown to the Iturbides because he believed that they were not of royal blood.[44] It was all a charade directed at his brother Archduke Karl Ludwig of Austria, as Maximilian explained himself: either Karl would give him one of his sons as an heir, or else he would bequeath everything to the Iturbide children.[44] In October 1866, "With dreams of founding an imperial dynasty vanquished, Maximilian now wrote to Alice Iturbide that he was returning her son, Agustín, to her care."[45]

Maximilian was only 34 when he was executed and his wife 25 so unless there was clear evidence that either were infertile I suppose its possible they could still have had an heir.