redcoat
Posts: 1035
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: UK
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms
quote:
ORIGINAL: redcoat
[Quote]If- as according to redcoat- the two states are on good terms, the Confederacy can hardly be withholding sales of oil to the Union.
quote:
So the US received most of its oil imports from Mexico in the 1930s. I didn’t know that. It seems to me that the Mexicans wouldn’t want to live next door to an expansionist re-united United States of America. Better to live next door to the CSA. I think that Mexico would have joined an oil embargo against the US soon after the shooting started.
It's certainly a topic which is ripe with possibility as concerns alternate history. Consider the following possibility:
In the wake of a Confederate victory, there is no American "army of observation" on the Mexican border. No American volunteers in Juarez's army. American diplomatic pressure on France, if that even occurs, has no substance. France does not have to withdraw support from Maximilian and the Conservatives in Mexico. Juarez is eventually defeated, and close ties between the Confederacy and France lead to close ties between the Confederacy and Mexico into the 20th century. No Mexican oil for the Union come wartime.
The flip side of this is that if Juarez does eventually defeat the French/Conservatives anyway, and the Confederacy had been helping them, Mexico is going to be incredibly hostile to the Confederacy. Another question would be whether or not Mexico has a major revolution around the time it did historically(1910-1920), and what you think the US and Confederate role would be in that. You really could write a plausible alt history that could go in any number of directions.
Other points to consider: does the Confederacy remain true to its agrarian ideals, or only pay them lip service? Does it embark on a program of colonialism and expansion in Latin America and the Caribbean in particular?
For my money, I think the Confederacy is likely to only be on good terms with Latin America if a) it directly administers the parts we're talking about, b) there is some sort of reactionary regime in power(e.g. Maximilian in Mexico) or c) the United States is viewed as the greater threat.
“You really could write a plausible alt history that could go in any number of directions.”
Yes. You could write several alt histories of Mexico between the 1860s and 1930s! I would prefer something close to what actually happened historically – but that is only my personal taste. I am supposing a Mexican Revolution followed by a ‘Cardenas’ type regime. This would be polls apart ideologically from both the CSA and US governments. It would want to keep ‘Gringo’ (US or CSA) influence within Mexico to a minimum. It would therefore try to keep the two states divided – by bolstering the CSA – indirectly – against the US.
“Other points to consider: does the Confederacy remain true to its agrarian ideals, or only pay them lip service? Does it embark on a program of colonialism and expansion in Latin America and the Caribbean in particular?”
You could go either way. Personally I would like to think that the Confederacy would develop more industrially – although agriculture would remain very important. Moreover, I do not think that the CSA would have colonised Central America or the Caribbean. I think that the CSA would have avoided a conflict with Mexico – and therefore stayed out of Latin America. Moreover, I think that the Caribbean would have largely remained under European control. Cuba would either still be a Spanish possession – or it would have liberated itself after a Castro style rebellion. I am assuming that the Spanish–American War hasn’t taken place – because the US and CSA are weaker and more isolationist than the historical United States.
“For my money, I think the Confederacy is likely to only be on good terms with Latin America if a) it directly administers the parts we're talking about, b) there is some sort of reactionary regime in power(e.g. Maximilian in Mexico) or c) the United States is viewed as the greater threat.”
Yes. I agree. I especially like point (c): “the United States is viewed as the greater threat”
If you use an alt history of Mexico you could have an authoritarian ‘Huerta’ type of regime - or even a quasi-fascist ‘Diaz’ type of regime - in Mexico. Such regimes would have had much more in common with a conservative (presumably segregationist) regime in the CSA – than with the government in the US.
< Message edited by redcoat -- 11/6/2005 1:15:24 AM >
|
Printable Version
RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? - 
I'm merely making the point that ideology was not so important. Díaz was supported by the US, but so was Pancho Villa.
RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? - 
. A hypothetical 'Diaz' type of President may have fallen out of favour with the US - in the same way as Huerta. Diaz himself was long dead before the 1930s. 
RE: What new scenarios would you like to see? - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread