Until Every Drop of Blood Is Paid: A More Radical American Civil War

[NedStark]

Getting from there to a British Republic would be interesting too.

Ideally we could also see British republicanism have an even greater resurgence than it did OTL- the mid Victorian period was actually a time when the monarchy wasn't that popular. The late nineteenth century was also a time when many people thought the declaration of an Australian republic (probably including New Zealand) was imminent too

Unfortunately the last plausible POD to get a British Republic that would have been substantially different from OTL is the Days of May just before the Great Reform Act of 1832.

A late Victorian Republic, if it comes into existence, wouldn’t have diverged substantially from IOTL, other than having earlier universal suffrage.

 

[Whiteshore]

Unfortunately the last plausible POD to get a British Republic that would have been substantially different from OTL is the Days of May just before the Great Reform Act of 1832.

A late Victorian Republic, if it comes into existence, wouldn’t have diverged substantially from IOTL, other than having earlier universal suffrage.

Or Labour or an equivalent Party getting into government earlier as Briand set up a socialist-led cabinet in France prior to WW1 and Weimar was founded by the SPD while the first Labour cabinet in Britain was in the 1920s.

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

Not unless you want Mexico to another civil war that soon given Juarez's power base

That's kind of what I was afraid of when I suggsted that Juarez might have been radicalized some from seeing what's going on in the US. He might want to adopt some of those reforms now, but the power base won't.

Still, he could try, and hopefully it's possible that maybe some get done. If only becasue the people are reacting against the Confrederate people coming there and trying to make things worse. Then they'd have reason, becasue they would feel that to keep things the same way would just be following the evil American rebels who had entered their country.

Hey, you could have a reverse Pancho Villa situation, perhaps. :-0

Excelltn scene with Toombs feeling to Cuba - or trying to, anyway. He might not have much of an escape route, though.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

Unfortunately the last plausible POD to get a British Republic that would have been substantially different from OTL is the Days of May just before the Great Reform Act of 1832.

A late Victorian Republic, if it comes into existence, wouldn’t have diverged substantially from IOTL, other than having earlier universal suffrage.

I doubt you'd actually get a British republic, but it's perfectly possible that you avoid the late flourishing of the monarch as symbol of the nation- have the public continue to find her mourning obnoxious, and get rid of Edward so you have one of her less charismatic sons take over, and you could have a situation where republicanism is a much more respectable position for people to have in middle-class society.

 

[Whiteshore]

I doubt you'd actually get a British republic, but it's perfectly possible that you avoid the late flourishing of the monarch as symbol of the nation- have the public continue to find her mourning obnoxious, and get rid of Edward so you have one of her less charismatic sons take over, and you could have a situation where republicanism is a much more respectable position for people to have in middle-class society.

On that note, maybe TTL's Labour could be explicitly republican (even if in a "we'll get to doing so one day, I swear, honest" sense) in its platform.

 

[AlexGarcia]

Would it be possible for Juarez and co to adopt some of Max's reforms? They do seem to make a lot of sense.

Unfortunately no, but not because he was personally against it, but because Mexican politics were nationalist af: to give you an idea, apparently Britain tried to persuade Mexico to accept Texas' independence in 1845 in exchange for Britain and France recognizing Mexico's borders with the US, and guarantee such borders (to avoid the US declaring war on Mexico), but Mexico refused...and we all know what happened next.

Other problem is that Mexican Liberalism was (after the arrival of European influence) heavily influenced by positivism, and there is a debate over how much social darwinism was present within positivism in Mexico. Maximilian at least tried to guarantee some minimal (not even basic, just minimal) labour rights (like for example 12 working hours with 2 hours free to eat, prohibition of corporal punishments, or attempts to restrict child labour), but the Porfirista regime was based on Order and Progress, nothing more.

If all, the only way I can see the government adopting some sort of welfare reforms is by having a strong labour movement that forces them to do it, and that's not going to happen. Not yet at least. It would be more viable to radicalize the peasants and the natives into some sort of Agrarian Socialism, because there were movements already during the 1870's demanding measures akin to that, like the Socialist Plan of Sierra Gorda in 1879, that demanded the abolition of death penalty, demanded an end to de facto slavery (de iure abolished in 1829, de facto existing as a result of the miserable conditions of the working class, especially in Yucatán) and called for the natives to receive education and being granted of their historical lands, among other things.

 

[Steelers94]

So I know it's a long shot but what are the chances of the US after taking a look at who each side has as a powerbase(inside the country) and what each is actually trying to do for the country might try and strike a deal with France. Pull out of Mexico and we'll not only pay the debt but throw our support to Maximilian. The US of even that era was willing to side with monarchies when it suited their needs. I mean hell during this era Russia was the GP we had the friendliest relations with.

 

[AlexGarcia]

So I know it's a long shot but what are the chances of the US after taking a look at who each side has as a powerbase(inside the country) and what each is actually trying to do for the country might try and strike a deal with France. Pull out of Mexico and we'll not only pay the debt but throw our support to Maximilian. The US of even that era was willing to side with monarchies when it suited their needs. I mean hell during this era Russia was the GP we had the friendliest relations with.

This is a problem as a result of two things:

1. This would contradict not only the Monroe Doctrine, but also make the Mexican population consider Maximilian as a puppet of the Americans. In OTL, his execution served as a scheme made by Juarez's government to gain legitimacy and show itself as a national, independent government, even if this was not completely the case after 1865.
2. The Second Empire had strategic reasons to support the Confederates: both to diminish the power of the Union, and because of the Confederate refugees after the war ended in the US. Also, the Conservatives wanted the Empire to align with the Confederation and feared that an American victory would strengthen Juárez and the Liberals.

 

[Devoid]

French Republic is based

Yes, ultimately the choices that make the most sense are for the French puppet regime to fall and the French monarchy to be replaced by a Republic.

The main issue with the French Third Republic is that the people who established it kind of didn't really want it? Monarchism was still in vogue, and early 1870's France's attitude was basically "a crown for someone, but not the Bonapartes" (the YouTube channel History Matters summarized the matter of who'd get the crown as "not Napoleon III, crowns are for winners"). The first election for the French Third Republic returned a firmly monarchist majority, and with the Legitimist claim in the childless Henry V and about to merge with Orléanist claim upon his death, these two monarchist factions were even ready to compromise with Henry V as king and Philippe of Orléans as his heir, and the whole thing failed to work out for no other reason more complicated than Henry really, really hating the French tricolor. No one else was willing to give it up, and the French Third Republic survived solely because by the time Henry died, pro-monarchism sentiment had faded.

Suffice to say the French Third Republic was not... designed in the best environment for it, and still somehow managed to become France's longest-lasting post-Ancien Regime government, despite its dumpster fire politics, so who knows how far it could go if it was actually designed by people who wanted a republic.

Spain after 1868

Another decent potential revolution to see is Spain's in 1868, and possibly a surviving First Spanish Republic. Admittedly that one mostly happened because Spain couldn't find a king (attempt #1 accidentally set off the Franco-Prussian War and attempt #2 abdicated after a year and declared the Spanish people to be "ungovernable," and the republic only really emerged as a third choice and was such a shitshow that they just let Isabella II's son take over).

Spain is likely to be unstable in any case, but a fragile but enduring republic would probably fit in better with the theme of this TL.

 

[MagicCarpetMadeofSteel]

Personally, I think the best ending for Maximilian is that he manages to escape Mexico (perhaps Lincoln, after being briefed on the situation, decides that Maximilian can’t stay, for a variety of reasons that have already been covered—he’s a puppet of a foreign power (that’s not the US), a monarchy at that, he’s a monarch, he’s only in power because of French backing, because the liberals don’t like him because monarch established by foreign power, and the conservatives don’t like him because Maximilian supports liberal reforms (*gasp!* only a 12 hour workday?! What kind of communism is this! How are our enterprising titans of industry supposed to modernize our country with these restrictive shackles placed on them!), he’s just gotta go—but considering that Maximilian either has no idea how precarious his position is, or cares enough about the well-being of the average Mexican that he doesn’t care, and that he was duped into coming over in the first place, helps arrange a clandestine deal…or maybe he resigns and abdicates, so we can have him being a formal guest instead of being smuggled out. Anyway,)

via the U.S. and back home to Austria—both improving relations between Austria and the U.S., souring them between Austria and France (just make sure Maximilian understands that if he had stayed in Mexico, he would’ve been executed, and France/Napoleon III hung him out to dry. I don’t see any reason for Napoleon not to try and cut his losses and leave poor Max to his fate, but it had fatal consequences, because Franz Joesph never forgave him for that, and that was a major reason Austria stayed on the sidelines during the Franco-Prussian war. If you want France to not lose as badly, maybe have the slightly less sour relations between AUS and FRA—because Max is still alive, even if it’s no thanks to them—that Prussia leaves a relatively token force at the border, and we say it’s enough to make a difference. While we’re obviously going to be focusing on the US, the Brother’s war and Franco-Prussian war will obviously deserve a mention, and Maximilian resigning himself to not being able to do anything for his former subjects, because they never actually wanted him, turning his attention to his family’s subjects would probably only be a good thing, considering his liberal tendencies. Maybe his presence would allow Franz Joseph to do more to wrangle Hungary into playing along, or at least telling the Polish nobility in…Galicia? I think that’s wrong but I don’t want to try and look it up, to let the Rutherians (Ukrainians) to learn their own language, and hey, could we maybe invest in the area so it’s not one of the poorest and most miserable places in the Empire? Hell, maybe Maximilian is the one who pushes for sufferage, since getting that earlier means weakening the Hungarian nobility (Hungarian lower and middle class tended to alley with other lower and middle class ethnicities rather than the nobility), which could, eventually, result in other ethnic groups also being granted equal status as the Hungarians.

 

[usertron2020]

Wasn't a major stumbling block for Max either staying in Mexico OR doing anything substantial in Europe being that Carlotta was infertile? IOW, no dynasty (or future) for Max.

 

[AlexGarcia]

Personally, I think the best ending for Maximilian is that he manages to escape Mexico (perhaps Lincoln, after being briefed on the situation, decides that Maximilian can’t stay, for a variety of reasons that have already been covered—he’s a puppet of a foreign power (that’s not the US), a monarchy at that, he’s a monarch, he’s only in power because of French backing, because the liberals don’t like him because monarch established by foreign power, and the conservatives don’t like him because Maximilian supports liberal reforms (*gasp!* only a 12 hour workday?! What kind of communism is this! How are our enterprising titans of industry supposed to modernize our country with these restrictive shackles placed on them!), he’s just gotta go—but considering that Maximilian either has no idea how precarious his position is, or cares enough about the well-being of the average Mexican that he doesn’t care, and that he was duped into coming over in the first place, helps arrange a clandestine deal…or maybe he resigns and abdicates, so we can have him being a formal guest instead of being smuggled out. Anyway,)

As I said before, the reason the Republic killed Maximilian was to gain legitimacy: imagine having a civil war as a result of a foreign power invading you to support a political faction that is not in good terms with you, and once you win after so many sacrifices, blood and sweat you decide to let the leader such foreign power live and being exiled. You will not only not gain legitimacy, but all the sacrifices made would have been in vain. Why do you think Juarez's government declined to let Maximilian alive, even with basically all of Europe and the United States pleading the Republicans to let Maximilian alive?

​

[...] However, Juarez had postponed Maximilian's execution. The final shot against the Austrian prince can only be understood as "hasty" if we consider Juarez's resistance to the torrent of petitions for clemency and his refusal to meet with Maximilian before and after the Archduke's capture on May 15 (among the petitions were letters from U.S. Secretary of State Seward, the Prussian minister and the U.S. press), as well as his two refusals to grant a pardon between Maximilian's trial on June 12 and his execution on June 19. Other letters requesting clemency for Maximilian did not reach their destination until after the Archduke's death, so perhaps they also contributed to the impression that Maximilian was executed in "haste". Among these letters were those of Giuseppe Garibaldi, Victor Hugo and Maximilian's brother, Franz Joseph.​

Another thing here is that it was better for the US interests (using the Monroe Doctrine) for Juárez to win.​

​

Various political actors benefited from this expansionist scheme. During the U.S. Civil War, Mexican imperialists took advantage of the alliance with the U.S. Confederates to support the imperialist cause and weaken that of a unified United States. In Nuevo León and Coahuila, Mexican states on the Texas border, and in Tamaulipas on the Gulf Coast, Santiago Vidaurri helped the Confederates by sending war supplies from Europe to the southern U.S. states in the early 1860s. In early 1864, Napoleon and his advisors proposed the establishment of a French "duchy": this would contain vast mineral resources distributed throughout the northern half of Mexico, and would be ceded to France as a bastion against American invasion and as a way to encourage European immigration. Although Maximilian rejected this plan (much to Napoleon's anger), the Mexican "emperor" enacted a law encouraging Confederate immigration to Mexico, a law that included an unpopular clause allowing slave owners to keep their slaves in their new place of residence.​

And:
​

Spoiler: The perspective of the Radical Reps. about Maximilian's execution + the Monroe Doctrine

​

Specifically, what condemned Maximilian was sovereignty as a policy, belief and revolutionary stance in general, and not simply Juarez or the people of Mexico. Any territory unwilling to recognize the right of Mexicans to sovereignty over Maximilian's monarchy would be deprived of diplomatic relations with Mexico.​

​

Radical Republicans in the U.S. Congress would take up the same arguments. In his address to the House on July 4, 1867, two weeks after the execution, Republican Congressman Zachariah Chandler argued that Maximilian was not only a "filibuster" beyond the bounds of legality, but that his "election" in Mexico had been as ridiculous as his governmental control over the country. And, most importantly, Maximilian's 1865 decree condemning to death anyone who took up arms against the empire, which threatened imprisonment within 24 hours of the decree's promulgation, equated his occupation to a dictatorship that went against all laws of family, society and humanity. The decree, "barbarous" and "inhuman," allowed that "the mother protecting her own child, engaged in patriotically fighting for her government and country, could be executed by the arresting officer. Had there ever been such a decree in a civilized age?"​

[...]​

In the same session of Congress, Republican Congressman James Nye went even further and pointed out the hypocrisy of Europe and the U.S. in expressing any opinion about Mexico's treatment of its wartime enemies:​

​

"[...] what business is it of ours or of the governments of Europe how Mexico treats its adversaries? We would not allow them to interfere in our affairs. Suppose, for instance, that come the final encounter in our country, when Grant had them against the wall at Richmond, England, France, Prussia and Austria had got together and said, "Blood is going to be shed here; some of you are going to die, stop where you are, wait for the sake of humanity," or that they said, as in fact they did say, "You can get Mr. Davis, and if you do, for God's sake, don't execute him." What would our people say to that? "Stand aside; we will solve our own problems: we are the judges of our own affairs."​

[...]​

​

Even Nye, who had ostensibly defended Mexico's right to "mind its own business," concluded his speech to Congress by emphasizing the fact that Mexico's autonomy depended, ironically, on U.S. control:​

​

"[...] on the map of this continent it is written that [Mexico] is ours, and we are going to have it [...] do not permit a foreign caretaker for Mexico; if it needs one, we will take care of it ourselves. We will not try to establish an imperial power, but we will try what we can do: to raise the average of their intelligence and increase their love for republican institutions. For now, the obligation of the United States is that of a great teacher; in fact, I may say that today the United States is a great missionary [...] that, sir, is the way I would conquer Mexico. I would conquer it with our divine principles.​

In short: OTL, the Radical Republicans compared the Mexican situation with their own civil war, with Grant himself seeing the Second Empire as an extension of the Confederation. This timeline involves the Radical Republicans becoming even stronger, and with an extremely weak Democratic Party (if it can be named like that and not several parties claiming to be successors of such party), so the American policy towards Mexico will be heavily in support of Maximilian's execution as a result of the Monroe Doctrine (and the comparisons between the Second Empire and the Confederacy), in one hand, and in the other, Mexico being part of the US sphere of influence, if not a puppet.

Maximilian is f*cked, no matter what.

Source: Click here (in Spanish)

 

[Sardar]

TBH (and I'm not speaking about Mexico here, though in some cases it could be applicable) the problem with hoping for revolutionary republics and a faster emergence of modern liberalism is that, frankly speaking, most people did not want that to happen. People believed in conservative ideals wholeheartedly, and like reaction, radicalism tends to be unstable and ephemeral. A French monarchy is more likely than a radical republic in this period IMO. I don't want to derail anything nor go off topic, but I thought I'd just add that to the conversation.

 

[cloistered scholar]

Is there a condensed thread for this?

 

[HueyLongsUnderwear]

Is there a condensed thread for this?

LINCOLN SMASH!

 

[Sardar]

Is there a condensed thread for this?

Reader mode is always handy for me.

 

[Red_Galiray]

Unfortunately the last plausible POD to get a British Republic that would have been substantially different from OTL is the Days of May just before the Great Reform Act of 1832.

A late Victorian Republic, if it comes into existence, wouldn’t have diverged substantially from IOTL, other than having earlier universal suffrage.

I thought of a British Republic in the aftermath of losing a Great War... but I'm just getting ahead of myself again.

Unfortunately no, but not because he was personally against it, but because Mexican politics were nationalist af: to give you an idea, apparently Britain tried to persuade Mexico to accept Texas' independence in 1845 in exchange for Britain and France recognizing Mexico's borders with the US, and guarantee such borders (to avoid the US declaring war on Mexico), but Mexico refused...and we all know what happened next.

Other problem is that Mexican Liberalism was (after the arrival of European influence) heavily influenced by positivism, and there is a debate over how much social darwinism was present within positivism in Mexico. Maximilian at least tried to guarantee some minimal (not even basic, just minimal) labour rights (like for example 12 working hours with 2 hours free to eat, prohibition of corporal punishments, or attempts to restrict child labour), but the Porfirista regime was based on Order and Progress, nothing more.

If all, the only way I can see the government adopting some sort of welfare reforms is by having a strong labour movement that forces them to do it, and that's not going to happen. Not yet at least. It would be more viable to radicalize the peasants and the natives into some sort of Agrarian Socialism, because there were movements already during the 1870's demanding measures akin to that, like the Socialist Plan of Sierra Gorda in 1879, that demanded the abolition of death penalty, demanded an end to de facto slavery (de iure abolished in 1829, de facto existing as a result of the miserable conditions of the working class, especially in Yucatán) and called for the natives to receive education and being granted of their historical lands, among other things.

I see... thank you.

So I know it's a long shot but what are the chances of the US after taking a look at who each side has as a powerbase(inside the country) and what each is actually trying to do for the country might try and strike a deal with France. Pull out of Mexico and we'll not only pay the debt but throw our support to Maximilian. The US of even that era was willing to side with monarchies when it suited their needs. I mean hell during this era Russia was the GP we had the friendliest relations with.

Basically zero, for this Lincoln is bound to be just even more opposed to monarchism and the Maximilian regime. A lot of Unionists, including powerful men like Grant, were actually rather jingoist about the possibility of then marching to Mexico to help Juarez.

The main issue with the French Third Republic is that the people who established it kind of didn't really want it? Monarchism was still in vogue, and early 1870's France's attitude was basically "a crown for someone, but not the Bonapartes" (the YouTube channel History Matters summarized the matter of who'd get the crown as "not Napoleon III, crowns are for winners"). The first election for the French Third Republic returned a firmly monarchist majority, and with the Legitimist claim in the childless Henry V and about to merge with Orléanist claim upon his death, these two monarchist factions were even ready to compromise with Henry V as king and Philippe of Orléans as his heir, and the whole thing failed to work out for no other reason more complicated than Henry really, really hating the French tricolor. No one else was willing to give it up, and the French Third Republic survived solely because by the time Henry died, pro-monarchism sentiment had faded.

Suffice to say the French Third Republic was not... designed in the best environment for it, and still somehow managed to become France's longest-lasting post-Ancien Regime government, despite its dumpster fire politics, so who knows how far it could go if it was actually designed by people who wanted a republic.

Another decent potential revolution to see is Spain's in 1868, and possibly a surviving First Spanish Republic. Admittedly that one mostly happened because Spain couldn't find a king (attempt #1 accidentally set off the Franco-Prussian War and attempt #2 abdicated after a year and declared the Spanish people to be "ungovernable," and the republic only really emerged as a third choice and was such a shitshow that they just let Isabella II's son take over).

Spain is likely to be unstable in any case, but a fragile but enduring republic would probably fit in better with the theme of this TL.

Well, that's because I'm, albeit timidly, proposing that the Commune doesn't happen, so the Third Republic is born with a left-wing contingent that actually wants a Republic and could push it in a more democratic and stable direction (didn't most of its Prime Ministers last a few months at most?). As for Spain, I actually had an enduring Spanish Republic in my plans.

Personally, I think the best ending for Maximilian is that he manages to escape Mexico (perhaps Lincoln, after being briefed on the situation, decides that Maximilian can’t stay, for a variety of reasons that have already been covered—he’s a puppet of a foreign power (that’s not the US), a monarchy at that, he’s a monarch, he’s only in power because of French backing, because the liberals don’t like him because monarch established by foreign power, and the conservatives don’t like him because Maximilian supports liberal reforms (*gasp!* only a 12 hour workday?! What kind of communism is this! How are our enterprising titans of industry supposed to modernize our country with these restrictive shackles placed on them!), he’s just gotta go—but considering that Maximilian either has no idea how precarious his position is, or cares enough about the well-being of the average Mexican that he doesn’t care, and that he was duped into coming over in the first place, helps arrange a clandestine deal…or maybe he resigns and abdicates, so we can have him being a formal guest instead of being smuggled out. Anyway,)

via the U.S. and back home to Austria—both improving relations between Austria and the U.S., souring them between Austria and France (just make sure Maximilian understands that if he had stayed in Mexico, he would’ve been executed, and France/Napoleon III hung him out to dry. I don’t see any reason for Napoleon not to try and cut his losses and leave poor Max to his fate, but it had fatal consequences, because Franz Joesph never forgave him for that, and that was a major reason Austria stayed on the sidelines during the Franco-Prussian war. If you want France to not lose as badly, maybe have the slightly less sour relations between AUS and FRA—because Max is still alive, even if it’s no thanks to them—that Prussia leaves a relatively token force at the border, and we say it’s enough to make a difference. While we’re obviously going to be focusing on the US, the Brother’s war and Franco-Prussian war will obviously deserve a mention, and Maximilian resigning himself to not being able to do anything for his former subjects, because they never actually wanted him, turning his attention to his family’s subjects would probably only be a good thing, considering his liberal tendencies. Maybe his presence would allow Franz Joseph to do more to wrangle Hungary into playing along, or at least telling the Polish nobility in…Galicia? I think that’s wrong but I don’t want to try and look it up, to let the Rutherians (Ukrainians) to learn their own language, and hey, could we maybe invest in the area so it’s not one of the poorest and most miserable places in the Empire? Hell, maybe Maximilian is the one who pushes for sufferage, since getting that earlier means weakening the Hungarian nobility (Hungarian lower and middle class tended to alley with other lower and middle class ethnicities rather than the nobility), which could, eventually, result in other ethnic groups also being granted equal status as the Hungarians.

Yes, that's probably the closest Max can get to a happy ending.

As I said before, the reason the Republic killed Maximilian was to gain legitimacy: imagine having a civil war as a result of a foreign power invading you to support a political faction that is not in good terms with you, and once you win after so many sacrifices, blood and sweat you decide to let the leader such foreign power live and being exiled. You will not only not gain legitimacy, but all the sacrifices made would have been in vain. Why do you think Juarez's government declined to let Maximilian alive, even with basically all of Europe and the United States pleading the Republicans to let Maximilian alive?

​

​

[...] However, Juarez had postponed Maximilian's execution. The final shot against the Austrian prince can only be understood as "hasty" if we consider Juarez's resistance to the torrent of petitions for clemency and his refusal to meet with Maximilian before and after the Archduke's capture on May 15 (among the petitions were letters from U.S. Secretary of State Seward, the Prussian minister and the U.S. press), as well as his two refusals to grant a pardon between Maximilian's trial on June 12 and his execution on June 19. Other letters requesting clemency for Maximilian did not reach their destination until after the Archduke's death, so perhaps they also contributed to the impression that Maximilian was executed in "haste". Among these letters were those of Giuseppe Garibaldi, Victor Hugo and Maximilian's brother, Franz Joseph.


Another thing here is that it was better for the US interests (using the Monroe Doctrine) for Juárez to win.​

​

​

Various political actors benefited from this expansionist scheme. During the U.S. Civil War, Mexican imperialists took advantage of the alliance with the U.S. Confederates to support the imperialist cause and weaken that of a unified United States. In Nuevo León and Coahuila, Mexican states on the Texas border, and in Tamaulipas on the Gulf Coast, Santiago Vidaurri helped the Confederates by sending war supplies from Europe to the southern U.S. states in the early 1860s. In early 1864, Napoleon and his advisors proposed the establishment of a French "duchy": this would contain vast mineral resources distributed throughout the northern half of Mexico, and would be ceded to France as a bastion against American invasion and as a way to encourage European immigration. Although Maximilian rejected this plan (much to Napoleon's anger), the Mexican "emperor" enacted a law encouraging Confederate immigration to Mexico, a law that included an unpopular clause allowing slave owners to keep their slaves in their new place of residence.


And:
​

Spoiler: The perspective of the Radical Reps. about Maximilian's execution + the Monroe Doctrine

​

​

Specifically, what condemned Maximilian was sovereignty as a policy, belief and revolutionary stance in general, and not simply Juarez or the people of Mexico. Any territory unwilling to recognize the right of Mexicans to sovereignty over Maximilian's monarchy would be deprived of diplomatic relations with Mexico.​

​

​

Radical Republicans in the U.S. Congress would take up the same arguments. In his address to the House on July 4, 1867, two weeks after the execution, Republican Congressman Zachariah Chandler argued that Maximilian was not only a "filibuster" beyond the bounds of legality, but that his "election" in Mexico had been as ridiculous as his governmental control over the country. And, most importantly, Maximilian's 1865 decree condemning to death anyone who took up arms against the empire, which threatened imprisonment within 24 hours of the decree's promulgation, equated his occupation to a dictatorship that went against all laws of family, society and humanity. The decree, "barbarous" and "inhuman," allowed that "the mother protecting her own child, engaged in patriotically fighting for her government and country, could be executed by the arresting officer. Had there ever been such a decree in a civilized age?"​

[...]​

In the same session of Congress, Republican Congressman James Nye went even further and pointed out the hypocrisy of Europe and the U.S. in expressing any opinion about Mexico's treatment of its wartime enemies:​

​

"[...] what business is it of ours or of the governments of Europe how Mexico treats its adversaries? We would not allow them to interfere in our affairs. Suppose, for instance, that come the final encounter in our country, when Grant had them against the wall at Richmond, England, France, Prussia and Austria had got together and said, "Blood is going to be shed here; some of you are going to die, stop where you are, wait for the sake of humanity," or that they said, as in fact they did say, "You can get Mr. Davis, and if you do, for God's sake, don't execute him." What would our people say to that? "Stand aside; we will solve our own problems: we are the judges of our own affairs."​

[...]​

​

Even Nye, who had ostensibly defended Mexico's right to "mind its own business," concluded his speech to Congress by emphasizing the fact that Mexico's autonomy depended, ironically, on U.S. control:​

​

"[...] on the map of this continent it is written that [Mexico] is ours, and we are going to have it [...] do not permit a foreign caretaker for Mexico; if it needs one, we will take care of it ourselves. We will not try to establish an imperial power, but we will try what we can do: to raise the average of their intelligence and increase their love for republican institutions. For now, the obligation of the United States is that of a great teacher; in fact, I may say that today the United States is a great missionary [...] that, sir, is the way I would conquer Mexico. I would conquer it with our divine principles.​

In short: OTL, the Radical Republicans compared the Mexican situation with their own civil war, with Grant himself seeing the Second Empire as an extension of the Confederation. This timeline involves the Radical Republicans becoming even stronger, and with an extremely weak Democratic Party (if it can be named like that and not several parties claiming to be successors of such party), so the American policy towards Mexico will be heavily in support of Maximilian's execution as a result of the Monroe Doctrine (and the comparisons between the Second Empire and the Confederacy), in one hand, and in the other, Mexico being part of the US sphere of influence, if not a puppet.

Maximilian is f*cked, no matter what.

Source: Click here (in Spanish)

The strength of these arguments is simply overwhelming and leads me to concede the point that the only realistic answer, both in regards to historical plausibility and the "theme" of the TL, is for Juarez to win and Maximiliam to be executed. Especially because the only thing I had firmly decided upon was that the Confederates would try to escape to Mexico and offer their services to the puppet regime - making a Juarez victory the only thematically appropriate outcome, and the Republicans who now dominate the US even more bitterly opposed to Max.

Is there a condensed thread for this?

Oh, you mean like a shorter version of the TL? God, have we reached the point where reading all this is a daunting task? I'm guessing so... I've written enough for a couple of books already. You know, I did once consider making an "abridged" version of the TL, cutting most of the military and political detail. But besides that being a lot of work it probably would break my heart given that I've come to take pride in the sheer level of detail I add.

 

[dakkafex]

Oh, you mean like a shorter version of the TL? God, have we reached the point where reading all this is a daunting task? I'm guessing so... I've written enough for a couple of books already. You know, I did once consider making an "abridged" version of the TL, cutting most of the military and political detail. But besides that being a lot of work it probably would break my heart given that I've come to take pride in the sheer level of detail I add.

They may be asking for a story-only thread, with just proper entries and none of the interstitial discussion. You could do that over in Finished Timelines, and I've found those sorts of threads very handy, especially if it's for a very popular timeline (like this one) which generates a lot of (often repetitive) discussion in between updates.

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

Yes, it's a huge amount of detail but it really is amazing. And I really never understood what that reader mode thing was myself until someone pointed out that you could read only the threadmarks.

Which reminds me. I know you threadmarked a couple of my fan fictions as it were. But I think there are a couple others that might not be those can be in time.

So, yes, anyone who wants to read. Only the story parts can use reader mode.

 

[Sardar]

Couldn't Juarez just be killed earlier? That might give Max an opportunity to escape.