WI: A French Mexico

Could the French have won the Intervention of Mexico and established Maximilian as emperor? With the American Civil War at an end and the French in clear violation of the Monroe Doctrine, does the US intervene? America was pretty exhausted at that point as well. But the USN was very large, though French iron-clads of the period were state of the art with breech-loading rifles.

Not only would this produce a very different Mexico but it could have decisive effect on world history. First of all if France emerge victorious, then it set the precedent for other powers to intervene all over the Americas. Maxililian was a Hapsburg, what next Austrian intervention in Paraguay?

Second, the French may expand to the south, toward Panama. Or perhaps retake Haiti or expand its sphere of influence out of French Guiana.

Third, prolonged Franco-American hostilities could distract Napoleon III from Bismarck's provocations, resulting in no Franco-Prussian War of 1870 and therefore delay German unification.

tallwingedgoat said:

Could the French have won the Intervention of Mexico and established Maximilian as emperor? With the American Civil War at an end and the French in clear violation of the Monroe Doctrine, does the US intervene? America was pretty exhausted at that point as well. But the USN was very large, though French iron-clads of the period were state of the art with breech-loading rifles..

Click to expand...

Given the strength of the anti-Maximillian forces, it would have required a pretty extensive and extended French military commitment to secure him on his throne, which the US would almost certainly object strenously. As it was OTL they were pretty definite on wanting him gone, and supplied weapons to the rebels: a clash with France is probable enough that Napoleon III is unlikely to have the stomach for it. Although it demobilized quickly afterward, the Union in 1865 probably had the most formidable military machine on earth, and this _had_ been noted by various European observers, although it would be largely forgotten by 1914.

Bruce

If the French actually tried to hold Mexico, and the US did invade, would any other world powers come to the aid of France or the US. How much did the other world powers at the time care about the Monroe Doctrine? The USA may have gotten more powerful over the decades leading up to the ACW, but would any European (or World) power really allow them to dictate what they could or couldn't do.

I couldn't see France attacking or crossing the US border from Mexico, but the US would in order to defend the doctrine. Would the other european powers support politically, if not outright backup, France against the upstart USA. If the USA does attack across the Mexican border what would stop them from crossing the Canadian border if they didn't like something the UK was doing there.

It could turn out to be a case where the old kids on the block need to knock the new kid down a few pegs.

What would be interesting to see is, whether on purpose or by accident, the US troops kill Maximillian, instead of the Mexican republicans. What kind of outcome would we see with this scenario? It would be an insult to all the monarchies of the Old World.

European intervention

Sovereign12 said:

If the French actually tried to hold Mexico, and the US did invade, would any other world powers come to the aid of France or the US. How much did the other world powers at the time care about the Monroe Doctrine? The USA may have gotten more powerful over the decades leading up to the ACW, but would any European (or World) power really allow them to dictate what they could or couldn't do.

I couldn't see France attacking or crossing the US border from Mexico, but the US would in order to defend the doctrine. Would the other european powers support politically, if not outright backup, France against the upstart USA. If the USA does attack across the Mexican border what would stop them from crossing the Canadian border if they didn't like something the UK was doing there.

It could turn out to be a case where the old kids on the block need to knock the new kid down a few pegs.

What would be interesting to see is, whether on purpose or by accident, the US troops kill Maximillian, instead of the Mexican republicans. What kind of outcome would we see with this scenario? It would be an insult to all the monarchies of the Old World.

Click to expand...

Actually the European powers wouldn't have lifted a finger to save Maximillian. Franz-Josef didn't care for Max and Austria hand its hands full with the Schleswig-Holstein issue and war with Prussia. Bismarck had the same concerns. Russia had no interests in America (except the sale of Alaska) and relations with France had gotten worse since 1863 when Napoleon III offered rhetorical support to the Polish rebellion. The UK wouldn't risk Canada and further tensions with the US just to prop up a French adventure in Mexico.

bill_bruno said:

Actually the European powers wouldn't have lifted a finger to save Maximillian. Franz-Josef didn't care for Max and Austria hand its hands full with the Schleswig-Holstein issue and war with Prussia. Bismarck had the same concerns. Russia had no interests in America (except the sale of Alaska) and relations with France had gotten worse since 1863 when Napoleon III offered rhetorical support to the Polish rebellion. The UK wouldn't risk Canada and further tensions with the US just to prop up a French adventure in Mexico.

Click to expand...

I figured the UK wouldn't help the French at this point in time.

What I was more interested in was the reaction from Europe if the USA actually sent troops into Mexico to remove the French and their Mexican allies (minions?). As far as I know, the US had never sent any troops to remove a foreign body from any nation in Central or South America until well after the ACW. An actual confrontation between US and a European powers forces would set a new precident in the world affairs at this time.

In a way wouldn't Europe see it as the USA's claiming all of the Americas as theirs to do with as they please.

That would've sown some very bad feelings among the Great Powers. No Alaska Purchase? Less than friendly relations with Canada?

AHFanatic said:

That would've sown some very bad feelings among the Great Powers. No Alaska Purchase? Less than friendly relations with Canada?

Click to expand...

The Monroe Doctrine was a beneficial plicy for the British. The Spnish aren't what they once were. The Dutch are barely present, and the French have other issues with which to contend. What you are proposing is nonsensical largely. Now, what may happen is that Latin America is more pro-U.S. asa result.

What about an alliance between France and Spain? Spain was involved in the Chincha Islands War with Peru and Chile, plus putting down rebellions in Cuba. It could see a French Mexico as a prelude to its own return to the new world and distraction from internal quarrels.

Since in OTL Napoleon III got cold feet after the ACW ended. TTL can only work assuming the intervention went off to a better start than it did historically, thereby giving France hope for success.

B_Munro said:

Given the strength of the anti-Maximillian forces, it would have required a pretty extensive and extended French military commitment to secure him on his throne, which the US would almost certainly object strenously. As it was OTL they were pretty definite on wanting him gone, and supplied weapons to the rebels: a clash with France is probable enough that Napoleon III is unlikely to have the stomach for it. Although it demobilized quickly afterward, the Union in 1865 probably had the most formidable military machine on earth, and this _had_ been noted by various European observers, although it would be largely forgotten by 1914.

Bruce

Click to expand...

The question is does US have the stomach for a confrontation with France so soon after the Civil War? France could retaliate by arming the South for an insurgent war, and to a lesser extent support American Indian insurgencies. If the confrontation is put off into the future, the Union army and fleet can't stay mobilized indefinatly as the economy won't support it.

Another interesting variation: Napoleon III came pretty close to recognizing the Confederacy. Would early success in Mexico encourage him to back the Confderates during the ACW in order to protect his investment in Mexico?

The best way to consolidate the French presence in Mexico would had been more internal support. The liberal group must to be anti-US, with some of its members as supporters of the establishment of an European monarch (as the lesser evil for the country) in the throne of México to stop the advance of the USA, and they must have the need of external intervention to achieve their purposes. Maximilian was a liberal prince. If they are more comfortably with an alliance with a European country, Maximilian will find in Benito Juárez and his liberal group a stable support for the liberal Laws of Reform. Even Juárez can occupy the position of the Mexican Prime Minister. If this happens, the domination of France over México wouldn't have been imposible. Any further invasion of the US would strength the possition of Maximilian as he would become the symbol of a free Mexico, yet Europeanized, against the yankee domination coming from the north.

What would had happened with more French influence in México? I think the Frenchification of México would came: remember the love of Porfirio Díaz and ruling class to French culture. Perhaps the French would had become one of the official languages of México and some European immigration (from Belgium and France) would contribute with those goals. It's not farfetched, there is still some French influence in México through his music (the word mariachi cames from the French mariage, as these were the bands that played at the weddings), his cuisine, the layout of México City (the Palacio de Bellas Artes, wouldn't it be curious that it were called Palais de l'Opéra?) and the architecture in the late XIX century. México also could have played the role of being the bridge between Indochine and France.

tallwingedgoat said:

The question is does US have the stomach for a confrontation with France so soon after the Civil War? France could retaliate by arming the South for an insurgent war, and to a lesser extent support American Indian insurgencies. If the confrontation is put off into the future, the Union army and fleet can't stay mobilized indefinatly as the economy won't support it.

Another interesting variation: Napoleon III came pretty close to recognizing the Confederacy. Would early success in Mexico encourage him to back the Confderates during the ACW in order to protect his investment in Mexico?

Click to expand...

Exactly how can the French arm the South - particularly once they have surrendered? Everyone thinks that the Southern soldier will rush back to the colors - but they won't the Confederacy is entirely broken and they have their families to worry about. There is the Union Blockade which can be maintained to keep French vessels out. There is no infrastructure to take good anywhere further than the coasts inland.

Napoleon III isn't going to be acting without some coordination from London.

That was Max' (not me) problem: The liberals didn't want a monarch at all, and the conservatives wanted an absolute ruler.

Max Sinister said:

That was Max' (not me) problem: The liberals didn't want a monarch at all, and the conservatives wanted an absolute ruler.

Click to expand...

And neither wanted a liberal monarch!

David S Poepoe said:

Exactly how can the French arm the South - particularly once they have surrendered? Everyone thinks that the Southern soldier will rush back to the colors - but they won't the Confederacy is entirely broken and they have their families to worry about. There is the Union Blockade which can be maintained to keep French vessels out. There is no infrastructure to take good anywhere further than the coasts inland.

Click to expand...

Not to reconstitute the Confederate army but to sow instability for the occupational forces. The immediate problem the Union had with the occupied South would be pacification and reconstruction. The goals of which would be threatened if a neighbouring power was inimical to those goals.

Napoleon III isn't going to be acting without some coordination from London.

Click to expand...

But he did intervene in Mexico unilaterally. Had he managed to get Mexican acceptance why would he pull out for lack of support by the British? EDIT: Perhaps you meant Napoleon III wasn't going to intervene in the ACW without the British. That's possible. But intervention could be indirect in the form of shipments of war materiel, gunpowder, etc.

tallwingedgoat said:

But he did intervene in Mexico unilaterally.

Click to expand...

Tallwingedgoat,

No he didn't. France piggybacked her intervention on top of one of the usual "Occupy Veracruz until Mexico pays interest on her loans" ploys that various European powers routinely played up until WW1.

Essentially, French troops remained behind after everyone else went home and began the intervention then. It was an accomplished fact before anyone in Europe knew about it.


Bill

AHFanatic said:

No Alaska Purchase?

Click to expand...

not likely the Tsar needed the money badly

To the southern insurgency thing, not likely one out of every three white males in the south had either been killed or wounded also if southern insugents started to kill Union troops in ambushes could you imagine a reconstruction that was 100 times harsher than what we had in OTL also if France was able to arm the south in some noticeable amount you would have a Union that was very millitant towards Europe so we might find the victorious Union more militant also if the Union felt threatend by French forces to their south we might have an America thats even more willing to exert its influence over its neighbors. Also if America and the French were to fight I dont see the French and Mexican forces being able to defeat a well armed, well motivated, veteran force.

Maybe if France and the US go to war over the Mexico issue the US could annex northern Mexico?

another question how will America be able to assimilate that large of a group focus in Mexico? And if they somehow did, there is no doubt in my mind that US culture would be changed, more mexicanize? don't know