AHC: British, not French, intervention in Mexico

frlmerrin

Banned
Really, what is most important to me is that the US brews much anti-British sentiment before the 1900s. So I thought it would work if the British supported the CSA like this:

1. CSA directly supported by Britain

Only if Britain goes to war with the Union which it would only do under very particular circumstances AND the Union has not surrendered within a very short period of time which is most unlikely.

2. USA gains more naval power; stronger blockade

Possible but only if the Union wins the ACW AND they don't end up at war with the British. If the go to war with the British there will be no blocade within a week and the greater part of the OTL Union Navy would have been sunk, burned or taken as prize and the rest will be trapped in a northern harbour. This is of course completely incompatible with your first requriement (1.) above.

3. Britain supports CSA through Mexico
(how? I don't know, I thought British intervention in Mexico would make it possible)

Nope, extremly remote possibility. You can have Britain take California, all of the west coast in fact but they (British govt/forces as opposed to merchants) have no reason to do anything via Mexico if the want to take the west coast they will and they can't be stopped by the Union, if they want to supply Texas they would do so directly and the Union could not stop them.

The French on the otherhand in the event of a prolonged (more than 3 month) Anglo-Union war would have much more lattitude than the did in OTL. They will almost certainly have access to British commercial shipping to move troops so they can put more armed warships into both the Gulf and Pacific if you like (and of course the Atlantic). So with a bigger force in Mexico and more ships they can take the place with ease and even southern California if they want. They might wish to support the Confederacy directly in order to ensure the Mexican Liberal Rebels have no haven in the CSA's/USA's west.

4. USA blocks all marine trade from Mexico going to anywhere.

This is incompatible with your first option. If you want the Union to BE ABLE TO blocade Mexico you need your option 2. because if the British are at war with the Union they won't have any ships to blocade the CSA never mind Mexico. In addition to this unless your USA agrees this option with the British, French and Spanish in some way then it will collapse before it starts because each of those nations individually has the force on station in the Gulf to lift any conceivable Union blockade of Mexico by Force Majeure. France and Britain also have the strength to lift it in the Pacific.

5. Mexico gets mad, declares war on USA
(for this to happen, I suppose more stability is necessary)

Because? They are not being blocaded as described in 5. and if the USA is at war with Britian or France or both they may not even have a border in common with the Union anymore.

6. longer American Civil War, <snip>

Well if you are going to have the Union go to war with the British at the same time it is probably going to be very short, say three months, the only way it will go on beyond 6 months is if the Union elects to attempt a war of attrition and ends up hurting itself far more than it needs to. In that case a war beyond the election in late 1864 and subsequent installation of a new Presidency in 1865 is extremely remote.
 
Only if Britain goes to war with the Union which it would only do under very particular circumstances AND the Union has not surrendered within a very short period of time which is most unlikely.

Possible but only if the Union wins the ACW AND they don't end up at war with the British. If the go to war with the British there will be no blocade within a week and the greater part of the OTL Union Navy would have been sunk, burned or taken as prize and the rest will be trapped in a northern harbour. This is of course completely incompatible with your first requriement (1.) above.

Nope, extremly remote possibility. You can have Britain take California, all of the west coast in fact but they (British govt/forces as opposed to merchants) have no reason to do anything via Mexico if the want to take the west coast they will and they can't be stopped by the Union, if they want to supply Texas they would do so directly and the Union could not stop them.

The French on the otherhand in the event of a prolonged (more than 3 month) Anglo-Union war would have much more lattitude than the did in OTL. They will almost certainly have access to British commercial shipping to move troops so they can put more armed warships into both the Gulf and Pacific if you like (and of course the Atlantic). So with a bigger force in Mexico and more ships they can take the place with ease and even southern California if they want. They might wish to support the Confederacy directly in order to ensure the Mexican Liberal Rebels have no haven in the CSA's/USA's west.

This is incompatible with your first option. If you want the Union to BE ABLE TO blocade Mexico you need your option 2. because if the British are at war with the Union they won't have any ships to blocade the CSA never mind Mexico. In addition to this unless your USA agrees this option with the British, French and Spanish in some way then it will collapse before it starts because each of those nations individually has the force on station in the Gulf to lift any conceivable Union blockade of Mexico by Force Majeure. France and Britain also have the strength to lift it in the Pacific.

Because? They are not being blocaded as described in 5. and if the USA is at war with Britian or France or both they may not even have a border in common with the Union anymore.

Well if you are going to have the Union go to war with the British at the same time it is probably going to be very short, say three months, the only way it will go on beyond 6 months is if the Union elects to attempt a war of attrition and ends up hurting itself far more than it needs to. In that case a war beyond the election in late 1864 and subsequent installation of a new Presidency in 1865 is extremely remote.

Sorry, you misunderstood me. I should've written earlier- this was an option that was considered if Britain was not to DIRECTLY go at war with the US. As somebody already said, "The US has its plate full".
 
Last edited:

frlmerrin

Banned
Sorry, you misunderstood me. I should've written earlier- this was an option that was considered if Britain was not to DIRECTLY go at war with the US. As somebody already said, "The US has its plate full".

If that is the case then:

My comment for your item 1, concerning British support for the CSA holds. Britain (or more precisely the British government) had no reason to support the CSA indirectly. It is extremely difficult to think of a scenario where the British Government might wish to do so. Even in the case where they and some other European powers offered to mediate an end to the ACW and this were rejected by the Union they are more likely to simply recognise the Confederacy and then if need be break the blockade either by declaring it ineffective (which until at least 1864 they had the evidence to do) or simply by Force Majeure.

In the absence of a war with Britain your item 2, that the Union gains more naval power and a stronger blockade is possible but you should consider what you mean exactly.

More naval power to enforce the blockade would mean more, better, small inshore ships, ideally fast streamers and more large, fast, transports to supply them on far stations. It might also mean better inshore ironclads for shore bombardment. It would not mean more cruziers, more big steam frigates or even steam line of battle ships. They had enough cruziers to show the flag, chase Confederate Commerce and to some extent to protect Union shipping. In fact they eventually (1864) had enough small if often very crappy sailing schooners, barks, steam tugs and glorified riverboats to enforce the blockade. The USN could improve the quality of the blockade vessels by replacing them with fast steamers but they would be little threat to a European navy and why go through the expense in the middle of a costly war? In OTL the Union had an excellent inshore ironclad to copy in New Ironsides; two or three more vessels of this type would have hugely improved the shore bombardment capability of the USN. Unfortunately the Union political establishment was firmly wedded to the monitor concept and are unlikely to have been disabused of the idea in this scenario so what you might get is a few more monitors or a few of the bigger monitors being built sooner much to the chagrin of large parts of the USN officer corps. Once again they would have been little use against a European navy. The USN had no need for new frigates in the ACW, the USS Franklin remained on the stocks incomplete for the war. The Union Government even allowed Webb’s shipbuilders to export two weak armoured frigates to what became Italy in the middle of the ACW!

In summary you might get some small fast steam ships for the blockade but only if the Union buys them from the British* because the Union has almost no capacity to build iron hulled (not ironclad) vessels and no capacity to build modern engines and high pressure boilers at all. Such a political decision is unlikely so a naval expansion is likely to be more of the same. The Union might also acquire some more monitors too. This is more probable.

I should also mention that domestic artillery production was not enough to meet demand in OTL and for various reasons I won’t go into could not be increased to do so. This will not change in this scenario. Thus finding a battery for any new ships would be problematic.

In conclusion regarding your item 2 An increase in the size of the navy is possible and an early imposition of an ‘effective’ blockade. However, I would suggest the only way you are going to get a significantly better, more capable Union Navy is if you find a suitable external threat the USN needs to address.

*The British Government might decline to let shipbuilders sell them to the Union after 1863ish as they would be regarded as a violation of the declaration of neutrality.

Item 3, that Britain would support the CSA indirectly through Mexico? As item 1, that the British government would support the CSA without being at war with the Union is unrealistic and extremely improbable one can only conclude this is even more unlikely. I cannot think of any realistic scenario for this.

Item 4, blockade Mexico. As already stated the Union needs to agree this blockade with the British, French and Spanish. If they don’t the life of the blockade would be measured in hours. I cannot imagine why the Europeans would agree to such a thing. This is unlikely to the point of absurdity, sorry.

Item 5, Mexico invades the Union. My original comment stands ‘Because’?

Item 6, longer ACW, yes this possible but not as a result of the British Government supporting the CSA. How long do you want to make it? You would really be struggling to make it last much more than a year longer.

Look Zeppelinair you seem to be barking up several wrong trees here why don’t you explain in a bit of detail what you want to achieve and why? Someone might be able to help you.
 
Really, what is most important to me is that the US brews much anti-British sentiment before the 1900s. So I thought it would work if the British supported the CSA like this:
[1. CSA directly supported by Britain

What does Britain gain from supporting the CSA? It has good, strong trade with the US - even if there's periodic Americans posturing and making noise, there's also steady profit.

I don't think you can get a war just by having anti-British sentiment in the US unless there's something compelling conflict in a period when Britain is quite willing to handle its differences with the US and the US is too weak to be a successful aggressor (something the politicians would get if not necessarily the hoi polloi) with diplomacy.

If you really want British intervention in Mexico, you need a way that serves Britain's interests - leave American stupidity out of it.
 
I need to clarify a few points here:

1) The British were supporting the Confederacy without declaring war on the US. The built several ships for them, and the CSA bought tons of Enfield rifled muskets from private contractors and gun runners. The British at least had enough sense to seize the Laird rams that were being constructed for the Confederates.

2) Supplies were already getting to the CSA through Mexico. European goods would be stored at Havana and then shipped to Matamoros on the Mexican-Texas border. From there, they were sent by wagon into Texas. The port also exported cotton to France and Britain, which brought in money the Confederate government desperately needed.
 
I need to clarify a few points here:

1) The British were supporting the Confederacy without declaring war on the US. The built several ships for them, and the CSA bought tons of Enfield rifled muskets from private contractors and gun runners. The British at least had enough sense to seize the Laird rams that were being constructed for the Confederates.

The Union also bought plenty of Enfields and such. That's not the same as Britain supporting either - that's private industry profiting.

I'm not sure on the warship issue, but I imagine it was treated as the same thing.
 
The Union also bought plenty of Enfields and such. That's not the same as Britain supporting either - that's private industry profiting.

I'm not sure on the warship issue, but I imagine it was treated as the same thing.
This true. It wasn't like the British government was sending shipments to the CSA.
 
This isn't very plausible. Britain was a supporter of the Monroe Doctrine, pretty much enforced it at first until America could do it by themselves and had no reason to. Doing so would only provoke the USA. Now, with an 1800 POD, if Spain and its colonies ally with France during the Napoleonic Wars, Britain might aid Mexican rebels and set up a friendly government, but even that seems like a stretch.
 
This isn't very plausible. Britain was a supporter of the Monroe Doctrine, pretty much enforced it at first until America could do it by themselves and had no reason to. Doing so would only provoke the USA. Now, with an 1800 POD, if Spain and its colonies ally with France during the Napoleonic Wars, Britain might aid Mexican rebels and set up a friendly government, but even that seems like a stretch.
was there ever an incident (beyond the Indian Subcontinent) where Britain directly established a government that was pro-UK? Or did the British Empire always subjugate other countries economically?
 
was there ever an incident (beyond the Indian Subcontinent) where Britain directly established a government that was pro-UK? Or did the British Empire always subjugate other countries economically?
Also, come to think of it- wasn't Mexico a Spanish colony until 1821? That means it would be Britain actually helping Mexico become independent 20 years before IOTL...
 
Last edited:
Top