Cinco de Mayo

In 2008 member Kieth Robertsson asked "What if Cinco de Mayo was a French victory?" and his post was ignored. So I'm asking it again. Wiki says: Consequences to the United States

Some historians have argued that France's real goal was to help break up the American Union, at the time in the midst of a civil war, by helping the southern Confederacy: "The Mexicans had won a great victory that kept Napoleon III from supplying the confederate rebels for another year, allowing the United States to build the greatest army the world had ever seen. This grand army smashed the Confederates at Gettysburg just 14 months after the battle of Puebla, essentially ending the Civil War." The consequence of Cinco de Mayo to the United States has been thus recognized:"The defeat of the French army had consequences for America as well...the French defeat denied Napoleon III the opportunity to resupply the Confederate rebels for another year."

Donald W. Miles adds, "At the time, there were fears in the United States that the French would use Mexico as a base to back the Confederacy, so President Lincoln and his secretary of State went out of their way to appear 'neutral' in the Mexican situation. They did not want to take on the French and the Confederates at the same time". Dr. Miles goes on to explain that "Napoleon III had hesitated to take on the United States directly, but now the news of the Civil War changed everything". It meant that the Americans would be occupied with their conflict between North and South for some time. Upon hearing the Spaniards and the British had sailed off to grab the customs house in Veracruz to start collecting their duties, Napoleon decided he would not only send the French navy, but would also start looking for someone to place as emperor in Mexico. He would then use Mexico as a base to help the Confederates win their war against the United States. Napoleon saw this as an opportunity not to be missed. Dr. Miles then concludes, "The Emperor of France ordered his generals to spend a few months taking on Mexico and then - using Mexico as a 'base' - help the Confederates win their war against the United States. What if they had succeded? The United States would never become the significant world power it is today...the Mexicans not only took their nation back, but influenced the outcome of the U.S. Civil War."

Historian Justo Sierra, has written in his Political Evolution of the Mexican People, that had Mexico not defeated the French in Puebla on May 5, 1862, France would have gone to the aid of the South in the U.S. Civil War and the United States' destiny could have been very different.
So was Cinco de Mayo significant in preventing help to the South in the ACW?
 

Philip

Donor
So was Cinco de Mayo significant in preventing help to the South in the ACW?

I doubt it. A bit over a year later, the French were in Mexico City yet no support for the South came of it.

Even if it was the French's plan, how was it to be implemented? Either they can attempt to run the Union blockade or move support overland. I fail to see why Puebla is needed if the plan was former. The French were already using Spanish held Veracruz. If it is the latter, then the French still have hundreds of km to go before the even reach the Confederacy. Then they need to move men/materiel through Texas, to and across the Mississippi. Doesn't seem like a very good plan.
 
It is conceivable that if Napoleon III hadn't been defeated there that he might have had more confidence in meddling in regards to the Civil War, but it would be a stretch to go much further than that.

And the "historians" describing Gettysburg as "essentially ending the Civil War" is...well, a sign of sloppy research. And I say this as someone on the "Eastern theater was relevant" side of the "the Civil War was won in the West and the East didn't matter".
 
Yeah, that pretty much reads like what somebody who is trying to sell Cinco de Mayo in the United States would say ("SEE? It's patriotic after all!").

When the issue of Nappy III and the ACW was treated previously the consensus was that he wanted to intervene, but he wouldn't as long as Britain wasn't in as well.
 
Yeah, that pretty much reads like what somebody who is trying to sell Cinco de Mayo in the United States would say ("SEE? It's patriotic after all!").
Wiki makes a good point that's it's more like St. Patrick's Day or Oktoberfest.
 
Wiki makes a good point that's it's more like St. Patrick's Day or Oktoberfest.

Exactly. The United states reflects the pluralistic nature of its society by creating semi-officials holiday's which honor a major immigrant ethnicity with an excuse for public drinking.
 
Exactly. The United states reflects the nature of its society by creating semi-officials holiday's which honor an excuse for public drinking.

Fixed for you ;)

The actual question came up for me because Boehner has chosen not to have the Cinco de Mayo brunch this year and I wondered about the appropriateness of a government honoring a foreign political holiday. So I learned about the issue and realized that it was not in fact a foreign holiday, but didn't know if it was a political holiday. So trusting in AH.Com I asked the question. I am satisfied that it is not political as anything more than an excuse.
 
Top