a lot of this discussion is getting off the mark... which is, 'can the US enforce the MD during the ACW"... I think we've answered it pretty well as 'no, not against the UK or France'. And those two nations are the biggest deep sea powers at the time. Any lesser naval power who has a mind to violate the MD is going to have to face the UK; while the Brits weren't willing to make France back down for assorted reasons, they are likely to make smaller powers back down... so, the US won't need to do it on their own...
Could the US have enforced the Monroe Doctrine during the Civil War?
- Thread starter Kayin Dreemurr
- Start date
Well in the 1850s the US had 1.5 million tons of merchant shipping engaged in foreign trade, then 2.5 million in 1860, but due to the Civil War it dropped by 1 million tons (and was actually about 60,000 tons less than two decades earlier) by 1870. Perhaps not coincidentally Norway's grew by 500,000 tons in the same period.
You're right however, the limiting issue is the independent overseas infrastructure which would allow them to conduct independent operations in war time. Reaching forward to 1905, when the Russians sent portions of their Baltic and Black Sea squadrons to replenish the destroyed Pacific Squadron, they were denied use of the Suez Canal and British bases, which notably impeded their performance and efficiency when they did meet the Japanese at Tsushima. The US, lacking similar infrastructure in this period, would be hard pressed to make its presence felt around the world without access to foreign ports to coal and resupply.
Good points. Spain was also the exception since she had pre-existing colonies in the Caribbean. Though that does raise the question of would powers like the Netherlands and Denmark have been excluded as they all had Caribbean territories too.
They also Can't Againts Spain, as was demostraré in the Chincha Islands war, Spanish Occupation of Republica Dominicana. They simple can't forcé The Monroe Doctrine againts any European power With interest in América, and yes I'm including The Netherlands and Denmark
IIRC, the MD forbids the establishing of new colonies, nothing about existing ones... so if either nation decides to go conquering new lands, then the UK will have something to say about it.
the USN? No, probably not during the ACW. But the UK is still the one who is doing most of the enforcing, and none of those nations are likely to risk tangling with the RN. France was kind of a special case...
during the ACW, the USN isn't going to be able to go after anyone with a big deep sea fleet. It also depends on who is doing what to whom. If for some bizarre reason, the Dutch decided to conquer Uruguay, the US is unlikely to be able to do anything about it, it's so far away. But again, they aren't going to try any such weird thing in the face of the RN. So the question really comes down to, can the US do anything about the UK or France violating the MD, which is a resounding 'no'....
I don't understand why people are acting like the United States has to beat the French in a straight-up fight to 'enforce' the Monroe Doctrine.
All they have to do is raise the price the French pay to unacceptable levels, and they are entirely capable of doing that through commerce raiding, selling arms to the defenders, or marching the Army in intimidating ways. They successfully convinced the French to back off just after the war without having to fight the French navy in open battle, just by making it obvious that the cost was going up.
All they have to do is raise the price the French pay to unacceptable levels, and they are entirely capable of doing that through commerce raiding, selling arms to the defenders, or marching the Army in intimidating ways. They successfully convinced the French to back off just after the war without having to fight the French navy in open battle, just by making it obvious that the cost was going up.
RodentRevolution
Banned
The problem is while the rebellion is still ongoing the French price for messing with them is likely more than the US can afford to pay. Look at losses to Confederate raiders and now work out what effect the loss of the China trade would have on Union revenues. Look at campaigns like the Mississippi and the number of battles where say 5,000 French infantry or 5 squadrons of cuirassiers might have made the difference between victory and defeat. Look at the results of the French escorting their ships through the blockade. As for selling arms the Union was better off than the rebels but they were short of arms throughout the war. Here the rebels suddenly have a willing seller who can go a long way to ensuring delivery.
After the war was over the US could focus on the French and did not also have to worry about an enemy with upwards of a hundred thousand men and for most of the war twice that in the field. Once the rebellion was over the situation was far more in the favour of the US, it had mountains of arms it did not need, enough ammunition to last its peacetime army till well into the 1890s and a Navy without other commitments it could deploy. It had a bucket load of options short of war to make the French uncomfortable in Mexico.
During the Civil War it would not have been a straight up fight against the French it would have been a fight diverting resources away from the primary mission of Lincoln's government at the time and increasing the likely amount of aid available to the forces of secession.
Well, yes? I don't see how this is relevant, as I've already stated that the Union wasn't willing to pay the price to intervene earlier. That doesn't mean they weren't capable of it, in the event France started doing openly threatening things in Mexico that made intervention necessary.
Also, if you think the French had thousands of troops to spare directly backing the Confederacy, then why weren't those troops already used in Mexico to ensure Maximillian's victory?
RodentRevolution
Banned
If the French stop chasing Mexican guerrillas and focus simply on holding areas loyal to Maximillian and free up troops to aid the Confederates they might also hope to win some small bits of Mexico back for the Emperor, a propaganda victory that could go a long way to shifting opinion within Mexico. However unless pushed diverting resources into the Americans' internal fight did not seem worth it but most sovereign nations when pushed around while pursuing a strategic goal first look for means to push back rather than simply give up. So it is not like the French have troops to spare they are busy doing something else but the French can prioritise differently if the need arises.
The difference once the rebellion is crushed is the US now has a US Army that has grown something, the regulars numbered barely 16,000 before the Civil War but by July 1866 would be established at 54,000. Sounds like nothing compared to the size of the Union Army when it was swollen by US Volunteer enlistments but these were long haul soldiers and overwhelmingly veterans who unlike the majority of volunteers were not eager merely to return home but wanted to soldier. These troops can be deployed, perhaps alongside some of the more willing volunteers or new enlistments to threaten the French position in Mexico without necessarily engaging in war. This ties down far more troops than the French need have diverted to the Confederacy in the case of an earlier intervention but costs the US far less.
The ability of Napoleon III to hit back if the Americans tussle with him diminishes by several orders of magnitude with the end of the Civil War.