Could the US have enforced the Monroe Doctrine during the Civil War?

[FillyofDelphi]

This may be a stretch but also remember that during the 1860s Otto von Bismarck was launching his German unification wars. The Danish-Prussian War in 1864, the Austro-Prussian War/Seven Weeks War in 1866 and finally the Franco-Prussian War in 1870. So the European powers are going to be paying more attention to the map of Central Europe being redrawn rather than attempting to gain or increase their colonial holdings in the Americas.

.

Indeed. It's Nappy III rather than Bismark at this point who'd be commenting on how his map of the rest of the world was actually a map of Europe: the mid-60's had alot of pots boiling for him. The Schelswig Holstein Question, stabiling the newly formed allg in the Kingdom of Italy and establishing some kind of long term settlement on zones of influence between them, Austria, and the Papacy, keeping his friend Isabella of Spain on an increasingly unstable throne, and seeking to make gains in the Rhine and penetrate into Eastern Politics via influencing the Sultan and Shogun. He can't go all in on Emperor Max without dropping a few other pet projects.

No other power really has both the motivation and ability to meddle with America seriously. Spain is broke with a military that sees a barraks revolt every other Thursday, Britain benefits from the Doctrine as it allows them to make Latin America part of the Informal Empire with all the profits and none of the costs, Prussia is busy sweeping up Centeral Europe, and Russia post-Crimea is trying to get a few rubles as compensation for an icebox she can't defend anyways.

They could try, but I don't think they'd be very successful -- the French navy was one of the most powerful in the world, and the US navy was geared towards intercepting enemy trade rather than fighting large-scale naval battles.

And if the US refuses to give battle? France can't keep the bulk of it's combat fleet steaming around in concentrated battle readiness so far from home forever. US ships can not try to intercept ships under ironclad escorts via selective enforcement until they can concentrate and build up the local naval power to challenge the expedition, and unless the French are willing to directly attack American ships first or act aggressively on the Gulf ports they can't do a thing to stop it. And there aren't enough floating cheese boxes to cover every ship going to and from Vera Cruz either.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

And if the US refuses to give battle? France can't keep the bulk of it's combat fleet steaming around in concentrated battle readiness so far from home forever. US ships can not try to intercept ships under ironclad escorts via selective enforcement until they can concentrate and build up the local naval power to challenge the expedition, and unless the French are willing to directly attack American ships first or act aggressively on the Gulf ports they can't do a thing to stop it. And there aren't enough floating cheese boxes to cover every ship going to and from Vera Cruz either.

I don't see how the US navy could try and keep French troops out of Mexico without any fighting, in which case the French wouldn't be "directly attacking American ships first", they'd be taking action to defend themselves against an attack by a stuck-up bully with ideas above its station (or at least that's how the US was generally perceived at the time).

 

[Fabius Maximus]

French had a lot of Trade that could be intercepted, and in 1866, a large scale Naval Battle would likely be in the US favor. French Broadside ironclads were not that impressive

Citation very much needed.

 

[Dave Howery]

yes, I don't think the USN will win a war on the high seas against the French navy. OTOH, I'm not sure the French could bull their way inland to attack targets away from the coast either. And in the long run, the naval status isn't going to matter much to Maximillian... even if the French claim victory on the high seas, the US can pour arms and munitions to the Mexican rebels right there across the (land) border... and Maximillian's forces weren't doing that great by the end of the ACW. It's notable that the French decided the whole thing wasn't feasible in OTL...

 

[FillyofDelphi]

I don't see how the US navy could try and keep French troops out of Mexico without any fighting, in which case the French wouldn't be "directly attacking American ships first", they'd be taking action to defend themselves against an attack by a stuck-up bully with ideas above its station (or at least that's how the US was generally perceived at the time).

I don't think we're quite on the same wavelength here. What I'm suggesting is that supplying Maxy's armies and the Legion, especially to the extent that they can keep outgunning Juarez and his ilk once "war surplus" starts getting "Misplaced" around Corpus Christi, as well as make sure the Mexican regeime can pay for it and not just become a money sink for the French treasury, would require a consitent and major flow of trade in and out of Mexican ports. While the French can certainly protect that traffic with their warships, and in a full scale naval conflict in which both sides put all their money on the table will be able to defeat the US, France can't divert enough hulls to the Americas to escort all that commerce and the US captains can and will practice discression on just what targets they decide to enforce the blockade on to avoid shooting breaking out with French warships, and continue build up its navy until in a few years they can more strongly resist the incusions into "their" sphere of influence. At some point, Nappy is going to have to run a cost-benefit analysis as to weather or not its worth getting bogged down in what could be a years' long quasi-war with the US for the sake of giving Maxy more time to try to crush the rebellion while sacrificing potential gains elsewhere or some event blowing up in Europe and finding herself unable to strongly push national interests there because her war chest is drained and she has a large contingent of men and material on the opposite side of the globe.

 

[marathag]

Citation very much needed.

The US merchant Marine started the war with roughly 5,000 ships, many were lost to CSN action and from reflagging, reduced by by almost half by 1865. This was accomplished by around 20 Raiders, like Alabama, an unarmored screw frigate

By 1865, the USN had around 600 ships, mostly what today would be called a Brown Water Navy, but had a number of high speed raiders, built to destroy British commerce, the Ammonoosuc, Neshaminy and Wampanoag classes, that were the fastest steamships in the World when launched, 18 knots

There were around 30 Monitors, from the large seagoing Monitors like Dictator, with an additional 20 small riverine Cascos

The French Fleet had 37 screw liners, 28 screw frigates and 84 steam corvettes and sloops, plus around 30 gunboats.

The French would have 11 ironclads in commission by 1865, plus 12 coastal defense floating batteries, including the five batteries made for the Crimean War.

The French Ironclads were mostly of the broadside type, with 4.5" belts, and 70 to 110 pound class rifles as armament.

These would have trouble penetrating Monitor type armor, while the reverse of a 200 pound Parrott or 15" Dahlgren would not have that problem against 4.5" armored belts

The biggest problem is that the French coudn't concentrate their Fleet against the US at the time

 

[King of the Uzbeks]

As I understand it, Mexico also owed some money to Britain as well.

Britain actually participated in the invasion (along with Spain) until they realized France was in it for regime change, not just beating the Mexicans up until they paid the debt.

 

[Kayin Dreemurr]

Britain actually participated in the invasion (along with Spain) until they realized France was in it for regime change, not just beating the Mexicans up until they paid the debt.

There's the interesting idea here then of the US deciding to press defending the doctrine after that initial bit, and when the British realize regime change is the goal of the French, deciding to turn on the French and inform the French it's time to pull out or the British will help enforce the doctrine.

 

[cerebropetrologist]

By 1865, the USN had around 600 ships, mostly what today would be called a Brown Water Navy, but had a number of high speed raiders, built to destroy British commerce, the Ammonoosuc, Neshaminy and Wampanoag classes, that were the fastest steamships in the World when launched, 18 knots

I find this phrasing very interesting. For instance, 'By 1865, the USN... had a number of high speed raiders' implies that these ships were actually completed, when that wasn't remotely the case:

• USS Wampanoag - launched 15 December 1864, commissioned 17 September 1867, sea trials 7 February 1868
• USS Madawaska- launched 8 July 1865, sea trials 14 January 1867
• USS Ammonoosuc- launched 21 July 1864, sea trials 15 June 1868
• USS Neshaminy- launched 5 October 1865, sold without going to sea
• USS Pompanoosuc - never launched
• USS Idaho- launched 8 October 1864, commissioned 2 April 1866
• USS Chattanooga- launched 13 October 1864, commissioned 16 May 1866, sea trials August 1866
• USS Bonhomme Richard - cancelled 1864

Note that you later explicitly compare this list to what the French had 'in commission,' thereby comparing apples to oranges. Furthermore, your statement about 'the fastest steamships in the World when launched, 18 knots' would be better rephrased as 'one of the ships made 17.75 knots at four points during a thirty-eight hour trial, averaging only 16.6 knots, and wore down her wooden gear wheels by 3/8in in the process'. The other ships proved on their trials to be nowhere near capable of eighteen knots. Madawaska averaged 12.73 knots; Chattanooga made 13.2 knots, but to keep her gear wheels lubricated consumed two hundred gallons of oil in twenty-four hours; and when Idaho made only 8.27 knots on trial, the navy refused to accept her until she had her machinery removed.

This was accomplished by around 20 Raiders, like Alabama, an unarmored screw frigate

Completely different ships to the Wampanoag, of course:

CSS Alabama: 220ft x 31ft 8in x 17ft 8in, 1050 tons, 13kts, 8 guns; 65 captures
CSS Shenandoah: 230ft x 32.5ft x 20ft 6in, 1160 tons, 16kts, 6 guns; 38 captures
CSS Florida: 191ft x 27ft 2in x 13ft, 12kts, 8 guns; 37 captures
USS Wampanoag: 355ft x 45ft x 19ft, 4,215 tons, 18kts; 15 guns.

The most successful commerce raiders tend to be smaller and less obtrusive - consider Wampanoag as the Graf Spee to Alabama's Penguin.

 

[marathag]

Mostly because after April 1865, things slowed down to a crawl for new Naval Construction.

You think if there was many Monroe Doctrine violations active as the War ended, the same slow pace would have occurred?

The Wampanoags were the fastest warships afloat, to avoid what they could not sink-- PBs turned to 11, but the USN had enough standard screw Frigates like USS Kearsarge, that tore Alabama to pieces

 

[eltf177]

As I understand it, Mexico also owed some money to Britain as well.

Britain actually participated in the invasion (along with Spain) until they realized France was in it for regime change, not just beating the Mexicans up until they paid the debt.

Both England and Spain made limited demands which were met. OTOH France made outrageous demands in order to put Maximilian on the throne and force him to pay the debts.

 

[cerebropetrologist]

Mostly because after April 1865, things slowed down to a crawl for new Naval Construction.

So why did you suggest the US had these warships completed 'by 1865'?

You think if there was many Monroe Doctrine violations active as the War ended, the same slow pace would have occurred?

The French stayed in Mexico until November 1866 - seems like a pretty big violation of the Monroe doctrine to me. Of course, the real key fact here is that the US was in such dire financial straits by 1865 that it was forced to restrict significant naval projects needed to restore its blue-water power projection capacity. What this tends to suggest that they'd really struggle to enforce the Monroe doctrine during the Civil War - unless they limit their efforts against the South, of course.

The Wampanoags were the fastest warships afloat

Not USS Idaho, of course. But achieving that speed of 17.75 knots four times in a thirty-eight hour period meant that USS Wampanoag could only carry coal for five days of steaming. That's quite a considerable disadvantage in a commerce raider, for a nation like the United States which lacks the French network of coaling stations, and which has just spent the past four years lobbying neutrals to restrict supplies of coal to belligerents. Just like the pocket battleships, they were poorly designed for their intended role - more about prestige than functionality.

the USN had enough standard screw Frigates like USS Kearsarge, that tore Alabama to pieces

Kearsarge was a sloop, not a frigate, and was also very fortunate that the battle took place so close to land. Captain Charles Pickering explained how 'With her present weight of armament, she is only adapted to river and harbour defence. Her bulwarks… are so extremely low, and she rolls so deeply, as to force… battening down the hatches even in moderate gales… There has not been a day in which it would have been safe to cast loose the pivot guns.' If you're hoping that the 6-gun Kearsarge will successfully take on the 58-gun French frigate Impératrice Eugénie while it's escorting a convoy in the mid-Atlantic, I think you're reaching somewhat.

 

[Dempsey-Louis]

Here is an extract from Smithsonian.com that suggests Lincoln did enforce, in practice anyway, the Monroe Doctrine.

The United States did not recognize the French regime in Mexico, but with the Civil War raging, remained officially neutral in the hope that France would not recognize or aid the Confederacy.

Nevertheless, the resourceful Romero, then in his mid-20s, found ways to secure American aid in spite of official policy, mainly by establishing a personal relationship with President Lincoln and the First Lady, Mary Todd Lincoln. From there, Romero was able to befriend Union generals Grant and Philip Sheridan, connections that would later prove crucial to the Mexican struggle. “What particularly endeared Romero to the American president,” Hogan notes, “was that he escorted Mrs. Lincoln on her frequent shopping trips…with good-natured grace. It was a duty which Lincoln was happy to relinquish.”

With Lincoln’s earlier letter in hand,Romero made the rounds with American bankers in San Francisco, New York and Boston, Hogan says, selling bonds that raised $18 million to fund the Mexican army. “They bought cannon, uniforms, shoes, food, salaries for the men, all kinds of things,” he says. “And Grant later helped them secure even better weapons—Springfield rifles. He would go to the Springfield people and say, “Get them some decent rifles. I don’t want them fighting the French with the old-fashioned ones.”

After the Civil War, the U.S. became even more helpful in the fight for Mexican liberation. In a show of support, Grant dispatched 50,000 men to the Texas border under General Sheridan, instructing him to covertly “lose” 30,000 rifles where they could be miraculously “found” by the Mexicans. Sheridan’s forces included several regiments of seasoned African-American troops, many of whom went on to fight in the Indian Wars, where they were nicknamed the Buffalo Soldiers.

By 1867, the French had withdrawn their occupying army; the Juárez forces captured and executed Maximilian, and the Mexican Republic was restored.


Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-mexico-loved-lincoln-180962258/#j71xwCJVszBmSHLJ.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

 

[EnglishCanuck]

and yet, they didn't deal with a couple of blatant attempts to get around the MD... always wondered why the Brits were so blasé about France's invasion of Mexico...

The British were happy to have the French muck around in Mexico since it meant that they could cause less trouble in Europe. Napoleon did indeed realize this was true, which was why he began withdrawing men in 1866.

Which is one reason why Napoleon the III ended up withdrawing from Mexico, with the big army the US plopped on the border helping.

I think some are considering that I'm suggesting the Union in enforcing the Monroe Doctrine during the war is saying to go on a major offensive against the Europeans. I wasn't really thinking of that at all. At most I was thinking they'd extend the blockade so that European forces couldn't get into Mexican waters and work to simply trap what European forces are present in Mexico while working to keep the British at bay in the north. And considering the Polish revolt in Russia and Russia's own eyeing of things in the Balkans...

One of the reasons yes. The sudden shift on the ground, with the US conceivably able to help Mexico and threaten French troops directly (I've read of alleged skirmishes between the two forces) and a now secure base of operations for Republican forces to receive funds and armaments. The collapse of Austria in July 1866 hastened the French departure as the ball shifted directly back to Europe.

As to trying to blockade Mexico, that would be dangerous. They might get away with attempting to extend the blockade to Matemoros, but even then the French and British would likely object (fortunes were being made in blockade running or selling to the Confederates through legal agents there) which would mean trouble, the Mexican government probably wouldn't take kindly to it either. British and French warships driving the Federal blockade off would be bad for all concerned. If the Union looked like it was widening the war, Confederate asks for recognition might gain wider credence in Paris and London.

The Union Navy was not a blue water navy in this period. Any attempt to fight the British and French on the open seas would probably end in misery.

 

[marathag]

The Union Navy was not a blue water navy in this period. Any attempt to fight the British and French on the open seas would probably end in misery.

Odd you think the USN wasn't world spanning in the 1860.

However did Perry get to Japan?

 

[marathag]

Kearsarge was a sloop, not a frigate

From the wiki

By about 1825 the United States Navy used "sloop-of-war" to designate a flush-deck ship-rigged warship with all armament on the gundeck; these could be rated as high as 26 guns and thus overlapped "third-class frigates," the equivalent of British post-ships.

If the Union was in such a dire financial state, one wonders why they didn't surrender to the Confederates

 

[wcv215]

They might get away with attempting to extend the blockade to Matemoros, but even then the French and British would likely object (fortunes were being made in blockade running or selling to the Confederates through legal agents there) which would mean trouble, the Mexican government probably wouldn't take kindly to it either.

Should also be noted this sort of blockade would be illegal whereas the blockade of the CSA was not.

 

[CalBear]

Easy answer is no. More complicated answer is where and who. Obviously France or the UK are a no go (As the whole French adventure in Mexico demonstrated. That the French ended their involvement virtually as soon as the smoke cleared in Northern Virginia is, of course, a coincidence, and has nothing to do with the USN having the most potent littoral fleet the world had ever seen to that point, along with a few hundred thousand combat veterans who were sort of looking for work; not to mention a huge pile of war surplus rifles and other equipment for sale, pesos accepted at many locations.). Holland? Hard to say.

 

[cerebropetrologist]

From the wiki

By about 1825 the United States Navy used "sloop-of-war" to designate a flush-deck ship-rigged warship with all armament on the gundeck; these could be rated as high as 26 guns and thus overlapped "third-class frigates," the equivalent of British post-ships.

Your quote says that sloops 'rated as high as 26 guns... overlapped "third-class frigates".' But that's a conditional which doesn't apply to the six-gun Kearsarge, which is clearly a sloop in both US and Royal Navy terminology. Nevertheless, even if we call the Kearsarge a frigate, and even if the sea is calm enough to allow her to unship her pivot guns, she's still not going to be a match for a French steam frigate mounting nearly ten times as many guns. The same applies to the vast majority of the 600-ship Union blockading fleet, many of which were merchant ships hastily converted into patrol ships, and which had all the weaknesses inherent to such vessels - from hulls stressed by the additional weight of armament, through improvised and insecure powder magazines, to boilers positioned above the waterline so that a single lucky roundshot can douse the engineers with scalding steam and blistering boiling water, stripping flesh and skin from the bones.

If the Union was in such a dire financial state, one wonders why they didn't surrender to the Confederates

I would have thought that the implication is obvious: that although the Union is capable of defeating a power with a quarter of its population and a tenth of its industry, it might have struggled to create the navy needed to fight a European power at the same time. Which, after all, is the entire point of this thread.

 

[Kayin Dreemurr]

I would have thought that the implication is obvious: that although the Union is capable of defeating a power with a quarter of its population and a tenth of its industry, it might have struggled to create the navy needed to fight a European power at the same time. Which, after all, is the entire point of this thread.

Eh, actually the point of the thread is to just wonder if in a general sense if the Union could have, while it was still fighting the Confederacy, have managed to enforce the Monroe Doctrine at the same time.

I'm not sure the Union necessarily has to be able to match European naval power to do that. No, it wouldn't have been able to match the British, French and Spanish if they joined into one group, but the Spanish and British didn't have the same interests in the attack on Mexico, so really all the Union has to do is help speed up France's decision that "This is a waste of resources/time" (and the Spanish probably wouldn't have been to much trouble for the Union if they contested them and their attempted retaking of one of their former colonies in the Caribbean)