When France took over Mexican during the civil war Abraham Made a speech saying to leave Mexico or face the consequences. The French government laughed at Lincoln. So Lincoln embargoed all trade for France or Mexico for the USA and CSA. So Mexico and France declare war in the USA and aid the CSA.CSA,France and Mexico win the war and CSA wins independence, Mexico would gain most of the lost land in Mexican-American war and America would become a French puppet like Mexico.
 
Militarily I don't know if the French will be able to really attack the southwest from Mexico. Marching up demoralized Mexican conscripts will result in a very long and vulnerable supply chain, and sending up French soldiers weakens their occupation of Mexico. While they could definitely make life harder for the North, I don't think this breaks the civil war-just drags it out, and forces the North to take out the proverbial hand they held behind their back during the civil war.

The effect on Indian country will be interesting. Sending armed Mexicans into the southwest is going to piss off the Lipan Apaches royally; the attitude of the French to slavery and native rights could strongly push the exiled tribes (Seminoles, Delaware, Cherokee, etc.) to support one side or the other when they were divided IOTL (IIRC); the French are definitely not going to have any idea on how to handle the Comanche, and if they don't take lessons from the Comancheros they could definitely find themselves bogged down against one of the world's greatest light cavalries on the southern plains instead of doing much to help the CSA.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Uh...

The French were not about to get into a serious war in North America. The forces they did send were fortunate to hold off the Mexican irregulars for as long as they did. Benito Juarez proved to be a much more capable and tenacious opponent than anyone in Paris expected. They did ignore the U.S. during the ACW, but they started paying very close attention to the U.S. which suddenly had a couple million combat veterans, a lot of them between employment opportunities. The French puppet government failed to, among other things, interfere with the transfer of 30,000 stands of arms directly from the U.S. Arsenal at Baton Rouge to Juarez's forces (not that it would have been a good idea to try, Phil Sheridan was a very skilled combat commander).

I would also point out that most of the "Mexican Territory" in question was considered to be part of the CSA by the Confederacy (there were a number of little known but sharp engagements between Federal and Confederate forces in the Arizona and New Mexico Territories), with the Lion's share being the State of Texas. The Confederacy actually offered, during the Hampton Roads Conference to make common cause with the U.S. to evict the French.

It is also useful to consider that the French effort did not take Mexico City until June of 1863. Less than a month later the Confederate's last actual, albeit slender, chance for victory died on a hot day in Pennsylvania.
 
Uh...

The French were not about to get into a serious war in North America. The forces they did send were fortunate to hold off the Mexican irregulars for as long as they did. Benito Juarez proved to be a much more capable and tenacious opponent than anyone in Paris expected. They did ignore the U.S. during the ACW, but they started paying very close attention to the U.S. which suddenly had a couple million combat veterans, a lot of them between employment opportunities. The French puppet government failed to, among other things, interfere with the transfer of 30,000 stands of arms directly from the U.S. Arsenal at Baton Rouge to Juarez's forces (not that it would have been a good idea to try, Phil Sheridan was a very skilled combat commander).

I would also point out that most of the "Mexican Territory" in question was considered to be part of the CSA by the Confederacy (there were a number of little known but sharp engagements between Federal and Confederate forces in the Arizona and New Mexico Territories), with the Lion's share being the State of Texas. The Confederacy actually offered, during the Hampton Roads Conference to make common cause with the U.S. to evict the French.

It is also useful to consider that the French effort did not take Mexico City until June of 1863. Less than a month later the Confederate's last actual, albeit slender, chance for victory died on a hot day in Pennsylvania.
Mexico gained all USA territory but no CSA territory
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Mexico gained all USA territory but no CSA territory
Not just improbable, but literally IMPOSSIBLE. The CSA wanted ALL of the territories south of what had once been the Mason Dixon Line, including Southern California.

The only prize, at the time, on the West Coast was San Francisco, which was well defended and connected via rail to the rest of the U.S.

The Federal government had every reason to defend Northern California and the Comstock silver strike, both or which were supporting the Union War effort.

The French lack the force structure to manage this, especially giving their ongoing responsibilities at home. The French couldn't even find, fix and destroy Juarez's forces, much less cross through Apache Territory with supply lines that cross the entire continent.

I doubt it could even be done in a computer game. IRL the logistics are impossible.
 
When France took over Mexican during the civil war Abraham Made a speech saying to leave Mexico or face the consequences. The French government laughed at Lincoln. So Lincoln embargoed all trade for France or Mexico for the USA and CSA. So Mexico and France declare war in the USA and aid the CSA.CSA,France and Mexico win the war and CSA wins independence, Mexico would gain most of the lost land in Mexican-American war and America would become a French puppet like Mexico.

...this is more than a little improbable.

OTL Napoleon III was happy enough to flout the American government going into 1865, but by 1866 when there were 50,000 troops on the Rio Grande under Phil Sheridan, he made the rather astute decision to cut his losses, loot what he could and withdraw from Mexico post-haste. The French strength at maximum in 1865 was about 36,000 men, with 20,000 Mexican Conservative auxiliaries, and 9,000 European volunteers serving with the Imperial Mexican Army. All of this was spread out across Mexico fighting a nasty little guerrilla war, and would be unable to concentrate in force to attack the Union (whatever Peter Tsouras might think). The idea they could launch an invasion of the South is beyond ludicrous.

That and the CSA would never consent to abandoning its claimed territories in Arizona, and Texas would join the Mexican Empire if all the native Texans were dead...
 
When France took over Mexican during the civil war Abraham Made a speech saying to leave Mexico or face the consequences. The French government laughed at Lincoln. So Lincoln embargoed all trade for France or Mexico for the USA and CSA. So Mexico and France declare war in the USA and aid the CSA.CSA,France and Mexico win the war and CSA wins independence, Mexico would gain most of the lost land in Mexican-American war and America would become a French puppet like Mexico.
The idea of thithread is politically impossible if not asb outright. Napoléon III always avoided direct confrontations alone if he could (he fought in Crimea with British support, in Italy at Piedmontese request but backed down as soon as Prussia threatened to intervene, he intervened in Mexico with British and Spanish support and once they withdrew, stayed because everyone either didn't care or was busy elsewhere, refused to make any commitment in the American civil war if the British didn't, and it's only under the weight of sickness and harassed by warhawks that he consented to war with Prussia in 1870 while he didn't want it).
In fact the kind of ruler you describe is far from who Napoléon III was. As Emperor, he put the emphasis on diplomacy and used the military as a way not as an end, at the contrary of his uncle; he thought of France policy to enhance its influence through culture and trade, and if he ever considered the prospect of a recognition for the CSA, it was only he wasn't to discard the opportunities passing, all while remaining expectant (he was very much a 'wait and see' guy).
As to the project Napoléon III had for Mexico, it wasn't to dismember the USA, but to prop up a stable and prosperous country that could rival its northern neighbor and to which France would be a privileged trade partner.
 
Please remember that Lincoln and Seward did send some feelers to the CSA about a temporary cease fire to defeat the Mexicans/French and then get back to their own fighting afterwards. The CSA was all for it because they believed it would gain the them valuable breathing space and some legitimacy. In the end the way the war started going caused the potential deal to be withdrawn.

So... in the end no matter what the CSA are first and foremost Americans. Mexicans and French are foreigners.
 
Militarily I don't know if the French will be able to really attack the southwest from Mexico. Marching up demoralized Mexican conscripts will result in a very long and vulnerable supply chain, and sending up French soldiers weakens their occupation of Mexico. While they could definitely make life harder for the North, I don't think this breaks the civil war-just drags it out, and forces the North to take out the proverbial hand they held behind their back during the civil war.

Well, the OP says that the French and Mexicans aid the CSA, so presumably France would just ferry soldiers across the sea rather than get them to walk; their navy was probably the second-strongest in the world at this time, after the British, so they ought to have been able to scrape together the necessary resources. As for the hand behind the back theory, colour me sceptical on that one. The US was fighting a war for existential survival, and IOTL there was a real worry that if the war dragged on long enough public opinion would turn against continued fighting. If the North really had the resources and ability to mobilise them to steamroll over the CSA as you imply, why on Earth wouldn't Lincoln make use of them?

(The above shouldn't be taken as implying that I think it would have been a good idea for Napoleon to intervene on the CSA's behalf; I just think that it would have been a bad idea for reasons other than the ones suggested here.)
 
Well, the OP says that the French and Mexicans aid the CSA, so presumably France would just ferry soldiers across the sea rather than get them to walk; their navy was probably the second-strongest in the world at this time, after the British, so they ought to have been able to scrape together the necessary resources. As for the hand behind the back theory, colour me sceptical on that one. The US was fighting a war for existential survival, and IOTL there was a real worry that if the war dragged on long enough public opinion would turn against continued fighting. If the North really had the resources and ability to mobilise them to steamroll over the CSA as you imply, why on Earth wouldn't Lincoln make use of them?

(The above shouldn't be taken as implying that I think it would have been a good idea for Napoleon to intervene on the CSA's behalf; I just think that it would have been a bad idea for reasons other than the ones suggested here.)

Because not everybody cared about keeping the South, either out of apathy, sympathy, wanting to be shed of the slave states, or supporting the state over the Fed. A foreign invasion, on the other hand, would be a concrete threat to their way of life, not an ideological one that would likely never reach the most important parts of the US.
In essence, the proverbial second hand wasn't used because the public didn't think the situation was serious enough to use it. Chances are it never would have been used unless the CSA went Draka on the North, even if the Union was getting its ass handed to it left, right, and center.
 
Declaring war for an embargo would probably piss off the UK. A more wise solutin would be to provide material support to the CSA. When Union ships fire on a French blockade runner then France has a legitimate casus belli. There is no need for Mexico to declare war on the USA.

Napoleon III should be content with current boundaries of Mexico. Attempting to restore Mexico prewar boundaries will antagonize both the UK and CSA.
 
Please remember that Lincoln and Seward did send some feelers to the CSA about a temporary cease fire to defeat the Mexicans/French and then get back to their own fighting afterwards. The CSA was all for it because they believed it would gain the them valuable breathing space and some legitimacy. In the end the way the war started going caused the potential deal to be withdrawn.

This really happened?
 
Top