France tries to install a Monarchy during the Pastry War

Could Louis Philippe during the Pasty War install a Bourbon monarchy in Mexico

What would the United States and other powers do

Would this go better then Napoleon's the third attempts
 
Last edited:

SwampTiger

Banned
Sorry darling, but you have to wear these two sticky things before going out like that!

We are here to install a proper upper crust!

In regard to your question, I doubt the British will look too kindly on this. The US and the other American nations will not be happy. The British may intervene. The others are unlikely to be able to do more than protest.
 
The British would most likely intervene the Americans would probably send weapons way to everyone who Is fighting against the French apointed king.
 
They didn't intervene in Algeria or when Napoleon the Third tried to install a monarchy. why would they here given its directing France's focus away from Europe and to the Americas.

The later was considered an internal French matter and Algeria was a campaign against the generally despised and Not-Christian, Not-European Barbary Coast who most English regarded as a nuisance to Mediterranean commerce (And who weren't even formally recognized sovereign, technically). Mexico, for as disfunctional as it was, would still be considered a "proper" nation who's biggest crime was accumulating a debt. Allowing France to set up a puppet regeime for that would set a bad precedent that runs a real chance of becoming an obstacle to British Free Trade with the newly independent nations of South America.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
You need to remember that though Monroe issued the Monroe Doctrine, the Royal Navy enforce it until 1898. It was in the British economic sphere. The war started over various debts owed to French subjects. Other nations had claims against Mexico at the time, including Britain. How were they to get paid with a Bourbon king in Mexico?
 

SwampTiger

Banned
The British initially intervened with the French in Mexico. Once France exhibited its intention to stay, the British protested and stepped back from their, at this time, ally's actions. The French found their scheme untenable in the face of growing British and American protests, the failure to quash the Mexican resistance and the threat posed by the end of the US Civil War.

The Chincha Island and Santo Domingo conflicts were a result of Spain trying to re-emerge onto the world stage. The British protested in both cases. However why interfere with the European power's foolish and likely unsuccessful attempt to bully the fprmer colonies. Santo Domingo was Spain trying to recover a small former colony, which failed without intervention. Again the end of the US Civil War was a factor.

The Chincha Islands was a foolish and counter productive display of power. The nations of Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru would have welcomed friendly relations with Spain. Spain was unable to project power in the area once Colombia closed its ports. The former colonies were now real nations, with their navies, armies and foreign alliances. The US and British navies protested the Spanish blockade due to its effect on trade.

In both cases, actual physical interference by Britain or the US was unnecessary. I would have liked to see result of an encounter between the Spanish fleet and the Allied fleet once Huascar and Independencia were ready to join the fight. I would expect a costly Pyrrhic victory for the Spanish.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Noscoper-

Proceed with the OP. It's open to debate whether Britain stops the French cold. You can choose door #2 and say they do not. It would be interesting to see how it plays out.
 
At that time Algeria=hated pirates. Come to think of it, I wonder why the Europeans didn't destroy them 300 years before, they were raiding for at least that long.

Mexico, for as disfunctional as it was, would still be considered a "proper" nation who's biggest crime was accumulating a debt.

Invading to collect was considered appropriate... if Mexico doesn't have any cash, can't the country itself be the forfeited collateral? It's not like Mexico has industrial machinery that could be transported to France as collateral. If France wants British Pounds (instead of Pesos, which can just be devalued by Mexico), how is Mexico going to pay up? Or was their debt not really all that severe and in OTL they just didn't want to pay?
 
lets go with door 2 then
I'm certain the french can install a monarch, the question is how stable it will be and if it can remain a monarchy.
Come to think of it, I wonder why the Europeans didn't destroy them 300 years before, they were raiding for at least that long.
They tried, Charles V did some expeditions against the barbary pirates as king of castille and aragon. No money and long lines of supply made him pull back iirc.
 
The massive Need for troops in Europe to fight there almost on the ending wars from the 15th century till the end of Napoleon’s rain.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
I'm certain the french can install a monarch, the question is how stable it will be and if it can remain a monarchy.

The war was over claims by French citizens over damages caused by 'unrest', rioting and looting, during a period of weak and divided government in Mexico. Britain negotiated a settlement of 600,000 pesos, the French withdrew. Note the Americans sent a ship to assist the French. The Texans, yes they are independent, took action to stop smuggling from Texas to Mexico.

The French could have gone ahead and invaded. However, this would result in the US and UK talking formal actions against France. Collecting debts, okay. Overthrowing the government, no. Although, Texas may grab a better hold on the Rio Grande border.

This is one generation after Napoleon's downfall. France is still recovering. As mentioned earlier, France has concerns and interests closer to home.

Santa Anna returned to power because of this "war". France would have had a chance to seize the country.
 
Top