Was there a chance that French invasion of Mexico turned into French - American war? What if Napoleon III refused to withdraw from Mexico despite American protests? How would Union army and navy fare against French Empire?
French - American war over Mexico?
- Thread starter Rudi Maxer
- Start date
The US sent over 20,000 troops under Sheridan to Texas in 1865. That was more than what the French had in Mexico. The French navy was good then. But the US navy only had to keep the country from being blockaded, they could do that. The US Army was at that time one of the biggest and best armies in the world. With world class generals. They would defeat the French who were having a hard time controlling an un trained barely above bandit status of the Mexican army. The US army in the 1840's brought the Mexicans to their knees and took half their territory in just two years. They had around 8000-10000 men in that army. The 1865 army was better, bigger, and badder. And Napeolen knew all of that. That is why he ran away in the first place.
Anaxagoras
Banned
The North had just ended a brutal war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives and burdened the people with years of high taxation, conscription, and other unpleasant things. The last thing they would have wanted is a war against a powerful foreign nation.
David S Poepoe
Banned
The French navy keeps the seaways open and supplies coming thru to allow the French army to be defeated on land.
Perhaps a Franco-American War would be the balm that helps the nation heal, much like the Spanish-American War was sought to do. The Union Army could easily draft former-Confederate soldiers into its ranks.
Perhaps a Franco-American War would be the balm that helps the nation heal, much like the Spanish-American War was sought to do. The Union Army could easily draft former-Confederate soldiers into its ranks.
The United States could not afford another war, even less against France. The United States' south was in ruins and the last thing the American people would like to do would be fight a war for Mexico, which they never respected not cared.
I know that some Americans believe that their nation was born a superpower, but that's not correct. France got out of Mexico mainly because of Prussia and due to internal pressure.
There were actually 33,000 French in Mexico.
I know that some Americans believe that their nation was born a superpower, but that's not correct. France got out of Mexico mainly because of Prussia and due to internal pressure.
There were actually 33,000 French in Mexico.
I was wrong in my first post. Grant sent Sheridan with over 50,000 troops to Texas. In the history of America there are many tyrants that have under estimated the American military and the people they protect.. Starting with George III, Santa Anna, Jefferson Davis, Spanish royality, the Kiaser, Hitler, and Tojo, Sadaam Husein and Bin Laden. Napoleon III ranks about in the middle of those tin pot leaders in ability and he did not make that error. If he had his fate would have been the same. This question has been debated many times and will be done so again. But I see no way in 1865 that France could beat the US. In 1845 yes.
The people they protect? Who? The Indians? Perhaps the Mexicans whom they took half their country. Or should it be the Halwaiians or the Phillipines? Or the Central Americans? Freedom and democracy, isn't?
How was GeorgeIII a tyrant? he was a rather likeable chap and did not actually hold power. anyways the united States cannot at this point in history win a war against a major european power.
I would think the Union Army or 1864-65 could give any power but maybe Britain a run for their money.
Anaxagoras
Banned
The United States would not have been able to afford maintaining such a large army. And even if they could, public opinion would not have permitted it.
Should a war bring the Union army to Mexico, the immediate problem would be the hundreds of miles of scorched earth across the Lower South they'd have to cross. A revolt in the South is unlikely, but occupational forces will be necessary (and were in OTL in the same timeframe, with or without a second war), and further leech manpower and logistical power from the military. On the other hand, I believe that the American navy at this time was the strongest it had ever been up to that point, so any invasion or landing force in the US proper is unlikely.
deathscompanion1
Banned
The French have their own issues. The war was expensive and unpopular already, adding in a much tougher opponent for even less gain isn't going to be high on Napoleons to do list.
Agreed. I think we could have done it, if we approached it smart, though it wouldn't have done President Grant's popularity any favors. Maintaining the massive wartime Union/U.S. Army at full strength, and perhaps drafting more new troops in order to fight against France, would have been a public relations nightmare of truly epic proportions.
Neither side wanted open warfare in Mexico between the United States and France, if you ask me.
I would read a well-done timeline, though.
But on land, Britain was actually the weakest of the great powers.
Anyway, British intervention in US civil war was discussed often on this forum as I remember, but I've never seen a discussion on possibility of French-American conflict, despite Mexico looking like a good reason for it. Also Nappy III seems more militaristic and eager to go on with such adventure than queen Victoria.
Last edited:
Grand Admiral Thrawn
Donor
What would Prussia do? Support France to buy time/entangle the French? Feels too early to attack, but maybe Austria/Prussia attacks France?
Tangential what if: France was able to mobilize hundreds of thousands of men for four years of warfare in in the 1860s.
What do you mean his fate would have been the same? None of them shared one distinct fate, also you are being massively unfair to George III, Santa Anna, Maria Christina, and the Kaiser, they never underestimated the US's power, in fact it could honestly be said the US underestimated most of them (barring Santa Anna, the power difference between the US and Mexico and that war was pathetic). And its hard to say you "underestimate" someone when the US is the one declaring war on them, a fate most of them attempted to avoid to a certain extent.
Prussia and France had the cool land armies, Britain's was actually kind of week (mainly meant for holding down colonies rather than fighting other great powers).