Mexican War in 1865?

mspence · Dec 13, 2020

After the French occupied Mexico there was increased tension after the Civil War. The French were driven out in 1867 but Johnson sent Sheridan (I believe) to the border with troops in 1865. This was right after the Civil War had ended; could the US have fought another war with Mexico at that time, with troops needed for occupying the South?

Osman Aga · Dec 13, 2020

mspence said:
After the French occupied Mexico there was increased tension after the Civil War. The French were driven out in 1867 but Johnson sent Sheridan (I believe) to the border with troops in 1865. This was right after the Civil War had ended; could the US have fought another war with Mexico at that time, with troops needed for occupying the South?

For what reason? Helping the French to defeat the Mexicans? Doesn't sound very Monroe Doctrine to me. Help Mexico to defeat France? Other than Benito Juarez possibly being against such meddling (not that he can do much about it), why would the US send more soldiers to die for something Mexico is good in doing it themselves?

Geaux On And On · Dec 13, 2020

Another war at that time would of been just as impossible as Patton wanting to go to war with the USSR in 1945. The people supplying the blood and guts would not put up with it.

Osman Aga · Dec 13, 2020

Geaux On And On said:
Another war at that time would of been just as impossible as Patton wanting to go to war with the USSR in 1945. The people supplying the blood and guts would not put up with it.

Edit: I only realized it later what you meant...

schai · Dec 13, 2020

Osman Aga said:
For what reason? Helping the French to defeat the Mexicans? Doesn't sound very Monroe Doctrine to me. Help Mexico to defeat France? Other than Benito Juarez possibly being against such meddling (not that he can do much about it), why would the US send more soldiers to die for something Mexico is good in doing it themselves?

How about to conquer and annex northern Mexican states?

Osman Aga · Dec 14, 2020

schai said:
How about to conquer and annex northern Mexican states?

For what reason? I'd understand the reason to conquer the South West in the 1840s, but the USA is just out of a costly Civil War. It offers no critical advantage.

schai · Dec 14, 2020

Osman Aga said:
For what reason? I'd understand the reason to conquer the South West in the 1840s, but the USA is just out of a costly Civil War. It offers no critical advantage.

Assuming that most of northern Mexico states were underpopulated. US government conquers and offers these land to landless blacks from south, so they resettle in the west.

jmc247 · Dec 14, 2020

mspence said:
After the French occupied Mexico there was increased tension after the Civil War. The French were driven out in 1867 but Johnson sent Sheridan (I believe) to the border with troops in 1865. This was right after the Civil War had ended; could the US have fought another war with Mexico at that time, with troops needed for occupying the South?

There was much talk in the major newspapers in 1865 about an intervention in Mexico. The argument was never would be the balance of relative power be better with hundreds of thousands of veteran troops in the North and South who haven't gone back to civilian life. One of the other arguments was that with the toxic slave vs free state question out of the way that there was no longer a barrier to a little annexation here or there.

The New York Herald even interviewed R. E. Lee about it a few weeks after Appomattox.

Gwyain · Dec 15, 2020

mspence said:
After the French occupied Mexico there was increased tension after the Civil War. The French were driven out in 1867 but Johnson sent Sheridan (I believe) to the border with troops in 1865. This was right after the Civil War had ended; could the US have fought another war with Mexico at that time, with troops needed for occupying the South?

Why on earth would the Union aid France in Mexico? The Union was sympathetic to Mexico during the entire civil war, and post war was directly aiding Mexico against France. Even before the war, the US was against European interference in Mexico, and in 1864 Congress passed the following joint resolution:

"That the Congress of the United States are unwilling, by silence, to leave the nations of the world under the impression that they are indifferent spectators of the deplorable events now transpiring in the Republic of Mexico; and they therefore think fit to declare that it does not accord with the policy of the United States to acknowledge a monarchical government, erected on the ruins of any republican government in America, under the auspices of any European power."

The US might intervene directly in Mexico, but it won't be on France's side.

dmg86 · Dec 15, 2020

Yeah. I read in a magazine that the US organized a filibuster expedition but I can't remember the details or if it was actually launched.

Lord High Executioner · Dec 15, 2020

Osman Aga said:
Wrong topic or wrong answer...

I don't know...
"The US in June 1865 was about as willing and able to invade Mexico and start a war with France as the US in June 1945
was to invade the Soviet Union" does sound like an on-topic answer to "Could the US have started a war with Mexico/France
right after the civil war ended?"

Byzantion · Dec 16, 2020

mspence said:
After the French occupied Mexico there was increased tension after the Civil War. The French were driven out in 1867 but Johnson sent Sheridan (I believe) to the border with troops in 1865. This was right after the Civil War had ended; could the US have fought another war with Mexico at that time, with troops needed for occupying the South?

It would be a war with the French Empire.

Belisarius II · Dec 17, 2020

Lord High Executioner said:
I don't know...
"The US in June 1865 was about as willing and able to invade Mexico and start a war with France as the US in June 1945
was to invade the Soviet Union" does sound like an on-topic answer to "Could the US have started a war with Mexico/France
right after the civil war ended?"

Actually in 1865 it was the French position that became untenable. The U.S. rearmed the Juarez forces, and it was unthinkable for the French to fight the United States. that's why the French cut their loses, and decided to withdraw. Compared to the ACW driving the French Army out of Mexico would be a simple matter. Less then 10% of the Union Army would be needed for the job, and most of the Mexican People, and irregular forces would be on their side. The French Expeditionary Corps couldn't protect their LOC, while fighting a national insurgency, and an army that was stronger then their own. To make things worse the USN could blockade the Port of Veracruz, cutting their LOC with France, which could lead to a Yorktown situation.

jmc247 · Dec 17, 2020

Belisarius II said:
Actually in 1865 it was the French position that became untenable. The U.S. rearmed the Juarez forces, and it was unthinkable for the French to fight the United States. that's why the French cut their loses, and decided to withdraw. Compared to the ACW driving the French Army out of Mexico would be a simple matter. Less then 10% of the Union Army would be needed for the job, and most of the Mexican People, and irregular forces would be on their side. The French Expeditionary Corps couldn't protect their LOC, while fighting a national insurgency, and an army that was stronger then their own. To make things worse the USN could blockade the Port of Veracruz, cutting their LOC with France, which could lead to a Yorktown situation.

No it wouldn't have been a hard victory. The plan as it evolved from Preston Blair's office was actually to use Northern and Southern troops as a sort of national unity demonstration to the country and international community.

Winestu · Dec 17, 2020

jmc247 said:
No it wouldn't have been a hard victory. The plan as it evolved from Preston Blair's office was actually to use Northern and Southern troops as a sort of national unity demonstration to the country and international community.

Do you have any sources on that?

jmc247 · Dec 17, 2020

Winestu said:
Do you have any sources on that?

Sure, it’s important to know this originated as his plan in 1864 to end the war under the idea of southern troops dissolving their loyalty to Richmond and galloping off to Mexico with the Union Army to fight and then returning one country. The plan didn’t succeed, but even after Appomattox the idea of a national unity expedition into Mexico didn’t go away quickly as could be seen with the NY Herald interview I posted before.

Lord High Executioner · Dec 17, 2020

Belisarius II said:
Actually in 1865 it was the French position that became untenable. The U.S. rearmed the Juarez forces, and it was unthinkable for the French to fight the United States. that's why the French cut their loses, and decided to withdraw. Compared to the ACW driving the French Army out of Mexico would be a simple matter. Less then 10% of the Union Army would be needed for the job, and most of the Mexican People, and irregular forces would be on their side. The French Expeditionary Corps couldn't protect their LOC, while fighting a national insurgency, and an army that was stronger then their own. To make things worse the USN could blockade the Port of Veracruz, cutting their LOC with France, which could lead to a Yorktown situation.

It's still an on-topic answer to the question.

Winestu · Dec 17, 2020

jmc247 said:
Sure, it’s important to know this originated as his plan in 1864 to end the war under the idea of southern troops dissolving their loyalty to Richmond and galloping off to Mexico with the Union Army to fight and then returning one country. The plan didn’t succeed, but even after Appomattox the idea of a national unity expedition into Mexico didn’t go away quickly as could be seen with the NY Herald interview I posted before.

Thanks!
One of my back burner projects is a wargame involving the French and Union armies in northern Mexico.

Belisarius II · Dec 17, 2020

Lord High Executioner said:
It's still an on-topic answer to the question.

Belisarius II said:
Actually in 1865 it was the French position that became untenable. The U.S. rearmed the Juarez forces, and it was unthinkable for the French to fight the United States. that's why the French cut their loses, and decided to withdraw. Compared to the ACW driving the French Army out of Mexico would be a simple matter. Less then 10% of the Union Army would be needed for the job, and most of the Mexican People, and irregular forces would be on their side. The French Expeditionary Corps couldn't protect their LOC, while fighting a national insurgency, and an army that was stronger then their own. To make things worse the USN could blockade the Port of Veracruz, cutting their LOC with France, which could lead to a Yorktown situation.

How is it off topic?

This was right after the Civil War had ended; could the US have fought another war with Mexico at that time, with troops needed for occupying the South?

That's exactly what I was addressing. In 1865 the Union could drive the French out of Mexico with little trouble.

Lord High Executioner · Dec 18, 2020

Belisarius II said:
How is it off topic?

Sigh...
Let me summarise this tangent, as I understand it:

Geaux On And On, replying to mspence (Post 3): [comparison with Patton's willingness to go to war with the Soviet Union in 1945]
Osman Aga, replying to Geaux On And On (Post 4, now edited): What does Patton has to do with this? You appear to be answering a completely different question than the one asked.
Lord High Executioner, replying to Osman Aga (Post 11): Geaux On And On did give an answer to the question.
Belisarius II, replying to Lord High Executioner (Post 13): You are wrong, the US could invade Mexico and drive out the French expeditionary force in 1865.
Osman Aga realises they misread Geaux On and On's post and edits their reply.
Lord High Executioner, replying to Belisarius II (Post 17): Nevertheless, Geaux On And On did give an answer to the question.
Belisarius II, replying to Lord High Executioner (Post 19): What do you mean my post was off topic?