Napoleon III's Long-Term Plans for Mexico?

Anaxagoras

Banned
What game was Napoleon III playing by meddling in Mexico in the 1860s? If he really wanted to create a French protectorate, why not dispatch a member of the Bonaparte family rather than a Hapsburg? Did he plan to keep the whole arrangement informal, with the Second Mexican Empire as a loyal puppet but nothing more? Did he ever envision the reestablishment of a French colonial presence in the New World, or was he just flying by the seat of his pants?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
L-N was looking for allies; the rapprochement with the

What game was Napoleon III playing by meddling in Mexico in the 1860s? If he really wanted to create a French protectorate, why not dispatch a member of the Bonaparte family rather than a Hapsburg? Did he plan to keep the whole arrangement informal, with the Second Mexican Empire as a loyal puppet but nothing more? Did he ever envision the reestablishment of a French colonial presence in the New World, or was he just flying by the seat of his pants?

L-N was looking for European allies; the rapprochement with the British had gained him nothing more than legitimacy, despite the French share of the butcher's bill in Russia and China.

So part of it was a bid for something more substantial with Austria (which, despite the French intervention in Italy in 1859, had the potential mutual shared interest with France in staving off Prussia's growth), essentially, along with the typical investment in hot air of so much "imperial" thinking, that somehow there was a conservative Catholic majority waiting to fall at the feet of the French and their puppet; add a fair bit of mutual self-deception between the Mexican conservatives on one side, the 2nd Empire French on the other, and the Austrians, especially Max, and it started gathering inertia...

1st Puebla in 1862 should have been the wake-up call, but unfortunately for the French and the Mexicans, the French doubled down and ended up in a quagmire. Worth noting is that the Spanish and British, the original partners in the 1860 agreement to intervene, saw it as such and bailed out early.

Best,
 
Well the text of the Treaty of Miramar makes it pretty clear what the short term goals of the expedition were. Bleed Mexico to cover the costs of the expedition and former French claims against the Mexican government. He was also interested in controlling the rich silver mines in the north-west of the country.

Perhaps further enlightenment on his long term plans can be found in his letter to the French ambassador in London or his letter to General Forey. So it's clear he certainly had imperial ambitions in the hemisphere, ones born from the fairly typical European view of spreading "enlightened government" to other parts of the world.

Dispatching a member of the House of Hapsburg was part attempted rapprochement with Austria, though being completely honest it seems to have just as much to do with Empress Eugene's desire to empower the Catholic Church. Maximilian was chosen as much by Eugene having a 'premonition' as any practical policy.

However, if the scheme had succeeded, the long term goal seems to have been to use Mexico as a base to expand French colonial interests in the hemisphere. Seeing the French interest in the hemisphere OTL (and some of Maximilian's own musings) you would probably see France annex Santo Domingo, meddle in the affairs of Central America, probably go forward with plans to make a trans-oceanic canal, and probably enable Spain to muck about in the hemisphere as well.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
One of the illuminating passages in the docs linked above

One of the illuminating passages in the docs linked above are LN's "concern" about Mexico being either a) "invaded" by the United States (in 1861, not hardly) or B) "devastated" by Indians ... In 1861.:rolleyes:

Which suggests LN's knowledge of Mexico was somewhat lacking, or that even his communications with his own people were designed to be delusional.

In either event, it suggests what a fool's errand Paris had embarked upon. 1st Puebla in 1862 should have, in fact, been enough to make clear the French had bitten off more than they could chew, even if the Spanish and British withdrawal had not...

Best,
 
One of the illuminating passages in the docs linked above are LN's "concern" about Mexico being either a) "invaded" by the United States (in 1861, not hardly) or B) "devastated" by Indians ... In 1861.:rolleyes:

Ok , the former i could possibly understand if the Yaks were still 'interested' in more of the "Whole mexico" idea. Or at least the Polk idea of the upper third/half of mexico. :rolleyes:;)

That said, devastated by Indians? Didn't thin the Apache were that imperialistic at this time.:p
 
LN probably thought that it would take the US the best part of 100 years to pacify the Indians thus keeping them preoccupied. Plus they were embarking on their Civil War which would tie them up for the time needed to fully control Mexico.
He seemed to forget that
a) the Mexicans themselves might just object to being occupied
b) if the US puts its collective will into achieving something it generally does achieve it. Thus a shorter Civil War than might have been expected and the effective pacification of the Indians within 20 to 30 years.

Even if the French had managed to gain and maintain control of Mexico there would probably have been a US-France war over Mexico sometime in the late 19th Century. Which the US would probably have won unless the French had firstly come out of the alt Franco-Prussian War unscathed (I cannot see Bismark letting an opportunity like France being bogged down in Mexico going to waste!) AND they were backed by others (particularly Britain).

Despite not agreeing with TFSmith 121 on a lot of things he is right that it is extremely difficult for Europe to project power into the Western Hemisphere if the US opposes it (certainly after the Civil War). See point b) above.
 
Just out of interest, would, if Max and Carlota had had a son, born on Mexican soil, have been a good or bad thing to the Mexican Empire/French Empire? Since the Mexicans might have the view that, the son is at least not European, or imposed on them by the French - although getting the Liberals to accept a monarchy in any form would be difficult.

Also, wasn't Juarez offered the Prime Ministership by Max at some point? Would L-N sign off on that, or did Max have independent power from France?
 
European power, in particular French and British, could certainly still have been decisive in North America in the 19th Century... but only if there was a substantial local ally that they were backing. Old mate Max was certainly not that. And neither were there many examples at all of that throughout that particular century though that is a different question in itself to technical feasibility of trans-Antlantic power projection using 19th century tech. Still, in theory an incredibly powerful navy combined with often reasonably skilled/well equipped armies i.e. what the European Great Powers fielded relative their American cousins could well have tipped a balance in a contest of equals in the Americas...
 
That said, devastated by Indians? Didn't thin the Apache were that imperialistic at this time.:p

To be fair he could be talking about the Comanche who were raiding Northern Mexico with impunity for much of the era. Though I've always interpreted that as Napoleon saying the Native peoples of Mexico were incapable of self rule.

LN probably thought that it would take the US the best part of 100 years to pacify the Indians thus keeping them preoccupied. Plus they were embarking on their Civil War which would tie them up for the time needed to fully control Mexico.
He seemed to forget that
a) the Mexicans themselves might just object to being occupied
b) if the US puts its collective will into achieving something it generally does achieve it. Thus a shorter Civil War than might have been expected and the effective pacification of the Indians within 20 to 30 years.

Even if the French had managed to gain and maintain control of Mexico there would probably have been a US-France war over Mexico sometime in the late 19th Century. Which the US would probably have won unless the French had firstly come out of the alt Franco-Prussian War unscathed (I cannot see Bismark letting an opportunity like France being bogged down in Mexico going to waste!) AND they were backed by others (particularly Britain).

Well the entire ill conceived scheme was proposed to the Emperor and Empress by the Mexican conservative plant in France, Don Jose Hidalgo, who appealed to the Empress's sense of piety, who in turn appealed to Napoleon's delusions of grandeur. This convinced all the parties involved that the people of Mexico would welcome foreign intervention.

But you are quite right, even had France succeeded in their mission it would have led to long term strains with France and an eventual war between the two countries over power in the New World.

Just out of interest, would, if Max and Carlota had had a son, born on Mexican soil, have been a good or bad thing to the Mexican Empire/French Empire? Since the Mexicans might have the view that, the son is at least not European, or imposed on them by the French - although getting the Liberals to accept a monarchy in any form would be difficult.

A natural born heir would gave been a good thing for the nascent Empire since it would have given them some legitimacy. Unfortunately either Max or Carlota was probably sterile and thus they were incapable of producing an heir. They actually took the proactive step of adopting Agustín de Iturbide and his brother Salvador de Iturbide grandsons of the former Emperor Augustin I, whom he intended to groom as heirs.

The long term effects of this are hard to theorize on since the boys were so young and Carlota sent the heir apparent Salvador to France early on. I don't recall either ever returning to Mexico though.

Also, wasn't Juarez offered the Prime Ministership by Max at some point? Would L-N sign off on that, or did Max have independent power from France?

He was, which Maximilian would have had the power to grant, but he had no interest in serving a monarchy.

Maximilian and power in Mexico was a delicate thing. Technically the French forces in Mexico were subject to Maximilian's authority, but their commander Bazaine exercised almost as much authority as Max himself and would constantly ignore or go around Max's objectives. His main goal was to further French interests, and only help Max as far as those interests were served. OTL by 1865 he basically started to undermine Max's rule in line with the French policy of withdrawal.

European power, in particular French and British, could certainly still have been decisive in North America in the 19th Century... but only if there was a substantial local ally that they were backing. Old mate Max was certainly not that. And neither were there many examples at all of that throughout that particular century though that is a different question in itself to technical feasibility of trans-Antlantic power projection using 19th century tech. Still, in theory an incredibly powerful navy combined with often reasonably skilled/well equipped armies i.e. what the European Great Powers fielded relative their American cousins could well have tipped a balance in a contest of equals in the Americas...

It's rather important to note that by 1865 the French had overrun 2/3 of Mexico and Juarez and his forces were on the ropes for lack of arms and funding. It wasn't until solid American intervention in late 1865/early 1866 that things started to change as the French withdrew.

Absent that it was only a matter of time before Juarez found himself out of money and arms (and would probably have seen a number of his supporters desert to the Imperial cause like what happened in 1864) and his efforts to stave off French occupation would collapse.

That being said, while France would certainly have been capable of overrunning and occupying Mexico, the question of whether Max could establish a stable government and regime is another question entirely...
 
Also, Maximilian's former betrothed was D. Maria Amélia, sister to the Emperor of Brazil who died before they could be married. Max had very friendly ties to Dom Pedro II and I believe stayed at Brazil for a time. While the Brazilian parliament initially condemned the French intervention in Mexico, given time Max's personal ties to Brazil would ease the improvement of relations further down the line. Mexico would be diplomatically isolated in America, but it had a potential ally in the figure of Brazil.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The US had other things to worry about in 1861, which

Ok , the former i could possibly understand if the Yanks were still 'interested' in more of the "Whole mexico" idea. Or at least the Polk idea of the upper third/half of mexico. :rolleyes:;)

That said, devastated by Indians? Didn't thin the Apache were that imperialistic at this time.:p

The US had other things to worry about in 1861, which obviously was part of the greater strategic equation that even led to the French intervening in force in the first place - which, of course, led to a French defeat at Puebla in May, 1862, and then a strategic stalemate for 12 months, until second Puebla in 1863.

And the Indians thing is either a) L-N talking about the vast majority of the Mexican populations; or b) L-N displaying his ignorance of the realities of Mexico's security situation... as bloody as the Comanche raids into Sonora and Chihuahua were, they were no threat to the stability of Mexico as a nation state, anymore than the Yaqui or Maya rebellions were...

In any event, it is yet another indictment of how feckless the planning and strategy behind the French invasion was...

Best,
 
Top