Plausibility Check - Franco/CSA Alliance

Caspian

Banned
I saw this question on another site and was specifically asked how plausible it is. I'm not an expert on France in the 1860's, so I figured I'd ask people more qualified. Here's the original question:

France was fighting a colonial war in Mexico, and the confederacy had plans to expand into South America and the Carribean and establish a "tropical empire" upon beatng the north and securing their independence and international recognition.

We also know that the Confederacy sent diplomats to Britain and France in hopes of securing a military ally to intervene on their behalf, and the two nations considered it at least to an extent.

Now, do you see how a deal could be reached here?

Confederacy to France: "We know you want Mexico. You know our plans for the rest of South America and the Carribean. Help us beat the north now, and in return, not only will we help you secure Mexico, but half the continent and half the islands are yours."

For France, the deal of global history would have just been handed to them on a silver platter.

Had someone like Judah P. Benjamin brought such a deal to France, it's likely he would have been convincing.

Could such an offer, if made in the first half of the war, have won it for the South?

Keep in mind, the South did not have to actually beat the North militarily to win. By 1864, the Northern populous were tiring of the war, and until the effects of Gettysburg became fully known that fall, former Union General George McClellen was set to win the election of 1864, who was campaigning on the platform of pulling out of the war.

So any events that could have postponed key Northern victories by just a few months until after the election of 1864 would have the effect of Lincoln's popularity and morale in the North remaining low and Lincoln LOSING to the anti-war candidate.

French intervention pre-Gettysburg would undoubtedly have such a postponing effect.

I'm fairly certain there's something wrong with this, but I can't really articulate my gut feeling.
 
I saw this question on another site and was specifically asked how plausible it is. I'm not an expert on France in the 1860's, so I figured I'd ask people more qualified. Here's the original question:



I'm fairly certain there's something wrong with this, but I can't really articulate my gut feeling.

Britannia ruled the waves and wouldn't allow France to take all of South America even if they could, which they couldn't. They had a hard enough time with Mexico without dragging the rest of Latin America with it.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The utter inability of the French to deploy and sustain

I saw this question on another site and was specifically asked how plausible it is. I'm not an expert on France in the 1860's, so I figured I'd ask people more qualified. Here's the original question:



I'm fairly certain there's something wrong with this, but I can't really articulate my gut feeling.

The utter inability of the French to deploy and sustain military force worth the name in the Western Hemisphere in the 1860s?

The reality the first battle of any significance in the Franco-Mexican war was an outright defeat in May, 1862?

The fact that Gettysburg was fought in 1863, not 1864?

The reality that McClellan was a pro-war candidate who disavowed the peace plank, historically?

The other reality that McClellan had as much chance of winning the 1864 election as John Bell did in 1860?

The historical reality Latin Americans defeated every European expedition sent their way in the Nineteenth Century?

Need more?

Best,
 
Top