What if the North received help from Mexico in the Civil War

Suppose the foreign invasion from the crushing debt crisis never happened during the Juarez presidency, and Mexico was better in the 1860s. So no Maximilian, no French intervention. What if Lincoln requested military aid from the south against the South?

And has anyone had this happen in one of their Victoria/Victoria II games?
 
Suppose the foreign invasion from the crushing debt crisis never happened during the Juarez presidency, and Mexico was better in the 1860s. So no Maximilian, no French intervention. What if Lincoln requested military aid from the south against the South?

And has anyone had this happen in one of their Victoria/Victoria II games?
Why would Mexico accept such a request?They aren't at the best of terms with either American State due to the Medican-American War.And no,I have never seen Mexico in the ACW in Victoria 2.
 
Lincoln and Juarez were like emancipator/liberator BFFs
But how will it benefit the people of Mexico?I can see Mexico offering moral support to Lincoln's cause,but using treasure and blood to aid the US is out of question unless the US is willing to give some concessions in return.
 
Oh right. I forgot to mention, what if the U.S. gives them money to pay off their foreign debts in exchange for aid. And the chance to bloody the noses of a few of the generals in the Mexican-American War.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
Wouldn't it make South more sympathetic ? Mexico might want to retake Texas and SW after all. having fellow Americans attacked by brown Catholics might make some northeners volunteer to help South against Mexico.
 
Getting a foreign, non-English speaking Catholic nation you just fought a major war against involved in domestic problems probably rates below invading Canada on the list of things the Union wants to do.

A stronger Mexico is not an ally of the US, it's a rival for western expansion. A stronger Mexico is going to have thoughts of regaining territory.
 
Getting a foreign, non-English speaking Catholic nation you just fought a major war against involved in domestic problems probably rates below invading Canada on the list of things the Union wants to do.

A stronger Mexico is not an ally of the US, it's a rival for western expansion. A stronger Mexico is going to have thoughts of regaining territory.

This.

Juarez was interested in Mexico's problems. He only accepted American help inasmuch as it helped his cause of driving out European intervention, and the Americans only cared about European intervention because they didn't want a strong foreign power mucking about in their hemisphere.

A stronger Mexico is more likely that not a boon to the CSA and not the USA. Mexicans might not like slavery, but I have few doubts a stronger Mexico would be very interested in payback for the whole 46-48 thing and annexing an enormous swath of territory.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Define "stronger"....

Getting a foreign, non-English speaking Catholic nation you just fought a major war against involved in domestic problems probably rates below invading Canada on the list of things the Union wants to do.

A stronger Mexico is not an ally of the US, it's a rival for western expansion. A stronger Mexico is going to have thoughts of regaining territory.

Define "stronger"....

Even absent the Anglo-Franco-Spanish intervention in 1861-62 and the French intervention in 1862-67, Mexico had just (1859) come out of the Reform War, which amounted to the latest and bloody act in the on-going conservative-liberal civil war and which essentially set the stage for the European and French interventions in the 1860s (gracias, General Miramon! - there's a reason he went against the wall with Max in 1867...);)

Despite the conventional wisdom, the idea that Mexico and the US were inimitably hostile to the each other after 1848 (or 1853) is pretty much a nullity; Mexico had far too many issues internally to consider any foreign adventures, and the reality the US was Mexico's only ally against European intervention was not unappreciated among Mexican liberals.

Better the devil you know...

Best,
 
Lincoln (and Grant later IIRC),denounced the Mexiacan-American war as blatant imperialism on the part of the slaveowners (which it was). In doubt he would want or be able to push through some sort of territorial concessions, but if the unions position got desperate enough they might (MIGHT) offer eg some of Texas in exchange for an alliance.
This would have to be something on the order of the CSA sacking DC and a European power (who? France?) getting involved... Note.that especially early on the fight was about putting down annarmed insurrection against the lawfully elected government of the nation. Selling g off part of their territory even if itnIMO was rightfully Mexican (inasmuch as anynland is "rightfully" belonging to any nation) would really undercut their legitimacy.
Not impossible, but an unlikely scenario contingent on a very unlikely scenario...
 
This would have to be something on the order of the CSA sacking DC and a European power (who? France?) getting involved... Note.that especially early on the fight was about putting down an armed insurrection against the lawfully elected government of the nation.

This is an important thing too. The Union would have to be absolutely desperate to seek any sort of outside intervention in the first place, and if Mexico did intervene (or was even strong enough to) it would certainly not be from the goodness of their hearts.
 
Why would it have to be land? In my scenario Mexico would have to be stable enough to avoid the European intervention, but it would still not be in the best state. What if the Union providing them foreign aid and forgiving their debts not be enough? You can even extend this to say, in exchange for helping them to pay off the interest on the European loans (and for payback), the U.S. requests Mexican military aid to attack the South from the rear. No territorial changes required.

Okay- thread pivot. What if there were more international volunteers involved in the American Civil War? Historically there were random men who arrived to fight for either side's armies, but I'm talking Spanish Civil War-type independent militias. Garibaldi having his own brigade instead of asking for a command with the Union army. And amidst all this, there would be some anti-slavery Juarista Mexican volunteers.
 
Slightly more credible one. WI the Mexican default came a year or so earlier, so that as the Democratic Convention assembles, there are French troops poring ashore at Vera Cruz?

Admittedly, Napoleon III might hesitate to intervene if there's no ACW in progress to keep the Americans occupied, but OTOH if he knew anything at all about the state of US politics, he might decide that they were already too politically gridlocked to take any effective action, and that going ahead wasn't too big a risk.

Any thoughts what happens then? If Buchanan tries to expand the US Army, will Republicans block it from reluctance to give additional military strength to a pro-Southern administration? Or will they feel obliged to outbid the Dems in beating the patriotic drum in defence of the Monroe Doctrine? And does anything change in November?

Thoughts?
 
Why would it have to be land? In my scenario Mexico would have to be stable enough to avoid the European intervention, but it would still not be in the best state. What if the Union providing them foreign aid and forgiving their debts not be enough? You can even extend this to say, in exchange for helping them to pay off the interest on the European loans (and for payback), the U.S. requests Mexican military aid to attack the South from the rear. No territorial changes required.

Well if the Mexicans are not in good economic straits is even more unlikely they'd become involved in the war.

Again the other problem remains, Mexico would have to be very strong and the US in a mighty pickle, for Mexican intervention on the Union side to even be practical. The other problem remains is that why would this stronger Mexico see it in its best interest to actually help strengthen its northern neighbor? If there's two neighbors you can play them off against each other, more likely than not Mexico just sits it out.

Okay- thread pivot. What if there were more international volunteers involved in the American Civil War? Historically there were random men who arrived to fight for either side's armies, but I'm talking Spanish Civil War-type independent militias. Garibaldi having his own brigade instead of asking for a command with the Union army. And amidst all this, there would be some anti-slavery Juarista Mexican volunteers.

There were fairly large numbers of foreign volunteers, and if you don't count immigrants the numbers were still fairly astonishing for the time period.

Soldiers of fortune tended to be middle class men with means (or debts) who travelled and latched on to causes out of romantic ideals or because they enjoyed war. The average working man in the 1860s did not have the means to do this. One of the reasons many immigrants signed on to serve is because they were flat out broke (or in some cases blatantly tricked) and the bounty was too much money to pass up since it covered their travel expenses and gave their families something to live off of.

The wealth of the average man is simply not enough to transport you overseas to be killed on a whim. If you went you'd end up staying more likely than not.
 
Well if the Mexicans are not in good economic straits is even more unlikely they'd become involved in the war.

Again the other problem remains, Mexico would have to be very strong and the US in a mighty pickle, for Mexican intervention on the Union side to even be practical. The other problem remains is that why would this stronger Mexico see it in its best interest to actually help strengthen its northern neighbor? If there's two neighbors you can play them off against each other, more likely than not Mexico just sits it out.

The Union might put some pressure on Mexico to inhibit smuggling across the Rio Grande to, e.g., Matamoros, which was a fairly major export route. Mexico certainly benefited from that, though, so I'm not sure they would pay very much attention or make more than token efforts at reducing it. That certainly wouldn't require them to be very strong or indeed much different than they were historically. Neither would helping with operations against Texas and the Texas coast, which usually involved only hundreds of men rather than tens of thousands, though I doubt they would want to be very involved in that.

In any case, there are a variety of useful things that Mexico could do that don't require them to put tens of thousands of men in the field.
 
Slightly more credible one. WI the Mexican default came a year or so earlier, so that as the Democratic Convention assembles, there are French troops poring ashore at Vera Cruz?

Admittedly, Napoleon III might hesitate to intervene if there's no ACW in progress to keep the Americans occupied, but OTOH if he knew anything at all about the state of US politics, he might decide that they were already too politically gridlocked to take any effective action, and that going ahead wasn't too big a risk.

Any thoughts what happens then? If Buchanan tries to expand the US Army, will Republicans block it from reluctance to give additional military strength to a pro-Southern administration? Or will they feel obliged to outbid the Dems in beating the patriotic drum in defence of the Monroe Doctrine? And does anything change in November?

Thoughts?

The thing is the French intervention proper admittedly didn't begin until 1862 when Forey pushed inland in an attempt to capture Puebla.

The first landing by international forces was very much in keeping with the international idea of using force as persuasion not to default on loans, and occupying Veracruz was really just the geopolitical equivalent of sending someone to shake you down for cash. The move forced the Mexicans to negotiate on the issue and did lead to an agreement not to renege on the debt payments. The US had precisely zero problems with this too since it wasn't an attempt at regime change and was an accepted part of gunboat diplomacy.

The problems began when Napoleon III started landing more soldiers and demanding 6x the amount the Mexicans actually owed him (2 million as opposed to the 12 million the French demanded in January 1862) and when it became apparent the French were intent on regime change the British and the French promptly left the enterprise.

Without the initial multinational support Napoleon would be very unlikely to act on his own since that could bring down the ire of the US.
 
The Union might put some pressure on Mexico to inhibit smuggling across the Rio Grande to, e.g., Matamoros, which was a fairly major export route. Mexico certainly benefited from that, though, so I'm not sure they would pay very much attention or make more than token efforts at reducing it. That certainly wouldn't require them to be very strong or indeed much different than they were historically. Neither would helping with operations against Texas and the Texas coast, which usually involved only hundreds of men rather than tens of thousands, though I doubt they would want to be very involved in that.

In any case, there are a variety of useful things that Mexico could do that don't require them to put tens of thousands of men in the field.

Well it again comes down to why Mexico would want to do it? If Mexico is stronger than OTL and not suffering foreign intervention and a civil war all its own then whoever is in power (Juarez or the Conservatives) does not have a vested interest in doing anything which remotely benefits the United States.

The most I could see a reasonably strong Mexico doing is declaring neutrality and waiting to see what happens.
 
Leaving aside all of the other legitimate concerns, what could Mexico realistically do? They could, possibly, tie down some of Kirby-Smith's men in Texas, but it seemed that Texas's impact on the wider war was minimal, and non-existent after Vicksburg.
 
Well it again comes down to why Mexico would want to do it? If Mexico is stronger than OTL and not suffering foreign intervention and a civil war all its own then whoever is in power (Juarez or the Conservatives) does not have a vested interest in doing anything which remotely benefits the United States.

The most I could see a reasonably strong Mexico doing is declaring neutrality and waiting to see what happens.

I would expect to see some token efforts at helping the United States to restrict trans-Rio Grande smuggling, at least, given that the United States has the balance of naval power in the war (in other words, they could hurt Mexico if they insisted, whereas the Confederates couldn't). From Juarez's point of view, it keeps the United States (which is still pretty powerful and dangerous to annoy for Mexico) somewhat happy while not actually costing him anything (since he can just make token attempts and talk about restricting smuggling without doing much). Certainly by the later part of the war, 1863 or 1864, the United States is clearly winning, and who knows whether or not they might turn that big, fancy military they've just built south for another bite of the Mexican apple?
 
I would expect to see some token efforts at helping the United States to restrict trans-Rio Grande smuggling, at least, given that the United States has the balance of naval power in the war (in other words, they could hurt Mexico if they insisted, whereas the Confederates couldn't). From Juarez's point of view, it keeps the United States (which is still pretty powerful and dangerous to annoy for Mexico) somewhat happy while not actually costing him anything (since he can just make token attempts and talk about restricting smuggling without doing much). Certainly by the later part of the war, 1863 or 1864, the United States is clearly winning, and who knows whether or not they might turn that big, fancy military they've just built south for another bite of the Mexican apple?

Yeah I can see a declaration of neutrality and token attempts at doing things just not to rock the boat in a slightly more cohesive Mexico OTL. Juarez (or whoever) could plead difficulties and the US wouldn't really be able to do anything about it.
 
Top