WI: Europeans Intervened in the Mexican-American War

(If this actually happened, my bad).

The Mexican-American war was a conflict which defined a continent and the two powers involved in it, both of which were upstarts which had overthrown their colonial owners long before, and had run into conflict with European powers subsequently before going to war with one another. If America won, it meant they would expand their nation by a vast swath. If Mexico won, it meant they would maintain their nation and it's vast territory, and much more potential. Whichever power won was also going to discover the wealth of the West and California. And the West became integral to American identity, and it was really a conflict which set America fully on a Manifest destiny path which would lead it to become a superpower.

What if European powers had intervened in the Mexican-American war, as much as we often speak of them intervening in the Civil War.
 
Why would they? What would they have to gain?

Screwing with 'Merica (and Mexico), creating bedlam and clusterfuckery in either the war and/or the contested area, potentially opening the Southwest to client states and spheres of influence and intervention, etc.

It doesn't have to be something as overt as British troops in Texas. My intent really is more pulling strings behind the scenes and throwing around influence to watch the two really go at it and harm one another.
 
The problem is that the United Kingdom had absurdly large amounts of trade with and investment in the United States (much of the drive to the west was funded by British capital), wanted to keep all that trade and preserve the value of its investments, had enough power to send any continental fleet aiming towards the Americas to the bottom of the sea, and had a tendency to regard the USA as a British sphere of influence, perhaps (I'm speculating here) because of linguistic and cultural ties as well as the issue of trade and the not-inconsiderable British tendency to regard the entirety of the Americas as a British sphere of influence sometimes.

Mexico and the United States can fight as long as they want for all the UK cares… but for a major European great power (and thus a rival of the UK) which poses a serious threat to the USA to be permitted to barge into the UK's playground, either to beat up the USA or to potentially subvert the USA into its camp by offering the USA aid against Mexico? Difficult.
 
The UK tried to mediate the conflict IIRC, and they also advised Mexico to let Texas go lest California fall into U.S. hands too.

I think the UK really wanted California for themselves.
 

elkarlo

Banned
Screwing with 'Merica (and Mexico), creating bedlam and clusterfuckery in either the war and/or the contested area, potentially opening the Southwest to client states and spheres of influence and intervention, etc.

It doesn't have to be something as overt as British troops in Texas. My intent really is more pulling strings behind the scenes and throwing around influence to watch the two really go at it and harm one another.

Or even some serious advisors might make the Mexican army perform better
 
I guess you could have the UK stumble into a war over the Oregon while Mexico and America come to blows, but I can't really see anyone interfering on behalf of Mexico.
 
Well, the US siege and bombardment of Veracruz could probably have caused the deaths of several Europeans (since Veracruz was the major Caribbean port of Mexico, if I remember); it's not inconceivable that such an 'injury to national pride' could have forced France, the UK or (less likely) Spain's hand.

European intervention would probably come as a dictated peace. Probably the loss of Texas and maybe a few other Mexican concessions, but the loss of California would be unlikely. The complicity of the UK in this is probably essential.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
More likely than any intervention against the US would be a dogpile by some Europeans on other parts of Mexico.
 
Would it be possible to have a longer War of 1812 souring relations between Britain and the US?

Yes, but a permanent souring is very difficult. They share a language, culture, economic system, and the UK is heavily invested in the US. An independent US gives the UK all the advantages of a stable growing marketplace without actually having to do the messy work of administering it. Added to that is most Americans are going to have direct or distant relatives in the UK and it's very hard to make them hate each other, especially after the UK lightens up on the monarchy's power.

England's business is business and the US is the best place to spend their money. It took them a while to realize it but the UK's citizens, although not the crown, have always had a vested monetary interest in seeing the US succeed.
 
Yes, but a permanent souring is very difficult. They share a language, culture, economic system, and the UK is heavily invested in the US. An independent US gives the UK all the advantages of a stable growing marketplace without actually having to do the messy work of administering it. Added to that is most Americans are going to have direct or distant relatives in the UK and it's very hard to make them hate each other, especially after the UK lightens up on the monarchy's power.

England's business is business and the US is the best place to spend their money. It took them a while to realize it but the UK's citizens, although not the crown, have always had a vested monetary interest in seeing the US succeed.

Maybe if New England had actually ended up seceding and fallen under the sphere of Great Britain, we might see a revanchist movement in America pressing for the reconquest of that territory. Britain then would most likely be eager to limit America's expansion lest they become too powerful and try to take back New England by force of arms. Alternatively if America took land in Canada after the War of 1812 Britain might join in the US-Mexican war with the aim of retaking their lost territory, although given the relative strengths of the two countries at the time I think it would be more plausible for Britain to take land off the US.
 
Maybe if New England had actually ended up seceding and fallen under the sphere of Great Britain, we might see a revanchist movement in America pressing for the reconquest of that territory. Britain then would most likely be eager to limit America's expansion lest they become too powerful and try to take back New England by force of arms. Alternatively if America took land in Canada after the War of 1812 Britain might join in the US-Mexican war with the aim of retaking their lost territory, although given the relative strengths of the two countries at the time I think it would be more plausible for Britain to take land off the US.

The moment Britain loses Canada it's gone for good. America will just flood the place with American settlers and that will completely overwhelm the nascent Canadian identity.
 

Dirk_Pitt

Banned
The moment Britain loses Canada it's gone for good. America will just flood the place with American settlers and that will completely overwhelm the nascent Canadian identity.

This, plus Canada was never particularly profitable enough to fight over.

Along with the idea that much of Canada was populated by "French speaking papists*", in which I believe was the prevailing view in both America and Britain at the time.


*bare in mind this is not my views. I am not particularly anti-French nor Anti-Catholic(in fact my mother was born Catholic).
 
More likely than any intervention against the US would be a dogpile by some Europeans on other parts of Mexico.

I agree. Say the British get in on the act from Belize, other powers try to undermine the government for their own gains or fund secessionist movements within Mexico...

This could get interesting.
 
Given the war occurred during the run up during the 1848 Revolutions I think we can count Europe out of this fight unless the revolutions are butterflied away
 
I agree. Say the British get in on the act from Belize, other powers try to undermine the government for their own gains or fund secessionist movements within Mexico...

This could get interesting.

At this point in history the United Kingdom was very fond of the idea that, of all the European powers, only it got to play around in the Americas. The Monroe Doctrine was established because of this (in the Americas the UK usually relied on "informal empire" of economic domination, except in Canada which was a special case); despite the man who stated it, it was essentially a British policy for much of the 19th century. If the UK is willing to permit other European powers to exert influence in the Americas, this enormously arrogant policy (typical thinking of Imperial Britain, which had many such policies) must change. I'm not sure how you could do it, but perhaps the UK is trying to placate other European powers in the lead-up to an expected Crimea-esque showdown with an über-Russia.

Given the war occurred during the run up during the 1848 Revolutions I think we can count Europe out of this fight unless the revolutions are butterflied away

"Short victorious war" thinking might well apply…
 
At this point in history the United Kingdom was very fond of the idea that, of all the European powers, only it got to play around in the Americas. The Monroe Doctrine was established because of this (in the Americas the UK usually relied on "informal empire" of economic domination, except in Canada which was a special case); despite the man who stated it, it was essentially a British policy for much of the 19th century. If the UK is willing to permit other European powers to exert influence in the Americas, this enormously arrogant policy (typical thinking of Imperial Britain, which had many such policies) must change. I'm not sure how you could do it, but perhaps the UK is trying to placate other European powers in the lead-up to an expected Crimea-esque showdown with an über-Russia.

Ah. How about just the UK, then? Do you happen to know how much force the UK could project through Belize and the Caribbean at this time? The naval supremacy is obvious, but what about land forces?
 
The best bet might be a French intervention after 1846, when Guizot assumed that the new Russell/Palmerston government was out to reduce French influence in overseas. Such an intervention might be seen as an way to counter British soft power in the US and at the same time an way to strengthen the July Monarchy's dwindling popularity at home.

Guizot will certainly not expect to gain territory, just influence and gloire. If this is possible at all, with the nearest French possessions Martinique and Guadeloupe in the Lesser Antilles, I cannot say.
 
Top