WI: France Intervenes in American Civil War to Help Keep Control of Mexico

Vaporized

Banned
What if in 1862, the leadership of the French Empire decides to make an alliance with the government of the Confederacy? Terms would be intervention in its war with the United States if the Confederacy in turn helps send forces to Mexico in order to defeat the resistant forces there?

France sends arms and officials to train Confederate forces. It uses its navy to break the blockade of the Gulf ports and begin a new one of the Atlantic coast and Mississippi River so that the Union. The economic crisis in the Union caused by the blockade forces Lincoln out of office and new leaders to seek peace talks that agree to independence for the new southern nation.

After the war, France expects the Confederate States of America to assist it in its planned further control of Mexico and new ability to expand into the Americas.
 

Philip

Donor
After the war, France expects the Confederate States of America to assist it in its planned further control of Mexico and new ability to expand into the Americas.

I suspect France will be disappointed in both the CSA's ability and willingness to help them.
 
Napoleon III was not going to intervene without British assistance. If he does intervene, I expect other powers to take advantage of a distracted France.
 
Last edited:
It'd be decisive. IOTL the French ceased selling arms and munitions to the Federals during the Trent Affair and I see no reason for the British not to do the same, particular given Lord Russell and Palmerston both were Anti-Federal; once France declares a blockade, that'd clinch it.
 
Why would the UK join the French in their violation of the very same Monroe Doctrine that they spent time enforcing on the US's behalf? Especially when it puts important grain exports in extreme jeopardy? Also seeing the European powers propping up the slave power so nakedly and openly would only enflame American opinion on the war.
 
Why would the UK join the French in their violation of the very same Monroe Doctrine that they spent time enforcing on the US's behalf? Especially when it puts important grain exports in extreme jeopardy? Also seeing the European powers propping up the slave power so nakedly and openly would only enflame American opinion on the war.

Most Americans were indifferent to slavery as an institution (Expansion was another matter i.e. Free Soiler vs Abolitionism) and the grain trade was largely irrelevant to the UK; cheap, yes, but not vital. As it were, I merely suggested the UK do what France did in 1861, in that it quits selling weapons and munitions to the Federal cause so as to not undermine the other Great Powers position. Both Palmerston and Russell were in favor of intervention, but were unable IOTL to find an opening to do such but here, in the ATL, they can effectively aid such an effort without directly involving themselves.
 
Napoleon III was not going to intervene without British assistance. If he does intervene, I expect other powers to take advantage of a distracted France.

Who would this be?

Austria has just been defeated by France. Plus, the Mexican adventure is in support of the emperor’s brother.

Prussia has not yet fought the second Schleswig War.

Russia and France have improved relations at this point - they deteriorate when France supports the Polish uprising OTL, but TTL France may not do that, being focused on the US.

Maybe Italy invades Rome? I would doubt it though, they have just unified with French assistance.
 
Last edited:
Maybe Italy invades Rome? I would doubt it though, they have just unified with French assistance.
The Italians are certainly not going to fight France, but less because of their help during their war of independence and more because it would be a foolish move against the greatest military power in Europe at the time. France's protection of the Pope was a sore point that inflamed opinions in Italy against France. They really, really, really wanted to control Rome.
 
The French navy could probably break the blockade and get away with that but not blockade the United States so the south continues to sell the cash crop products the French maybe send a few thousand volunteers to fight in the Civil War as well there is a good possibility Lincoln could lose re-election if the war remains a stalemate which is quite likely now possibility the knights of the Golden Circle dream comes true for a bit. after the franco-prussian war though I see the United States declaring war again somewhere between 1872 to 1880 it will start
 
Who would this be?

Austria has just been defeated by France. Plus, the Mexican adventure is in support of the emperor’s brother.

Prussia has not yet fought the second Schleswig War.

Russia and France have improved relations at this point - they deteriorate when France supports the Polish uprising OTL, but TTL France may not do that, being focused on the US.

Maybe Italy invades Rome? I would doubt it though, they have just unified with French assistance.
I didn't really mean militarily. France's distraction diplomatically could cause just as many issues.
 
With regards to a French blockade:

The coast of the Confederacy is about 3,500 miles while the entirety of the Northeast Federal coast is about 1,260 miles and of that 20% is Maine; land a force at Portland and you've cut off the railways and thus the need to secure that portion. Next, there are only four regions the French need to secure due to how the geography plays out: New York Harbor, Long Island Sound, Delaware Bay and the Chesapeake Bay. No other large ports, with serious railway connections exist on the East Coast. Given this is before the Trans-Continental Railway, there really isn't much need for a Pacific force, beyond doing raiding on San Francisco to cut off Californian gold.
 
1862 would be a good time for France to intervene, rather than later. The north is still struggling to recruit and arm troops, and the south was winning battles. Breaking the blockade and simultaneously blockading the north would be a death blow (rather like all the 'UK Trent War' scenarios). I don't see that they would need to absolutely have the UK go along with them... the French navy alone is enough to do the job. One scenario though... if France intervenes, but the UK still wants to sell/buy stuff from the north, wouldn't the blockade interfere with that?
The war in Mexico might not go so rosy for the French afterwards though... the French were struggling even before the US got involved, and even if the CSA is victorious, the US still has a long border with Mexico... and could easily ship armaments to the Mexican rebels.
Given this is before the Trans-Continental Railway, there really isn't much need for a Pacific force, beyond doing raiding on San Francisco to cut off Californian gold.
IIRC, NV silver was more important than CA gold for financing the north during the war... but it took some time to get going, so an early 1862 intervention could tip the scales before that silver starts flowing in...
 
Just think what French intervention,especially landing troops in Maine and New Orleans would do.Even if they pulled them once the Union got its act together the stain would remain.Go forward fifty years and I think President/Dictator Wilson would have a hard sell to "Over There" our military,no matter how vile the propaganda the British pump out.It was tough enough with ethnic Irish and Germans,now add the nativists still pissed off.
 
1862 would be a good time for France to intervene, rather than later. The north is still struggling to recruit and arm troops, and the south was winning battles. Breaking the blockade and simultaneously blockading the north would be a death blow (rather like all the 'UK Trent War' scenarios). I don't see that they would need to absolutely have the UK go along with them... the French navy alone is enough to do the job. One scenario though... if France intervenes, but the UK still wants to sell/buy stuff from the north, wouldn't the blockade interfere with that?

In practical terms, France can intervene alone ; but politically, Napoléon III did not want to risk France's relations with the UK. They had recently gone through some tensions in the late 1850s, but resolved them peacefully by signing a trade agreement. Maintaining good relations with the British was a greater priority to him than the USA-CSA conflict.
 
. Maintaining good relations with the British was a greater priority to him than the USA-CSA conflict.
and yet he launched the whole misbegotten adventure in Mexico in clear defiance of the Monroe Doctrine (something the Brits did most of the work on at the time and had a real interest in keeping it going)… so there's a real question of just the UK is going to say about the French proposal. The UK government seems to have been divided on the issue. It seems that you could come up with a scenario where the Brits protest publicly but secretly allow it. There's also the question of the US/UK trade... while the US products might not be absolutely vital to the UK, there was a LOT of trade going on... would it be worth interrupting all that?
 
and yet he launched the whole misbegotten adventure in Mexico in clear defiance of the Monroe Doctrine (something the Brits did most of the work on at the time and had a real interest in keeping it going)… so there's a real question of just the UK is going to say about the French proposal. The UK government seems to have been divided on the issue. It seems that you could come up with a scenario where the Brits protest publicly but secretly allow it. There's also the question of the US/UK trade... while the US products might not be absolutely vital to the UK, there was a LOT of trade going on... would it be worth interrupting all that?

The initial Mexican intervention was a joint effort by France, Spain and the UK, so the British themselves violated the doctrine. The Spanish also occupied the Dominican Republic during this time and the British apparently were not bothered either.

But it seems that the British were bothered by the idea of intervening in the American war and for Napoléon III, it wasn't worth it.
 
The initial Mexican intervention was a joint effort by France, Spain and the UK, so the British themselves violated it, too. The Spanish also occupied the Dominican Republic during this time and the British apparently were not bothered either.
the joint occupation of Mexico was to enforce them to pay their debts, not a colonization effort; not a violation of the MD. Then the French did turn it into a colonization attempt, which was a violation of the MD. But the Brits chose to ignore it for some reason...
 
Let us imagine that the Trent affair degenerates and the British go to war on the side of the CSA. France could therefore intervene in the ACW without the risk of reprisals from the United Kingdom.
Then if the conflict ends quickly enough the CSA can intervene in Mexico and help the French in exchange for their help during their "war of independence" (it would be in their interest to have an allied regime in Mexico even if it is led by a European).
 
Top