WI: Franco-Spanish intervention in the American Civil War

Status
Not open for further replies.

TFSmith121

Banned
Possibly; the 1860s were pretty sanguinary for the West

Probably ASB, but:

Could the Civil War, then, have escalated into a proto-world war?...Could this escalate or is it unlikely given the complex web of alliances did not yet exist in full?

Arguably, the four major geo-strategic questions of the mid-19th Century in the West were:

1) Competition between Austria and Prussia over Central Europe;
2) Competition between France and the leading "German" power over Western Europe (which depended on the outcome of 1, of course);
3) The Eastern Question (focused on the Balkans and, to a lesser degree, the Anatolian Peninsula and eastern Mediterranean littoral);
4) Whether the European powers would re-assert themselves in the Western Hemisphere, or focus their imperial ambitions in Africa and Asia?

During the decade of the 1860s (defined as 1861-70) there were two conflicts that addressed 1, 1 that revolved 2, and 4 that tied in with 4. If you include the 1859 French intervention in Italy against the Austrians, there's a second that deals with 2), above; if you're willing to go back to 1854-56, there's one that deals with 3), and if you're willing to go ahead to the 1870s, there's another.

Given those realities, and the fact that although the alliances were not as formalized as they became by 1914, they did exist as a web of economic, dynastic, and geopolitical realities, yes, it is quite possible that what amounted to a global war - or a series of interelated "local" wars - could have broken out.

Paul Kennedy's "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" lays out a lot of comparative economics; basically, using figures drawn from Paul Bairoch's various economic histories, the relative shares of world manufacturing output in the Western nations in 1860 were:

UK - 19.9
FR - 7.9
US - 7.2
Russia - 7
German states - 4.9
Austrian E. - 4.2
Italian states - 2.5

Obviously, manpower, geography, internal politics regarding mobilization, "imperial" needs (for the British, French, and Russians, at least) and each nation's individual strategic position figure into it as well, but it does suggest the relationships among the powers, and which of those have shared interests.

Best,
 
Although the policy of Napoleon III was not to intervene unless the British did so as well, there was one potential POD for French intervention without British involvement. When Ben Butler was commanding the occupation forces in New Orleans, he harassed the European diplomatic community there and threatened at one point to open fire on a French warship that was moored on the river. While an adroit politician, Butler was not very subtle when it came to diplomatic matters (which is why Lincoln recalled him from New Orleans). In such a volatile atmosphere, it's not impossible that some sort of incident would have taken place that could have become a French version of the Trent Affair.

In such a case, the main effort of the French would be to use their naval power to reopen the Mississippi River.

This is the scenario I've imagined for some time as well. Additionally, his diplomatic brutishness would likely bring The Netherlands into the fold as well if the spark is Butler.

The Consuls and Butler were not on good terms whatsoever. In the heat of the moment, ransacking a consulate could be a far more grievous insult than a Trent Affair.

Dutch consul - Amedie Conturie
French consul - Count Mejan
Spanish consul - Lorenzo Callego
There is a consensus that the French wouldn't consider intervention without the British being involved, but I disagree with that sentiment. France, being properly motivated and with Spain and the Dutch, could easily break the Union blockade in 1862.

If the CSA can reverse one or two loses on land at the same time (typical Antietam victory, for example) the British may get involved as a neutral negotiator.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
One general officer in an occupied city does not a cuasus belli make

This is the scenario I've imagined for some time as well. Additionally, his diplomatic brutishness would likely bring The Netherlands into the fold as well if the spark is Butler.

The Consuls and Butler were not on good terms whatsoever. In the heat of the moment, ransacking a consulate could be a far more grievous insult than a Trent Affair.

Dutch consul - Amedie Conturie
French consul - Count Mejan
Spanish consul - Lorenzo Callego
There is a consensus that the French wouldn't consider intervention without the British being involved, but I disagree with that sentiment. France, being properly motivated and with Spain and the Dutch, could easily break the Union blockade in 1862.

If the CSA can reverse one or two loses on land at the same time (typical Antietam victory, for example) the British may get involved as a neutral negotiator.

One general officer in an occupied city does not a caucus belli make; certainly not for two powers that had their hands full elsewhere and a third that had avoided foreign entanglements since the end of the Napoleonic era.

I mean, it's certainly a better POD than the "just because" one currently being belabored, but it it also so minor in the scheme of things. Nations didn't (and don't) go to war over diplomatic incidents, certainly not between major powers; they go to war because of actual interests in conflict.

Best,
 
One general officer in an occupied city does not a caucus belli make; certainly not for two powers that had their hands full elsewhere and a third that had avoided foreign entanglements since the end of the Napoleonic era.

I mean, it's certainly a better POD than the "just because" one currently being belabored, but it it also so minor in the scheme of things. Nations didn't (and don't) go to war over diplomatic incidents, certainly not between major powers; they go to war because of actual interests in conflict.

Best,

This is the major problem with all of these 19th century US/European war
scenarios.

In reality the US might as well have been on the Moon as far as the European powers were concerned (with the possible exception of the British).

They were all primarily concerned with their neighbours on the continent.

I think that you would need to look for a POD in the 18th or early 19th centuries in order to make the US relevant.

Maybe if Spain could hold on to Florida or Mexico, or the Louisiana purchase never took place.

Not very likely to happen though?
 
A few points.

It is not my intention to change the focus of discussion ... but I must make a few points:

The Spanish government not had greater ambitions in America nor an interventionist policy in America their conflicts can be framed under the concept of 'Diplomacy of Gunboats'.

Therefore did not have any interest or reason to intervene with or without the French in ACW, not to mention its military projection capabilities it was not able or indeed the French, or the British.

In Mexico, working together with France and Britain landed troops to support the Mexican government financial claims but retreated, instant notice and the French intentions. reaching an agreement with Mexico.

In the case of the Dominican Republic, they made the mistake of accepting the order of Dominicans annexation of certain groups but at the time that the cost in blood and treasure overcame her understand the benefits they retreated.

This relationship various along History to the various Spanish governments as well as the amount of blood that were willing to invest to achieve the strategic objectives, for example to remember the disaster of Annual.

The Pacific war was initiated and continued by the ambitions of the Spanish government representative in Peru.

There was no beyond what any normal European power lead inexorably to war against Chile and Peru Spanish politics.

Anyway, if some Pod desired retail outside, which could lead to any conflict or enmity between Spain and the United States ...:
before starting the Hispanic Fleet the bombardment of Valparaiso, had discussions with the commander of the American boats there and to threats of this .. Spanish Admiral gave the traditional Spanish response to these threats:'' ... is better honor without ships than ships without honra'.

*If only the incident had escalated into an exchange of fire between the respective Fleets, with the logical reactions from their governments.


Finally the example of Buenos Aires is not quite correct: the attack on the Rio de la Plata, in fact while the latter attack failed because of a bad driving British conquest of a city in a house to house fight against its inhabitants and their underestimation of the ferocity of the resistance of local self-summoned Spanish militias and soldiers, despite the recent examples in the''Banda Oriental'', spanish name of the East Band of the Rio de la Plata ... specifically in the cities of Montevideo and Maldonado.

But despite the British defeat in Bs. As, the Spaniards could not challenge the dominance that the fleet had assured them that the domain of the Rio de la Plata and the Atlantic coasts, which could have retained their dominance of South Band East and South best South American Atlantic port, particularly if the Commander in his capitulation in Bs. As. had not agreed to pay all British forces on both sides of the Rio de la Plata and not only to the forces under his command Direct that they had been defeated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top