I was reading through "The Lost Cause: The Confederate Exodus to Mexico" and I saw these quotes regarding Secretary Seward's cautious approach to the situation in Mexico.

His critics included the vocal Secretary of the Interior, James Harlan, and Shelby's cousin,Postmaster General Montgomery Blair, as well as Blair's brother, General Francis P.Blair. Along with General Lew Wallace, the Blairs and Harlan advocated shipping Juárez more munitions instead of simply "goods"and also spoke out for a military attack upon Maximilian's French-sponsored regime.

During July, 1865, after the war was over, Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles recorded in his diary that Seward felt called upon, at a cabinet meeting of July 14, to defend his cautious policies toward Maximilian and Napoleon III in order "to counteract a speech of Montgomery Blair . . . in which he makes an onslaught on Seward and Stanton, as well as France." Grant and Sheridan joined in serious criticism of Seward.

What if cooler heads do not prevail, and the United States declares war upon the Empire of Mexico in July of 1865? Perhaps a good PoD would be for Hannibal Hamlin to have remained vice president rather than Andrew Johnson becoming VP so that after Lincoln's assassination the Radical Republican might be more inclined to listen to those around him that urged war?

The French didn't order their withdrawal from Mexico until January 31, 1866 so war between the US and Mexico almost certainly means war between the US and the French Empire as well. How will the US fair against the French forces on land and at sea?

With the ACW having only ended two months prior, might this breath life into the idea of Confederate guerrillas fighting the US?
 
I think the biggest changes would be to Mexican-American and Franco-American relations, since the USA clearly wins, but no clue how.
 
The French have a strong disadvantage to size, supply, and experience. The only advantage they might have in an American theatre is the French Navy whose Colonial experience may, only may, best the US Civil War blockade fleet.

Napoleon III is unlikely to want a prolonged war. His regime was based in no small part on quick and consistent victories, and a war against a military machine like post civil war America isn’t going to be the easy victory Napoleon III liked. A diplomatic retreat is better than a military defeat.

I also do not believe Confederate guerilla’s are likely if a war is prosecuted against French Mexico.

The Confederates may have rejected the Union, but they didn’t reject the Monroe Doctrine. CSA Congressman Daniel DeJarnette Sr. spoke in opposition to French Mexico and of a hypothetical where the CSA would join with other nations to expel the French. It was also suggested at Hampton Roads that a united expedition to Mexico to expel the French comprised of Union and ex-Confederates would be a good way to reassert the national identity.
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
Speaking of the confederates-wasn't their an idea discussed to institute a temporary truce and drive out the French?

If war breaks out in 1865 I could see surrendered confederate troops being re-armed and sent alongside Union troops against the French.
 
I imagine with France in a war with the US, Prussia would see an opportunity to strike, and the Franco-Prussian War would occur earlier, causing the US to align with Germany and potentially bring them into the Central Powers.
 
I imagine with France in a war with the US, Prussia would see an opportunity to strike, and the Franco-Prussian War would occur earlier, causing the US to align with Germany and potentially bring them into the Central Powers.

That would go against Bismark's political philosophy of building up Prussia's diplomatic reputation/position in order to ensure the rest of Europe tolerates its slow unification of Germany, assumes, and that France is willing to invest itself deeply in two conflicts at once rather than simply conceding in Mexico before getting a humiliating lose, and that the US would so quickly abandon its policy of no formal alliances/tying themselves to European conflicts.
 
Assuming the US war is seen by the Mexicans as there to drive the foreign leader out, not to steal more of Mexico, most of the Mexican population will be supportive. There is absolutely no way the French can transport and supply a large army to Mexico, to confront the most battle experienced army in the world - by 1865 the soldiers and officers had gotten rid of most of the useless through Darwinian selection. The USN could blockade the Mexican coast, and contest the French navy in the Gulf of Mexico. As far as former CS troops, during the war some put on blue and were sent out west to deal with Indians. I expect any former CS soldiers who chose to enlist would be used similarly not in the US forces going south.

In 1865 Prussia had not yet fought the Austro-Prussian War of 1866, which accrued significant benefits to Prussia as well as highlighting some major problems they had militarily which they worked hard to correct by 1870. IMHO Prussian was not ready to attack France in 1865, even with a US-French conflict going on. Furthermore if Prussia attacked first, this would not bring the other German states in like 1870 finalizing unification.

IMHO NIII left Maximillian out to dry with the US merely making a lot of noise about the Monroe Doctrine once the ACW ended. If the US actually intervened, I doubt NIII would srick his neck out.
 
The only advantage they might have in an American theatre is the French Navy whose Colonial experience may, only may, best the US Civil War blockade fleet.
The USN could blockade the Mexican coast, and contest the French navy in the Gulf of Mexico.
I think you guys are vastly underestimating the French Navy of the period. It had reached its zenith and was second only to the RN and in some regards it was the superior of the RN with the armor-plated French squadron at least for a few more years.
 
I think you guys are vastly underestimating the French Navy of the period. It had reached its zenith and was second only to the RN and in some regards it was the superior of the RN with the armor-plated French squadron at least for a few more years.

There’s a question of whether the French Navy could maintain naval dominance against a modern navy halfway across the world, and still maintain the activities needed for its colonial empire and elsewhere?

The US Navy was now highly experienced and because of the war almost entirely oriented to coastal defense and blockade. A blockade of French Mexico, in my mind is likely to work, and starve the French Army out.

But you may be right, the French definitely had cutting edge naval technology and for the US Navy to patrol the entire Eastern coasts of Mexico and the US is difficult at best. French naval dominance for any period in the Americas would annoy the British to no end, but it may be the best way for the French to get favourable terms.
 
Perhaps the British decide to help the US? Maybe with the RN serving as a shield to the US mainland?
Why would the British support the US? They weren't exactly fond of the French taking advantage of the Veracruz expedition to put a pro-French ruler in charge, but they weren't doing anything about it. They'd also been enjoying fairly good relations with the French.
 
But you may be right, the French definitely had cutting edge naval technology and for the US Navy to patrol the entire Eastern coasts of Mexico and the US is difficult at best. French naval dominance for any period in the Americas would annoy the British to no end, but it may be the best way for the French to get favourable terms.

But what would be the terms? France nor Maximilian can't really win in Mexico, and even with the Freach Navy, the USA has the advantages in size, supply,experience, and simple being right next to Mexico to deal with France and the Imperial Mexicans. (The Civil War just ended and all.)

Can France leave an year sooner? Napoleon III is simply unwilling to invest in an war with the battle harden and strong Union. Might they even be a war? (Paris hanging Maximilian out to dry as soon as they learn the USA is coming south of the border.)
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
-The OP mentioned that Seward was the advocate of the go-slow approach, criticized by Grant, Sheridan and civilian cabinet members.


What it is not clear about is if Seward’s approach was more conciliatory than President Johnson’s or not? Was it more conciliatory? And if so, why? What about congressional leadership?


That could give us a clue about how a Hannibal Hamlin administation could have distinguished itself from a Johnson administration.


One poster suggested that a Hannibal Hamlin might mean a more unified government that might be more inclined to take escalate things to war.


However, my instinctive hunch would be that President Johnson would have a greater personal political interest in a foreign war that prolongs strengthened executive power and distracts from where he disagrees with the Radicals in Congress.


ISTM that he could justify his leniency a bit better if he launches into a foreign war that sees many former grey troops don the Union blue.
 
Unlike the RN, the French Navy had no significant logistical bases on the western side of the Atlantic. Sure they have some scattered islands in the Caribbean, which have nothing to support a fleet except some food and water. All of the ammunition, coal, spare parts will have to come from France. In the 1860s the efficiency of marine steam engines was pretty poor so French ships under power in the Caribbean and Western Atlantic are going to need to coal quite frequently. The USN, OTOH will have units protecting the coast which can recoal, reprovision, and rearm close at hand - and similarly operations in the Caribbean and along the Mexican coast are close to sources of supply. Don't forget that there are only a few decent Mexican ports on the Caribbean coast that need to be blockaded.

While the most modern ships of the USN, the various double turret Monitors, are not suited for open ocean service, they are more than capable of sustaining coastal defense and blockade. The soon to be obsolete wooden ships, like the Kearsage are quite capable. They can attack French shipping, and be on a fair basis with all but the relatively few ocean going armored ships the French have. The French had perhaps 6-8 (at the most) ocean going ironclads in 1865. These had coal bunkers of 5 days supply - roughly 1500nm worth at top speed, well short of a trip from France to the US east coast or the Caribbean, but their sail plan was roughly 1/3 that of a comparable size sailing vessel which implies less speed and handiness under sail. The point of this is that ocean going ironclads spent most of their time under sail if they were any distance from port - and coaling at sea was not a thing in 1865.
 
Why would the British support the US? They weren't exactly fond of the French taking advantage of the Veracruz expedition to put a pro-French ruler in charge, but they weren't doing anything about it. They'd also been enjoying fairly good relations with the French.

Anglo-American tensions were pretty high during this time as well, no? Perhaps we'd see the United States invade Canada and Mexico simultaneously?
 
Since the US would obviously defeat Mexico in such a war, here's a question about the long-term implications: exactly how much territory would America annex in the aftermath? I assume that they wouldn't try for the whole country, but maybe the northern Mexican states? The Yucatán?
 
Since the US would obviously defeat Mexico in such a war, here's a question about the long-term implications: exactly how much territory would America annex in the aftermath? I assume that they wouldn't try for the whole country, but maybe the northern Mexican states? The Yucatán?

Economic concessions, more likely. The US had just gone through a bloody Civil War and was still busy occupying the South, plus Juarez is likely to take umbridge to the annexation of territory when the nominal goal was "Liberation" from Maximilian and his French backers (Though Juarez was no saint either and had his fair share of domestic detractors... and was never elected. I'm personally a bit more ideologically torn on the conflict). The McLane–Ocampo Treaty is probably granted in the terms of the peace
 
if the US basically launches an expedition to overthrow Maximillian in alliance with Mexican rebels, a short term military plan, then the US public is likely to be behind it. But... a war with France just might go over badly with them. The US had just finished the bloodiest war in it's history, and the public was eager to get on with their lives and business. another long war in the making might lead to rioting. And I find it doubtful that the US would annex any more territory... the US at this time still had a lot of room to settle in the west and the south... and IIRC, at this time, even the states in the Midwest weren't all that filled up yet.
 
It is one thing to not take any territory because of war weariness but it is quite another thing not to take at least Baja which is connected to California and is basically empty. The Mexicans could get paid for it and it would be seen the Gadsden Purchase 2.0. Literally it would be called the (Insert Name) Purchase.
 
Last edited:
Top