Second French intervention in Mexico

Timben · Jan 31, 2024

I'm writing a Western (fictional historical account) about the Franco-Mexico War. The story is set in 1862. I was wondering what exactly the Confederacy could have promised to help aid the Juaristas. Could they promise them gold, weapons, or possibly men? I'm having a little trouble with my story at the moment. In other words, if the United States aided Mexico what was promised? I'm just trying to understand the United States' involvement. I hope I'm making sense.

ANH · Feb 4, 2024

If you ever get out a good book about the US-Mexican War of the 1840s you'll end up so confused on Southern attitudes to Southern expansionist aims that you can see how the same would probably make it illogical for Southern politicians to go near the Mexican question in the 1860s. Mexico had abandoned Slavery and whilst there was a near Southern consensus about the desire of obtaining Texas, the same could not be said of the wider Mexico when that earlier war commenced. The 'No Territory' advocates were often Southern and even the Secretary of State under Tyler (Calhoun) recognised the toxic nature of wider aspirations in non Slave holding territory. After the 1848 peace with Mexico, it is hard to see how the Confederacy could align itself with the Juaristas, though I have little actual knowledge of what I presume is a complex issue. More likely, the Confederacy would be more interested in Cuba or similar though the French presence no doubt aggravated Southern politicians as much as it did Northern

Leftyhunter · Feb 4, 2024

ANH said:
If you ever get out a good book about the US-Mexican War of the 1840s you'll end up so confused on Southern attitudes to Southern expansionist aims that you can see how the same would probably make it illogical for Southern politicians to go near the Mexican question in the 1860s. Mexico had abandoned Slavery and whilst there was a near Southern consensus about the desire of obtaining Texas, the same could not be said of the wider Mexico when that earlier war commenced. The 'No Territory' advocates were often Southern and even the Secretary of State under Tyler (Calhoun) recognised the toxic nature of wider aspirations in non Slave holding territory. After the 1848 peace with Mexico, it is hard to see how the Confederacy could align itself with the Juaristas, though I have little actual knowledge of what I presume is a complex issue. More likely, the Confederacy would be more interested in Cuba or similar though the French presence no doubt aggravated Southern politicians as much as it did Northern

There was a political organization called the Knights of the Golden Crescent that envisioned an independent slave republic consisting of the slaveholding states of the US or at least most of them plus Spanish Cuba, Southern Mexico and at a minimum Nicaragua in Central America. There were slave owners who financed " Filibusters" such has William Walker and Narsico Lopez to siezed Nicaragua and Cuba respectively but it didn't exactly work out has planned and both men departed this veil of tears.

Knights of the Golden Circle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Leftyhunter

Leftyhunter · Feb 4, 2024

Timben said:
I'm writing a Western (fictional historical account) about the Franco-Mexico War. The story is set in 1862. I was wondering what exactly the Confederacy could have promised to help aid the Juaristas. Could they promise them gold, weapons, or possibly men? I'm having a little trouble with my story at the moment. In other words, if the United States aided Mexico what was promised? I'm just trying to understand the United States' involvement. I hope I'm making sense.

Definitely not a possibility of the Confederacy assisting Benito Juarez so the storyline makes no sense. President Davis was desperate to obtain diplomatic recognition from what ever country he could especially France and the UK. The Confederacy was not in a position to send small arms abroad. The Confederate government attempted to send small arms to the forces of Brig.General Stan Waite in the Indian Territory now the present day state of Oklahoma but the then military commander of Arkansas intercepted the shipment to be issued to Confederate milita and newly raised troops in Arkansas. Until the Union siezed the port of Brownsville,Texas military and other supplies were shipped by West Europeans to the Mexican ports of Montomoros and Baghdad. It makes no sense for the Confederacy to antagonize the French who allowed goods to be shipped accross the Rio Grande River into Brownsville. Also the French Navy could certainly if they chose help the Union Navy to enforce a crippling blockade of Confederate ports.
It was actually President Johnson after the defeat of the Confederacy who placed the US Army in the Mexican border which helped cause the French to leave Mexico .
Leftyhunter

Leftyhunter · Feb 4, 2024

Timben said:
I'm writing a Western (fictional historical account) about the Franco-Mexico War. The story is set in 1862. I was wondering what exactly the Confederacy could have promised to help aid the Juaristas. Could they promise them gold, weapons, or possibly men? I'm having a little trouble with my story at the moment. In other words, if the United States aided Mexico what was promised? I'm just trying to understand the United States' involvement. I hope I'm making sense.

A Confederate Diplomat at the Court of Napoleon III on JSTOR
President Davis appointed a veteran diplomat John Slidell to try to convince Napoleon III to recognize the Confederacy but Napoleon III while personally sympathetic to the Confederate cause was not willing to antagonize the US. Napoleon III allowed the sake of various weaponry to both sides of the ACW.
Leftyhunter

betgo · Feb 4, 2024

The Confederate were hoping for help from the French, but otherwise didn't care. The Union was not happy about French involvement in Mexico, but couldn't do anything about it until after the war.

Dentatus · Feb 4, 2024

In 1861 the Confederate State department apparently sent a representative (J T Pickett) to sound out the Juarez government, but Confederate diplomacy was as unsuccessful in Mexico as it was in France and the UK. The US ambassador (T Corwin) had little trouble convincing the Mexican government that the Confederacy was more interested in annexing Mexico's northern states than in peaceful coexistence.

charlie ia · Feb 4, 2024

some senators strongly called out france and gave impassioned speeches in favor of mexico, as john mcdougall, senator for california.

however, in terms of official policiy itself, there was no help, no aid whatsoever. indifference was the unwritten policy of the department of state led by william seward, towards the french intervention in mexico: some congresspeople and senator pointed this out, not really depicting it just as indifference, but as cowardice - as zachariah chandler, senator for michigan, did.

the same senator outragedly denounced that the department of state allowed the french to literally purchase unrestricted war material and ship it to mexico for their invasion effort. so we can probably conclude here there was no u.s aid for mexico, but in fact the opposite.

likewise there were multiple u.s. senators decrying various acts of implicit complicity between the american administration and the french: i guess the fact that all these senators called these out at least in some way vindicates this american institution and brings even more shame to seward and the department of state.

Leftyhunter · Feb 4, 2024

Dentatus said:
In 1861 the Confederate State department apparently sent a representative (J T Pickett) to sound out the Juarez government, but Confederate diplomacy was as unsuccessful in Mexico as it was in France and the UK. The US ambassador (T Corwin) had little trouble convincing the Mexican government that the Confederacy was more interested in annexing Mexico's northern states than in peaceful coexistence.

Bagdad | UTRGV.
Also @Timben,
With French and Austrian troops occupying the port of Baghdad , Mexico it was crucial for the Confederacy to maintain good relations with France. It made no sense for the Confederacy to antagonize France by assisting the forces of Juarez. Juarez could not in any practical way aid the Confederacy.
Leftyhunter

Leftyhunter · Feb 4, 2024

charlie ia said:
some senators strongly called out france and gave impassioned speeches in favor of mexico, as john mcdougall, senator for california.

however, in terms of official policiy itself, there was no help, no aid whatsoever. indifference was the unwritten policy of the department of state led by william seward, towards the french intervention in mexico: some congresspeople and senator pointed this out, not really depicting it just as indifference, but as cowardice - as zachariah chandler, senator for michigan, did.

the same senator outragedly denounced that the department of state allowed the french to literally purchase unrestricted war material and ship it to mexico for their invasion effort. so we can probably conclude here there was no u.s aid for mexico, but in fact the opposite.

likewise there were multiple u.s. senators decrying various acts of implicit complicity between the american administration and the french: i guess the fact that all these senators called these out at least in some way vindicates this american institution and brings even more shame to seward and the department of state.

The US was in no position to antagonize a major military power such has France in the mist of a civil war.As Lincoln said " one war at time during the Trent Affair". France sold weapons to both sides which the US would latter do in other military conflicts.
Leftyhunter

charlie ia · Feb 4, 2024

Leftyhunter said:
The US was in no position to antagonize a major military power such has France in the mist of a civil war.As Lincoln said " one war at time during the Trent Affair". France sold weapons to both sides which the US would latter do in other military conflicts.
Leftyhunter

im not saying the opposite lefty.

but that constellation of u.s. senators indeed was.

obviously they also had some self-interest in mind too: they were specially concerned - as many, many, many senators after them- that the united states would look 'weak'. we cannot forget there was a little thing the united states loved to bring out whenever they had the chance, called 'the monroe doctrine' and as per it, in the good theory, the usa would never allow a european power to invade any areas of the americas.

of course we know that during long, those fancy words couldnt be backed with actions and there were several, several breaches to this supposed policy.

Leftyhunter · Feb 4, 2024

charlie ia said:
im not saying the opposite lefty.

but that constellation of u.s. senators indeed was.

obviously they also had some self-interest in mind too: they were specially concerned - as many, many, many senators after them- that the united states would look 'weak'. we cannot forget there was a little thing the united states loved to bring out whenever they had the chance, called 'the monroe doctrine' and as per it, in the good theory, the usa would never allow a european power to invade any areas of the americas.

of course we know that during long, those fancy words couldnt be backed with actions and there were several, several breaches to this supposed policy.

Yes Senators like to talk smack just to make points to the voters at home . That's why Lincoln was a great president because he knew the military limitations of the US.
Leftyhunter

betgo · Feb 4, 2024

Yes, the public in California was obviously unhappy about the French intervention.

Both the Union and Confederacy wanted good relations with France. France could theoretically invade the southwest, possibly in alliance with the Confederacy. France could theoretically aid the Confederacy in various ways. However, France had already gotten itself into enough trouble.

Leftyhunter · Feb 4, 2024

betgo said:
Yes, the public in California was obviously unhappy about the French intervention.

Both the Union and Confederacy wanted good relations with France. France could theoretically invade the southwest, possibly in alliance with the Confederacy. France could theoretically aid the Confederacy in various ways. However, France had already gotten itself into enough trouble.

Napoleon III had no interest in a war with the US. There was in the early stages of the ACW a possibility of diplomatic recognition of the Confederacy but with the UK not wishing to do so it just didn't make sense to recognize the Confederacy. France did make efforts to substitute Southern cotton for cotton grown in their then colony of Senegal.
https://ecipe.org/wp-content/upload...tory_cotton-institutions_WestAfrica102009.pdf
The French efforts to substitute cotton from West Africa to replace American cotton during the ACW were not particularly successful . As the ACW progressed the French could buy cotton grown in the Union occupied Seaward Islands of South Carolina and Louisiana. Lower quality cotton could be purchased from British India. By the mid 1870s the Southern United States would still be the world's largest cotton exporter.
Leftyhunter

betgo · Feb 4, 2024

Both the Union and Confederacy were trying to appease France. The Confederates hoped for French intervention, which was not realistic.

Britain, France, and Spain invaded Mexico to force Mexico to pay debts to their subjects. The other powers left once they realized France's true intentions. The Liberals had already defeated the Conservatives. The French had support from the Conservatives, which mostly meant land owners and the Church. The French gave military support, but alienated Mexicans further and resulted in opposition from the US once the US could do anything. The holiday Cinco de Mayo celebrates a victory over the French, which indicates the Liberals had overwhelming support of ordinary people. The Conservatives had power only because thing were not determined by elections, certainly not democratic elections.

The Emperor Maximillian alienated some of his aristocratic support with his concern about the Mexican poor. He was shocked that the difference between the wealthy and poor was so much greater than in Austria. Now, it seems like there is more difference in wealth in the US than in Austria. In Mexico, the wealthy are about as wealthy as in the US, but there are more and poorer poor people.

Search

Search

Second French intervention in Mexico

Timben

ANH

Leftyhunter

Knights of the Golden Circle - Wikipedia

Leftyhunter

Leftyhunter

betgo

Dentatus

charlie ia

Leftyhunter

Leftyhunter

charlie ia

Leftyhunter

betgo

Leftyhunter

betgo

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions