Mexico's Civil War and the US Southern States

[bayonetbrant]

So let's all remember that there actually was some pretty good discussion back at WGer about 6-7 years ago.  I've been on a mini-quest to rescue some of my old threads from there so that we can preserve some good ideas and discussion sparks before the whole place inevitably crumbles and they're lost forever in another software "upgrade"

Here's one about the US Civil War and how it might have affected the Mexican Civil War that was going on almost simultaneously.  For perspective, I reviewed Cactus Throne in early '06.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So I'm reviewing Cactus Throne from Against the Odds Magazine (look for it in the next few weeks) and there are some alternate events that result in either US Federal or Conferederate forces arriving in Mexico during the war.

Short catch-up sidebar: While US Civil War raged, the war in Mexico was being fought between the French & some European Allies and the "Republicans" or the native Mexican gov't. US Civil War ran 1861-1865 and French Intervention in Mexico ran 1861-1867
With the Americans distracted with their own war, the French violated the Monroe Doctrine and tried to take over Mexico. The Republicans (anti-French natives) finally turned the tide in 1865 or so, and it all fell apart after that. 


My assumptions: The French didn't start losing in 1865, but instead managed to catch Juarez and the Mexican 'resistance' fell apart in any organized fashion. The US Civil War ran pretty much as it really did.

My Question(s): With the Confederacy on it's heels, and the French facing a partially-hostile native population, could they have made a land grab for Texas, Louisiana, and (maybe) New Mexico and/or Arizona?

The Federals hadn't fully occupied the coastal regions of the Mississippi delta / Houston areas. And frankly, they might not have had the manpower to do that and chase Lee around Virginia.

Maximillian wouldn't have needed to push the Mexicans much into trying to "reclaim" Texas, and the French might've willingly taken a shot a New Orleans. The Confederates wouldn't have been able to put up much resistance. While the US smacked the Mexicans around in 1848, this war would've included the French, and a variety of European allies, and would've been a harder fight for the US, since both sides had recent war experience.

Could the French/Mexicans have taken/held Texas and/or New Orleans?
What would the US reaction have been?
What would the Gulf region look like now if it had happened?

[Steelgrave]

Go into any restaurant in any of those places today and.....well, I'm not sure it would look much different under your scenario  ;) 

[besilarius]

Napoleon III tried to conquer Mexico on the cheap with a rather small army. 
They might have been able to advance into Texas, but a lack of troops for garrison, would have resulted in massive insurgencies behind them.
Also, attacking New Orleans would have meant coming to grips with Farragut's Gulf Fleet.  The monitors would have eaten the French navy up.
I see no reason to believe that after Appomotax, Sheridan with 40,000 veterans would have moved into Texas and ejected the overstretched French.  Would make a rather fun game, but the numbers, and logistics, are all in the yankee hand.

[Airborne Rifles]

I recall reading that immediately after the end of the Civil War Grant sent a 50,000 man army to the Texas-Mexico border to "observe" the goings on in Mexico and to let the French know that we were none too happy with their activities there.  If I'm not mistaken Sheridan was the one in charge of the opertion.

[bayonetbrant]

keep in mind that by the time Sheridan's guys were on the border, the French were already losing.  But if the French could've bagged Juarez earlier, and wrapped up enough of the pitched battles to save their strength, could they have made a play for Texas by promising to lead the Mexicans to retake Texas in 1864-5 before the US Civil War was over?  That would've have meant turning Sherman around in Alabama, which means that Atlanta, Savannah, and the Carolinas never experience his wrath, and then you've got to actually fight when you get there.  If the Frenchexicans armed the slaves in Texas where most of the Confederates had already been ejected, would they have had enough manpower to make a play for New Orleans?  Who knows.  By 1864, hadn't most of Farragut's fleet moved further east?  Would they have made it back to New Orleans in time to matter?

It was just an idea that came up based on some hypotheticals in Cactus Throne articles, and I wanted to revisit the discussion over here and rescue the thread from WGer before it totally implodes

[besilarius]

It's difficult to find good data on the Gulf Fleet.  Believe that most of the ocean going ships had moved to cover Mobile and the coast thru Florida.
However, there was a blockading fleet on the Texas coast.  The French could likely have driven that away, but then what?  Unless the british came in with a big fleet, the French battle fleet was pretty small.  My memory is they had about eight steam frigates/sloops, and about twenty smaller craft.  They could have blockaded the mouth of the Mississippi, but it seems a real stretch to think they could do another Farragut at New Orleans.
Again, I just don't see the logistic support for a French-Mexican advance into Texas.  The Texians had purposely kept the roads leading from Mexico primitive, to avoid another advance to the Alamo. 
Redeploying the Atlantic coast forces into the Gulf by Gideon Wells, the numbers just don't make sense to avoid the yankees clapping a blockade on the Mexican coast.  This would not have been a huge problem for the French, but the danger of losing an entire army overseas, might have been the push for Napoleon III to be thrown out.
He was an inveterate gambler, who always was willing to try a venture.  But he always did it on the cheap, relying on allies to help.  He involved the naive Maximilian of Austria, partly in the belief that the Austrian Emperor would send forces to save Max if things got out of hand.  There are so many "must happens" here, it's almost like a Bridge Too Far.

[bayonetbrant]

^^ and that's cool - I was just trying to gin up some conversation :)

[Airborne Rifles]

In regards to New Orleans, just think of the difficulty the Union forces encountered with terrain in trying to approach Vicksburg.  I imagine a French Army marching from Texas would have at least as much difficulty if they weren't able to use the sea lanes.

[Centurion40]

As a personal note, thanks for posting this Brant- and thank you to the others who replied.  It is new and interesting to me.

I would also conclude that the French would have failed in any US land grab, thanks to the battle hardened abilities and size of the US Army.  FYI, Canada was formed in 1867.  One of the strong motivating factors behind the British North American colonies deciding to confederate was the large size of the veteran US Army after the US Civil War- coupled with the Monroe Doctrine.

Had the French decided to take Texas, along with the installation of the puppet Mexican Empire, they would have had an almost impossible task to keep it.  Their only hope (IMHO) would be to support Confederate "Freedom Fighters", thus tying-up Federal forces, coupled British intervention (highly unlikely- unless Federal forces, for some reason, invaded Upper or Lower Canada... or if there was something more in it, for the British Empire/Queen Victoria) in support of the Mexican Empire and a free Confederacy. 

[bayonetbrant]

I guess a secondary idea might have been that idea that the Frenchexicans *do* make a stab at New Orleans and Houston, get their asses handed to them, and Sherman, Sheridan, etc are sent south to create a "buffer zone" below the Rio Grande.  Does the US end up with Baja California, and half of Mexico down to Monterrey, Chihuahua, or Torreon?

the other complicating factors, of course, are the need to occupy the South, as well as the significant change in leadership with the loss of Lincoln.  There were already draft riots and huge opposition to "Lincoln's War" just fighting in the Confederate States.  If the US pushed south, or the Mexicans pushed north, does the distraction (for union troops) provide an opening for a significant prolonged guerilla war in the South.  Does it change how many Confederates escape west to Utah and Nevada and the 'colonies' they set up there?

I wonder if war weariness would start to play into things at all and cut into any zest the union has for throwing back an invasion - "let 'em have Texas and we'll keep the rest, because it ain't worht fighting for right now" or something.

I think all things being equal, a series of pitched battles between the union and the Mexifrenchies would go very bad for those down south.  But with an unstable political situation after Lincoln's death, a nation weary of war, significant numbers of Confederates who may be willing to fight against the Union even as irregulars, it mgiht get dicey for a bit there, and all you need is enough people in New York, Buffalo, Philly, Pittsburg, and Cleveland wondering "why the hell are we still fighting?" for things to fall apart.

[Centurion40]

Yeah, good points on the whole "eyes bigger than the stomach" factor.  How much would the US government be able to handle?  Baja may have been doable, but what else?

Another aspect could be what I will call the "Fenian Factor".  As we all might know, the Fenian Brotherhood was bolstered by Irish born US Civil War veterans.  The armed and experienced Fenians, basically a private army, were able to launch armed incursions into Canada from US soil, without effective interference from US Federal authorities.

Could a similarly motivated group of Civil War veterans have been effective in setting-up their own nations, carved-out of Mexican territory?  Maybe.

[besilarius]

To just spin this idea out, how about this?
While the war was still going on, suppose the French did something unexpected?  There were elements of the Mormon Utah Free State who really wanted an independent nation.
If the French could provide finances, perhaps a Mormon rebellion?  Perhaps the Mormons converted some/all of the Plains Indians?  Giving them some great light cavalry, and then the French armed them with chassepots?
Or, to really destabilise the North, suppose the French sent an expedition into California?
All of this assumes the French had a lot more money and resources than was the case, but hey.  If we're going into what-if mode, then let's go whole hog.

[Airborne Rifles]

I guess a secondary idea might have been that idea that the Frenchexicans *do* make a stab at New Orleans and Houston, get their asses handed to them, and Sherman, Sheridan, etc are sent south to create a "buffer zone" below the Rio Grande.  Does the US end up with Baja California, and half of Mexico down to Monterrey, Chihuahua, or Torreon?

the other complicating factors, of course, are the need to occupy the South, as well as the significant change in leadership with the loss of Lincoln.  There were already draft riots and huge opposition to "Lincoln's War" just fighting in the Confederate States.  If the US pushed south, or the Mexicans pushed north, does the distraction (for union troops) provide an opening for a significant prolonged guerilla war in the South.  Does it change how many Confederates escape west to Utah and Nevada and the 'colonies' they set up there?

I wonder if war weariness would start to play into things at all and cut into any zest the union has for throwing back an invasion - "let 'em have Texas and we'll keep the rest, because it ain't worht fighting for right now" or something.

I think all things being equal, a series of pitched battles between the union and the Mexifrenchies would go very bad for those down south.  But with an unstable political situation after Lincoln's death, a nation weary of war, significant numbers of Confederates who may be willing to fight against the Union even as irregulars, it mgiht get dicey for a bit there, and all you need is enough people in New York, Buffalo, Philly, Pittsburg, and Cleveland wondering "why the hell are we still fighting?" for things to fall apart.

I think the problem with the idea of a Confederate insurgency is that there was nothing really preventing it from occurring in the first place.  Would a war with Frexico have made an insurgency any more likely?  Or would a foreign land grab have strengthened feelings of Union nationalism throughout the country?  It seems to me that two of the states that would have been most affected, Louisiana and Arkansas, were two of the weakest links in the Confederacy in the first place and had been occupied by federal forces since early in the war without much issue.  I seem to recall they were the first to be readmitted to their seats in congress under reconstruction as well.     

[Centurion40]

To just spin this idea out, how about this?
While the war was still going on, suppose the French did something unexpected?  There were elements of the Mormon Utah Free State who really wanted an independent nation.
If the French could provide finances, perhaps a Mormon rebellion?  Perhaps the Mormons converted some/all of the Plains Indians?  Giving them some great light cavalry, and then the French armed them with chassepots?
Or, to really destabilise the North, suppose the French sent an expedition into California?
All of this assumes the French had a lot more money and resources than was the case, but hey.  If we're going into what-if mode, then let's go whole hog.

Interesting twist.  The only fly in that ointment is that, afaik, 1800s Mormons were racist (due to their original belief that only white people could go to heaven)- so they never would have attempted to convert any Indians.

That being said, I would not put it past Napoleon III to engage France in that sort of empire building.  What if he wanted the entire Louisana Purchase back?