Plausibility: France supports the Confederacy, United Kingdom does not.

[Darth_Kiryan]

Now, having had this discussion before, and also because of Superman's TL on the Confederacy existing, I am rather curious to hear some fresh opinions and a discussion on whether or not it is plausible for the French to support the Confederacy - without the United Kingdom/Great Britain.

Tacitly, this would support Napoleon III's plans for a Mexican Empire/puppet state, but this would also depend on whether that venture is successful as well.

 

[The Uchronian]

Now, having had this discussion before, and also because of Superman's TL on the Confederacy existing, I am rather curious to hear some fresh opinions and a discussion on whether or not it is plausible for the French to support the Confederacy - without the United Kingdom/Great Britain.

Tacitly, this would support Napoleon III's plans for a Mexican Empire/puppet state, but this would also depend on whether that venture is successful as well.

I'm not really sure, especially since France and the U.S. weren't exactly the worst of enemies IOTL.

 

[TFSmith121]

The French had their eyes on Mexico at the end

The French had their eyes on Mexico at the end of the 1850s, because of the "opportunity" the Reform War (a bloody civil war, actually, that ended in victory for the Mexican liberals) presented them with the Mexican conservatives as potential allies. The Convention of London was signed in October, 1861, which cleared the diplomatic decks in Europe for the French intervention, which began before the end of the year. By the spring, the intervention had become an invasion, which led to the defeat at Puebla of some 6000 French regulars by some 4000 Mexicans, mostly irregulars. It took 12 months (1863) for the French to deploy enough troops (~30,000) to try a second time, and the conflict became a long, drawn-out, bloody, and costly conflict that ended in utter defeat for the French four years later.

So, given the historical case study presented by the 2nd Empire, odds are that even if someone in Paris was daft enough to suggest it seriously, the realities would rapidly intrude.

The Atlantic is not a river crossing. Considering that the only time any power actually managed a successful trans-Atlantic campaign in the Industrial Era was in 1917-18 and 1942-45, and both of those efforts were by the U.S., and both occurred with industrialized powers as ALLIES in Europe, one wonders when reality will ever intrude...

Best,

 

[sloreck]

France had a bunch on its plate in the 1860s with expansion/consolidation of their overseas empire. NIII was certainly not going to get involved by recognizing the CSA unless the UK was doing the same. This goes even more for providing direct military intervention, even free/subsidized military supplies would stretch the French economy/treasury.

 

[TheYoungPretender]

Now, having had this discussion before, and also because of Superman's TL on the Confederacy existing, I am rather curious to hear some fresh opinions and a discussion on whether or not it is plausible for the French to support the Confederacy - without the United Kingdom/Great Britain.

Tacitly, this would support Napoleon III's plans for a Mexican Empire/puppet state, but this would also depend on whether that venture is successful as well.

So there's something we Americans often have trouble compassing in our minds. And that is that we are in fact not the single and sole focus of the thoughts of everyone on this planet. I love the Winthrop Speech. I love all the TR speeches. I even love FDRs and Bryans (and that fact has not made me a gay communist who hates freedom even!). But as Americans, while we are the bee's knees in our own thoughts, we aren't the focus of everything that happens every where.

Napoleon III in 1861 has just slogged through a war in Italy. He's just seen how long it takes to win a limited industrial war in Russia. He's got a full scale war turning over in Mexico. He's got colonial projects scattered across Africa and Asia. And he's realizing that the threat of Bismarck is more than just in the "who has the most spectacular mustache in Europe contest (non-Habsburg division)."

If he takes on another full scale war, he'll need a better reason than the extra divine snowflake like specialness of the Old South. A much better reason.

 

[Sabot Cat]

So there's something we Americans often have trouble compassing in our minds. And that is that we are in fact not the single and sole focus of the thoughts of everyone on this planet. I love the Winthrop Speech. I love all the TR speeches. I even love FDRs and Bryans (and that fact has not made me a gay communist who hates freedom even!). But as Americans, while we are the bee's knees in our own thoughts, we aren't the focus of everything that happens every where.

Napoleon III in 1861 has just slogged through a war in Italy. He's just seen how long it takes to win a limited industrial war in Russia. He's got a full scale war turning over in Mexico. He's got colonial projects scattered across Africa and Asia. And he's realizing that the threat of Bismarck is more than just in the "who has the most spectacular mustache in Europe contest (non-Habsburg division)."

If he takes on another full scale war, he'll need a better reason than the extra divine snowflake like specialness of the Old South. A much better reason.

Breaking the back of the United States would help the Mexican Empire tactically.

 

[Will Kürlich Kerl]

Maybe a French version of the Trent affair happens, but it does not get peacefully resolved, forcing the French into the war on the Confederacy side.

 

[TheYoungPretender]

Breaking the back of the United States would help the Mexican Empire tactically.

I'm fascinated - how does breaking the United States help the Mexican Conservatives by as much as a bullet?

 

[Will Kürlich Kerl]

I'm fascinated - how does breaking the United States help the Mexican Conservatives by as much as a bullet?

I don't think it would. If I recall correctly the chaps in the American South were some of the more pro-expansionist in OTL's America for expanding into Mexico. This would be even more true ITTL, since the Confederacy still needs or wants to expand its borders to fit all the slave and slaveowners in the country.

 

[Sabot Cat]

I'm fascinated - how does breaking the United States help the Mexican Conservatives by as much as a bullet?

The United States diplomatically and militarily supported the Mexican republicans.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

I'm fascinated - how does breaking the United States help the Mexican Conservatives by as much as a bullet?

Well for one thing that probably spells the end of the money the Juaristas were raising via selling bonds in the US, which means Juarez himself probably ends up skedaddling over the California border some time in 1866 when Bazaine goes north.

 

[TheYoungPretender]

The United States diplomatically and militarily supported the Mexican republicans.

Yes, after 1865, a great deal. But I presume we're talking about 1861 or 62? When every gun and bullet was devoted to defeating the Slaveholder's Rebellion?

 

[Sabot Cat]

Yes, after 1865, a great deal. But I presume we're talking about 1861 or 62? When every gun and bullet was devoted to defeating the Slaveholder's Rebellion?

Yes, and it would be good if every gun and bullet stayed devoted to that from France's perspective, which was my point.

 

[TheYoungPretender]

Yes, and it would be good if every gun and bullet stayed devoted to that from France's perspective, which was my point.

But does Second Empire France have the resources to make supporting one sinkhole with a second, larger sinkhole a good idea?

 

[Sabot Cat]

But does Second Empire France have the resources to make supporting one sinkhole with a second, larger sinkhole a good idea?

They might be able to convince themselves that they do.

 

[TheYoungPretender]

They might be able to convince themselves that they do.

As someone who's also made the case that Nappy III was a bit of a dingus, yes, point. But Napoleon tended to be an opportunist. Small Italian Kingdoms, weak-seeming Latin American states, poorly armed indigenous states in Africa or Asia are one thing. A rising power that's industrializing better than you is quite another.

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

As someone who's also made the case that Nappy III was a bit of a dingus, yes, point. But Napoleon tended to be an opportunist. Small Italian Kingdoms, weak-seeming Latin American states, poorly armed indigenous states in Africa or Asia are one thing. A rising power that's industrializing better than you is quite another.

How strong was the French Navy at this time? I mean, launching a strike and say dispersing the Union blockade could help. They don't necessarily need to land an army. Materiel support maybe?

 

[TheYoungPretender]

How strong was the French Navy at this time? I mean, launching a strike and say dispersing the Union blockade could help. They don't necessarily need to land an army. Materiel support maybe?

The French Navy as some really good blue water battleships and commerce raiders. Thing is, this is an era where a very good blue water ship often had a deep draft. A monitor or littoral ship capable of beating said blue water ship was far cheaper to produce en masse. The French Fleet can make life hell for US merchant ship, but would get bleed white doing a blockade, and might not be able to break it for all that long. So it's a delicate proposition.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

As someone who's also made the case that Nappy III was a bit of a dingus, yes, point. But Napoleon tended to be an opportunist. Small Italian Kingdoms, weak-seeming Latin American states, poorly armed indigenous states in Africa or Asia are one thing. A rising power that's industrializing better than you is quite another.

Well Napoleon III was receptive to the idea historically, but he had some pretty strict conditions on going feet first into supporting them. He tried to get one of them set by getting the powers of Europe to support a mediation proposal, but that died a quiet death in late 1862.

I firmly believe that he wouldn't move without Britain, and even then he was more than likely going to let Britain do all the heavy lifting in any situation while attempting to crush the Mexican Republicans into the dust.

 

[TFSmith121]

The French Navy had a potential enemy much closer

How strong was the French Navy at this time? I mean, launching a strike and say dispersing the Union blockade could help. They don't necessarily need to land an army. Materiel support maybe?

The French Navy had a potential enemy much closer to home, however.

There's a reason the good ships Napoleon, Gloire, and Couronne were built, and it was not for use against the USN.

Best,