French Intervention in Mexico.

[Harvin87]

That period of Mexican history is known in Mexico as "La intervención francesa" (1862-1865) , and I was reading something about it... and I really don't know accurately what were the French aims in Mexico? ... they were tree years in Mexico until they were inevitably defeated.

What were they aiming for in Mexico?... just to begin with, Mexico was broke and the invasion was triggered after Mexican president Benito Juárez suspended the debt payments of the country. England, France and Spain were outraged and sent a combine fleet to block the port of Veracruz. This being done, Juárez promised to pay the debts at soon as possible.

England and Spain took Juárez words and left the country, but France saw this as an opportunity to "seize" the country or as a pretext for an invasion.

So, does anyone knows what were French aims in Mexico during that period? ... conquer the country? ... impossible... so what then?

[Dachs]

Put a puppet ruler on the throne (some Habsburg dude with a funky beard, you've probably heard of him), get a foreign policy "success" with its attendant prestige and an ally in the Americas. Presumably Mini-Boney was going to get some dandy economic concessions out of the deal, I haven't got the relevant book on me but it'd surprise me if he didn't.

What, you never wanted a satellite state of your very own?

[LightSpectra]

Napoleon's plan was to support the Confederacy in the war to permanently divide the U.S. and gain a new ally, then acquire Mexico (which was weakened after many wars of its own) to become the dominant colonial power in North America.

Unfortunately, Britain refused to aid the Confederates like Napoleon wanted, so after the Civil War was over, France had no choice but to cut off all aid to their Mexican forces.

[Harvin87]

sounds logical... but why would they support the confederates?

[LightSpectra]

Originally Posted by Harvin87

sounds logical... but why would they support the confederates?

The U.S. had that pesky Monroe Doctrine, and were obviously the most powerful country in the Americas. So split it into two countries, with the half that's facing Mexico on your side. Seemed like a fair plan at the time.

[Dachs]

Looks like circular reasoning to me, there, LS - support the Confederacy because they weaken the main opponent to a French puppet in Mexico, and establish a French puppet in Mexico in order to support the Confederacy...

[LightSpectra]

Originally Posted by Dachs

Looks like circular reasoning to me, there, LS - support the Confederacy because they weaken the main opponent to a French puppet in Mexico, and establish a French puppet in Mexico in order to support the Confederacy...

They established a French puppet in Mexico because they wanted to control Mexico. Helping the CSA become independent was just the first step in that plan.

[Harvin87]

And why would Britain be happy whit a French puppet-state of the size and potential of Mexico? why they didn't support the Mexican state? ...

[LightSpectra]

Originally Posted by Harvin87

And why would Britain be happy whit a French puppet-state of the size and potential of Mexico? why they didn't support the Mexican state? ...

Splendid isolation

[Bugfatty300]

French motivations:

1. Greed - Mexico was very rich in resources.

2. opportunity - Mexico was politically vulnerable at the time and the only country who could have stopped the French was the United States and it was in no position to intervene.

3. Excuse - Mexico defaulted on it´s loans.

France saw a rare golden opportunity and they took it.

[xchen08]

Though really, like all of Napoleon III's foreign policy adventures, it is really better described as massaging his ego, with all other considerations just something on the side. He gave half hearted support to the Confederates that was enough to piss off the U.S. but good, but not enough for the Confederates to actually win. He backed Maximillian, but abandoned him when it becomes clear that even more support was needed and war with the U.S. was possible. It's really just like his backing of Sardinia for Italian unification, then pissing away all that good will by occupying Rome. He just doesn't think through the consequences of his actions, and jumps towards what seems most glorious at that particular moment.

[Dachs]

Admittedly, occupying Rome was seen by him as a domestic political necessity, because much of his support in his plebiscites and so forth came from Catholic conservatives who would have raised a ruckus if the Italians took away the Pope's stuff.