Franco-Mexican War Essay, Research Paper

The Franco-Mexican War was a war fought by two very

different countries then they are today. The war was fought

over reasons that seem very unlikely to arise ever again

between these two countries. The war was fought over

gaining territory, group thinking, and just pure human

Nature. These are very unlikely to be present between

Mexico and France now.

Humans are said to be naturally aggressive. From the

time of Adam and Eve humans have always been looking out to

gain power. Humans as well as animals have a natural

aggressive and also territorial instinct. This is a

frequent cause of war. (Hensel)

Emperor Napoleon III was a very power hungry leader.

Like his uncle, Napoleon I, Napoleon III wanted to gain as

much power as he could. When he realized that there was an

opportunity to seize more land Napoleon III took it. He

realized that Mexico had just finished a civil war and their

government was weak. His aggressive instinct caused

Napoleon to seize the moment. This war was mostly motivated

because of Napoleon III’s aggressive nature. He wanted to

become like his uncle and he took advantage of it. Napoleon

III was known to be a very aggressive and power hungry man.

Like his uncle he was very aggressive militarily and tried

to gain as much power and land as possible.(Meyer & Sherman)

These aggressive actions have toned down a great deal

not only between France and Mexico but with all countries in

the world today. There are countries that allow their

aggressive tendencies to get the best of them. All in all

though humans have evolved in understanding that acting on

our aggressive tendencies is not always the best thing to do

in situations that involve possible war.

Another reason for the war to start is territory. In

order for Napoleon III to gain power he needs land. The

theory behind conflict starting over territory is stated as

such; Explicit Contention over territory, official

government representation, and claims of a specific

territory must all be met, in order for a conflict to exist.

(Hensel)

Napoleon went to Mexico in order to gain back some of

the money lent to the Mexican Army. When he his legion/army

arrived in Mexico his intentions changed immediately. He

wanted not only to gain power but also to place his own

appointed leader into the thrown. Napoleon III ordered his

army to take over Mexico and claim it for France.(Meyer &

Sherman)

This was the start of a territorial conflict. Napoleon

III had explicit contention over Mexico, he had sent over

official government representation, and claimed Mexico and

only Mexico specifically. When these all were in place the

first battle broke out and war was officially declared

against the French by the Mexicans. As the battles were

being fought France and Napoleon III the third was not only

gaining more power but also more land.(Hensel)

This has changed throughout the years. After France

ended up losing Mexico after it was won they never tried to

regain that territory . Conflict over territory is a very

common source for wars and conflict in general to break out.

As far as France and Mexico are concerned I feel that it is

not going to happen in such away again, they have totally

different agendas then they had in the late 1800’s as well

as different types of leaders, France especially.

Now to the subject of the group thinking, Napoleon III

was able to get his men behind him. He was able to make his

legion believe that they were doing the right thing. His

men had great respect for him as well as for each other,

this is a key point when it comes from looking at the Group

think theory by Irving Janis. When you have a group like

the French under Napoleon III you can see that they are a

very cohesive group, very close knit, they also have great

loyalty to their country and a sense of belonging. When you

have all of these things within a group you can almost make

them do anything. Napoleon was able to rally these men up

get them to believe in what they were doing. This is the

theory behind group think. (Hensel)

When Napoleon III sent his men to Mexico they had one

goal in common to take over the government and the country.

Even though the French lost a huge amount of men in Mexico

due to disease they would not give up.

There consequences with this approach for starting a

war. People reach a quick consensus. This means that no

one is able to think about what the outcome maybe for this

war. Napoleon was thinking about how he was going to

maintain a great deal of power in a country over five

thousand miles away. This will also not allow controversial

questions to arise about what or why exactly they are

starting the conflict. Most importantly it leads to bad

decisions.(Hensel; Meyer & Sherman)

Napoleon learned this the hard way. He took action so

fast that he was unaware of the consequences he would face.

Not only did Napoleon III lose a great deal of men not only

from disease but also from the war itself. He also over

looked how the people of Mexico would feel toward the new

government that would be put in place by France.

Ferdinand Maximillian was appointed emperor after

Napoleon III’s legion/army invaded and conquered Mexico. If

France and Napoleon were not so caught up in rallying their

troops and storming in to Mexico for a quick gain of land

they would have known that putting a monarchy in a country

so close to the United States would not fly well. After

only a few months in power, and with few supporters

Maximilian was kicked out of power and killed. (Meyer &

Sherman)

The times have changed though. That was then this is

now. There is a lot less group think around today than

there were back in the 1800’s. Wars are a thought out

process more so today. Countries and government look more

to the future consequences of going to war. War can damage

a country a lot more today due to the complex economies, and

nuclear weapons then ever before.

When understanding conflict and how it is started and

how it is ended it is easy to assume that these two

adversaries will most likely never have conflict again.

There are many reasons that are relevant in understanding

why France and Mexico are unlikely adversaries.

Mexico and France are both allies with the United

States. If a situation ever arose the U.S. would squash it

immediately. Another reason for there never to be conflict

between France and Mexico is there aren’t any reasons for

conflict. In the late 1800’s with Napoleon III, France as a

whole had and aggressive power hungry attitude. This is not

the case today. France is a more laid back country then

they were now. They see Mexico as a country that they have

no interest in. As seen through out history controlling

territory that is not close to your homeland is next to

impossible to accomplish.

Invading lands just to gain more power and prestige is

unacceptable in world view. If France or any other country

would invade another country just to gain territory and

power that country would lose a few allies and gain a few

enemies. Mexico doesn’t have anything that France

desperately needs at this time. Both countries are content

in their situation as we speak and there for will not have

another uproar such as the Franco-Mexican war ever again.

So as might already know my projection for these two

countries to become enemies and then even institute a

conflict between one another is very unlikely. I project in

the next decade these two countries will not become enemies

again but become closer to each other. The world, I feel,

is becoming more and more socialistic. When all the

countries as a whole come up with a form a socialism that

works for everyone it will no longer be countries but

continents.

Michael C. Meyer and William L Sherman. The Course of Mexican History. New

York, 1983. Oxford University Press.

Paul Hensel, Ph.D. Class Notes. Fall semester 2000. INR 4083