Most of us think it somehow has something to do with Mexican independence. But if it did, why is it only celebrated in Mexico in the state of Puebla? Even more amazing, the event really did not lead to a positive outcome. A year after the surprising defeat of a highly organized French Army of 8,000 soldiers by a Mexican Army of 4,000 troop at Puebla on 5 May 1862, the French were able to depose of the Mexican army, capture Mexico City, and establish Emperor Maximilian I as ruler of Mexico.
And what were the French after? By establishing a puppet state in Mexico, France hoped to reestablish some of the grandeur of the Napoleonic Empire. There are many who believe that France had even bigger plans; to help break up the American Union. America was in the early stages of the Civil War. Establishing a strong presence in Mexico would allow France to directly support the Confederate States in their efforts to permanently succeed from the United States. Had Gen. Ulysses S. Grant not lead the successful Vicksburg Campaign at the end of 1862 and beginning of 1863, France’s plan to supply the South just might have changed the course of Western history.
So the next time you pick 5 May as a convenient excuse to drink beer and eat Mexican food (which is not bad thing to do on any day of the year), make sure you make a point to say you are doing it to celebrate the Mexican culture of so many Americans. The choice of 5 May I fear sends mixed messages.
Is Still Here
I didn’t know any of that. Thanks for the info. Considering the different cultures of North and South, and the nature of the Constitution at that time, I wish that the South had been allowed to secede in peace.
geezer-chick,
I haven’t played many games of “What-if History” since I left academia, where it was a popular pastime that seemed to seemed to always start later in the evening and run until well past midnight. Of course, the nice thing about the game was that no matter how intense the session became, there was no way to actually determine a winner or a loser.
However on this particular subject, which was actually the subject of a few past “What-if History” games that I got sucked into, I do have some thoughts on the matter.
Had the North not engaged to defend what is still an admittedly less than perfect union I suspect Western history would have turned out quite different. The European colonial powers were still very much engaged in struggles over defending their empires. A divided North America would have been a very tempting target. The intrigue would have surely led to outcomes we can only imagine. Slavery and the purely agrarian economy of the South would have probably not survived for long with the coming Industrial Revolution. The pressures for expansion that were already occurring in the American states might well have lead to conflict between the North and the South even if Abraham Lincoln had not convinced the North to pursue immediate preservation of the Union. And likely we would have had a World War on North American territory well before Europe decided to pound a generation to death on its own soil.
But we can prove none of this.