Categorized | Observer

Cinco De Mayo: The Greatest US Civil War Victory in Mexican History

Posted on 16 May 2012 by mburgess


Too many Americans believe Cinco de Mayo marks the anniversary of Mexican Independence from Spain, but nothing could be further from the truth, although marketing executives on both sides of the border are happy to let the misconception soar in the popular imagination so long as alcohol and party sales remain high.

This kind of craven disservice to history was presented to Espresso recently by one alcohol vendor, himself a bi-national combination of mixtec and Yankee heritage with pretensions to an upper crusty view of the world, who said, “So long as they buy the beer, I don’t care if they celebrate the day the Mexican-American War ended.”

It’s fitting to explain the reality behind the celebration of Cinco de Mayo. The day has significant meaning for every American and ought to be recognized for the service our neighbors to the south performed for themselves and, by extension, for us.

Mexico was badly disorganized and very broke after the United States had conquered half its territory in 1848. Borrowing heavily from the Catholic church to finance its lost war, and suffering the loss of trade with the rest of the world, Mexico was in debt and was doubtful of its safety from its greedy Yankee neighbor. Meanwhile, European nations were loath to invest in what they believed would soon be another part of the United States. Trade with Europe was scant and merely increased the debts Mexicans owed the French, Spanish and British who began to recoup their debts by sending a combined force of soldiers to occupy the Gulf ports of Mexico and take over the customs houses to skim off fees and duties from imports.

After the usual shows of force, the high-level squabbling between diplomats and the negotiations for repayment, the British and Spanish withdrew their soldiers. The French did not. Napoleon III, Emperor of France, had ambitions to pick up the American empire which his famed ancestor got rid of 60 years earlier. France needed resources to successfully challenge the British empire and to suppress the growing problems of Austrian power, Italian revolutionary restlessness and stirrings of German nationalism. Putting a French foot on other European nations trying to assert themselves would take more resources than France had at home: France needed an American empire and Mexico was to be its first base of operations.

French ambitions were fed by the American Civil War that was still going strong. The American Monroe Doctrine warned all nations not to extend any hooks into either American continent unless they wanted a war with the United States. But war between the states meant American forces couldn’t interfere with imperial land grabs. Mexico was weak. The US was preoccupied with a civil war and the French, under Napoleon III, needed immediately to grab what they could get from the Mexicans.

The French also had a long-term plan to demolish US power by siding with the Confederacy when the time was right — after the French got a strong foothold in Mexico. Once that foothold was solid, aid to the Confederates would help the South gain its independence — and would make them subservient pawns to French power brokers. Even better, a Confederate-French victory over the US would mean the end of the United States as a power capable of thwarting European expansion. For France, it meant a chance to reassert itself on the American continent for the first time since losing the French and Indian War in 1763. For France, winning Mexico was intended to be the first step toward becoming the dominant power on earth.

A French army commanded by General Laurencez began to march from Veracruz to Mexico City. When it got to Puebla — a village about 100 miles from the capital — it found a rough force of about 4,000 Mexicans waiting for them. Those Mexicans were mostly agricultural workers and peasants armed with ancient British flintlocks and machetes. The 6,000-man French army, regarded, in those days, as the most dangerous on earth, came equipped with cavalry, artillery and strategic precision. Their rifles could hit a man at almost twice the range of the Mexican weapons and their tactical skill was flawless.

The Mexican commander, Ignacio Zaragoza, was shrewd enough to make sure the coming battle would take place on favorable ground — a muddy, uneven field that allowed his few vaqueros on unshod ponies a decent chance against the heavily equipped French cavalry. He learned to give his horsemen some advantages, after he lost the first engagement to the French cavalry on the April 28, when the French had cut his lightly armed riders to pieces. Zaragoza was a quick learner and between the day his cavalry was shredded and May 5, he thought up tactics to minimize the French advantages at Puebla.

Laurencez accommodated Zaragoza by attacking at the Mexicans’ strongest point, after a late start which gave Zaragoza time to prepare better defenses. Laurencez sent his cavalry through ditches and mud uphill where they became quickly bogged down and were drawn off the field chasing after the Mexican horsemen.

The French artillery then opened fire and battered Puebla and the Mexicans in the town; Zaragoza gritted his teeth and told his campesinos to endure it and wait until the right moment came. All the while, the French infantry advanced toward them, struggling in the mud, which only got worse when it began to rain.

When the French artillery ran out of ammunition at nearly three in the afternoon, the bulk of the French infantry advanced on Puebla and were shot at merrily by Mexicans who had held fire until the French were in range. The last French infantry attack was broken up imaginatively by Mexican peasants who stampeded their cattle at the French formations.

Each steer weighed about a ton. And hundreds of angry steers coming at the long line of French infantry routed them in panic. At the end of the day, Laurencez had lost 462 men to Mexico’s 83. Worse, Laurencez couldn’t get past Puebla to Mexico City. After waiting for Zaragoza to attack or run, Laurencez had to move — all the way back to Orizaba — in the wrong direction and away from Mexico City.

The war wasn’t won that day, of course. It dragged on for several more years and, until 1867, the French sat a puppet king on a Mexican throne. But Puebla was important because it stopped the French advance when it did and it bought Mexico another whole year to organize and fight before the French took their capital. It also bought a year for the United States — and that was critical.

Napoleon III’s plan to conquer Mexico depended on a weak United States and a Confederacy strong enough to stand on its own with French help. Losing time by failing to consolidate their Mexican base, the French in effect gave time to the Mexicans to organize and to the US — who then beat the Confederates at Gettysburg — and showed Napoleon III that the South lacked enough force to be an equal partner in a combined alliance with France.

The French plan had a fine logic to it: establish a power base made of French soldiery and capital, Mexican landowners and the Catholic church, aid the Confederates and move north to split the US in two and possibly reclaim the lost Louisiana territory. For as long as the French stayed in Mexico that strategy played out and the only engagements the California State Militia cavalry ever had was with the French and Mexicans in the Arizona desert — fending off the French cavalry and escorting the fugitive government of Sonora to safety on the American side of the border.

Had Laurencez won the day, on May 5, 1862, the French would have been able to carry out their strategy when the US was at its weakest point against the Confederacy. If the US had had to face a southern army equipped with French artillery and other weapons, backed by a French navy guarding blockade runners bringing war supplies to the south, the north would have lost the war and the country with it — US strategy depended on strangling the south’s supplies until they couldn’t continue fighting.
So, the Mexican victory over the French at Puebla is really a Union Civil War victory bought for Uncle Sam by a guerrilla leader of a Mexican peasant army that took a beating and stampeded its cattle at some of the finest troops on the planet. So on May 5, be sure to hoist a Cerveza, and maybe some Yankee whiskey, in honor of those who helped save our nation. God knows, they earned the toast.

Viva Mexico!

2 Comments For This Post

  1. Richard e Hill Says:

    Mexico Independence: An Intoxicating Experience

    Exotic drugs, pharmaceuticals, alcohol, tobacco and the like; pale in comparison to freedom as an addiction. Just one sip of this metaphorical elixir creates a life risking craving.

    “Long live independence! Long live America! Away with bad government!” On 16 September 1810 Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla aka el Cura, or Father Hidalgo shouted “el Grito”, the words of protest in Dolores, Guantajuato against the imperialist control of Spain over Mexico; the Revolution effectively began, ending on the 21st of September 1821. Iterations of this utterance are reprised at 11:00 PM on the 15th of September to commemorate the independence of the Republic of the United States of Mexico. Aligned with patriots including Allende, Aldama, and Abasolo the eleven year battle for freedom ensued although Father Hidalgo was a tragically betrayed casualty in 1811. Despite his early demise during the conflict, he is recognized as the Father of Mexico as George Washington is in the United States.

    Cinco de Mayo? This festive day is generally celebrated in the Southwestern United States and tourist areas of Mexico; this is not an official holiday in Mexico. The 5th of May marks the pivotal battle of Puebla in the French and Mexican War. The provenance of Cinco de Mayo is the French occupation of Mexico, aftermaths of the Mexican-American War (1846-48; remember the ill-fated Alamo?), the Mexican Civil War (1858) and the Reform Wars (1860). After these conflicts the Mexican Treasury was almost bankrupt, therefore President Benito Juarez suspended foreign debt repayment for two years with a promise to resume payments in 1863. France, Britain and Spain sent armadas to Veracruz to demand reimbursements. Britain and Spain renegotiated, compromised and withdrew. France led by Napoleon III opportunistically established the Second Mexican Empire; this was overthrown with Emperor Maximilian executed in 1867. The course of history in the United States could have been altered had France succeeded and subsequently aligned with the South in the United States Civil War. Consider France in the Southwest, Britain in the North and littoral areas, and angered Native Americans in the West —- the Union would have indeed been periled.

    The elixir of freedom was first tasted by Mexico in 1570 when Gaspar Yanga, an African nobleman from the region currently known as Nigeria was enslaved to work in the plantations of Veracruz. Yanga escaped; allied with other slaves and the oppressed indigenous to mount an insurrection against controlling Spain. In 1609 after 39 years of conflict, land was ceded to the Yanga group. The town of Yanga (in 1618 the treaty was signed and by 1630 the town of San Lorenzo de los Negros de Cerralvo was established) in Veracruz is named for the people historically acknowledged as “the first free people of the Americas”.

    In the 20th Century with revolutionaries Villa and Zapata, and overcoming political empires; Mexico still drinks from freedom’s cup.

  2. gill Says:

    Imagining a glass half full…

    “Consider France in the Southwest, Britain in the North and littoral areas, and angered Native Americans in the West —- the Union would have indeed been periled.”

    … but imagine the “tech-cusine-spiritual” mix that might have come of that.



Leave a Reply

Advertise Here
Advertise Here