"US Army interventions in Mexico 1849-1911" Topic
21 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the 19th Century Discussion Message Board Back to the Mexican-American Wars Message Board
Areas of Interest19th Century
World War One
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Showcase Article The first aerial ship proper for my Turks.
Featured Workbench Article Mardaddy has an adventure with two Victorian science-fiction vessels.
Featured Profile Article The Editor is invited to tour the factory of Simtac, a U.S. manufacturer of figures in nearly all periods, scales, and genres.
Featured Book Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
| Lilian | 25 Dec 2025 4:07 p.m. PST |
chronology about others forgotten US Army interventions in Mexico between the end of the Mexican War and the Mexican Revolution July 1861
invasion of the town of La Resurrección, Nuevo León, by American soldiers searching for blacks salves, who threatened the inhabitants to destroy the town Under the pretext that Apache tribes were causing serious damage to American and Mexican landowners along the border, the Ulysses S. Grant administration requested permission from Juárez in 1869 for U.S. troops to pursue the Native Americans into Mexican territory. Juárez refused to grant it, "but ordered the governors of the border states to cooperate with the American forces." This ambiguous decision facilitated the incursions across the Mexican border. The American government ordered General Edward O. C. Ord to invade Mexican territory in pursuit of savage Indians or "wrongdoers." The order, given by President Hayes, had passed through the office of General Sherman, Secretary of War. The United States had attempted in January of 1871, April of 1875, and July of the same year to sign an agreement for the troops of both nations could cross the border. Mexico refused to sign it. The order to General Ord was, in reality, a threat. Newspapers of the time considered war imminent.
Ambassador Foster demanded strict border surveillance from the Mexican government. He claimed that Indians and cattle rustlers were causing serious losses to his country's ranchers. The Mexican Foreign Ministry refuted his arguments. The United States press spread false news and contributed to creating images of savagery that justified only military repression by the U.S. Army. In reality, Mexican ranchers were victims of cattle rustlers and soldiers from the U.S. forts established in Texas. The testimony that clarified the situation was that given by Governor Shepherd to General Whipple of the Missouri Division. Shepherd was returning from a long trip through Chihuahua and witnessed the peaceful life of thousands of Tarahumara. Regarding the depredations, he made an accusation that undoubtedly implicated Evarts: "These Indians—the savages—are not only belligerent and warlike, but they have also been armed by our government with rifles of the finest patents and greatest effectiveness… It is impossible for Mexicans to resist, because they are easily hunted down with needle guns and Winchesters, being so poorly armed that their lives and interests are in constant and imminent danger." The Indians thus armed, Shepherd said, had been brought from a reservation to the border regions. "It is surprising," he continued, "that the Mexican government does not demand from the American authorities not only protection from the constant and terrifying devastations suffered by its subjects, but also compensation for the damages." Shepherd's statements coincided with the reports from Governor Luis Terrazas. The measured actions of Generals Jerónimo Treviño and Hipólito Charles briefly halted the invasions. Perhaps what Lázaro Gutiérrez de Lara wrote about Díaz's policies during those years is true: "…The popular revolt [discontent among the peasants provoked armed rebellions] was imminent, but at that precise moment President Hayes, as if acting in collusion with Porfirio Díaz, ordered General Ord to march at the head of his troops and invade Mexico. This was enough to reduce the people to the necessary submission." 1873
May 17th
assault agaisnt the settlements of Lipan, Mezcalero, and Kickapoo Indians by soldiers under General McKenzie near Piedras Negras. These peaceful communities were adversaries of the Apaches.
May 21st
Invasion by soldiers under General McKenzie. Burning of a Kickapoo village. Apprehension of the women and children. Theft of horses. 1875 December
invasion near Matamoros by US troops
Assault by soldiers under the command of Captains McNelly and Randlet in San Miguel Camargo the 19th 1876
Threat to the population of Matamoros, Tamaulipas, by
US Cavalry squadrons
March 27th
Cannon fire against the population of Nuevo Laredo, by a battery under the command of Lieutenant Saxton. 1877
April 3rd
Invasion of Piedras Negras by soldiers under the command of Colonel Schafter.
June 1st
President Rutherford B. Hayes's order to invade Mexican territory in pursuit of Indians and "wrongdoers"
June 17th
Invasion at several border points by soldiers under the command of General McKenzie
November 21st
New invasion of Piedras Negras by soldiers under the command of Schafter.
November 29th
Invasion of the town of Jiménez by troops under the command of Lieutenant John L. Bullis. 1878
July 1st
Invasion, looting, and destruction of houses and sown fields in Remolino (Múzquiz) by 1,500 soldiers from the three branches of the Army
New invasion against Jiménez, by soldiers under the command of Captain McNelly, and the arrest of the Mexican judge for the capture of two (Mexican) guides who were serving the United States Army in its armed incursions.
August 16th
New invasion against Jiménez, by forces under the command of Lieutenant Young. Siege of the town. 1879
April
US troops, from Fort Bayard, invaded Mexican territory, occupying the town of Ascensión and marching to Janos. Their excuse was "their desire to see these populations."
September 22nd
A force estimated at 600 cavalry soldiers invades the Chihuahua border, claiming to be in pursuit of Apache Indians
October 5th & 6th
Soldiers under the command of Lieutenant Taylor invade the Mexican border, in pursuit of Apaches. 1880
Invasion of the locations known as El Lucero and Cantares, Chihuahua, by US troops
February
A mounted company, under the command of Lieutenant Morey, advances into Mexico as far as the Sierra de La Candelaria. 1881
May
Invasion of US troops under the command of Lieutenant Bullís, near Las Vacas
November
Invasion of the Sonora border by troops under the command of Lieutenant Gardey. 1882
January
Troops of the U.S. 4th Regiment, under the command of Lieutenant MacDonald, invade Mexico. The Mexican commander in Janos apprehended MacDonald.
July
A military force, under the command of Colonel William Ross, invaded Mexican territory, encamping near Janos. General Bernardo Reyes surrounded the force, disarmed them, and sent the US soldiers back to their country. PDF link |
35thOVI  | 25 Dec 2025 4:49 p.m. PST |
Ok Mexican incursions into the U.S. involve historical military actions, like Pancho Villa's 1916 raid, and ongoing issues with drug cartels and irregular crossings, with recent reports of cartels using sophisticated methods, sometimes leading to violent confrontations, blurring lines between criminal activity and sovereignty violations, though not typically state-sponsored. These incidents range from well-known historical raids to modern-day smuggling by heavily armed criminal groups, often described as quasi-military forces, challenging U.S. border control.
Historical Military Incursions
Pancho Villa Expedition (1916): The most famous example, Pancho Villa led hundreds of men across the border to raid Columbus, New Mexico, killing 17 Americans and prompting the U.S. Punitive Expedition into Mexico.
Early Border Clashes: In the mid-1800s, disputes over territory, such as the Mesilla Valley, led to Mexican troops moving into areas claimed by the U.S., leading to tense standoffs resolved diplomatically or through purchases like the Gadsden Purchase.
Modern Incursions & Cartel Activity
Cartel Militias: Powerful drug cartels operate with paramilitary-like forces, drones, and advanced weaponry, controlling territory in Mexico and engaging in illicit activities across the border, sometimes described as "invading" U.S. territory.
Smuggling & Violence: Cartels smuggle drugs and people, leading to confrontations with U.S. law enforcement, with documented instances of cartel members engaging in violence and threats against U.S. agents.
Mexican Military Involvement (Allegations): There have been reports and concerns about Mexican military personnel crossing the border, though the U.S. has lacked concrete evidence of official military involvement in drug smuggling, notes this NBC News article from 2006.
Unusual Incidents: In late 2025, Mexican Marines removed U.S. Department of Defense signs placed on a disputed beach area in Mexico, highlighting sovereignty complexities, according to this YouTube video.
Nature of Incursions
Intentional vs. Accidental: Some crossings are accidental, but many are deliberate, involving criminal organizations seeking profit, posing significant security challenges.
Sovereignty Challenges: These incursions, whether by historical armies or modern cartels, represent violations of U.S. sovereignty, straining diplomatic and security relations. |
| 35thOVI | 25 Dec 2025 4:51 p.m. PST |
And Native American "incursions" from Mexico into the U.S. primarily involved groups like the Apache, Comanche, Yaqui, and Kickapoo, driven by conflict with Spanish/Mexican authorities, search for resources, or traditional nomadic patterns, particularly intense during the 19th-century Apache-Mexico Wars, leading to displacement, raids, and eventual establishment of communities in the U.S. Southwest and beyond, highlighting complex indigenous borderlands dynamics before and after the Mexican-American War.
Key Groups & Movements:
Apache & Comanche: Known for extensive raids (Comanche War Trail) into Mexico for livestock and captives, often crossing the Rio Grande, fueling conflict with both Mexican and U.S. forces.
Yaqui: Fled conflict with Mexican forces in the late 19th century, establishing significant communities in Arizona (Nogales, Tucson, Guadalupe) and other U.S. states.
Kickapoo: Migrated seasonally across the border, establishing temporary camps and eventually gaining U.S. citizenship for some members, particularly the "Traditional Kickapoo Tribe of Texas," notes the Milwaukee Public Museum.
Historical Context:
Colonial Era to 19th Century: Indigenous groups frequently crossed the borderlands, often predating formal boundaries, engaging in trade, raiding, and diplomacy, which became more complex as U.S. expansion pressed south.
Post-Mexican-American War (1848): The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo complicated things, with the U.S. agreeing to protect Mexico from Native attacks, but tensions remained high due to ongoing raids and U.S. citizens inciting rebellions.
Apache-Mexico Wars: Intense warfare from the 1830s to 1850s drove many Apaches north into the U.S., coinciding with U.S. Indian Wars.
Nature of "Incursions":
Economic & Survival: Raids for resources (horses, captives, livestock) and flight from persecution were major drivers.
Political: Some movements were tied to broader conflicts, with tribes caught between Mexican and American pressures, as seen in the Gadsden Purchase era.
Migration: Permanent migrations occurred as groups sought refuge, establishing new communities in the U.S..
These movements weren't always "invasions" but often traditional movements and responses to political instability, resource scarcity, and warfare on both sides of the evolving border. |
| 35thOVI | 25 Dec 2025 4:52 p.m. PST |
Not to be outdone
Why Did the French Invade Mexico in 1861? | History Hit
French incursions into Mexico primarily refer to the Second French Intervention (1862-1867), where Napoleon III invaded to establish a monarchical puppet state under Austrian Archduke Maximilian I, aiming to expand French influence and exploit resources while the U.S. was distracted by its Civil War, but Mexican resistance, supported by the U.S. post-Civil War, led to French withdrawal and Maximilian's execution.
Background & Causes:
Debt Crisis: Mexico, post-civil war, suspended foreign debt payments, prompting Britain, Spain, and France to intervene.
Napoleon III's Ambitions: He saw an opportunity to expand the French Empire, counter U.S. power, and install a friendly monarchy in resource-rich Mexico.
Mexican Political Division: Conservative Mexicans, defeated by Liberals, sought French aid for a monarchy.
The Intervention (1862-1867):
Initial Invasion (1861): The tripartite forces landed at Veracruz; Britain and Spain withdrew, but France continued.
Battle of Puebla (May 5, 1862): A surprising Mexican victory that delayed the French, inspiring the Cinco de Mayo holiday.
Establishment of the Second Mexican Empire (1864): French forces captured Mexico City, and Maximilian I was installed as Emperor.
French Withdrawal (1866-1867): U.S. pressure after its Civil War and growing French costs led to Napoleon III ordering a pullout.
Outcome:
Execution of Maximilian: Left unsupported, Maximilian was captured and executed by Mexican Republicans in 1867, ending the short-lived empire.
In essence, it was a significant, albeit failed, attempt by France to establish a foothold in the Americas, ultimately thwarted by Mexican nationalism and growing American influence.
|
| 35thOVI | 25 Dec 2025 4:54 p.m. PST |
French support for the Confederacy from Mexico involved Emperor Napoleon III's plan to use a puppet government in Mexico as a base to supply the South with arms and cotton, challenging U.S. power; however, this failed due to fierce Mexican resistance (like at the Battle of Puebla) and Union pressure, which ultimately led to France withdrawing from Mexico and abandoning its Confederate ambitions.
Napoleon III's Ambitions
Weakened U.S.: Napoleon III saw the U.S. Civil War as an opportunity to expand French influence in North America, countering American republicanism and its growing power.
Buffer State: He aimed to establish a French-controlled empire in Mexico to serve as a buffer against the U.S., creating a "Latin" stronghold.
Economic Gain: A friendly Mexico could provide cotton (scarce due to Union blockades) in exchange for French weapons and artillery, bolstering the Confederacy.
French Intervention in Mexico (1862-1867)
Invasion: France invaded Mexico in 1862, eventually installing Archduke Maximilian of Austria as Emperor.
Mexican Resistance: Strong Mexican nationalist resistance, particularly the unexpected victory at the Battle of Puebla on May 5, 1862, delayed French control.
Stalled Plans: By the time France gained significant control, Union victories (like Vicksburg) had cut off Confederate access to western ports, making the arms-for-cotton scheme less viable.
U.S. Pressure & French Withdrawal
Diplomacy & Military Threat: U.S. Secretary of State Seward favored diplomacy, but Union generals like Grant and Sheridan threatened military action against French forces near the Rio Grande.
Strategic Shift: Growing tensions with Germany and strained resources forced Napoleon III to withdraw French troops from Mexico in 1867, abandoning the empire and ending potential Confederate support.
In essence, France's Mexican venture was a strategic attempt to aid the Confederacy, but strong Mexican resistance and U.S. resolve prevented it from significantly impacting the Civil War's outcome. |
| Lilian | 25 Dec 2025 5:07 p.m. PST |
drug cartels? Napoléon III??
Why you don't remain in the modern warfare area to insult the rest of the world and invade Venezuela Canada I don't care at all of this series of four off topics posts
if you are not interested by the thread GO YOU WAY INSTEAD OF TROLLING HERE AND LET THIS AREA FOR PEOPLE INTERESTED IN HISTORY |
| 35thOVI | 25 Dec 2025 5:12 p.m. PST |
No purpose to the thread that I can see other than to paint the U.S. as a colonial aggressor. But we can paint any country as one anywhere in the world. Without a knowledge of incursions of all sides involved, US, Mexico, Indian nations who accepted no borders, foreign powers involved in Mexico, the support to the Confederacy, German involvement. Showing those of one side is useless. As anything other than more US bashing. |
| 35thOVI | 25 Dec 2025 5:23 p.m. PST |
Lilian You have to understand why all sides did what they did and why. Even the raids of Indians into the U.S. from Mexico. Same as if I posted only the French incursions into North Africa or South East Asia. There is always context. If you had started this thread as potential for wargaming scenarios of little known incursions, I would not have gotten involved. But the whole posts reads as "evil US subjugating innocents". Ain't no one innocent, we are all dirty, red, white, black, brown and yellow. |
| robert piepenbrink | 25 Dec 2025 6:39 p.m. PST |
"Forgotten?" There are movies and TV shows about Col. Ranald MacKenzie's "incursions." They look rather different from the perspective of the Texan victims of Apache raiding parties. "Under the pretext" suggests that Apache raids were not the real reason. Perhaps you can suggest what you believe the real reason to have been, given that the US at no point after the Gadsden Purchase attempted to alter the border, and supported Mexico against European incursions? |
| Lilian | 25 Dec 2025 7:35 p.m. PST |
I you were really interested you would have paid attention that the source is MEXICAN, maybe it is unbelievable but them also have the right to write about their own history
However I only translated the references to US Army interventions with, if possible, the details given by the author about units strength date locations, THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD, I let the list of others grievances concerning US civilians on the mexican border (nor the unexpected but off topic references to the US support to France for its Army and Navy in Mexico in the years 1860' nor post-Gadsden dream to annex under Buchanan in 1858 Baja California, Sonora and Chihuahua) |
| Tango01 | 25 Dec 2025 9:15 p.m. PST |
The United States Armed Forces and the Mexican Punitive Expedition
link
Armand
|
| TimePortal | 25 Dec 2025 9:39 p.m. PST |
I have no problem discussing other Anglo actions in Mexico. I wrote several articles about Filibuster operations in the 1850s and earlier actions by Anglos with Mexican support even earlier |
| Porthos | 26 Dec 2025 3:19 a.m. PST |
"As anything other than more US bashing." There is a Dutch saying: "wie kaatst, moet de bal verwachten" (perhaps Google Translate can help). It means something like "every action can result in reaction". With the now sitting US Government with a President claiming countries that are not American nor want to be (Canada, Greenland) and killing people in small boats calling them "drugs smugglers" without giving any proof – I just mention SOME facts, not all ! – you should not be surprised if some comments seem to be unfriendly. I do however like the original post that offers lots of interesting scenarios. So thank you, Lilian and do not worry if there are some not too reasonable comments. We Europeans are certainly nothing positive expecting from the US Government (which fortunately is not the same as "US people" !) anymore. And can we now go back to talking about miniatures ? |
| korsun0 | 26 Dec 2025 3:25 a.m. PST |
I have to admit I saw this as nothing more than a list of possible scenarios. |
| 35thOVI | 26 Dec 2025 4:12 a.m. PST |
Never listed as possible scenarios. Just a list of US incursions into Mexico. I know a bit about the Mexican author in question. He is a Socialist. Not surprising in itself, especially in Mexico. He dislikes, some might say, hates the U.S. Just one quote: "Yes. The United States is the greatest economic and military power in the West. Our neighbor is the most militarized force in the hemisphere. For a country like ours, it is absolutely suffocating to have you on our border. The analogy that we can establish is: The Soviet Union is to Poland what the United States is to Mexico." Like this one about US aid from the Regan administration and an earthquake. "Yes. This is the sort of inappropriate interference that just cannot be tolerated. That cannot be tolerated even from a Boy Scout, let alone from a U.S. ambassador. This was a clear sign of American arrogance. But we don't criticize the aid that the American people sent us. We are not ungrateful. Medicine that is given to those who are sick can never be ill-intentioned. And the Mexican people appreciate it. A vaccination has no nationality the moment it is injected into your arm." Like so many: "give us your money, but keep your mouth shut" Why was he upset; "I think there are two problems with the American aid given us. One is that there was an exaggerated amount of publicity given to what Nancy Reagan personally brought on her trip--$1 million. Another was the intervention of your ambassador, John Gavin, who went around making inspections and offering statements to the press as if he were one of our government authorities." Yes, you viewed Reagan than, just like Trump today. 😏 Another brilliant prediction from this now dead author. " I do not believe things will change substantially by the year 2000. But in the next 15 years, if the Mexican people achieve certain democratic objectives, no doubt they will be better off, for they will have a better nation. And there is no doubt in my mind that they will achieve this, because nobody can stand forever the sort of misery and humiliation that marks the present. And this will happen whether the United States likes it or not." Yes Mexico is a shining light of a government controlled by Narcos, a people living in fear of Narcos, the same poverty that existed before the U.S. and since. Before the U.S., Spain and France, the indigenous of Mexico subjugated each other, sacrificed each other on altars to their Gods by were cutting their hearts out and were enslaving each other. Lastly, this is not Llian's first rodeo of US bashing on TMP. "Don't pee on me and tell me it's rain" 😉 |
| nickinsomerset | 26 Dec 2025 5:23 a.m. PST |
"Lastly, this is not Llian's first rodeo of US bashing on TMP", you naughty, naughty Americans! Tally Ho! |
| 35thOVI | 26 Dec 2025 6:41 a.m. PST |
Ahh yes. "you naughty, naughty Americans!" 🙂 Yes!! The Evileeeee US…… The Scourge of Carpathia, the Sorrow of Moldavia. 😢 "who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it." Maybe they should just use the holy hand grenade of Antioch. "And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this thy hand grenade, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.' And the Lord did grin. And the people did feast upon the lambs, and sloths, and carp, and anchovies, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and fruit bats, and large chulapas. And the Lord spake, saying, 'First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.' "Just not needed!!" Until we are….. again. 😉 |
| nickinsomerset | 26 Dec 2025 11:09 a.m. PST |
35thOVI, precisely, Tally Ho! |
| robert piepenbrink | 26 Dec 2025 1:27 p.m. PST |
"…the source is MEXICAN, maybe it is unbelievable but the[y] also have the right to write about their own history." Indeed they do--at least outside of those portions of the world where one is subject to prosecution for "offensive" writing. That said, SCENARIO writing is not just grievance-mongering, but involves forces, objectives and terrain. Even if I had US cavalry, Apaches, Mexican civilians and a Mexican army on my shelves, nothing here gets me anywhere. I'd be much better off with a selection of old movies--several of which are based on these "forgotten" incidents--and my DVDs of MacKenzie's Raiders. Actually, I'd be better off with old Robert E. Howard western short stories. "Two-gun Bob" was well aware of cattle-rustling working both ways. |
| Lilian | 26 Dec 2025 3:26 p.m. PST |
this Mexican author has forgotten
Bagdad 1866 January 5th & 6th
when company D of the 118th US Colored Infantry Regiment crossed the border right in the middle of a civil war between Juaristas liberals and Imperial conservatives more serious (for the relationships between both States not the people and tribes concerned of course) than nebulous hot pursuits and punitives raids by US Cavalry against Apaches and Comanches we were not very far sometimes from skirmishes or worst between US and Mexican Armies below US Army on the Mexican Border: a historical perspective
PDF link October 1855 Captain James H. Callahan and the Burning of Piedras Negras
the United States and Mexico might once again have been brought to the brink of war then it is the Mexican militia who crossed the border and took an US Army Fort…well it was empty
end of september 1859
To ensure the protection of American citizens in Brownsville, a Mexican militia force from Matamoros crossed the Rio Grande and occupied the vacant Fort Brown. It was a surprising turn of events indeed. A Mexican military force crossed over onto US soil and occupied a fort abandoned by the US Army
(…)
Colonel Ranald S. Mackenzie's Raid (4th US Cavalry Regiment)
Between 1873 and 1882, US Army contingents crossed the Mexican border more than 23 times.
(…)
To combat the growing violence, the new Commander of the Department of Texas, Brigadier General Edward O. C. Ord, called on one of his most trusted officers, Lieutenant Colonel William R. "Pecos Bill" Shafter. Shafter and the black soldiers of his 24th Infantry Regiment
(…)
Mackenzie and Shafter brought the situation to a head in June 1878 when they crossed the border and openly confronted the Mexican Army. With more than 1,000 men, the two commanders challenged the Mexican Army to stop their encroachment on Mexican soil. While its army tried twice to block the Americans, the Mexicans had no stomach for a fight and fled before contact could be made. Having embarrassed the Mexicans, the US Army returned to its side of the river nothing after 1882 again |
| robert piepenbrink | 26 Dec 2025 5:48 p.m. PST |
Actually, mostly not forgotten. There's only one McKenzie/MacKenzie on the Texas/Mexican border in this period--Ranald S. Brevet Major General in the ACW, Colonel afterward--41st Inf and later 4th Cavalry. He made BG in the regulars in 1882 and retired in 1884. So your Colonel Ranald S. Mackenzie is your previous source's "General McKenzie" and the 4th Cavalry's incursions are thus double-counted. I'd also like to note your Mexican source's description of Lipan and Mescalero as "adversaries of the Apaches." The Lipan and Mescalero ARE Apaches, nor would I apply the adjective "peaceful" to them in period. (I wouldn't apply it to Americans then or now, come to that. The Kickapoo might qualify.) There are any number of incidents in American history of which we are, or should be, ashamed. Border crossings in an area poorly controlled by either nation really don't make the list. This is just mud-slinging without enough information to create decent scenarios. Like to have a go at the Anglo-Scots border prior to 1603? |
|
