Hence why I have them wait until Maxmillian dies, as that gives them time to both rebuild and expand their influence, while presenting themselves as a stabilizing force against the chaos sure to come otherwise.
Except that Maximilian could easily live another 30+ years by which time if he's been successful then Mexico would be a lot more stable than OTL and his dynasty is going to be generally accepted - leaving aside the possible case of if at a late point he rejects the Iturbide heir at a late stage or something else goes pear-shaped at the wrong time.
Which underlines my point about the C.S.A. being the only real option for Mexico; the U.S. has no leverage.
Actually it doesn't. There's a world of distance between a defeated US ~1865 not being able/willing to intervene to prevent Maximilian cementing his power and that same US some time later having no influence on the CSA they share a very long border with.
Plus even if the CSA stays highly centralised as you suggest and put in massive efforts to industrize its still going to have less population and industry that the north. Unless just about everything goes wrong for the north and it ends up the sort of unstable, dysfunctional mess that many predict the south would have been.
France will still pull out in 1866 because of the Prussian victory in the Six Weeks War. Maximillian had already achieved control over all but the Northern Borderlands of Sonora by the Spring of 1865, but his problem was that he wasn't the one doing it; the French Army was.
It might not be a total pull out since Napoleon III meant underestimated Prussia anyway. Here there is no/much less driver from the US.
Maximilian only arrived in late May 64 so he has had very little time to do anything yet. With a bit more time and success he could get a more secure government, especially without that initial opposition from the US which here isn't able to make practical.
Is that why the British intervened against Brazil during its land grabs?
Which ones are you thinking of?
This is called a cop out; you are expected in a debate to defend your premise.
No its called frustration at your double standards.
The circumstances are the same up until 1865; Maxmillian not only offered amnesty, but instituted liberal policies on land reforms, religious freedom, and voting rights. This only served to alienate the Conservatives from his reign.
No their not. We have no idea when things change in the CW but events are changing north of the Rio Grande as well. By the time Maximilian arrived OTL the south was already winning the war so its hostility to his regime is going to have teeth at a fairly early stage in the future. Here that isn't the case.
Also while Maximilian's policies upset some of the right it also drew the loyalty of a number of Mexicans.
See above; if Juarez would not make peace in this situation, why would he otherwise? If he did, how exactly does this stabilize Maxmillian given Juarez had been reduced to an insignificant warlord?
Well one obvious factor is that Juarez can't rely on US support here and will know it by the time that the offer is made.
The first bit is historical fact, I'm sorry you find me dismissing your handwaving as anything but requiring you to actually substantiate your argument. As for the rest, that entirely makes my point for me; why is it you see it as possible for the French backed Imperials to succeed yet not the Confederates? It is a double standard on your part.
It was OTL but isn't here. That's what AH is about after all. The 2nd, well as you admitted the French succeeded in OTL.
There's a difference between a regime that is based in Mexico with broad support, which is the basis of a Maximilian succeeds scenario after all and a foreign neighbour seeking to take over the country. Especially with the passed bad history Mexico has with its northern neighbour - and the CSA will fulfill this role far more than the rump US will. Not to mention issues of religion and slavery.
Taking this argument at face value, what exactly does that say about your contention of a stable Imperial Mexican government, given it would be exactly "dependent on foreign forces to maintain" its rule?
That's your opinion not mine. As I've said from the start I'm assuming that Maximilian obtains his aim of getting a liberal monarchy with broad support. Having the French stay there indefinately would fail.
No, not by any of note in the last 30 years; you're cryptic and undefined on this because of the lack of evidence to back your position. The actual history of the United States shows how correct I am on this, in that wars furthered the trend towards centralized power, rather than against it.
No I'm not being cryptic at all. I'm talking of the
USCW site., which I know your been on the AH pages in the past.
They undoubtedly would have considerable railway connections between themselves and Mexico from 1865 to 1875 developed, along with a potent Navy. As for the railways themselves, yes they were profitable and standardization schemes would increase their capacity; the C.S.A. actually did envision much greater railway development post war.
That's an assumption on your part. It's probable that there's a line to the Mexican border in the east but would there be much market for anything else? Something into the New Mexico/Arizona area possibly to secure the CSA claims to the region and exploit any mineral wealth discovered there.
Navies are very expensive, especially in a period of drastic technological change. Its going to be a big task for the CSA to not only spend a hell of a lot on development but also on a large and powerful army and also a modern navy, especially one for offensive action. If it does then expect both the US and UK to have reacted. Its not going to have California as that's a free state pre-war so it won't have a supportable Pacific base either, even if its managed to grab an island somewhere.
https://civilwartalk.com/forums/what-if-discussions.90/