History Learner
Well-known member
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.
Again, there is nothing to suggest he would be able to stabilize his reign:
Shawcross’ book chronicles Maximilian’s multiple missteps: his liberalism won over some Juaristas but alienated the support of conservatives and the Catholic Church. Adopting the grandsons of Mexico’s first, equally unlucky emperor — Agustin de Iturbide, who ruled from 1822–1823 — mystified Mexicans.
By 1865, when Carlota visited the Yucatán, “The empire was so precarious that he couldn’t leave [with her],” Shawcross said. “He did go on a lot of tours. They were practical. He met the people; it was a chance to get to know the country. Critics said they were real tourists, on holiday away from Mexico City.”
In that year, Maximilian’s empire expanded as much as it ever would, but it was also the year of his hated Black Decree, ordering the execution of any Mexicans who bore arms against the imperial regime and refused to surrender, which generally meant a death sentence for Juaristas.
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.
We were discussing Mexico, not the C.S. so I'm at a loss as to what you're attempting to argue here?
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.
Undoubtedly the U.S. would remain larger in raw terms than the C.S.A. until the 20th Century. That does not, however, preclude the Confederacy emerging as a power in its own right just as Germany did to Britain in Europe, for example. By the 1910s, it's very likely the C.S.A. is stronger than all but the United States, the UK and Germany, based on the growth trends laid out by historians, to which I have cited.
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.
It would, indeed, be a total pullout and the C.S. could take the role of the U.S. quite easily:
The Union army also won the U.S. Civil War, and Mexico’s northern neighbor could suddenly pay attention to Mexico again. “They [now] wanted to invade Mexico and drive the French out,” Shawcross said.
Although Americans smuggled weapons to Juárez, in the end, Washington largely used diplomatic pressure. Meanwhile, mounting debts to France violated the terms of the agreement through which Napoleon supported Maximilian.
As the French forces withdrew, Maximilian tried to abdicate on several occasions before being dissuaded — first by Carlota, then by his few remaining supporters.
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.
Except, once again, there was nothing Maximillian could do to stabilize his reign. You continue to take it as a given when you cannot even articulate a mechanism through which to achieve those ends; I have the book by Shawcross, would you like a PDF copy?
Which ones are you thinking of?
The Paraguayan War, where Brazil took over all territories north of the Apa River (62,325 km2 in total, almost 80% the size of Great Britain itself).
No its called frustration at your double standards.
There are none here Steve, you advanced a claim and I asked you to back it up. That is normal in a debate.
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.
The South was winning in 1864? Or are you advancing a particular alternative scenario? Regardless, the C.S.A. existed up until 1865, so we can deduce no relative change to the position of the Empire; the buffer of the C.S.A. was there regardless. If you feel otherwise, please explain the mechanism instead of handwaving it away.
Also while Maximilian's policies upset some of the right it also drew the loyalty of a number of Mexicans.
They did not, no.
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.
He knew it when the offer was made in late 1863 and still refused, multiple times in fact.
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.
The French succeeded in pushing Juarez into the border regions of the Northwest, yes, but what happens when the French pull out? The Confederates can take their place and work to solve the issues raging because they already have connections with the local strongmen and thus the local elites.
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.
Except said regime never had broad support, while the C.S.A. had already managed to win over many of the powerbrokers of Northern Mexico in 1861-1862. I do not propose a hostile take over in the form of war, but rather a long ranging process extended out over a decade of slowly coming to control the military, economy and other state institutions of Mexico, while integrating the elite of the same into the C.S.A. structures. Rather many cases of this in history. As for religion and slavery, it would be useful to recall the Juarez Liberals were violently Anti-Clerical and Slavery was a non-issue in the North.
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.
Indeed that is your opinion and not mind, and it is why I've been showing that it is not based in historical reality. Again, it's clear you have an end goal in mind, but the problem is you cannot explain how to get there.
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.
I'm well aware of the site, what I was referring to you is you practice is referencing the opinions of unnamed others, rather than being able to actually explicitly cite historians or the like to base your opinions on. I've done you the respect of citing multiple different historians who have all rejected the thesis of State's Right and Small Government C.S.A. as an invention of the Lost Cause, rather than the reality of a centralized, modern state.
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.
It's not an assumption at all, Confederate planning is something I've cited to you before on the other website you've cited. To re-quote myself from there, I'd recommend you take a look at Colossal Ambitions: Confederate Planning for a Post–Civil War World by Adrian Brettle for one. The C.S.A. explicitly planned for it's own version of a Trans-Continental Railway to the Pacific, and what better outlet than Guaymas, Sonora? Tampico was also one of the main ports for the Confederacy during the Civil War.
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.
The Confederacy will be extremely wealthy off the back of cotton exports alone, and most likely would buy vessels off the UK itself until it reaches maturity in its own ship building industry; see the Laird Rams for example.