If the Confederacy wins the American Civil War, is the Union going to become revanchist over the next several decades and beyond?

[bintananth]

Cotton from the South wasn't anywhere near close to being as important as the grain and wool the British Isles got from the Union and Canada. Lose those and the people in the British Isles either starve or freeze.

Canadians were also very pro-Union and anti-slavery to the tune of about forty regiments worth of volunteers.

Any open intervention by the British on behalf of the Confederacy meant that the British Empire just lost Canada.

 

[History Learner]

Cotton from the South wasn't anywhere near close to being as important as the grain and wool the British Isles got from the Union and Canada. Lose those and the people in the British Isles either starve or freeze.

Canadians were also very pro-Union and anti-slavery to the tune of about forty regiments worth of volunteers.

Any open intervention by British on behalf of the Confederacy means that the British Empire loses Canada.

Except this is not true, starting with the grain situation. If U.S. supply was removed, the British would be eating exactly as they had in 1859....or 1866/1867. American Wheat was fairly cheap and was able to displace Russia at this time on the basis of that, but the UK wouldn't go hungry without it; there was no mass unrest in 1866-1867, after all.

As for the Canadians, the 1861 Trent Crisis is illustrative; Canadians stopped signing up and most deserted to home to join the militias to fight the United States. Country came first.

 

[bintananth]

Except this is not true, starting with the grain situation. If U.S. supply was removed, the British would be eating exactly as they had in 1859....or 1866/1867. American Wheat was fairly cheap and was able to displace Russia at this time on the basis of that, but the UK wouldn't go hungry without it; there was no mass unrest in 1866-1867, after all.

As for the Canadians, the 1861 Trent Crisis is illustrative; Canadians stopped signing up and most deserted to home to join the militias to fight the United States. Country came first.

You are being, shall we say, less than intelligent and your link doesn't work.

 

[History Learner]

You are being, shall we say, less than intelligent and your link doesn't work.

I think the fact that between the two of us, I'm the one actually able to provide citations for my reasoning speaks volumes as to the contrary. Instead of insults, why not address the arguments?

As for the link, here you go.

 

[Buba]

So, Good People, after the CSA wins what's the outlook in the North?
Do the women embroider not "Home Sweet Home", "Cleanliness is Godliness" or "We Shall Be Murdered In Our Beds" but "Dixie Must Die", "Union Forever" or "Yankee For Teh Win" tapestries to hang around the house?
Or, in part due to mass influx of fresh immigrants, the USA does not care?

 

[bintananth]

I think the fact that between the two of us, I'm the one actually able to provide citations for my reasoning speaks volumes as to the contrary. Instead of insults, why not address the arguments?

As for the link, here you go.

Oh, that bit of statics nonsense.

As for why I usually don't post citations in Civil War threads: I'm pretty sure no one who posts to TS has a copy of Harper's Pictorial History or has borrowed a copy from a library and actually read the whole damn thing from cover-to-cover. Giving you a page number means I have to pull out that monster and find it. It makes a several thousand page long engineering spec book look nice and exciting.

 

[stevep]

Except Maxmillian was rejected by the Liberals for being a Monarch and supported by foreigners, while he alienated the Conservatives during his reign; this is why his regime rapidly went down hill as soon as France started pulling support. France, in response to events in Europe, will still have to do so and that leaves no one but the C.S.A. for Max to turn to. We also don't have to speculate on this too much, given we know Vidaurri and other Northern Mexican strongman either directly offered to join the C.S.A. or considered it.

That's why I said "IF" he managed to broaden his support base, which isn't impossible. Albeit that he would be vulnerable during a transition period while he was switching support base.

Britain has no power projection capabilities and the U.S. from the start was opposed to Maxmillian, given they already supported the Liberals and his status as a foreign imposed Monarch was a humilation given it directly contravened the Monroe Doctrine and made him suspect by default. Meanwhile we know the C.S.A. was directly planning to slowly take over the economy of Mexico and thinking long term about it; Maxmillian has no leverage, and the Confederates have a lot of cash to throw around while the domestic elites are already estranged from the Monarch.

Britain actually has a hell of a lot of power projection if it chooses to use it. Which it could well do to prevent a successfully independent CSA expanding its power into northern Mexico. Especially if say the crisis comes when someone like Gladstone is in power.

Yes the US would suffer a loss of face if it accepted that the Monroe Doctrine was dead but if its in a rivalry with a successful CSA then how likely is it to cut off its nose to spite its face? Is a Max who has managed to liberalize his government and also gained the support of the bulk of the Mexican going to be seen as more of a threat to their interests than an expansionist CSA?

The CSA might have had plans but many people and groups have plans, whether or not their at all practical. Also your assuming that the south is very busy in internal investment for quite a while in building up the infrastructure needed to get the development your suggesting.

 

[stevep]

So, Good People, after the CSA wins what's the outlook in the North?
Do the women embroider not "Home Sweet Home" or "We Shall Be Murdered In Our Beds" but "Dixie Must Die", "Union Forever" or "Yankee For Teh Win" tapestries to hang around the house?
Or, in part due to mass influx of fresh immigrants, the USA does not care?

As always it would depend on the circumstances. There will be tension between the two nations at least for a decade or two and a lot would depend on the politics in the two nations, along with possibly other nations. If some hot-head on either side starts something or simply makes a lot of noise it could continue to poison relations for generations.

Both nations are going to have a considerably different environment than pre-war simply because the other exists. Which is probably going to have a negative effect in the short/medium term because of the increased military commitments. How it develops from them can vary immensely.

 

[Buba]

Considering how miniscule the US military was pre-1861 even a tenfold increase will not be a special burden. European countries with much larger militaries than the USA managed quite fine

 

[bintananth]

Considering how miniscule the US military was pre-1861 even a tenfold increase will not be a special burden. European countries with much larger militaries than the USA managed quite fine

A country the size of the US with a 16,000 man army practically doesn't even have an army.

If the Confederates win and things don't quickly go to "let bygones be bygones" neither side can protect all of the USA/CSA border from the other. The Eastern Front during WWII never got that long.

 

[History Learner]

That's why I said "IF" he managed to broaden his support base, which isn't impossible. Albeit that he would be vulnerable during a transition period while he was switching support base.

He tried historically and failed exactly this is why it wouldn't work. He attempted liberal policies to win over the opposition, which failed and alienated the conservatives.

Britain actually has a hell of a lot of power projection if it chooses to use it. Which it could well do to prevent a successfully independent CSA expanding its power into northern Mexico. Especially if say the crisis comes when someone like Gladstone is in power.

It also has reasons not to do so, as evidenced by it letting France do exactly this in the 1860s, as well as economic reasons, both from cotton and the C.S.A. stabilizing Mexico for trade.

Yes the US would suffer a loss of face if it accepted that the Monroe Doctrine was dead but if its in a rivalry with a successful CSA then how likely is it to cut off its nose to spite its face? Is a Max who has managed to liberalize his government and also gained the support of the bulk of the Mexican going to be seen as more of a threat to their interests than an expansionist CSA?

Yes, because of his Monarchial ties to Europe and the fact the U.S. is already supporting Juarez. Max tried exactly this historically and failed.

The CSA might have had plans but many people and groups have plans, whether or not their at all practical. Also your assuming that the south is very busy in internal investment for quite a while in building up the infrastructure needed to get the development your suggesting.

Hence why I cited the fact much of Northern Mexico was already offering to join the C.S.A. anyway, which shows the level of Confederate diplomatic influence already being achieved despite the ongoing war. The C.S.A. in 1861 already had the third highest level of railways per capita in the world and a GDP per capita that Germany and France didn't surpass until the 1880s; they were already more than developed enough and could build up internally while still projecting power internationally anyway. See the U.S. fighting Mexico itself in 1840s while it was still industrializing.

 

[WolfBear]

Considering how miniscule the US military was pre-1861 even a tenfold increase will not be a special burden. European countries with much larger militaries than the USA managed quite fine

The ACW along with both World Wars show just how quickly an industrialized country can quickly create and field an extremely massive and powerful military in just several years.

 

[bintananth]

The ACW along with both World Wars show just how quickly an industrialized country can quickly create and field an extremely massive and powerful military in just several years.

The Civil War also demonstrates just how quickly a capital ship can built and put into service.

USS Monitor was laid down 25 October 1861 and commissioned 25 February 1862. That's just four months to build a steam powered ironclad with two turret mounted 11" guns at a time when such things didn't exist.

 

[stevep]

Considering how miniscule the US military was pre-1861 even a tenfold increase will not be a special burden. European countries with much larger militaries than the USA managed quite fine

Because it was that minuscule it meant a minimum military cost and also the social and opportunity costs of a much larger number of men in the army. That was one reason why the US did so well economically as they had very low taxes, especially open ones. If much higher taxes are being demanded, coupled with the reduction of the tax/income base [with the south lost] and further taxes needed to pay war debts its going to be unpopular both locally and in terms of making the US less attractive to foreign investment. Also who's going to pay those taxes? The post-war period saw the beginning of the gilded age with taxation increasingly directed towards poorer people compared to the wealth of the very rich. This could become unpopular as well.

 

[stevep]

He tried historically and failed exactly this is why it wouldn't work. He attempted liberal policies to win over the opposition, which failed and alienated the conservatives.

In a drastically different situation. He might fail again or he might succeed. He was fairly secure and controlled much of the country until pressure from a victorious north [which isn't going to be there this time] prompted France to withdraw support.

It also has reasons not to do so, as evidenced by it letting France do exactly this in the 1860s, as well as economic reasons, both from cotton and the C.S.A. stabilizing Mexico for trade.

In the 1860's Britain wasn't willing to support France's intervention to impose a new government in Mexico. Assuming that government is now in place then it won't be happy about the CSA doing the same - except that their aim would be less imposing a new leader than open annexation. Plus such an action is not going to stabilize Mexico. If Max hasn't secured his position then such an intervention is going to upset the US and probably the UK as well.

Yes, because of his Monarchial ties to Europe and the fact the U.S. is already supporting Juarez. Max tried exactly this historically and failed.

Except that if he's succeeded in establishing a broadly accepted government and the north has lost the civil war then the situation is totally different. You think the north would be happy with the south massively expanding its territory, spreading slavery, securing a Pacific coastline and apparently greatly increasing its power? Plus if Max has won then Juarez is no longer an option for the US. He's quite possibly accepted an approach to join the new Mexican government.

Hence why I cited the fact much of Northern Mexico was already offering to join the C.S.A. anyway, which shows the level of Confederate diplomatic influence already being achieved despite the ongoing war. The C.S.A. in 1861 already had the third highest level of railways per capita in the world and a GDP per capita that Germany and France didn't surpass until the 1880s; they were already more than developed enough and could build up internally while still projecting power internationally anyway. See the U.S. fighting Mexico itself in 1840s while it was still industrializing.

Some of the strongmen in charge were expressing interests in the idea. Whether that would be the case with a more responsible central government and more importantly whether they could carry their populations with them would be a big issue.

There is a huge debate on how an independent CSA would develop in the event it won independence, even with minimal damage from the war as you know from the USCW site we're both been on. We simply don't know and many argue it was doomed to fail because of its narrow power structure and decentralized nature with the high importance given to states rights. I suspect it would be somewhere in the middle and assuming some adventuring things could strain things further.

Railways per capita is a poor measure given the vastly different measures between the US at the time and Europe. Some 11 million people, which is including slaves of course are spread bloody thinly across the CSA so its relatively easy for railways, which has to go a bloody long way to connect two centres in such a region to be vastly inflate this measure. Again did that GPD per capita include slaves? If not is about 35% less.

 

[bintananth]

Railways per capita is a poor measure given the vastly different measures between the US at the time and Europe. Some 11 million people, which is including slaves of course are spread bloody thinly across the CSA so its relatively easy for railways, which has to go a bloody long way to connect two centres in such a region to be vastly inflate this measure. Again did that GPD per capita include slaves? If not is about 35% less.

Europeans don't really understand just how large the US actually is. New York to Los Angeles is several hundred miles longer than London to Moscow.

 

[History Learner]

In a drastically different situation. He might fail again or he might succeed. He was fairly secure and controlled much of the country until pressure from a victorious north [which isn't going to be there this time] prompted France to withdraw support.

The situation is not at all drastically different, as the CSA controlled Texas historically until 1865. France will still pull out for the main reason it had historically, which was to re-focus on Europe to deal with the looming final wars of German reunification.

In the 1860's Britain wasn't willing to support France's intervention to impose a new government in Mexico. Assuming that government is now in place then it won't be happy about the CSA doing the same - except that their aim would be less imposing a new leader than open annexation. Plus such an action is not going to stabilize Mexico. If Max hasn't secured his position then such an intervention is going to upset the US and probably the UK as well.

Neither was Britain will to expend the resources to force the French out either, which is the point. Once France withdraws, if the alternative is chaos in Mexico, then a C.S. intervention would indeed be seen as a stabilizing influence, replacing the French. For this reason British merchants were supportive of the U.S. in the 1840s and why the UK as a whole was neutral after it pulled out of Mexico and left it to the French to deal with.

Except that if he's succeeded in establishing a broadly accepted government and the north has lost the civil war then the situation is totally different. You think the north would be happy with the south massively expanding its territory, spreading slavery, securing a Pacific coastline and apparently greatly increasing its power? Plus if Max has won then Juarez is no longer an option for the US. He's quite possibly accepted an approach to join the new Mexican government.

He's not going to achieve a broadly accepted government; the entire French intervention was predicated upon the loss of stability in Mexico between their Conservative and Liberal factions. To please one is to alienate the other, which is exactly what happened in Mexico at this time historically. You seem to have a premise, but are unable to explain how to get there. What policies or actions, in your opinion, could Maxmillian do different? Please be specific.

As for the U.S. I did speculate it could force another war.

Some of the strongmen in charge were expressing interests in the idea. Whether that would be the case with a more responsible central government and more importantly whether they could carry their populations with them would be a big issue.

There would be no responsible central government, and even if there was they wouldn't listen to it; Vidaurri had already broke free of control in the 1850s and remained so until deposed by French troops. As for their populations, they wouldn't be strongmen then would they?

There is a huge debate on how an independent CSA would develop in the event it won independence, even with minimal damage from the war as you know from the USCW site we're both been on. We simply don't know and many argue it was doomed to fail because of its narrow power structure and decentralized nature with the high importance given to states rights. I suspect it would be somewhere in the middle and assuming some adventuring things could strain things further.

Except that characterization of the C.S.A. has been rejected by Historians since at least the 1960s. In reality, the C.S. Government was the most centralized in North American history until the 1930s, had more civil agents under its control than the North and was highly structured towards having a powerful government; State's Rights arguments always fell by the wayside in reality in the C.S. Congress.

Railways per capita is a poor measure given the vastly different measures between the US at the time and Europe. Some 11 million people, which is including slaves of course are spread bloody thinly across the CSA so its relatively easy for railways, which has to go a bloody long way to connect two centres in such a region to be vastly inflate this measure. Again did that GPD per capita include slaves? If not is about 35% less.

Includes slaves for GDP per capita and if you don't want to do per capita railways, than do absolute numbers; it is still the 4th or 5th largest in absolute mileage.

 

[stevep]

The situation is not at all drastically different, as the CSA controlled Texas historically until 1865. France will still pull out for the main reason it had historically, which was to re-focus on Europe to deal with the looming final wars of German reunification.

Yes but its fighting a war and after that war is over the CSA has to rebuild and decide what its doing while any aggressive action is likely to cause a reaction from the north as well as possibly other powers.

A US that has been defeated and possibly lost any border with Mexico - or at least east of California - is unlikely to still be able to put that much influence on Mexico or France or possibly want to as instability inside Mexico works as you say in the interest of the CSA.

France will be under pressure to withdraw a couple of years later than OTL because of the growth of Prussian power but that gives more time and Max had already brought most of the country under his control by the OTL end of the USCW.

Neither was Britain will to expend the resources to force the French out either, which is the point. Once France withdraws, if the alternative is chaos in Mexico, then a C.S. intervention would indeed be seen as a stabilizing influence, replacing the French. For this reason British merchants were supportive of the U.S. in the 1840s and why the UK as a whole was neutral after it pulled out of Mexico and left it to the French to deal with.

It wasn't willing in 1861 but given that the CSA is a power seeking to expand slavery things could well be different when the CSA tries to make a land grab.

He's not going to achieve a broadly accepted government; the entire French intervention was predicated upon the loss of stability in Mexico between their Conservative and Liberal factions. To please one is to alienate the other, which is exactly what happened in Mexico at this time historically. You seem to have a premise, but are unable to explain how to get there. What policies or actions, in your opinion, could Maxmillian do different? Please be specific.

As for the U.S. I did speculate it could force another war.

Given your making broad assumptions I don't actually have to but will point out some points.
a) Max made overtones to a lot of the liberal leaders OTL and some came over to him. IIRC this included an approach to Juárez himself and offered to make him his prime minister. Under different circumstances its possible this might be accepted.
b) Especially since the north only had the ability to really aid Juárez after they won the war, by which time his supporters were confined to a relatively small area. Here the US isn't really in a position to do so.

There would be no responsible central government, and even if there was they wouldn't listen to it; Vidaurri had already broke free of control in the 1850s and remained so until deposed by French troops. As for their populations, they wouldn't be strongmen then would they?

The 1st bit is your assumption and necessary for the outcome you wish. As you say one of those strongmen was deposed by the French and with an imperial government that brings stability and decent treatment for all - the lack of which was the prime reason for the breakaways to gain support - the situation changes unfavorably for the rest. A strongman needs the population not to oppose him to any degree. Quite possible when he's seen as the least worst case, has local power and possibly is seen as someone who can be approached because he is local.

If there's a stable government which looks to provide a good government and the local strongman is now calling for annexation to the CSA then a lot of parameters changed. Note I'm not requiring that the local population overthrows him. Just that a loss of their support can make him a hell of a lot more vulnerable. If he's then dependent on foreign forces to maintain him that isn't going to go down well.

Except that characterization of the C.S.A. has been rejected by Historians since at least the 1960s. In reality, the C.S. Government was the most centralized in North American history until the 1930s, had more civil agents under its control than the North and was highly structured towards having a powerful government; State's Rights arguments always fell by the wayside in reality in the C.S. Congress.

By some but not by many others. We both know that from the USCW site you used to belong to. Plus what emergency powers a central government can claim - but isn't always able to enforce - in a war crisis aren't necessarily going to apply after the war ends. In fact there could be a reaction against such power.

Includes slaves for GDP per capita and if you don't want to do per capita railways, than do absolute numbers; it is still the 4th or 5th largest in absolute mileage.

Not surprising I point out given the low population density, considerable centralised wealth and large size of the region we're talking about. The CSA dwarfs both France and the German Confederation so to hold it together railways have to be long. How profitable they actually are in operation or how many customers and freight they carry might be other matters. Plus to support an invasion of Mexico they still have to extend those railways deep into Mexico or rely on naval superiority which any one of three powers could potentially challenge.

 

[History Learner]

Yes but its fighting a war and after that war is over the CSA has to rebuild and decide what its doing while any aggressive action is likely to cause a reaction from the north as well as possibly other powers.

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.

A US that has been defeated and possibly lost any border with Mexico - or at least east of California - is unlikely to still be able to put that much influence on Mexico or France or possibly want to as instability inside Mexico works as you say in the interest of the CSA.

Which underlines my point about the C.S.A. being the only real option for Mexico; the U.S. has no leverage.

France will be under pressure to withdraw a couple of years later than OTL because of the growth of Prussian power but that gives more time and Max had already brought most of the country under his control by the OTL end of the USCW.

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 wasn't willing in 1861 but given that the CSA is a power seeking to expand slavery things could well be different when the CSA tries to make a land grab.

Is that why the British intervened against Brazil during its land grabs?

Given your making broad assumptions I don't actually have to but will point out some points.

This is called a cop out; you are expected in a debate to defend your premise.

a) Max made overtones to a lot of the liberal leaders OTL and some came over to him. IIRC this included an approach to Juárez himself and offered to make him his prime minister. Under different circumstances its possible this might be accepted.

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.

b) Especially since the north only had the ability to really aid Juárez after they won the war, by which time his supporters were confined to a relatively small area. Here the US isn't really in a position to do so.

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?

The 1st bit is your assumption and necessary for the outcome you wish. As you say one of those strongmen was deposed by the French and with an imperial government that brings stability and decent treatment for all - the lack of which was the prime reason for the breakaways to gain support - the situation changes unfavorably for the rest. A strongman needs the population not to oppose him to any degree. Quite possible when he's seen as the least worst case, has local power and possibly is seen as someone who can be approached because he is local.

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.

If there's a stable government which looks to provide a good government and the local strongman is now calling for annexation to the CSA then a lot of parameters changed. Note I'm not requiring that the local population overthrows him. Just that a loss of their support can make him a hell of a lot more vulnerable. If he's then dependent on foreign forces to maintain him that isn't going to go down well.

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?

By some but not by many others. We both know that from the USCW site you used to belong to. Plus what emergency powers a central government can claim - but isn't always able to enforce - in a war crisis aren't necessarily going to apply after the war ends. In fact there could be a reaction against such power.

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.

Not surprising I point out given the low population density, considerable centralised wealth and large size of the region we're talking about. The CSA dwarfs both France and the German Confederation so to hold it together railways have to be long. How profitable they actually are in operation or how many customers and freight they carry might be other matters. Plus to support an invasion of Mexico they still have to extend those railways deep into Mexico or rely on naval superiority which any one of three powers could potentially challenge.

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.

 

[stevep]

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/