Malê Rising

[Ganesha]

Fantastic update, Jonathan. With the British creating domains everywhere and groups like the Nupe asking for British protection, the French have got to be starting to get worried. How will they respond?

There was very little direct crossover between Jainism and Islam after the 16th century and reign of Akbar, probably none at all. At this time, Jainism wasn't often viewed as a separate religion by most Indians. Even today, many Hindus view Jainism and Buddhism as merely wayward offshoots of Hinduism. Hindus as a matter of faith believe that all people are Hindus already, so it's very common to see dismissive attitudes towards already-similar faiths like Jainism. Any interaction between Jainism and Islam before Ahmad would have taken place through the lens of Hindu-Muslim relations.

Now, Ahmad himself was enough of a radical that it wouldn't be altogether implausible for him to adopt some Jainist beliefs. He believed, after all, that Krishna and Rama were Muslim prophets whose faith had been distorted over millennia, and Jainism's philosophies of complete non-violence probably would have appealed to him. Ahmad was well known for debating literally anyone who he came across - I can't find any record of him every debating a Jain scholar, but it's easy to make that happen in a timeline like yours. If he becomes friends with a Jain scholar and is influenced by him, it seems possible that he might adopt some of their practices. Influential Jains of the time included men like Shrimchad Rajchandra and Virchand Gandhi, both of whom were born well after your POD. I'm not sure if the butterflies would have really reached India by that time.

Cheers,
Ganesha

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

One of the problems with an earlier introduction and widespread use of quinine is earlier resistance ... and the chemical industry isnt up to making chloroquine yet, i dont suppose.

So we could have a situation where malaria goes away for a while, and then resurges two generations later, say.

[Kaiphranos]

Fascinating stuff, as always! I'm looking forward to Sokoto Republics III, IV, V, etc...

[Jonathan Edelstein]

Originally Posted by Future8

Wow. Two Imperial Domains in West Africa now. I wonder how many more Britain will get before decolonization begins.

Originally Posted by Ganesha

Fantastic update, Jonathan. With the British creating domains everywhere and groups like the Nupe asking for British protection, the French have got to be starting to get worried. How will they respond?

There will be one more Imperial Domain, and plenty of other colonies and princely states (as in India, now that princely-state status is the default for precolonial kingdoms, there will be lots of little ones that are folded into the colonial administration as well as a few big ones with actual governments).

For what it's worth, my basic model for Ilorin's continued modernization under British hegemony is Mysore, although there are obvious differences due to Ilorin's republican government and its more independent (although still subordinate) relationship to Britain.

The French are definitely worrying. The accession of Sokoto or the Nupe to the British empire doesn't bother them that much, as both are well outside France's sphere of influence, but the western Asante border, the Mossi kingdoms and Sierra Leone are all potential flashpoints, as is the Congo basin. As in OTL, the Scramble is giving rise to conflicting claims. And as in OTL, there are two potential ways to resolve them: talk or fight. I've mentioned that there will be an analogue to the Berlin Conference, but whether it will succeed remains to be seen.

Originally Posted by Ganesha

There was very little direct crossover between Jainism and Islam after the 16th century and reign of Akbar, probably none at all. At this time, Jainism wasn't often viewed as a separate religion by most Indians. Even today, many Hindus view Jainism and Buddhism as merely wayward offshoots of Hinduism. Hindus as a matter of faith believe that all people are Hindus already, so it's very common to see dismissive attitudes towards already-similar faiths like Jainism. Any interaction between Jainism and Islam before Ahmad would have taken place through the lens of Hindu-Muslim relations.

Now, Ahmad himself was enough of a radical that it wouldn't be altogether implausible for him to adopt some Jainist beliefs. He believed, after all, that Krishna and Rama were Muslim prophets whose faith had been distorted over millennia, and Jainism's philosophies of complete non-violence probably would have appealed to him. Ahmad was well known for debating literally anyone who he came across - I can't find any record of him every debating a Jain scholar, but it's easy to make that happen in a timeline like yours. If he becomes friends with a Jain scholar and is influenced by him, it seems possible that he might adopt some of their practices. Influential Jains of the time included men like Shrimchad Rajchandra and Virchand Gandhi, both of whom were born well after your POD. I'm not sure if the butterflies would have really reached India by that time.

That sounds reasonable. Shrimchad Rajchandra and Virchand Gandhi won't exist, but there will be people like them.

I don't envision Ahmad adopting Jainism fully, but as you say, I think some Jainist ideas, such as complete pacifism and the sanctity of all life, would fit well with the Belloist-influenced doctrines he has espoused in this timeline. And since he has also adopted Abacarist concepts of struggle and personal freedom, the Jain influence might lead him the same place it led Gandhi. There were Muslim satyagrahis in OTL, and this timeline will have more of them; there may not be a towering figure like Gandhi, but there will be several leaders who pioneer the movement jointly, and they will be both Hindu and Muslim.

Originally Posted by Dathi THorfinsson

One of the problems with an earlier introduction and widespread use of quinine is earlier resistance ... and the chemical industry isnt up to making chloroquine yet, i dont suppose.

So we could have a situation where malaria goes away for a while, and then resurges two generations later, say.

According to Wikipedia, chloroquine was discovered in the 1930s and first used as an antimalarial in the late 1940s. They certainly won't be making it in the 1880s, but by the time the malaria bug develops resistance to quinine, they might be up to it. Also, mosquito-control measures will keep the incidence down somewhat even if there's another outbreak.

If there is another epidemic, though, two generations after the introduction of quinine would be right around the time of decolonization, and might have political as well as public-health ramifications.

Originally Posted by Kaiphranos

Fascinating stuff, as always! I'm looking forward to Sokoto Republics III, IV, V, etc...

There will definitely be a third one: whether that's the one that will stick remains to be seen.

[The Sandman]

So what's our favorite Victorian-era supervillain Leopold II up to? His desire for a personal fiefdom probably hasn't been changed by the POD, and if the Congo is still a bone of contention between the powers he might well be able to manipulate himself into seeming like a reasonable compromise just as he did IOTL.

While this would of course be horrible for the Congo, the possibility that Belgium ends up on the wrong side of the Great War and Leopold gets a personal visit in Brussels from African regiments fills me with delicious schadenfreude.

And thanks for the nod; those books really are interesting, and they make me a bit disappointed that IOTL those crops still seem to be neglected or at least unavailable to the export market.

[Jonathan Edelstein]

Originally Posted by The Sandman

So what's our favorite Victorian-era supervillain Leopold II up to? His desire for a personal fiefdom probably hasn't been changed by the POD, and if the Congo is still a bone of contention between the powers he might well be able to manipulate himself into seeming like a reasonable compromise just as he did IOTL.

While this would of course be horrible for the Congo, the possibility that Belgium ends up on the wrong side of the Great War and Leopold gets a personal visit in Brussels from African regiments fills me with delicious schadenfreude.

We've kicked the Congo around a few times, to no certain conclusion. Leopold will no doubt have ambitions there, and may well establish an "international" front organization to explore and stake claims there (similar to what he did in OTL), but the other powers will try to keep him out, and they'll be in a somewhat stronger position than OTL. France has more of a presence in the Congo basin because of the Gabon-based creole trading network, which has led Britain, Portugal and the NDB to increase their own efforts. Thus, Leopold might not have such a free hand in exploring and making treaties with indigenous rulers, and might not be the default option to resolve competing great-power claims.

What I tentatively had in mind was that, after a period of competing claims and proxy skirmishes during the 1880s, France would take more of the Congo basin than OTL and that a minor power, possibly Portugal, would get the rest in return for agreeing to lease large parts of it to chartered companies of various nationalities. In effect, the Congo would become a concessionaire colony; Leopold might be among the concession holders, or he might not. This would be destined to work out as badly for the Congolese as the Free State of OTL, but it would be a multinational scandal.

I have to admit, though, that the idea of Leopold having a close personal encounter with an African regiment, preferably one with Abacarist officers, is pretty compelling.

Originally Posted by The Sandman

And thanks for the nod; those books really are interesting, and they make me a bit disappointed that IOTL those crops still seem to be neglected or at least unavailable to the export market.

I was actually surprised to find that many of the supposedly "lost" crops, such as pearl millet, were staples in parts of Africa. That isn't what I'd consider "lost" - but the books made a convincing case that they weren't being used to their full potential. And some of the crops were in fact lost, such as the udala or star apple which is collected in the wild but not really cultivated. Targeted breeding programs could probably do a good deal for these crops, although poor soil (endemic to much of Africa) will continue to be a problem.

Anyway, on a completely different subject: Some of you may have noticed the bummer ending of the last update, in which the workers of Zaria get control of their factories only to have to sell out within a few years. Part of the reason for this is that there are no banks in Adamawa, and that the only source of capital (other than moneylenders who charge rates of interest that a factory operating on slim margins can't meet) is private equity. To raise capital, or to meet shortfalls and cash-flow problems, the cooperatives have to sell equity ownership; in effect, they have to cannibalize themselves.

That raises the question of what attitude the Sahelians would have toward banking. The interest prohibition may not be as much of a problem as it would be in the here and now of OTL. Islamic banking as we know it is a mid-20th century invention which was tied in with the development of Pakistani nationalism. During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Muslims in India, Egypt and the Ottoman Empire were fine with European-style banks; people would occasionally condemn the usurers, but there was no large-scale movement for a different banking system.

On the other hand, the Sahelian labor movement takes its religion pretty seriously - it is, in fact, a religious movement - and even aside from that, populists through history haven't exactly considered banking a heroic activity. The bankers are from the same class as the industrialists, and by setting the terms of credit, they too could seize ownership of the cooperatives or force them into long-term debt servitude. The process would be slower than in the case of buyouts by private investors, but for many of them, it would end up in the same place. Ilorin has avoided this to some degree by putting the state in the position of banker, but the emirs of Sokoto and Adamawa won't be interested in following suit.

Some may come to agree with Marx that the problem is private property tout court, but I'd expect them to be in the minority. Islam recognizes property rights pretty clearly, and neither Abacarism nor Belloism is opposed to capitalism as such, although both emphasize the social responsibility of capital and consider the cooperative model the preferred form of ownership.

What I'm wondering is whether the concept of credit unions might take hold. They already existed in Europe at this time, they have Islamic antecedents in the form of takaful (mutual-aid insurance), and they'd fit in pretty well with the social responsibility and democratic ethos of Abacarism, with the community solidarity ethic of Belloism, and with Islamic finance's emphasis on sharing of risks. It would probably be the twentieth century before such institutions could exist on a large enough scale to provide industrial credit, but I could imagine experimental, microcredit-scale unions forming in the nineteenth century as a collective strategy against hardship. The question is how this concept would be adapted in an Islamic setting, and whether it might spread.

I don't plan to inflict an update on you that deals with the history of finance in the Sahel; I think that would be entirely too cruel and unusual, although I might mention some innovations here and there. I'd be interested in your thoughts, though, because the behind-the-scenes economics will affect how the politics play out.

[wolf_brother]

Leopold tried to get Hawaii in the 1840s, but ran out of money for such an investment before the expedition could really take off. IOTL throughout his career he tried to convince the Belgian government, both the parliament and his own ministers, of the importance of colonies, both in practical terms and in terms of Belgian's prestige as a European state worth something, though they were always more interested in focusing on improving Belgium's domestic front, which is why Leopold ultimately had to fund the Free State project out of his own pocket, and that of his allies in the business world interested in having their own fief for rubber cultivation.

Perhaps ITTL though with the outcome of the Franco-Prussian war largely owed to France's African colonial troops the Belgian government is more open to such ideas (though without noting that ITTL the colonial relationship is a reciprocal one).

The problem though is that throughout the later 19th century Belgian politics were dominated by the Catholic party, which was, on the whole, conservative bordering on reactionary (though in the rather Bismarckian sense, with a strong sense of realpolitik). Hell, it wasn't until 1870 after the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War that the Belgian government finally agreed to universal conscription. The biggest issue in Belgian politics throughout most the period was the role of the Catholic Church in the state, especially in education. I'm not sure, even you could get the Belgian government to agree to an African colonial project, that you could get something quite on the scale of OTL's Congo Free State.

Perhaps, with a more savage Kulturkampf ITTL in the NGC, Jules Malou's government falls in '75 after Bismarck forces the Congregations Law, and a coalition government of moderates from both sides takes power, allowing for a political vacuum in which Leopold is able to enforce his will more staunchly on the Belgian government - including colonies.

[Jonathan Edelstein]

Originally Posted by wolf_brother

Perhaps ITTL though with the outcome of the Franco-Prussian war largely owed to France's African colonial troops the Belgian government is more open to such ideas (though without noting that ITTL the colonial relationship is a reciprocal one).

Hmmm. At that point, Belgium was still relying on its neutrality for protection, wasn't it? I'm not sure a government as insular as Belgium's would want to spend blood and treasure acquiring colonies in order to get soldiers they don't think they need.

Originally Posted by wolf_brother

Perhaps, with a more savage Kulturkampf ITTL in the NGC, Jules Malou's government falls in '75 after Bismarck forces the Congregations Law, and a coalition government of moderates from both sides takes power, allowing for a political vacuum in which Leopold is able to enforce his will more staunchly on the Belgian government - including colonies.

If I recall correctly, the consensus was that the Kulturkampf would be less severe in this timeline, because Bismarck is less confident of his political position and because he doesn't want to sour the Bavarians and Badensians on pan-Germanism. So there would be nothing that would provoke a revolt of the ultramontane Belgian politicians.

What could happen is that, given Africa's generally higher profile, Leopold might be able to get the parliament interested enough to charter a "Belgian Africa Company" financed by the king and his business allies, which could then compete for a piece of the Congo albeit by no means all of it.

[Ganesha]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Edelstein

That sounds reasonable. Shrimchad Rajchandra and Virchand Gandhi won't exist, but there will be people like them.

I don't envision Ahmad adopting Jainism fully, but as you say, I think some Jainist ideas, such as complete pacifism and the sanctity of all life, would fit well with the Belloist-influenced doctrines he has espoused in this timeline. And since he has also adopted Abacarist concepts of struggle and personal freedom, the Jain influence might lead him the same place it led Gandhi. There were Muslim satyagrahis in OTL, and this timeline will have more of them; there may not be a towering figure like Gandhi, but there will be several leaders who pioneer the movement jointly, and they will be both Hindu and Muslim.

Well, Jain respect for the sanctity of life goes well beyond a moderate understanding of the concept. In temples, you have to sweep the ground before you as you walk to avoid stepping on tiny insects. They boil all water before use, are strict vegetarians, and try and avoid killing even the plants that they eat (so they don't eat roots, because removing the root kills a plant). There's much more - this list will give you an idea.

On the other hand, Jainism contains some very interesting principles on fairness (asteya) and communalism (aparigraha) that, if they manage to work their way into any labor movement, could be very influential. They believe as a religious matter that, for example, you must "always give people fair value for their labor or product" and that householders (and labor bosses) are deeply responsible to those they have power over. They must not be attached to either money or objects and instead care for the people who they can.

It would be interesting to see a satyagrahi movement without a single leader - in OTL, Gandhi was very much it for that part of the Indian independence movement. If that is different in OTL, it will mean a movement harder to crush but with less unified goals and no-one with the moral power of Gandhi to slow people down when they start getting out of hand (which he did with his fasts and words in OTL).

Cheers,
Ganesha

[Daztur]

For the coops what could be an option is for the coops themselves to loan to each other or pool profits in some way like the Mondragon coop in Spain in which some of each branch's profits are shared with the rest as a kind of insurance against loss.

Edit: more thoughts on the co-ops. If you have a body giving interest free loans they're obviously going to lose money. This means that you have to have someone providing the loans even though they know that they're going to lose money. Regular people won't want to do that since they'd be getting less out of it than they put in (it'd be like a credit union that gives you negative interest rates). So who'd want to do that? Well the state in some cases, they can eat the loss since it's not the state's job to make money and these kind of loans can serve the state's purposes as you've already explained. Who else would want to do that? The best answer I can think up would be the labor unions. What they would do is take a chunk of the dues of their members and then use that money to capitalize a zero interest loan bank that loans money to the co-ops. The co-ops would love the loans and it would serve the purposes of the labor unions as well as it'd keep the co-op workers from quitting the unions (who needs a damn union when you own the place) and it would give a nice carrot for people to join the union (join and later we'll give you a loan to buy out your boss and take over your company). If the state doesn't want to cooperate the labor unions could perform a number of welfare state functions themselves out of dues for example running the sorts of mutual insurance thingies that you mentioned and paying pensions, disability, etc. (an ooooooooooooold function of any kind of labor brotherhood).

Another common problem with co-ops is they don't have much incentive to expand since they want to maximize profits per worker rather than total profits. If you want them to get bigger a labor union bank could work with this as well, since the workers in each individual factory don't much care if the co-ops spread but the labor unions would (more dues!).

[wolf_brother]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Edelstein

Hmmm. At that point, Belgium was still relying on its neutrality for protection, wasn't it? I'm not sure a government as insular as Belgium's would want to spend blood and treasure acquiring colonies in order to get soldiers they don't think they need.

If I recall correctly, the consensus was that the Kulturkampf would be less severe in this timeline, because Bismarck is less confident of his political position and because he doesn't want to sour the Bavarians and Badensians on pan-Germanism. So there would be nothing that would provoke a revolt of the ultramontane Belgian politicians.

What could happen is that, given Africa's generally higher profile, Leopold might be able to get the parliament interested enough to charter a "Belgian Africa Company" financed by the king and his business allies, which could then compete for a piece of the Congo albeit by no means all of it.

I think you were closer with the first thought. Given these conditions the Belgians are likely left out of the later colonial game ITTL, rather like the other middle and smaller-class European countries of OTL; Denmark, Sweden-Norway, Austria-Hungary, Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, etc.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Islamic finance doesnt require profitless lending, what it requires is interest free lending. Think time limited venture capitalists, if you will.

Its probably less efficient than western style interest bearing loans, but it certainly can be made to work.

[Jonathan Edelstein]

Originally Posted by Ganesha

Well, Jain respect for the sanctity of life goes well beyond a moderate understanding of the concept. In temples, you have to sweep the ground before you as you walk to avoid stepping on tiny insects. They boil all water before use, are strict vegetarians, and try and avoid killing even the plants that they eat (so they don't eat roots, because removing the root kills a plant). There's much more - this list will give you an idea.

On the other hand, Jainism contains some very interesting principles on fairness (asteya) and communalism (aparigraha) that, if they manage to work their way into any labor movement, could be very influential. They believe as a religious matter that, for example, you must "always give people fair value for their labor or product" and that householders (and labor bosses) are deeply responsible to those they have power over. They must not be attached to either money or objects and instead care for the people who they can.

I definitely don't see Ahmad, even as mercurial as he is, going for the full-on Jainist concept of sanctity of life. He'd be more likely to incorporate "Jainism light" into his movement, recognizing the sanctity of life in principle but interpreting it less strictly (total nonviolence and vegetarianism, but not the sort of elaborate precautions that complete Jainism requires).

Asteya and aparigraha, though, would fit very well into any Belloist-inspired movement, which is what TTL's Ahmadis are - and from there, they would certainly filter into the Indian labor movement. With Bombay the most industrialized city in India, and with a large and politically active Muslim community there, there will be crossover between the *Ahmadis and the city's trade unions.

Originally Posted by Daztur

For the coops what could be an option is for the coops themselves to loan to each other or pool profits in some way like the Mondragon coop in Spain in which some of each branch's profits are shared with the rest as a kind of insurance against loss.

It would have to be either something like Mondragon or, as you suggest, a federation of trade unions - individual co-ops or unions wouldn't have the capital to finance the kind of upgrades that the Sahelian industries will need to stay competitive. What I'm imagining is the unions and co-ops scaling up the welfare activities they've been doing all along, getting into the credit game with small loans, and gradually building up to the point where they can do the things banks do. This would be a long-term thing - in the near term, as noted, the industrialists will get most of the factories back, and British investors will end up owning many of them via the wartime capital infusion - but by the 1920s or 30s, the trade-union movement's major activities will include arranging co-op buyouts and extending credit to employee-owned businesses. Zaria being the gritty union town it is in TTL, this will lead to conflict, and as has already been hinted, the conflict will affect the course of decolonization.

Originally Posted by Dathi THorfinsson

Islamic finance doesnt require profitless lending, what it requires is interest free lending. Think time limited venture capitalists, if you will.

Its probably less efficient than western style interest bearing loans, but it certainly can be made to work.

As noted, I'm actually not sure that interest would be that much of a problem in the 19th century. This was a period when the Ottoman Empire and Egypt issued interest-bearing bonds, and when Muslims in those countries and in India used traditional banks for credit. Modern Islamic finance in OTL is a mid-20th century invention. Not to mention that there are potential loopholes: in the Sahelian context, I could imagine the imamate giving its blessing to credit unions lending at interest to their members, on the ground that the debtor is a member of the creditor and that the interest is thus being used for his own benefit.

Or, alternatively, there might eventually be something like this.

Originally Posted by wolf_brother

I think you were closer with the first thought. Given these conditions the Belgians are likely left out of the later colonial game ITTL, rather like the other middle and smaller-class European countries of OTL; Denmark, Sweden-Norway, Austria-Hungary, Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, etc.

That sounds about right. If Leopold gets into the Congo game, it will be as a private concessionaire; otherwise not at all.

Next update will hopefully be this weekend: French West Africa and the Congo, followed by a Haiti-related interlude.

[B_Munro]

Two questions re things 1880: first, are Wallachia and Moldavia still separate, and are they still considered Ottoman vassals, or tentatively independent? Secondly, are the US states that came into existence from the Civil War onward (West Virginia, Nevada, Nebraska, Colorado) OTL the same in ATL 1880? I have heard it suggested that Nevada was only made a state when it was to give the Republicans a couple extra senators....

Bruce

[CaliBoy1990]

Originally Posted by B_Munro

Two questions re things 1880: first, are Wallachia and Moldavia still separate, and are they still considered Ottoman vassals, or tentatively independent? Secondly, are the US states that came into existence from the Civil War onward (West Virginia, Nevada, Nebraska, Colorado) OTL the same in ATL 1880? I have heard it suggested that Nevada was only made a state when it was to give the Republicans a couple extra senators....

Bruce

Well, Bruce, with an 1840 P.O.D., we could perhaps theorize (unless Jon says otherwise) that maybe Nevada may not exist at all as a state. Instead, it may possibly be divided between California, and OTL's Utah(or Deseret, Washoe, etc. whatever it may be called)at the 117th parallel, with anything south of the 37th going to Arizona........that's one way of doing things, I suppose.

Other than that, though, I don't really know.

[Kaiphranos]

Originally Posted by B_Munro

Two questions re things 1880: first, are Wallachia and Moldavia still separate, and are they still considered Ottoman vassals, or tentatively independent? Secondly, are the US states that came into existence from the Civil War onward (West Virginia, Nevada, Nebraska, Colorado) OTL the same in ATL 1880? I have heard it suggested that Nevada was only made a state when it was to give the Republicans a couple extra senators....

I thought I'd heard that as the explanation for the Dakota split--and OTL they weren't admitted until 1889, so you wouldn't need them for an 1880 map. Other than that... didn't the West Virginian "real state government" ploy get compared with the South Carolina situation at one point? If so, that one's probably the same. Nebraska will probably have the same name, but I see by a look at a map of the Nebraska Territory that there's some potential for different shapes...

[Iori]

Originally Posted by B_Munro

I have heard it suggested that Nevada was only made a state when it was to give the Republicans a couple extra senators....

Bruce

It was toe snure Lincolns re-election and Republican control of the Congress, which they ultimately got so much support elsewhere Nevadas did'nt matter ultimately.

Originally Posted by CaliBoy1990

Well, Bruce, with an 1840 P.O.D., we could perhaps theorize (unless Jon says otherwise) that maybe Nevada may not exist at all as a state. Instead, it may possibly be divided between California, and OTL's Utah(or Deseret, Washoe, etc. whatever it may be called)at the 117th parallel, with anything south of the 37th going to Arizona........that's one way of doing things, I suppose.

Other than that, though, I don't really know.

I think it's a given Nevads would exist; originally Nevada Territory was about half the size of the State of Nevada, however after Silver and Gold were discovered two different times the border was pushed East, taking territory from Utah Territory, essentially to keep the Mormons from becoming influential/controlling the mines and then later on Nevada requested its border be extened South to Colorado River at the expense of Arizona Territory, which Congress had no problems with since they viewed the Arizonans as traitors for their being Pro-Confederate in the Civil War.

[Jonathan Edelstein]

Originally Posted by B_Munro

Two questions re things 1880: first, are Wallachia and Moldavia still separate, and are they still considered Ottoman vassals, or tentatively independent? Secondly, are the US states that came into existence from the Civil War onward (West Virginia, Nevada, Nebraska, Colorado) OTL the same in ATL 1880? I have heard it suggested that Nevada was only made a state when it was to give the Republicans a couple extra senators....

Wallachia and Moldavia have been united into the Principality of Romania, and received de jure independence in the early 1870s.

The Western territories... yeesh, it looks like there was a lot of reorganization there in OTL during the 1860s. West Virginia does exist; the conditions that led to its creation in OTL existed here as well. I'll flip a coin and say that Nevada also exists; given the earlier end to this timeline's ACW, Lincoln's re-election wasn't in serious doubt, but a couple more Republican senators would be useful to push through the postwar constitutional adjustments, and the territory would be seen as deserving a reward for its loyalty. Nebraska would also be admitted as a solidly Republican state, albeit not necessarily with the same borders (see below).

The OTL Dakota Territory was created through the lobbying of Lincoln's cousin, so it would probably still exist in TTL. Something like Colorado also seems destined to happen, given that the people in that region were tired of being ignored by the territorial governments that had nominal jurisdiction over them. Let's say, though, that Colorado keeps a bit more of the unrecognized Jefferson Territory - that it includes OTL's Nebraska panhandle and the southern part of Wyoming. The northeastern part of Wyoming would then be included in Montana Territory when the latter is incorporated, and western Wyoming partitioned between Utah Territory and Idaho Territory. And what the hell, Colorado rather than Wyoming will be TTL's first state with woman suffrage, adopting it at the statehood convention in 1866 (in this timeline, there's no Andrew Johnson to veto statehood at that time).

So the order of admission of states in TTL would be West Virginia 1862 (de facto from 1861), Nevada 1864, Super-Colorado 1866, the smaller Nebraska 1867, with the Dakotas, the northern Mountain West and the Southwest still organized as territories in 1880.

[Ganesha]

Jonathan, was the Hindi-Urdu controversy butterflied ITTL? If so, Sir Syed will probably remain an advocate for all Indians, rather than shifting into a proponent of the two-nation theory as he did IOTL. In real life, Syed's views shifted hugely from 1867-1870 as the Hindi-Urdu controversy convinced him that Hindus didn't have the best interests of all Indians at heart.

Syed was hugely influential among Indian Muslims and was the progenitor of Pakistan, even more so than Jinnah and Muhammed Iqbal. Without Syed, the idea won't really ever get off the ground or be considered as a serious suggestion by Muslim independence leaders. Without Syed working for a separate Muslim identity, the Muslim League (or equivalent) might not even be founded at all. They might just remain a lobbying bloc within the INC.

Cheers,
Ganesha

[Admiral Matt]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Edelstein

Wallachia and Moldavia have been united into the Principality of Romania, and received de jure independence in the early 1870s.

The Western territories... yeesh, it looks like there was a lot of reorganization there in OTL during the 1860s. West Virginia does exist; the conditions that led to its creation in OTL existed here as well. I'll flip a coin and say that Nevada also exists; given the earlier end to this timeline's ACW, Lincoln's re-election wasn't in serious doubt, but a couple more Republican senators would be useful to push through the postwar constitutional adjustments, and the territory would be seen as deserving a reward for its loyalty. Nebraska would also be admitted as a solidly Republican state, albeit not necessarily with the same borders (see below).

The OTL Dakota Territory was created through the lobbying of Lincoln's cousin, so it would probably still exist in TTL. Something like Colorado also seems destined to happen, given that the people in that region were tired of being ignored by the territorial governments that had nominal jurisdiction over them. Let's say, though, that Colorado keeps a bit more of the unrecognized Jefferson Territory - that it includes OTL's Nebraska panhandle and the southern part of Wyoming. The northeastern part of Wyoming would then be included in Montana Territory when the latter is incorporated, and western Wyoming partitioned between Utah Territory and Idaho Territory. And what the hell, Colorado rather than Wyoming will be TTL's first state with woman suffrage, adopting it at the statehood convention in 1866 (in this timeline, there's no Andrew Johnson to veto statehood at that time).

So the order of admission of states in TTL would be West Virginia 1862 (de facto from 1861), Nevada 1864, Super-Colorado 1866, the smaller Nebraska 1867, with the Dakotas, the northern Mountain West and the Southwest still organized as territories in 1880.

West Virginia's odd shape is due to it being formed of the counties that happened to be Union-controlled. That's something that could very easily go in a slightly different way, so there's good odds that this WV looks barely off relative to ours. Perhaps it has southwest (OTL) Virginia, or lacks the eastern panhandle.

In a more of a nitpick, Colorado will be the first state to permanently give women the vote, just as Wyoming was historically. New Jersey had granted and then rescinded the privilege after the Revolution.