Canada Wank (YACW)

[Roisterer]

Good to see this back

Originally Posted by Dathi THorfinnsson

Greek Revolt, continued
The Greek Revolt had been going on, in one form or another, since 1821. There was support from the people of France and Britain for the rebels, but no government support.

Well, I don't think that the French king would approve.

You go on to say that we might see the end of the Bourbons in 1830, as OTL?

Regards

R

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Originally Posted by Roisterer

Well, I don't think that the French king would approve.

You go on to say that we might see the end of the Bourbons in 1830, as OTL?

Regards

R

top of p68 has the first part of europe 1830-1

In it, we have mention of the fall of the legitimist, and installation of the orleanist king, louis philippe. Both were, of course, bourbons.

What happens in 1848 is another question, but well get there ,,real soon now,,.

[Archangel]

It shall be interesting to see how eastern Europe evolves TTL.

Originally Posted by Dathi THorfinnsson

OK, guys, here, finally, at long last, much belatedly, is the next installment.

Stu's health was really bad right to about the end of the school year, and then we went on a combined family/medical trip (dad had someone he wanted to Stu to see back in Saskatchewan), which really wiped me out, and then then there was massive amounts of government paperwork to deal with....

It LOOKS like his problem is neurological, with the primary visible symptom being vomiting. For the last three years, he's been very sick in the spring and gets better in the summer. However, there are some encouraging signs that the new med may, just may, help with the whole vomiting issue. We'll see.

But, things have temporarily calmed down, and I really, REALLY need to get a couple of books back to the library, so I'd better get past 1848 ASAP...

Actually, I'll leave this as a news post, since it ended up a bit longer than I had meant it to be, and put the update in the following post.

Hope the new med helps your son feel better, Dathi.

[Roisterer]

[QUOTE=Dathi THorfinnsson;6520434
What happens in 1848 is another question, but well get there ,,real soon now,,.[/QUOTE]

I'll be looking forward to it

Regards

R

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

I had all this in my head a couple of months ago, but not written down, so I had to recreate it. Bleah.

Europe 1830-1 (part 3)

Italy
Replacement of French rule by Austrian (which is what it amounted to) in the Congress of Vienna was a major disappointment for the locals. Austrian statements about Italy only being a geographic term didn't help. Only in Sardinia, Naples,[1] Lombardy and Venetia was there any industrial development or agricultural improvements/experimentation before 1850.
The failure of the 1820-21 revolts had discouraged people for a decade, but 1830 inspired them again. They counted on the support of Louis-Philippe of France, who had, after all loudly announced his support for reform movements everywhere, but they were disappointed – he didn't want to start a war with Austria[2]. However, the revolts in Belgium, Germany and Poland, kept Austria's attention focused north, and they didn't manage to move armies in to suppress the Italian revolts until the spring of 1831, by which time it was too late.[3]
The insurrections in Italy, partly in favour of a united Italy and partly in favour of liberalization, broke out in several places in the Papal States, Modena, and Parma. The Duke of Modena, Francis IV, had, as early as 1826, let it be known that he wouldn't suppress any movements for a united Italy (he was apparently trying to co-opt it and become King of at least northern Italy). However, the fervour of the revolutionaries and the lack of backing from France, made him fear for his life. He fled into Austrian territory to Mantua in Lombardy, and started to make arrangements to cruelly crush the rebellion with Austrian help.[4]



Meanwhile, the Papal Legations of Bologna, Forlì, Ravenna, Imola, Ferrara, Pesaro and Urbino had also risen in revolt against the Papacy (as territorial ruler), and the revolt spread throughout the Papal States. Pope Pius VIII[5] appealed for Austrian help in crushing the revolt, but Austria was currently occupied in Germany, and promised support “shortly”, but not immediately. This gave Murat a chance to intevene, and he leapt at the chance. He had quietly mobilized some of his army when news of the July Revolution arrived, in hopes that opportunity would knock. The insurrections just north in the Papal States were a 10kg door knocker for him. He immediately sent messengers to the Pope and to the Revolutionaries, promising his assistance in 'resolving the issues at hand'. He then moved his ready forces north to the border, 'to render assistance' (the precise nature of said assistance being unspecified<g>), while mobilizing the rest of his army. Basically, he presented himself to the Pope as an established ruler with whom he could work in taming the demands of the revolutionaries, in his feigned guise as a radical; and to the revolutionaries, as a fellow radical who could help them get what they wanted, in his feigned guise as an establishment ruler. To both parties, he emphasized the presence of the Neapolitan army growing on their border, to 'help'. Unstated, but clearly heard by both parties, was that that army was coming north, and a solution to Murat's satisfaction would be imposed. If either party joined him, they could have input in the imposed solution, if not, he would side with the other party, essentially.



This finely balanced diplomacy (balanced between one side and the other, between local interests and Murat's ambition, between threats of force and quiet persuasion) succeeded quite well. Murat was able to convince the Pope to grant some constitutional guarantees, in exchange for continued recognition of his rule, and the dangling carrot of being a figurehead leader of a Council of Italy, which Murat also proposed. He was able to convince the revolutionaries that half a loaf was better than none, that they would get assemblies (at the regional level only, initially), and the Council of Italy was the first step towards a united Italy. He wasn't able to convince anyone that his motives were as pure and disinterested as he claimed; in fact, both parties were quite able to see this as a power play on Murat's part, but the imposed solution displeased both parties equally, so they could live with it. The Pope did know that if he had waited for the Austrians to move, that he could have reimposed autocratic rule by force – but Murat and his army was there then, and the Austrians weren't. Revolution, invasion, reinvasion and suppression of revolts would have left his lands stripped and barren, and the Pope wanted to avoid that. The revolutionaries came to realize that if they had held out for all they wanted, they would have been crushed either by Murat now, or by the Austrians later. Besides, their regional assemblies and this proposed Council of Italy were first steps on the way to their goal.
And neither the Pope nor the revolutionaries want Murat's soldiers to stay any longer than they have to.



By this time, the Austrians had pulled together some southern troops that weren't being used in Germany (or Poland), and were ready to intervene in Modena. But Murat was on its southern border and poised to intervene, as well. Murat offered Francis the same deal that he offered the Pope, but as Francis is sitting in Austrian territory, with an Austrian army almost ready to march, he wasn't nearly as interested. The revolutionaries in Modena, on the other hand, seeing two armies, one on each side, realized that escaping with their lives might be about all they could hope for at this point. Murat, having seen this, offered a new deal. Francis had semi-openly supported a united Italy. Fine, he should join this new Council. Moreover, Murat's heir Achilles was still unmarried, and Francis had a marriageable daughter Maria Theresa.[6] If the two houses were united in matrimony, Francis would have a grandson who was king. Who knows, if they worked together, that grandson, or another might end up king of Italy. All Francis has to do/ is throw a few sops to the radicals (possibly a powerless assembly) and he can resume autocratic rule. Since what Francis really wanted was effective control, this wasn't too onerous a concession, and he got to ally with the rising power on the peninsula. Francis decided this new deal was in his best interests. The Austrians weren't going to offer him much more, he would be indebted big time to them (the really big boys, right next door), and they weren't offering to make his grandson a king of anywhere. So, Francis sneaked out of Mantua, and entered Modena triumphally, backed by his own army and Murat's.



Meanwhile, a revolt in Parma has been dealt with successfully. Young Prince John (Duke Anton's grandson, and younger brother to the expected heir Frederick Augustus) went out and met the demonstrators in the square outside the palace, and listened to their demands. This calmed down the mob, and they moderated their demands. They still want a constitution, an assembly and they want a young co-regent to rule with Anton, but they wouldn't rise in revolt, and they'd accept a fairly weak assembly. The mob asked for John to be the co-regent, but that would have been jumping to much of the line of succession. Maximilian (John and Frederick A's father, and Anton's son) abdicated in favour of his son Frederick Augustus who was crowned co-regent.[7] The stresses of exile from Saxony and the not-quite revolt affected Anton's health, and he withdrew from day-to-day governing, leaving that to Frederick Augustus. (When a rump Duchy of Saxony was created in '32 after the Prussian troubles, above, Anton abdicated the Saxon throne to Frederick, raising John to be co-regent of Parma, and staying there until Anton's death the next year.)



Since these Dukes of Parma were Germans, when Murat proposed the Council of Italy[8], the precedent of the German Confederation (Deutscher Bund) made them receptive to the idea, and they joined.



Tuscany. Leopold II was already fairly liberal, and there was no revolt there. Since Tuscany is completely surrounded by the Papal States, there was significant pressure to join the Council of Italy. So they did, in '35, after putting it off for a few years.[9]



Savoy/Piedmont/Sardinia. Yet again, Charles Albert tried to play both sides against the middle, and lost. He still ascended the throne in 1831, but his off-and-on support of various liberal groups lost him and his kingdom any chance to serve as the nucleus of a united Italy.[10]



Sicily was still under the Bourbon Kings. Francis I died in 1830 and was succeeded by Ferdinand II, whose liberal reputation kept Sicily from revolting in the way several other Italian polities did.[11]



The remaining major Italian polities are Lombardy and Venetia, both of which are in the Austrian Empire, and neither of which had significant revolts.
None of Sardinia, Sicily, Lombardy or Venetia even considered joining the Council of Italy, which made its pretensions of being a body for all Italy a bit hollow. The Council did have the Pope on their side, and the majority of the Italy included, so the claims weren't completely hollow.



–
1 OTL, Murat had started an infrastructure effort in the short while that he ruled Naples. With an extra decade and a half iTTL, he has continued that, and encouraged industrialization in the south. Very different from OTL, and one reason why he's still popular and why the cost of ousting him was too high for the Austrians.



2 So the Austrians were able to move in and suppress the revolts easily, iOTL.



3 Note that none of the Italian territories actually part of Austria had revolts. So even OTL, Austria took her time and didn't move her armies in until the spring. Here, because she's distracted, the armies aren't ready until almost summer.



4 all of this paragraph is as OTL.



5 Not OTL's Pius VIII, who in any case had died by now. This is Bartolomeo Pacca http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolomeo_Pacca, who was a pro-Austrian candidate, but narrowly lost the election of 1829. At least he's not the wild reactionary of OTL's Pope Gregory XVI. I would have dearly loved to have make Emmanuele De Gregorio Pope, but that just wasn't going to happen.



6 OTL Francis married in 1812, but didn't have any children until 1817. Here, he has at least a daughter rather earlier. She's still young, but not 13. Achille is obviously not the same person as OTL, having been born well after the PoD, but he is a son of approximately the same age, and with the same name. Because his dad is still king, he didn't flee to America and marry an American as the OTL equivalent did.



7 Remember that OTL, these guys are kings of Saxony. The whole 'co-regent' thing and abdication of the middle generation is OTL, just in Saxony.



8 This Council of Italy is closer to the modern OTL G7 conferences than a 'parliament'. Somewhere between G7 and OTL's UN. Several players, including Murat and the nationalists, want it to evolve into something stronger. Most of the Princes want to keep it weak. The Pope is a little conflicted. If he got to run the whole thing, he wouldn't mind it stronger, but he's well aware his position is basically as a figurehead for the thing, so on balance he'd just as soon keep it weak. Unless, of course, he can strengthen his own position, etc.



9 Leopold II is another 'different guy, raised in the same family,.in the same circumstances, behaves much the same.'



10 OTL, of course, it was the House of Savoy in the person of Victor Emmanuel, who received the crown of a united Italy. OTL, Charles Albert's waffling wasn't fatal to the dynasty's chances, partly because there was no other good option. Here there is. Or rather are: Murat and the Pope, with a couple of others as dark horses.



11 Sicily is much as OTL, except for the fact that it is confined to Sicily, whereas iOTL Naples had been retaken. Francis is OTL, Ferdinand II is similar to his OTL brother.

[Shevek23]

Yay CanadaWank Update

Boo dynastic soap opera!

Actually, by squinting and reading past the dizzying array of names of various noble factions with their squabbling ambitions I was able to read the story of the Italian crisis which was rather interesting. I think I like Murat.

(Another paradox of me--having scorned framing politics in terms of rival families (and rivalries within families) I actually have to admit I find it somewhat easier to follow if I can see the people involved as people. So Murat having a clever plan, Francis IV and Charles Albert being two-faced weasels, the quintenessential soap opera element of politics via wedding--these actually help detangle the otherwise mind-bending (to me) sagas of noble rivalry. I still cheer for any sign of the advance of radical liberalism that might dispense with all this kind of intrigue, because it makes my head hurt much as many people complain of looking at maps of the Holy Roman Empire principalities does!)

I found reading the links on three alt-Popes (Gregory XVI whom we had, Pacca (whose Papal name and number I don't think you've given yet) that TTL has, and de Gregorio who you wistfully wish could have won but realistically dismiss) also helpful. Forgetting about de Gregorio (which may be a big mistake as he is presumably still alive, a Cardinal, and around, but the Wiki link is pretty stub-like) Pacca would seem to differ from the OTL pope, presumably also still around under his adopted clerical name of Mauro, in being a much more "refined" person--the son of a noble family, an accomplished diplomat, a patron of science and learning. He seem less likely to do things like ban railroads and gas lighting. It isn't clear though that he's a whole lot less reactionary in basic world-view--when he was nuncio to Cologne OTL, he opposed religious freedom for Protestants there, but did so very diplomatically.

So Pacca as Pope might not actually be a lot less reactionary than Mauro, he just has a very different style. More patrician, less bluntly confrontational, more likely to work quietly but perhaps all the more effectively.

Against that he's 9 years older than Mauro though OTL he died just 2 years sooner than our Gregory XVI. But it could be that the Papacy, like other supreme offices, has a life-shortening tendency due to the stresses involved, and if Pacca becomes Pope he might not make it to 1844 (and Mauro might last longer than 1846).

Anyway, once I squinted past the dizzying name-dropping and got a look at the substance of the events, I'm rather pleased at what has happened thus far. We have as kingmaker of the unification movement Murat, a product of the French Revolution, rather than the House of Savoy. We have the heart of the unification the heartland of Italy--Tuscany, the Papal States, Naples bringing South Italy to the table early and in an honored position, Modena in the north. The structure is currently so weak as to be sure of collapse if it ceased being held together by the schemes of Murat and the ambivalent ambitions of the Pope and the hopes of liberal-radicals. But the latter especially may enable it to knit together, pulling Murat into the role of liberal champion even as he schemes to make Italian unification and liberalism his tool.

In this environment the Pope you've given the timeline seems much more apt than the stubborn mule our timeline had.

I was going to speculate on how the changing status of Catholics in the British Empire might bear on the Papacy-tinged politics of Italy, but then I remembered we are about 15 years timewarped back to before the later events in Britain and her holdings; the effects run the other way. I should be asking, how will the alternate development of Italian unification, particularly the very different role the Pope has played thus far and he or his successors will play in the future, might bear on how events we already know about did work out in Britain. A simple extrapolation from where this post leaves us as contrasted with OTL suggests that perhaps ITTL the Catholic Church will be somewhat less reactionary and much more circumspect in its championship of reaction than OTL. As I've mentioned above, it isn't clear to me that Pacca is not, at bottom, almost as reactionary as Mauro, but he is much more smooth and urbane about it. A little indulgence of the elites of liberal progressivism--of savants and scientists--a little bit of diplomatic oil poured over the sharper and rougher edges of what is fundamentally the same old authoritarianism, and elite opinion in the northern Protestant countries of the dangers posed by the Papists might be soothed. So if Pacca hangs in there past 1840, and his successors don't spectacularly upset the elegant table he's been metaphorically dining at across from these "heretical" powers, this may help explain how a Hanoverian prince converts to the Church of Rome and how Ireland winds up being an autonomous Kingdom with a Catholic monarch (unless I've got that last part garbled?)

Looking forward to more updates, even though I realize you have to bring Europe up to date before we get back to the main action in America, and that means more dynastic soap opera! This makes my head hurt but I think on the whole you make the bitter medicine go down tolerably, Dathi.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Originally Posted by Shevek23

Yay CanadaWank Update

Boo dynastic soap opera!

Actually, by squinting and reading past the dizzying array of names of various noble factions with their squabbling ambitions I was able to read the story of the Italian crisis which was rather interesting. I think I like Murat.

Firstly, very thoughtful and germane comments, as usual.

The more I work with Murat the more my feeling are mixed. iTTL, at least, he's a scheming bastard, but he does have some liberal tendencies, and it suits his schemes to play that up. To be fair, I'm not entirely sure anymore how much the Murat in my head resembles the actual man, but I think I can make a case for much of it.

He's a bastard, but he's our bastard, I guess. He is also doing wonders for southern Italy, which, if it's not going to be as rich and developed as the north in the 20th century, at least will be in far, far better condition. One of the books I read talked about how, a generation or two later, you could tell what infrastructure was built in Murat's time. Kind of, if it wasn't Roman, it was Murat's, 'cause no one else bothered to build anything there. That might be a slight exaggeration, but I don't think it's much of one.

Originally Posted by Shevek23

(Another paradox of me--having scorned framing politics in terms of rival families (and rivalries within families)

I want to take a time machine and go back and introduce some original names. The sheer number of Fredericks and Frederick Williams in Germany, for instance....

Originally Posted by Shevek23

I found reading the links on three alt-Popes (Gregory XVI whom we had, Pacca (whose Papal name and number I don't think you've given yet) that TTL has, and de Gregorio who you wistfully wish could have won but realistically dismiss) also helpful. Forgetting about de Gregorio (which may be a big mistake as he is presumably still alive, a Cardinal, and around, but the Wiki link is pretty stub-like) Pacca would seem to differ from the OTL pope, presumably also still around under his adopted clerical name of Mauro, in being a much more "refined" person--the son of a noble family, an accomplished diplomat, a patron of science and learning. He seem less likely to do things like ban railroads and gas lighting. It isn't clear though that he's a whole lot less reactionary in basic world-view--when he was nuncio to Cologne OTL, he opposed religious freedom for Protestants there, but did so very diplomatically.

So Pacca as Pope might not actually be a lot less reactionary than Mauro, he just has a very different style. More patrician, less bluntly confrontational, more likely to work quietly but perhaps all the more effectively.

I think I might put it as he was almost as conservative, but far less reactionary. Gregory seemed to foam at the mouth at the thought of liberal reform. Pacca (=Pius VIII, it was there, but I can see how you missed it) may not like it better, but can bend in the wind a bit. At least that's my reading. I think what I've bolded may be exactly right.

Gregory was just the wrong guy at the wrong time, IMO, and Pacca came close to being elected OTL. I figured that was safe to play with.

Not, as you say, a huge difference in some ways, but I hope just enough.

Originally Posted by Shevek23

Anyway, once I squinted past the dizzying name-dropping and got a look at the substance of the events, I'm rather pleased at what has happened thus far. We have as kingmaker of the unification movement Murat, a product of the French Revolution, rather than the House of Savoy. We have the heart of the unification the heartland of Italy--Tuscany, the Papal States, Naples bringing South Italy to the table early and in an honored position, Modena in the north. The structure is currently so weak as to be sure of collapse if it ceased being held together by the schemes of Murat and the ambivalent ambitions of the Pope and the hopes of liberal-radicals. But the latter especially may enable it to knit together, pulling Murat into the role of liberal champion even as he schemes to make Italian unification and liberalism his tool.

In this environment the Pope you've given the timeline seems much more apt than the stubborn mule our timeline had.

....
A simple extrapolation from where this post leaves us as contrasted with OTL suggests that perhaps ITTL the Catholic Church will be somewhat less reactionary and much more circumspect in its championship of reaction than OTL. As I've mentioned above, it isn't clear to me that Pacca is not, at bottom, almost as reactionary as Mauro, but he is much more smooth and urbane about it. A little indulgence of the elites of liberal progressivism--of savants and scientists--a little bit of diplomatic oil poured over the sharper and rougher edges of what is fundamentally the same old authoritarianism, and elite opinion in the northern Protestant countries of the dangers posed by the Papists might be soothed. So if Pacca hangs in there past 1840, and his successors don't spectacularly upset the elegant table he's been metaphorically dining at across from these "heretical" powers, this may help explain how a Hanoverian prince converts to the Church of Rome and how Ireland winds up being an autonomous Kingdom with a Catholic monarch (unless I've got that last part garbled?)

Err... No. Charlotte is Queen of Ireland, just as she is Queen of the UK, and Empress of Britain. There is a Catholic Viceroy, however.

Interesting speculation about the effect it might have in Britain. I'll have to think about that.

Believe me, I'm not going to have the Papacy suddenly turn into a beacon of reason, progress and liberalism But, maybe we can at least have them make DIFFERENT mistakes?

Originally Posted by Shevek23

Looking forward to more updates, even though I realize you have to bring Europe up to date before we get back to the main action in America, and that means more dynastic soap opera! This makes my head hurt but I think on the whole you make the bitter medicine go down tolerably, Dathi.

I'm working on a post to bring Europe up to date. Then we have to deal with the Ottomans and Egypt, and then we're probably looking at 1848.

Then we can probably get back to North America.

[Archangel]

Nice update, Dathi!

[stevep]

Dathi

Good update. Italy is making a bit better progress than OTL and might well develop more stably and successfully. Not sure that there won't be a lot of tension and problems with Austria as it will be more than a little miffed about what Murat's being doing and all this talk about a united Italy, since that is bound to raise questions about the Italians under direct Hapsburg rule.

Steve

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Originally Posted by stevep

Dathi

Good update. Italy is making a bit better progress than OTL and might well develop more stably and successfully. Not sure that there won't be a lot of tension and problems with Austria as it will be more than a little miffed about what Murat's being doing and all this talk about a united Italy, since that is bound to raise questions about the Italians under direct Hapsburg rule.

Steve

Right now im working on what happens in 1848, which is very messy and interconnected. You almost have to grok all of europe to figure what effects will be.

I think youre going to be pleased, but not ecstatic, to see that italy.

The biggest single change in the long run will be the south isnt an undeveloped land of poor peasants and the mafia, as it is too close to being otl. The north has too many advantages not to be the main economic powerhouse, but the disparity will be a LOT less.

[Ming777]

On the question of future updates, might there still be the Crimean War, and How might the more massive British North America play a role?

Likewise, considering that the United States is basically dominated by what would have been the Confederates, I guess slavery and racial discrimination in the United States is going to get even worse?

Might witnessing those atrocities in the United States help the British begin to consider more favorable legislature granting (at a snails pace) near or equal rights for non-whites, at least as a way of differentiation themselves from the Americans?

[stevep]

Originally Posted by Ming777

On the question of future updates, might there still be the Crimean War, and How might the more massive British North America play a role?

I suspect depending on the circumstances there could well be a clash between some western combination and Russia which bears some similarity. Would expect the stronger Canada to have no direct military role as its forces are likely to be looking solely at local threats. However the markedly stronger economy, for Britain and the empire as a whole, is likely to pay a part. Also, which a powerful and already partly self-governed Canada and a weaker US I wouldn't be surprised if Alaska ends up in Canadian hands. The other factor to consider here is that the League might well be drawn into any such conflict so other nations might end up as allies against Russia.

Likewise, considering that the United States is basically dominated by what would have been the Confederates, I guess slavery and racial discrimination in the United States is going to get even worse?

I suspect its already going that way already as the US is to a degree measuring itself in opposition to Britain/Canada. Especially given the markedly better treatment of Indians and blacks in the latter.

Might witnessing those atrocities in the United States help the British begin to consider more favorable legislature granting (at a snails pace) near or equal rights for non-whites, at least as a way of differentiation themselves from the Americans?

This is already happening in Canada and I think the wider empire.[Provided I'm not getting my TLs confused] I think there is already a degree of representation for some of the Indian leaders in the Canadian legislator and widespread use of and respect for black troops against the American attacks.

Steve

[Shevek23]

Originally Posted by Ming777

On the question of future updates, might there still be the Crimean War, and How might the more massive British North America play a role?

Likewise, considering that the United States is basically dominated by what would have been the Confederates, I guess slavery and racial discrimination in the United States is going to get even worse?

Might witnessing those atrocities in the United States help the British begin to consider more favorable legislature granting (at a snails pace) near or equal rights for non-whites, at least as a way of differentiation themselves from the Americans?

There's been a whole lot on the manner in which British abolitionism has been strengthened and how that weakens slavery in the USA. A very important factor is that slaves who run have much better odds of reaching either British or allied territory where they are safe--they can go to Louisiana or Spanish Florida, as well as to Canada proper (including Indiana) which is greatly expanded southward and in the West. Once there such a fugitive would be less the stranger in a strange land, given the respected role for people of non-European extraction and the large number of self-liberated former slaves and their progeny they will find especially in Florida and Louisiana--these include veterans of both the recent US/Canadian wars. Also the British went ahead and used slave dissension as a weapon in those wars, aiding existing rebelliousness and stirring up more.

US slavery is already bounded at the limits (and less!) of the Slave States of OTL--minus Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, most or all of Missouri IIRC, and Florida, so the scope for plantation-affiliated political agitation is limited.

Meanwhile we've seen a broader respect for other non-Europeans in general--the Native Americans have a whole province to themselves (Indiana) plus substantial reserves where they can live pretty autonomously in the other ones. We've seen an army from India take California from Mexico and wind up largely settling there.

The argument that American slavery might possibly get even more atrocious than OTL might be one I've made myself from time to time, but at this point it looks to me like the odds are against it. Of course it could get a lot less atrocious and still remain an outrage!

In my perhaps overoptimistic view, the various parts of British North America (and allied Spanish Florida) reached a tipping point some time ago and is now becoming a bit of a sociological avalanche; every instance of giving some particular group discriminated against OTL for their "color" a better break tends to undermine the concept of white supremacy to the extent that the various groups--Native Americans, Metis, African-Americans, South Asians, Latinos (in Rio Bravo especially, also in Tejas and British California) rally to support the British system. Meanwhile Roman Catholics are also getting a better break in the British system worldwide, stabilizing Ireland and Quebec, and now the various Spanish-speaking bits of Mexico recently conquered.

There's probably room for improvement and a faster pace! But by and large I'm impressed with how humane the timeline is already. As for a generally anti-racist movement being inspired by the ugliness of US slavery--ironically the latter doesn't have to get worse to call down increasing ire; indeed it might be slowly moderating and reforming and yet remain irritating in the various British-oriented territories that hem the USA in.

[stevep]

Shevek23

Good point. I was thinking in terms of resentment of more liberal neighbours and possibly especially the use of black troops by the British/Canadians would harden feeling in the US but there is the counter argument that the sheer difficulty of keeping slaves is likely to prompt internal discontent with the system. [Or at the very least some owners seeing their best bet is to win loyalty by treating their slaves better].

Steve

[Alternate History Geek]

I like!

EDIT: Subscribed!