Yes, but for about a day. It was quickly replaced by the one below. That was later changed to be less like the Netherlands one.
Yes, but for about a day. It was quickly replaced by the one below. That was later changed to be less like the Netherlands one.
Nice TL.
I like this, with the exception of the utterly implausible rise of a Deist church. This is so on two grounds:
1. Popular appeal. There isn't enough of aPOV IMO to make Deism popular. Though it existed among the founders (mostly the Virginians), it's influence was over-stated. It was a highly intellectual movement limited to the wealthiest and most well-educated members of society, and it's message didn't translate well to the sort of rabble-rousing camp meetings common in the Second Great Awakening (incidentally the Unitarians and universalists were also limited to the upper strata, outside of New England that is, and even there, were minorities; one of the Adams' was one--the father I think--, the other was a congregationalist).
2. Deism was, almost by definition, not capable of the organization you attribute to it here. More of a philosophy than a real religion. Many--perhaps even most--prominent Deists actually attended regular churches; George Washington, for example, was on the vestry of an Anglican parish in Falls Church VA, though many historians classify him as a Deist.
That said, deist ideas did bleed over into some of the more established Protestant churches, in particular the emphasis on natural theology (see people like Edward Hitchcock and William Paley, the latter was, I think, an Englishman). Your earlier commenter talking about the "religious right" emerging out of southern conservatism in the nineteenth century had no idea what he was talking about; most Christians of the time would have accepted the harmony of science and religion as a matter of course, and fundamentalism only emerged as an early twentieth-century reaction to the fracturing of the scientific consensus away from Evangelical theology combined with the latter's inward tilt in the aftermath of the ACW. The type of Deism you advocate here, minus the heretical (from a Christian perspective) views on Christ, divine intervention and scripture (so similar views on the harmony of God and creation, which IIRC was the reason you gave for it's popularity), pretty much existed OTL in ante-bellum America. You could get much the same results by not having the US undergo an ACW, hence not turn pre-milennial, hence scotching half the reason for the rise of fundamentalism. There are other sociology of religion reasons why Deism would be incapable of supplanting Christianity short of a major societal catastrophe, but since I don't know that you're arguing for such supplanting I won't go into them.
Aside from that and a tendency to have long stretches of back and forth between updates, this is very good and I'll happily subscribe.
I like this, with the exception of the utterly implausible rise of a Deist church. This is so on two grounds:
1. Popular appeal. There isn't enough of aPOV IMO to make Deism popular. Though it existed among the founders (mostly the Virginians), it's influence was over-stated. It was a highly intellectual movement limited to the wealthiest and most well-educated members of society, and it's message didn't translate well to the sort of rabble-rousing camp meetings common in the Second Great Awakening (incidentally the Unitarians and universalists were also limited to the upper strata, outside of New England that is, and even there, were minorities; one of the Adams' was one--the father I think--, the other was a congregationalist).
2. Deism was, almost by definition, not capable of the organization you attribute to it here. More of a philosophy than a real religion. Many--perhaps even most--prominent Deists actually attended regular churches; George Washington, for example, was on the vestry of an Anglican parish in Falls Church VA, though many historians classify him as a Deist.
That said, deist ideas did bleed over into some of the more established Protestant churches, in particular the emphasis on natural theology (see people like Edward Hitchcock and William Paley, the latter was, I think, an Englishman). Your earlier commenter talking about the "religious right" emerging out of southern conservatism in the nineteenth century had no idea what he was talking about; most Christians of the time would have accepted the harmony of science and religion as a matter of course, and fundamentalism only emerged as an early twentieth-century reaction to the fracturing of the scientific consensus away from Evangelical theology combined with the latter's inward tilt in the aftermath of the ACW. The type of Deism you advocate here, minus the heretical (from a Christian perspective) views on Christ, divine intervention and scripture (so similar views on the harmony of God and creation, which IIRC was the reason you gave for it's popularity), pretty much existed OTL in ante-bellum America. You could get much the same results by not having the US undergo an ACW, hence not turn pre-milennial, hence scotching half the reason for the rise of fundamentalism. There are other sociology of religion reasons why Deism would be incapable of supplanting Christianity short of a major societal catastrophe, but since I don't know that you're arguing for such supplanting I won't go into them.
Aside from that and a tendency to have long stretches of back and forth between updates, this is very good and I'll happily subscribe.
I know, but some 60 odd years from the POD, I think we might see some variation....
Ok I get that but isn't it supposed to be Belgian Nationalism rather than French...
What I'm getting at is that the Belgians would want their own flag rather than a French one with baubles. Even if French inspired.
If you're going for a French derived flag then do what happened with Italy OTL and change one of the colours
. Change the blue to black or yellow and it will work for me .
Glen
Moderator
Thank you, AJ. Good to have you aboard!
Your two points are valid, and indeed the very reasons that deism did not develop into its own branch of organized religion.
But I will counter by asking you to contemplate the OTL rise of Methodism. Methodism started out really as an intellectual pursuit, has a rather thin-blooded almost philosophical start, but it hitched its wagon to the methods of the tent revival and proselytizing, and grew into a whole branch of Christianity. Here Deism does likewise. The biggest hurdle to Deism spreading is its core tenet that God isn't directly intervening in the world anymore. But if you can have creeds that have predestination spread (doesn't matter what you do, God already decided it), then that isn't even an argument.
I will grant that it is a bit of a stretch given that we're only about 30 years from the POD, and only about 15 years into the main effects of it, but I am comfortable with its plausibility. I hope perhaps I've given you enough pause to at least suspend your disbelief and enjoy the rest of the timeline.
I agree somewhat with what you say, though fundamentalism did have some boost from the Second Great Awakening (OTL version, not this one), and I would also put in that the development of geologic theory coupled with the release of the theory of evolution both challenging the theologically calculated age of the earth and the account of its creation (which would then be exacerbated by fundamentalist thought) has to be accounted as part of the split between science and religion in this era....and oh yeah, the anti-clericism of revolutionary France and it declaring the Religion of Reason probably didn't help matters, at least in Europe.
Of course, all of this is rather a moot point for this timeline as religious development is taking a different course in the various regions of North America than OTL.
And actually, the heretical bits did, too, though not mixed and matched quite the same way. Yes, there is a strain of the heretical by OTL standards, but those standards are a bit different in this post-Revolutionary America - the spirit of creating a new way of governance, a new nation, has extended also to a new way of worship and belief, as it did in the Second Great Awakening OTL - I just took that energy a different direction theologically than OTL.
True, though millenialism and fundamentalism would both exist in such a timeline, though perhaps not with such a grasp on the Southern imagination.
I'm not. I'm sort of expanding the family of Christian churches in America, but not completely replace it with Deism. Nor is this Deism now or latter really the 'pure' Deism we know.
Sorry about the back and forth. As we get further along the timeline, I find there are more things that need to be addressed before moving on (or things I just think are cool that should be added). We're very close to the point where I'm going to start organizing the material into a more linear timeline for reading purposes and make this more the draft and discussion thread, but we're not quite there yet....we will be by 1840....
And thanks for your patronage!
Glen
Moderator
Ok I get that but isn't it supposed to be Belgian Nationalism rather than French...
What I'm getting at is that the Belgians would want their own flag rather than a French one with baubles. Even if French inspired.
If you're going for a French derived flag then do what happened with Italy OTL and change one of the colours
Your flag with the Orleans coat and those lovely Fluer-de-Lis certainly doesn't have French motifs....
The Lion and Crown have the colors of Bambrant in them, black (predominant), gold, and red. The Red-White-Blue are certainly evocative of France, but then again, the Belgians speak French and have close sympathies with them ITTL....
I have to disagree. Maybe the original concept was intellectual, but Wesley spent the majority of his life preaching to and intending to convert (to Methodism specifically) the lower classes, the poor, the needy, the outcasts etc, moreso than the richer in life. Methodism always has been a far more egalitarian denomination than most other Anglican-based denom.s.
Your flag with the Orleans coat and those lovely Fluer-de-Lis certainly doesn't have French motifs....
The Lion and Crown have the colors of Bambrant in them, black (predominant), gold, and red. The Red-White-Blue are certainly evocative of France, but then again, the Belgians speak French and have close sympathies with them ITTL....
That's just the Walloon Community. The Flemish community do not speak French and want absolutely nothing to do with France, and in fact I believe are the numerically and geographically dominant ethnicity in Belgium (though only by a small margin)
Glen
Moderator
By 1835, Jorge Quintana had reunited by diplomacy or force all of Mexico from the Darién Gap to the State of Puebla, which die-hard conservative centralists held against him. Quintana had respected the Moskito protectorate as equivalent to a state of Mexico, which sadly Nicaragua had not during the years of quasi-independence. Their attempts to annex the protectorate outright had been repeatedly repelled, in part with weapons quietly given the Moskitos by British sympathizers, while the British government had had to play neutral. Quintana ended the pretense when he reinstated the rights of the Moskito and assured the British that he would honor the original Mexican government's agreement to passage from the San Juan River to Lake Nicaragua and then to the Pacific.
With his rear secure and the British mollified, Quintana set his sights on the North and Mexico City.
Glen
Moderator
Point taken. Now imagine some mini-Wesleys taking Deist thought to the masses during the Second Great Awakening and see what you come up with....
True, but they are predominantly Catholic and in that time period more liberal than the north.
And what do they have to complain about? That's a Flemish Lion in the middle of the friggin' flag!
And what do they have to complain about? That's a Flemish Lion in the middle of the friggin' flag!
Appealing to both parties by mixing ideas tends to merely annoy both. Just ask Brits and the Irish about whether Home Rule with Dublin influence, all under the British flag, is good for Northern Ireland
Glen
Moderator
Appealing to both parties by mixing ideas tends to merely annoy both. Just ask Brits and the Irish about whether Home Rule with Dublin influence, all under the British flag, is good for Northern Ireland
Point. But then again, who ever said that people make the smart decision (your example, case in point?)?
Glen
Moderator
The development of rail in North America was an important next chapter in the development of the continent.
Rail initially started across the Atlantic, with the United Kingdom of Great Britain as a leader. Steam locomotive rail was initially designed for coal haulage, but the ability to use the same means to transport other freight and even passengers quickly became obvious. By the 1820s many private investors were building rail throughout Great Britain, a trend that was supported by the Whig governments of the Reform Era in the 1830s.
Rail spread first to North America first in the United States of America. The American spirit of innovation was strong, and any new modern miracle of science was quickly embraced. The first commercial rail in the United States was built by the canal companies who already owned much of the right-of-ways in the United States and were meant to convey cargo from its origin to the canal and river transport systems. However, by the late 1820s the first passenger oriented railway was built connecting Philadelphia to the nation's capital in Washington, DC and thus across most of New Jersey.
However, it became quickly apparent to the Americans that if railways were to go any distance (and given the great size of America such vast transport systems were needed), then a standardization of rail gauge would be necessary, and so the USA was the first nation in the world to adopt a standard gauge for railroads. The British would follow suit.
In the provinces of British Southern America, the building of rail was also popular, though there mostly to bring the cash crop of cotton to the waterways. Passenger rail was a bit slower to develop compared to the spread-out US. Also, rail standardization didn't come until after passage in Britain, and then British Southern America adopted the British standard, which was different from the American one. However, neither region of North America was interested in one standard at the time, given lingering fears of the possibility of war some day between the two lands. However, as a result, many border towns would boom as Customs and Transfer points for railways of the USA and BSA.
In general, more railways tended to run East-West than North-South in the United States of America and from the Atlantic coast of British Southern America, whereas the Gulf Provinces had more North-South oriented rail develop.
Rail initially started across the Atlantic, with the United Kingdom of Great Britain as a leader. Steam locomotive rail was initially designed for coal haulage, but the ability to use the same means to transport other freight and even passengers quickly became obvious. By the 1820s many private investors were building rail throughout Great Britain, a trend that was supported by the Whig governments of the Reform Era in the 1830s.
Rail spread first to North America first in the United States of America. The American spirit of innovation was strong, and any new modern miracle of science was quickly embraced. The first commercial rail in the United States was built by the canal companies who already owned much of the right-of-ways in the United States and were meant to convey cargo from its origin to the canal and river transport systems. However, by the late 1820s the first passenger oriented railway was built connecting Philadelphia to the nation's capital in Washington, DC and thus across most of New Jersey.
However, it became quickly apparent to the Americans that if railways were to go any distance (and given the great size of America such vast transport systems were needed), then a standardization of rail gauge would be necessary, and so the USA was the first nation in the world to adopt a standard gauge for railroads. The British would follow suit.
In the provinces of British Southern America, the building of rail was also popular, though there mostly to bring the cash crop of cotton to the waterways. Passenger rail was a bit slower to develop compared to the spread-out US. Also, rail standardization didn't come until after passage in Britain, and then British Southern America adopted the British standard, which was different from the American one. However, neither region of North America was interested in one standard at the time, given lingering fears of the possibility of war some day between the two lands. However, as a result, many border towns would boom as Customs and Transfer points for railways of the USA and BSA.
In general, more railways tended to run East-West than North-South in the United States of America and from the Atlantic coast of British Southern America, whereas the Gulf Provinces had more North-South oriented rail develop.
Last edited:
Glen
Just to say, you do realise you have advanced railway development by a decade or so? The 1st commercial railway OTL was Stockport-Darlington, finished ~1827 [Wiki says 1825 but I think that's too early] then 1830 for the Liverpool-Manchester one as the 1st inter-city. Your got a connection between Washington and Philly in the early 1820's unless that's a typo.
Also railways were very capital intensive. Britain was I believe the only country to build its railway system primarily by private investment. Everywhere else needed government support of one form or another so where's the cash coming from? Would expect the DSA to have a better railway system than the US because it is more compact, has the natural 1st target of moving cotton as you say and will probably have better access to British funds.
Steve
Just to say, you do realise you have advanced railway development by a decade or so? The 1st commercial railway OTL was Stockport-Darlington, finished ~1827 [Wiki says 1825 but I think that's too early] then 1830 for the Liverpool-Manchester one as the 1st inter-city. Your got a connection between Washington and Philly in the early 1820's unless that's a typo.
Also railways were very capital intensive. Britain was I believe the only country to build its railway system primarily by private investment. Everywhere else needed government support of one form or another so where's the cash coming from? Would expect the DSA to have a better railway system than the US because it is more compact, has the natural 1st target of moving cotton as you say and will probably have better access to British funds.
Steve
Touche, though you could point out that that mistake was made because the decision-makers were not the ones who would be affected by the decision, which isn't the case in Belgium, but I'm satisfied by your logic (I have a horrible tendency to assume hindsight when I figure details in my stories).
The man makes good points. Let's not forget that Robert Stephenson was only 24 when he started working on the Rocket with his father and 26 during the Rainhill trials - by moving the dates forward he wouldn't be old enough to do anything, which would put the ball in Novelty's park, and that machine, while slightly more advanced and more efficient/fast than the Stephensons' designs, tended to break down often, which would actually slow down train designs. However, I do believe that, contrary to Steve's point, the USA did have private companies. Other countries did not, however.
In fact, this whole scenario gives me an interesting notion for a TL: what would happen if the Rainhill trials had run without the Stephenson's Rocket? In this case, every single competitor would break down and fail to reach the end of the run, thus noone could win the prize and the Liverpool to Manchester Railway would collapse, thus putting back commercial railways. It would probably also discourage the international observers from trying to make their own designs. Would this completely put off commercial railway design for decades, or would there simply be another trial with improved engines a few years later?
While British Southern America is indeed "more compact" when compared with the extent of TTL USA, it's probably not very densely populated. A plantation agricultural economy tends to suggest that cities aren't very large, when compared with the size of the population and economic activity in rural areas; in contrast, the North (or at least New England) has more small towns, that make lines more natural even in agricultural communities.
Plus, the British South has more uniform access to rivers that are more or less navigable. These rivers are likely to already be close to plantations and will of course connect to ports. From ports, they commerce could easily flow to any point, including back to Britain. This will mean that capital (or at least government capital) has good reason to consider focusing on public improvements to riverine navigation and to canals to innter-connect rivers.
The only variable I'm wondering about is the political attitudes of TTL planters: there may very well be greater enthusiasm to spend public money on internal infrastructure because there won't be a fear that "the North" might use it. However, there is not yet a unified body for the province of BSA to coordinate such efforts.
Also, I would imagine that the US has some reason to expand rail faster than OTL. For one, the Southern planters won't be around to argue against infrastructure spending on the Federal level. For another, the fact that the Mississippi is not in US hands means that you need i) a canal system to make the Great Lakes (or rather the St. Lawrence) more navigable and ii) a way to connect rivers to the Lakes and vice-versa. I do wonder if the Eerie canal would be as successful TTL in cementing the dominance of New York. TTL with the St. Lawrence in US hands, it may make more sense to focus efforts on avenues that benefit Montreal. This may limit the explosive growth of NYC somewhat.
Others have mentioned the problem with dates.
I'll mention the problems with standard gauge. The US had a whole plethora of gauges OTL, e.g. the southerners used a wider gauge than much of the rest of the country, and I THINK there were some other weird gauges in the mix, too. I don't see why the US, of all places, would suddenly standardize early on. Unless there's a lot more central organization than existed in OTL.
Let's see... Erie RR used a 6' gauge until 1880; Ah, found a link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_North_America#gauge said:
Falastur
I didn't actually say that. The bulk of the US railways were built by private companies but they received considerable subsidies from the government, especially in terms of land prices.
Steve
Point taken. Now imagine some mini-Wesleys taking Deist thought to the masses during the Second Great Awakening and see what you come up with....
True, but they are predominantly Catholic and in that time period more liberal than the north.
And what do they have to complain about? That's a Flemish Lion in the middle of the friggin' flag!
OK, so I don't have an axe to grind on the flag issue, but I couldn't figure out how to only quote part.
See, the thing about Deism taking a Wesleyan path is that, well, I just can't see it working. More than just the messenger, the ideas have to be fit for mass-consumption. Wesleyan theology, and particularly Wesleyan pietism, has an enormously powerful call to action: the need for sanctification through a life of holiness. But if God is uninvolved and doesn't care, no response is required (even in predestinarian Calvinism there's a call for action; Calvin's third use of the law calls man to right action out of gratitude, plus Puritans saw a holy life as outward proof of God's election thus back-handedly getting them to Pietism). Deism's god doesn't care what you do; you'd need some sort of Deist pietism and I just think you'd have a steep time getting there, particularly with your POD (if you really want to do it, make Thomas Payne turn into a Deist missionary. But there has to be some reward for right action for pietism). There's a sociologist of religion named Rodney Stark you should read on this point. Stark points out that religions which require some form of personal sacrifice grow, whereas those which don't, well, don't. That's gonna be a problem for Deism, and a serious limiting factor on it's rate of growth. I mean, I could see it replacing Unitarianism as a small but highly influential sect in New England. What Ican't see is it taking off in the Second great awakening in the way, say, the Methodists and Baptists did.
One thing to think about for the future though. Evolution will be a problem for the Deists. Evolution throws some nasty monkey-wrenches into the whole God-as-watchmaker idea held by Deists (and strangely shared by a lot of intelligent design folks...but that's another story). If you're gonna square God and evolution, God has to be an active agent guiding evolution. So you could see Orthodox Christians--out of a desire to show God as active--actually embrace not only evolution but, later, the Big Bang theory. In fact it would make an immense amount of sense for them to do so if their main competition is those heretical Deists who don't think God does anything. That, sir, would be both an ironic and a highly cool twist.