Let me say one thing: this is fabulous!
It's covering an enormous amount of territory I'd intended to cover in a TL of my own.
And I'm realizing I knew even less than you.
I'm watching with great interest.
If you want Napoleon out of the way, I recall hearing somewhere OTL he tried to join a French survey/exploration mission, but was refused; OTL, the mission disappeared...
Let him join...?
If you're looking for an area of expension for France, may I suggest Indochina.
Let me suggest the OTL approach, Africa, which developed as a way to prevent wars in Europe: nations could colonize, rather than fight. Indochina was rather later OTL, as African territories were taken over. You might see a different pattern, with more Russia & O.E., or more HRE/German.
In fact, the USA might become the leading Antarctic power. I would imagine Britain, France, the Batavian Republic, and perhaps Russia and Spain also visit semi-regularly and make geographic claims
Doubtful, IMO. It's an
awfully long way to Antarctica...
And what's
there? Whalers out of Hawaii, Vancouver, Oregon, &/or Alaska in NPac, yes (as there were OTL, & very many in NAtl out of New England OTL). Until these whales are depleted (1860s OTL?), no need to go so far south...
Re railways, Britain would be 1st (as OTL). They take iron & coal, & Britain has them conveniently co-located. Also (as I imagine you know
), Britain was first to industrialize, which certainly helps.
British into Oregon and hold onto N Dakota
Russians in Alaska
down the coast
Wouldn't expect too much farther. Russian expansion OTL was pretty slow & poorly organized.
Spain's hold in California is also more secure
Agreed. May also see greater exploration for gold, a perennial Spanish demand, so earlier Gold Rush, plus earlier Rushes going north into OTL BC & West into OTL Colorado.
Tsar Aleksandr ... has pushed Russia's claims to the Oregon by sending a fully-fledged expedition there, whilst also building up Russia's involvement in Spanish-owned but largely autonomous California
I find this a stretch. Russia has more immediate needs (or desires), notably an icefree port, which has been a Russian desire since OTL Pyotr I. The O.E. blocks access to warm water...which to some extent drove OTL Russo-Turkish conflicts. Moreover, as already noted, the Russian Alaska experience OTL was just short of disastrous. Expanding it does not, IMO, seem a sensible outcome. OTOH, given
HBC is already well-established in Oregon Terr & vicinity OTL, Britain might/would try to take bites out of the north end of the "LA Territory", even use
Rupert's Land as a base for supplying local Indians with weapons. To some extent, HBC's already been doing this OTL, as conflict with the Nor'westers heated up. (Have a look at Peter Newman's
Caesars of the Wilderness.) With Spain controlling this territory, maybe less so, but I feature a much stronger British Army presence in Rupert's Land given TTL geopolitics, especially as Spain's colonies turn to internal strife/civil war.
I could imagine Anglo-Spanish clashes in N Louisiana
- Montana
- N Dakota (Western half)
...
Thus Spain gets a treaty which is like OTL Pinckney for Florida
Agreed. Given no (few?) Spanish fur traders, tho, I wouldn't expect much in the way of action.
Here, Spain holds onto OTL Oregon state, S OTL Idaho state, S half of Montana, SW N Dakota
Russia's immediate control of Oregon would be likely to be between the coast and the Rockies
From the OTL Sound South of Vancouver island, this extends South to the California border, and boundered by the Rockies in the East, creates a nice swathe
Sorry, I just don't find that credible. Russian settlements in Alaska were never very large or successful. With less/no U.S. control of land, the Nor'westers don't (can't?) clash with HBC (as OTL, see below), leaving the field more/less entirely to HBC, which sets up in S BC/N OR Terr & is heavily dominant. OTL, Britain was already well established before 1800 (it's not called Vancouver I for nothing
), & HBC had posts all over the area, so I don't see Russia gaining any real foothold. I could see skirmishes with Russian whalers. HMG would incline to defend if threatened, particularly by Russia, which Britain OTL has been looking to contain for awhile (Afghanistan, for instance). If it looks like Russia is gaining a foothold, I'd also suggest opening Japan & something like
this. Even in the face of Russian threat, tho, I don't see actual war breaking out over Van I/OR, just a lot of sabre rattling, since it's so damn far from everything, & neither side
really wants a fight over it... (More/less OTL.) I could see expanded transpacific shipping out of Vancouver/Yerba Buena (OTL now SF)/San Gabriel (OTL now L.A.), gaining access to Chinese tea & silk, &/or forcing Japan open.
Re Indians, it occurs to me, if they perform well in aid the U.S., it might reduce racism overall, in the fashion of OTL blacks in WW1/WW2 (WW2, anyhow...). Abolitionists might use it as an example. Of course, it could be this results in less impact on "red men" & "brown men" (Mexicans, Cubans, &c) but no/nearly no impact on blacks...
In addition, screw-driven ships-of-the-line, initially conversions with short-lived engines implanted, and retractable funnels, are just about coming into use, and I see Mahmud II as purchasing these as conversions in the first instance, but looking to sponsor new building as soon as possible - again, one such new ship where maybe the money would have stretched to 2 or 3 sail-driven ships, as part of his drive for modernisation and state of the art status for the navy
Bit early for screw steamers. Paddle steamers, yes.
Is there scope for them to menace the Spanish treasure fleet for example ?
IMO, quite substantial, seeing how important the treasure fleet (still) was. Also, even ostensibly neutral Br/Fr could build raiders for USN (not unlike for CSN OTL); using Spanish gold...?
Thus, the great lakes become, not as per 1812 a war zone, but an area of booming trade since no Spanish blockade is going to interdict this. In fact, British trade in British vessels may completely replace American trade in the NE states, coming down from Canada,
This could just see the building not of the Erie Canal but the Rideau, or something like the St. Lawrence Swy, as a defensive measure. It will also, IMO, see expanding demand into W Ontario & Rupert's Land, potentially in (now OTL) Manitoba/Saskatchewan/Alberta for things like lumber. It might also see expansion of settlement, &/or encouraged immigration, for more crops. My economic history's a bit weak, but this might also see the shift of economic power from Montreal to Toronto much earlier than historically (which, IIRC, Erie Canal contributed to), & possibly contribute to the founding of (for instance, OTL named) Thunder Bay, Ontario (originally ID Rat Portage, IIRC; believe it or not
). It could conceivably provoke an =the 7 Oaks Massacre/Rebellion (OTL 1869-70) &/or Northwest (Riel) Rebelion (1885 OTL) much earlier. Also, given Spanish pressure/"threat" to Pac Coast, might see making BC a colony much sooner, more pressure to Canadian Confederation, & pressure to create/build a trans-Canada road (touch early for railway yet...), possibly a condition for BC to join Confederation (OTL, railway was). Presuming this happens (& even if it doesn't), I flat don't believe Upper/Lower Canada Rebellions would be longer, not if Britain is militarily more powerful than OTL. I'm not convinced about native sailors, let alone mutinies aboard ships in the Great Lakes, never far from home port, either. Also, given increased tension with the U.S., could you believe more convicts sentenced to "transportation" to Canada, rather than Oz, with a consequent increase in population to balance the U.S. threat? And I'm reminded, what's the status of Australia/NZ?
Re Barbary pirates, it occurs to me Britain & France have concerns about piracy, too. They might be persuaded to aid the nascent U.S. in suppressing them, or even wiping them out entire (as was eventually done OTL, IIRC). That this also enables the U.S. to get in more trouble by starting a war with Spain, which USN is even less equipped for, is your problem.
Since these territories were nominally O.E., I can readily see a Russian naval squadron joining (as you suggest, maybe more readily than RN/Fr), possibly even sparking a broader O.E.-Russian war (Crimean War, anyone?) & a Russo-American treaty.
This could just lead to Russia selling Alaska to the U.S.... (It might mean the U.S. selling territory to Russia, to pay her debts...
) The experience of the S-A War, plus Barbary pirates, might encourage not just a rebuilding but a significant expansion of USN, which would stimulate the U.S. economy. (The War would too, BTW.) Might also see an expansion/federalization of the Army, tho it's a bit ASB, given traditional U.S. attitudes of only having an army when there's a crisis, & more/less disbanding it til the next one...
An issue over timing: Burr should wait for defeat by Pinckney/Hamilton before deciding to run for Gov; it's rather a big step down for a sitting VP...
As for the Constitutionalists nee tertium quids I would not see them ever being a major threat to take the White House. What they are is a purist third party and they would serve to weaken mostly the DR Party. If they last two decades (about the max I could see) then Crockett may start out there.
That reminds me of something. It was raised in an
IAsfm story (9/91), so I don't know the provenance, but if you can find it, you might consider the effect of the Chickasaw Lands Tenancy Act, Tennessee Vacant Lands Act (tabled 1828 OTL, it says), & a Crockett presidency in 1828.
Lafitte I can see joining U.S. Recall he (& his brother?) did join the U.S. side in the War of 1812 (
1842 in
Newfoundland).
In re politicians & generals, it was
very common in the U.S. Army at that time for local/state officials to get political appointments to generalships. Most of them turned out to be incompetent twits...
What Papal name would he have chosen ? I have no idea how they make these things up ! Would he have decided to be a Pius VII anyway, and thus confuse history by being a DIFFERENT person bearing that name than OTL, or do his theological leanings make one think that he might have chosen a different name (if names were chosen in that way) ?
Does any of this give a clue to his Papal name ?
No expert on Papal names, but JP1/JP2 chose based on Popes they admired. If you want to avoid confusion, pick a name that's not been reused since: Urban IX? Marcellus III? Adrian VII? Boniface X?
ATL the following look like the way to settle the Italian Question
-1- France annexes Piedmont
-2- France establishes the REPUBLIC OF ETRURIA in Tuscany
-3- Louis II succeeds his father Louis I as Duke of Parma in 1803
Thus, the Republic of Etruria would be one of the frontier states whose existence is guaranteed by treaty, and which then comes under the auspices of the concert of European nations
Looking at the WP maps of
Piedmont &
Tuscany, that looks a non-starter...
Maybe
this or
this will clarify?
Britain and France have the right to base out of Bizerte (its undeveloped state should be irrelevant in the age of sail)
Even in the age of sail, certain minimal needs had to be met, such as repairing/replacing masts, patching hulls (I expect hull scraping requires return to England for drydocking), making/repairing sails, provisioning.
The meanwhile, the powers will be trying to direct events, bring about some unity and decide individually on their positions vis-a-vis direct participation
Beware use of the term Great Powers! It was created by the 1815 Treaty of Vienna, which TTL doesn't happen...
In re Wellesley & Fezzan, 2 things: I don't think OTL he was created Duke yet (IIRC, it was defeat of Napoleon OTL that did it), & in Peninsular War, his senior officers were so bad, he began to wonder if they hadn't been appointed by the enemy.
(Believe it, or not.
)
All three states were admitted to the Union during Pinckney's administration as slave states, since the South Carolinan had no problems such as those experienced by his OTL counterpart about such an event.
Pinckney as president at the time of their request to join the Union, I didn't see that he would have Madison's OTL problems in accepting them.
This leaves me wondering 2 things. Is the population of these states large enough TTL/OTL to allow them admission? IIRC, OTL there was a minimum pop figure. And doesn't this cause trouble over balance of power in Congress/Senate? The Southern slave states becoming too powerful was a continuous worry OTL...& led, in part, to the OTL 1820 Missouri Compromise, which had slave/free states accepted into the Union in equal numbers (alternating years, as it turned out OTL). Also, Pinckney's willingness to accept really has nothing to do with it. Northern Congressmen/Senators would never stand for it.
It seems most likely that a one-time admission of all three as states is what makes most sense
I don't believe this, either. You're adding states awfully fast...
could Burr manage to get ANYWHERE with female suffrage ? I would think that a partial measure would have a chance - female heads of household, who own property etc ? In the wake of a war where many men would have died, this would be a way to enfranchise their widows, and could well get approval by a popular reaction
That sounds like a very reasonable idea. OTL 1917, Canada gave the vote to women with family in the military overseas. (It was seen as a blatant partisan ploy, but it worked; Borden got elected.
)
ten US ships of the line annihilate a Spanish fleet of fifteen more powerful vessels, and destroy the convoy it was escorting.
This is a
major stretch, IMO. 15 battleships would probably be accompanied by 30 or more frigates, & with an escort that strong, the convoy could number 200 merchantmen; if not, it would have to mighty damn important. Also, the USN wouldn't simply "annihilate" the
Armada (I think that's near impossible, with inferior numbers), but could reasonably cause the Spanish CO to lose his nerve, driving him off. Then, the merchies wouldn't simply be sunk (some would, certainly); as many as possible would be taken as prizes, to help finance the U.S. war effort. At bottom, the outcome's the same, tho.
Not wanting a war with Spain, but reckoning that the chaos within Spain makes one unlikely, Nelson will try to find a position that gives Britain the advantage but stops just short of the line
This may even include British naval protection for rebel ports and coast, since it can be said to be provided for British traders. Spain won't be able to challenge this in the wake of its defeat to the USA, and with unrest in Spain itself growing rather than falling back Britain could in effect establish virtual protectorates over some of these new states
It might result in a sharp uptick in British privateering, which HMG officially denounces, but unoficially...
The North-West Company would be pushing for Britain to defend its interests, along the OTL Columbia river, and Grey probably does this
Nope. 1821, NWC & HBC had merged. And NWC hadn't nearly the political clout HBC did. Looking at the map, I'd have to guess the Nor'westers get shut out much earlier, since much of the territory they operated in was Spanish, or controlled by HBC monopoly. Could be NWC gets to use Spanish territory & ships... (OTL, NWC couldn't break the HBC monopoly, & efforts to use its own ships were unsuccessful). It might erupt into virtual war (as it did between HBC-NWC OTL), & it's possible HMG would suspect of Spain of supplying weapons to Nor'westers (as she might), & use it as an excuse to arm Indians, attack Spanish possessions in NWT, or both.
What exactly constitutes Britain in this area is a confusion in itself. OTL the Earl of Selkirk bought vast holdings, tried to import Scottish farmers and ran into a violent war with the Metis (acute accent specified). These mixed French and (something else ! Indian I guess) settlers saw this incursion as challenging their way of life. Selkirk died in 1820 and the inheritors of the estate couldn't care less for it, languishing little care and attention on his great scheme, until eventually selling up back to the Hudson Bay Company. Conflict then erupted between them and the Metis as the HBC attempted to monopolise industry in the area
As another note, the once-powerful North-West Company merged with the Hudson Bay Company in 1821 and was slowly folded into it, losing its identity. The OTL reasons don't all apply in the ATL, but Spain's cession of Oregon to Russia is going to severely weaken the NW Co and make a merger with its great rival necessary for financial survival
Selkirk's grant failed in part because it lay directly athwart the Nor'westers' main trade route in-country.
Also, it was poor agricultural land.
(Newman tells the sad full story.
) The Metis (yep, Fr-Indian; prounounced "may
tee"; "halfbreed", without the modern insulting connotation, applied to the equally-common Scots- or English-Indians at the time OTL). OTL, the Red River Settlement held on til 1869-70, when the OTL
Red River Rebellion broke out over whether Metis would be recognized as the government (they weren't) or whether Manitoba would be formed in spite of them (it was). One of the leaders,
Louis Riel, was also involved in the later OTL
Riel Rebellion (as it's commonly known out here {IRL
}).
But some sort of direct tax is inevitable. One wonders how the ATL Committee System under the VP as President of the Senate has worked out, and how much precedent has entered the US political arena
Maybe not. Until 1917? OTL, USG revenues were (almost?) entirely from excise taxes & tariffs & such. In fact, in 1860s OTL (IIRC), there was an income tax introduced & declared unconstitutional.
thus revoking Quebec's rights, though perhaps not where Catholicism is concerned,
Might be preferable on 2 counts. One, it would reduce tension with the U.S.; guarantee of Catholic rights to Quebec was one of the Intolerable Acts that sparked the Revolution. Two, it would eliminate later claims by
Quebecois of "distinct society", which threaten to break Canada apart.
Re Opium War, I have to wonder if the early end to the Napoleonic War doesn't lead to increased Brit/French competition in India/SEA/China much earlier than OTL, hence a much earlier start of the Opium Wars.
Britain is confined by Canadian political interests
Since when?
Canada wasn't even a country yet. "Canada" OTL then referred to what's now called Ontario & Quebec (& not even all of that). BC hadn't been created, & the bulk of the North West Territory (northern ON, MB, SK, AB, NWT) was Rupert's Land, under HBC monopoly (tho being increasingly disputed by over-wintering trappers of NWC out of Montreal, later NYC, leading to almost open warfare...).
Looking at the map of U.S. states' territories thru 1802, I wonder why Maine was ever allotted to the U.S.,
seeing it was disputed with Britain & had a chance of going to
New Brunswick... (Yay!
)
You may remeber the character. He's called Porthos
Porthos? Who's
wearing the mask?