Dominion of Southern America - Updated July 1, 2018

Glen

Moderator
It matters because there are going to be plenty of Catholics who will be vehemently against the break from Rome.

True, except that right now they aren't claiming to be breaking away from Rome, merely that a pope hasn't been properly chosen and thus that the seat of St. Peter remains vacant. They are merely caretaking the church until a proper pope is chosen. Of course, they are taking the opportunity to bring the Catholic Church in their nations in line with the policies of the state. They also are in no hurry to see a resolution of the 'vacant papacy'. The laity are more in fear of crossing their own leaders than the Vatican, and as the world economy worsens and theirs are staying, at least on the surface, more stable, they are even becoming complacent about it. I should point out also that both Prussia-Poland and Austria-Hungary have much more conservative populations, and to a degree, clergy, then the rest of Europe at this time. While places like France, Germany, Naples, and Italy are celebrating the elevation of a good, liberal pope, the Eastern Europeans are not happy about it. While the methods may be questioned, many of the laity in those nations and the clergy would like to see a more conservative Bishop of Rome.

It appears that both goverments are setting themselves up as the new Heads of Church, which is exactly what the King of England did, and that didn't go over without some violence erupting.

While that would be one possibility, they aren't announcing that as the actuality, and they have much more sophisticated centralization going in their nations than a medieval king would have had. And you will note that Henry still was able to do it without an actual civil war erupting.

Not only that, but generally governments try to fabricate some kind of legal standing when they do something THAT drastic. (Generally being the keyword, of course). And when you are dealing with ecclesiastical matters, canon law does sort of matter.

They did. They are also obviously wrong. But they are still claiming it. This is not a legal trick, it is a pretext. For those in the West it is obvious. Given how much the crowns of Eastern Europe are now controling the message in their own nations, they are giving enough 'room for doubt' to their populations that they are by and large choosing the easy route of doing nothing. And the ones who do are being silenced pretty quickly.

However, I could see this potentially happening if the Austrian cardinals (outnumbered by liberal Italian (who would make up the bulk) and other Western European cardinals) would cause some sort of disruption, and then getting ejected from the conclave. There could be standing then for the Emperor to do that.

An interesting idea, but have cardinals ever been ejected from a conclave?

I still have a huge issue with the idea that the Prussia-Poland Kaiser would magically be able to split the national hierarchy away from Rome without there being incredibly serious ramifications domestically.

The Poles are going to see this as nothing more than an attempt to make them Protestant and very blunt prussianification (or whatever it would be called), making it less, not more likely they'll want to commit to their relatively new state.

The Kaiser in some ways has played it smart with the Poles. He has raised them to co-equal status (even if Prussians might be first among equals<wink>) with his Prussian subjects. He has given them a true role in the nation, sponsored education (and allowed it in Polish) and infrastructure in Poland. He has in the few decades he has ruled them showed them more leadership then anyone has throughout the 19th century. There is a whole generation of Poles who see the Kaiser as the best thing to happen to Poland (and this image has been carefully, deliberately, fostered). And as I mentioned in a later post, he is not directly taking control of the church, but raising the Primate of Poland (situated in Prussian Pozen, ironically) as the caretaker of the Catholic Church in Prussia-Poland at the time. Right now, most of the Poles are choosing to believe the Kaiser and the Primate when they say this is only a short term measure until this 'crisis' is resolved.

Of course, the Kaiser might be very short sighted, there have been plenty of such rulers, but without ramifications?

Oh, there is that - the situation is not stable as it is, but in the short term it seems to be working. The long term this balancing act will be harder to maintain, and an actual break with the Catholic Church were it to occur would be much harder to maintain without serious backlash.

Admittedly, the post was brief enough that perhaps Glen will tell us more in depth about the situation later!

Also, I'd hate to let my concerns here give the wrong impression - I've been following this thread very closely for the past few months, and I absolutely love it! Glen, you've done a fantastic job with it so far. It's definitely one of the best Timelines on the board.

I appreciate your feedback, your patronage, and your praise! Thanks for coming out of the shadows to share in the DSA timeline experience!:D
 

Glen

Moderator
I've got to say... That schism is fascinating yet disturbing. It doesn't suprise me that the genuinely Korsgaardian Prussia-Poland does so, but A-H... I have the feeling that war will break out because of stuff like that.

And since when does A-H follow Korsgaardian principles anyway? Did I miss that part?

It's been implied, but not deeply written about. Essentially, the leaders of the tripartite pack of Russia, Prussia-Poland, and Austria-Hungary became enamoured early on of the philosophy of Zeus Korsgaard and are early adapters. It's part of the backlash in some parts of the world against liberalism.
 
how is the dsa doing? how did they resolve the issue of the Piedmont/ coastal-plain rivalry in NC/other places? what are the major cities in the south/ NC? thank you:D
(if you can't tell I'm a Carolina boy):p
 

Glen

Moderator
organizedlabor_plumbersgroup.jpg
The rise of unions in the Western World of the 19th century was a slow one.

Unions in essence had been banned in Europe since the Middle Ages. In the United States of America, it had not been specfically banned, but were also somewhat counter to the individualist spirit of the nation. The Reform Revolution in the United Kingdom also brought in a legalization of unions along with other reforms. The union movement mixed with those of the friendly societies for the first half of the 19th century. Two different trends in unionism were seen in this time period, the development of the Trade Unions that were fairly restrictive societies limited to skilled workers of a specific trade, such as carpentry, and the development of the Work Union, that usually were much more inclusive, reaching out to unskilled workers of all types. Whereas the Trade Unions used their skills as negotiating tools, the Work Unions used numbers and internal quality controls (screening members, guaranteeing good behavior of union members, etc.) to gain concessions in the workplace. These union models began to slowly grow in concert with the development of more industry in the Western World, though it only made slight inroads in more agricultural domains and communities. These types of unions also developed in Latin America, Scandinavia, the Lowlands, Germany, France, the Iberian Peninsula, and the Italian Peninsula. To a lesser degree they even propagated in the Ottoman Empire.

However, in the Eastern block, union movements were crushed, first by the monarchs and the nobility, and then as more Korsgaardian principles developed, by the state. However, whereas the old order would simply squash any signs of leadership among the working classes, the Korsgaardian regimes replaced unions with state organized labour brotherhoods that provided some of the same benefits of the independent unions of the West. In Korsgaardian states, the ruler acted as arbitor in any dispute between owners and workers, and woe betide either side that did not acquiesce to the wisdom of the leader.

The economic turmoil of the 1880s saw unionism in the west take more aggressive and strident tacks to negotiation, especially the Worker Unions that implemented work stoppages when employers refused to provide wages. The unions were as often as not broken by the use of non-union workers, who in the economic climate of the times were plentiful and hungry for work. However, employers often found that yesterday's non-unionized worker became today's new recruit for the unions, as they found the wages and conditions in some factories barely better than those of unemployment.
 

Glen

Moderator
I'm sorry Glen, but I think you're bumping up Korsgaardism a bit too much.

Well, I'm sorry to hear it, but of course your opinion is valued.

I can understand why Prussia-Poland, Austria, and Russia embrace it, as it is a way to ideologically justify reactionary forces.

Yep - glad that we're both on the same page here.

However, I just do not see how it can develop into a mass movement similar to OTL's Fascism. Fascism worked as a mass movement mainly because it united the people (generally the middle classes) against a scapegoat - usually communism, sometimes other enemies both internal and external. It also helped that the ruling class was terrified enough of the alternative (a socialist revolution) that much of it was willing to go along. ITTL, there just isn't the history yet to allow for this.

To a point, I agree. Korsgaardism is more being used as a guide to how to establish a totalitarian state by those who have the wherewithal and the propensity to do so. I will say that it is also being used as a rallying force for those who don't like liberalism for a variety of reasons.

Let's start with Mexico. It's plausible to me that given the economic downturn, a charismatic strongman who privately holds Korsgaardist ideas would come to power, and would implement his will once he holds the reins. But popular support for the agenda itself would be limited. I also find it hard to believe the army took the coup lying down, unless they were already deeply embedded.

Here it was a bit more of a movement under a charismatic leader than elsewhere. The military were infiltrated and in fact saw this as a way to guarantee their continued funding and enhance their standing in the nation. The populace like the idea of the capitalists in the nation having to do the bidding of the state (which they will interpret, rightly or wrongly, as benefiting them as well).

If the Korsgaardists take control of the U.S., I will stop reading and commenting upon the TL, full stop.

Well, that I am sorry to hear. I would hope that, should something so turn you off, that you'd at least give me a further chance to clarify and expand. Having said that, we all will just have to wait and see.

TTL's USA might be a bit more centralized than OTL,

True.

but on the other hand, without a civil war, the national narrative for why a strong central government is needed hasn't developed yet.

Also true.

I could see a conservative protectionist populist movement developing with an economic downturn, but it wouldn't associate itself with what's going on in Europe, and would be at least rhetorically, if not in practice, against the power of the federal government.

Ah, but that is in part why they are doing just that - without a strong native conservative philosophy they turn to Korsgaardism. I also don't think that ITTL they would necessarily be anti-federal government.
 

Glen

Moderator
I have to agree with Eschaton here. As cool as Kosgardianism is; it seems that it is being hyped up a bit too much.

Perhaps.

I want to point out that the countries that have embraced it are all multi-ethnic countries and a hyper-nationalist movement is the last thing they should embrace. I can see why Russia finds it attractive, and perhaps other European countries like France or Scandinavia would too. But Austria-Hungary, by nature should stay away from it, and Prussia-Poland should to if it wants that hyphen to stay there and not become Prussia and Poland.

While Korsgaardism does include a nationalist element, it is only in service to the state - the national identity is to serve the needs of the state. So Korsgaardists will support national identity in that and so long as that nationalism supports and enhances obedience and service to the state. It is not the hyper-nationalism of OTL Fascism.

It is also somewhat sad to see the world going this dark. As it seemed TTL was somewhat overall more enlightened than OTL, with the Deist Church, a democratic China, etc.

Perhaps, but then again, not everything can be sunshine and lollypops.

I'll keep reading cause it is still a good TL. But I hope there is more to this rise of kosgardism than just a facist wank for the sake of one.

We shall see.
 

Glen

Moderator
Hasn't Glen already pointed out that korsgaardianism isn't fascism? And yet you both have used them as interchangeable terms.

I appreciate you echoing that point. While Korsgaardism is close in many ways to fascism, it differs in others, as mentioned previously. However, the similarities are such that comparison to fascism is not unexpected.
 
While I agree that current trends ITTL are rather disheartening, we didn't really expect that this world would be without its troubles, did we?

in any case keep up the good work glen.
 
Very much enjoying the TL.

I know this has been mentioned before, but could somebody fill me in again on the exact tenets of Korsgaardianism. Thanks.
 

Glen

Moderator
Helmuth_Karl_Bernhard_von_Moltke.jpg

The development of the modern General Staff structure in Prussia-Poland and subsequently other Eastern nations and eventually even to the West were in many ways brought to fruition by Helmth von Moltke. Born in 1800, he initially was meant for service in the then Danish military. However, after seeing the strides being made by Prussia after the Napoleonic Wars, he joined the Prussian military instead. He was a bright, creative officer, who spoke several languages and wrote many scholarly books. He was a student of the writings of Carl von Clausewitz and campaigns of Napoleon. By the time of the Liberal War, he was serving as a lieutenant colonel with a command of his own. His war record was exemplary, and one of the few bright notes for the Eastern powers in that conflict. He was wounded in battle before the end of the war, and thus did not see it through to its conclusion. However, after a convalescence he was to join the Prussian General Staff and made several recommendations for its structure and activities. He wrote contingency plan after contingency plan for war with any and all nations about Prussia. He was one of the first to see the new ways of using breech loading weapons and mobility provided by rail. He was a great advocate of integration of Poles into the military with the formation of the joint kingdom of Prussia-Poland. Even before that time, he had written a book praising pre-partitiono Poland as the most civilized nation of Europe of the time. When he rose to overall command of the combined military of Prussia-Poland, he ruthlessly selected for talent and ability, regardless of societal or national origin. By the time of his death in 1888, Prussia-Poland had the most prepared and arguably well-trained and talented officer corps in the world.
 

Glen

Moderator
I didn't say they were interchangeable. Korsgaadianism in fact reminds me more of a slightly more modernized absolutist philosophy of the pre-enlightenment era.

Take out the divine right, emphasize the modern elements of 19th century society (capitalism, the press, etc.), and yes, it does. That's one of the reasons it is so appealing to the potentates of the East - it gives a modernist rationale for their reactionary desires.

My point is that while there are certainly reasons for the political elite to embrace the ideology, there is nothing to make it appealing as a mass movement, as was the case with fascism.

Well, yes and no. One thing Korsgaardian theory emphasizes is having all the classes in service to the state, and actually does counsel treating them well (by the lights of the state) when they serve the state's interests. For the nations of the East, their Korsgaardian monarchs are improving the lot of the lowest classes compared to years gone by. Not so much as in the West, but they aren't completely aware of that given that Korsgaardism also recommends that the press be in service to the state ('free' press would be anathema to Korsgaardism). Also, if you are of the masses but of a conservative bent, Korsgaardism looks like a protector of conservatism compared to the radicalism of the Liberal West.

Thus, while it's very easy to turn an authoritarian nation towards such an ideology, it is difficult to see in countries with an established electorate how the masses would vote to eliminate their own freedoms, without fear of something much, much worse bearing down on them.

True, true, which is why it was only conservative monarchies that adopted Korsgaardian early on. Only after the economic collapse did strongmen promising prosperity in return for obediance to the state gain traction in nations with an established electorate like Mexico. However, Korsgaardists are nothing if not adaptable to local conditions. The Korsgaardista movement there didn't eliminate elections - they did eliminate other parties, though.
 

Glen

Moderator
Indeed, but only because Virginia must rebel if any of the other colonies do. That's one of the inviolable tenets of alternate history, right? :)

Well, I suppose it need not be, but for anything with a divergence in the 1760s or 1770s it's a pretty good likelihood. Basically the leadership of the Revolution was primarily from Virginia and Massachussetts. There were certainly other states that were important, but those two were so riddled with potential revolutionaries that it is hard to come up with a plausible timeline where some of the colonies rebel but not these two.

And of course, a USA without Virginia and Virginians would not be the USA that we know.
 

iddt3

Donor
If the US truly does lack a native conservative ideology (which would kind of suprise me, I would think there would be some sort of Nativist party that picks up populist polices opposed to whatever the dominant political party wants) then I could see Korsgaardism being imported, or at least strongly influential, but only under a different name. Or has the American tendency towards linguistic insularity been butterflied away? Given that it's filling an ideological void in the American political spectrum, I would also expect it to end up pretty unrecognizable to a European Korsgaardian simply because the political situation and cultural assumptions are so different then the European societies that it emerged from.
 
This world looks a bit depressing. Please put in a far-left movement...

While I agree that a far-left movement would make an interesting rival to Korsgaardianism, and that all-round the political situation seems to be intimating a bleak future for society, you think that a far-left movement would be less depressing? :confused: This world needs far more centrism and humanity if we want less depression. A far-left movement would serve only to create an anti-capitalist, anti-proletariat violent revolution in several states, and then the waves of further terror and malevolence.

Still, as said before, might make for a more interesting story. My fingers are still crossed for a strong centrist political philosophy, however.
 

iddt3

Donor
While I agree that a far-left movement would make an interesting rival to Korsgaardianism, and that all-round the political situation seems to be intimating a bleak future for society, you think that a far-left movement would be less depressing? :confused: This world needs far more centrism and humanity if we want less depression. A far-left movement would serve only to create an anti-capitalist, anti-proletariat violent revolution in several states, and then the waves of further terror and malevolence.

Still, as said before, might make for a more interesting story. My fingers are still crossed for a strong centrist political philosophy, however.

What do we want? "Sensible and Representative Government!" When do we want it? "As soon as practical!".
I would love to see an aggressive and strong centrist political philosophy though.
 
While I agree that a far-left movement would make an interesting rival to Korsgaardianism, and that all-round the political situation seems to be intimating a bleak future for society, you think that a far-left movement would be less depressing? :confused: This world needs far more centrism and humanity if we want less depression. A far-left movement would serve only to create an anti-capitalist, anti-proletariat violent revolution in several states, and then the waves of further terror and malevolence.

Still, as said before, might make for a more interesting story. My fingers are still crossed for a strong centrist political philosophy, however.
If you put in a far-left movement, then yes, there will be bad things. It would be interesting, and provide some balance. I do not want this world to go grey.
 
Top