Canada Wank (YACW)

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

The chunk on the coast is Ostfriesland, was Prussian since 1744, apparently. OTL, they gave it up to Hannover.
That's one seemingly random bit that actually makes a LOT of sense.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

More back story 1797

More back story 1797

William, heir to the Electorate of Hesse, traveled to London, partly to look after his family's money[1], where he met and fell in love with Princess Sophia of Great Britain.[2]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Neither of her parents were interested in marrying off their children – Prince George because of the unhappy dynastic marriage he had been forced into, and Charlotte because she wanted to keep her children near her. But the young couple convinced them.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]There was at the time a persistent rumour that William and Sophia were caught in a “compromising position”, and that their marriage was allowed to squash scandal. There are two eyewitness accounts of the 'discovery', one, the official one, was that William and Sophia were sitting alone together (the only impropriety that account will admit), and that both young people appeared a bit flushed. The other, discovered in her maid's diary decades later, but probably the source of much of the contemporary rumour, insisted that they had obviously been 'making passionate love' (which in the language of the time might merely have been kissing), that Sophia's garments were 'quite disarranged', and that the condition of the couch on which they were sitting suggested that they hadn't been sitting apart bare moments earlier. When tasked with the matter, William admitted he got Sophia alone to have intercourse with her (but, of course, in period, that simply meant conversion)[3].[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Romances of the modern era[4] misinterpret those period terms and imagine the couple having wild sex. The reality of the matter was probably far more mundane and boring. Even if we accept her maid's account literally, 'disarranged' could mean most anything, many of which would be perfectly innocent.[5][/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In any case, what with the young couple swearing up and down that they were desperately in love and wanted to get married immediately, and possibly in order to quieten the scandal, they were given permission to marry.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]During this whole episode, Sophia's spinster sister Augusta (confusingly also a Sophia: Augusta Sophia) received a proposal from Prince Frederick Adolf of Sweden, and was able to convince her parents that since Sophia had been allowed to marry, she should be able to, as well. Unfortunately, he soon became ill and died in 1803.[6] They did not have any surviving issue.[/FONT]


–
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_II,_Elector_of_Hesse (28 July 1777 – 20 November 1847). This statement is incorrect. While the Hesse-Kassel fortune (largely gained by renting out their armies, cf. Hessians in the American Revolution) was placed with the Rothschilds (thus making THEIR fortune) and was moved to London, that didn't happen until after Napoleon came to power. No, he was sent to an ally to get him out of the way in the upcoming unpleasantness. The fact that George III was an uncle made it easier. The fact that the money came later and there was a family member to keep an eye on it was just a fortuitous circumstance. OTL, he was sent to Berlin, and married a Prussian princess.[/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Sophia_of_the_United_Kingdom (Sophia Matilda; 3 November 1777 – 27 May 1848) [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]3 William's statement was probably in German, but the same ambiguity exists with the German word “Verkehr”.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]4 probably the 20th century. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]5 And many of which wouldn't.<g> This writer is clearly trying to downplay the scandal. It's unlikely that it would have BEEN a scandal if the principals could have sworn to having engaged in nothing more than a chaste kiss. My personal guess is that they were engaged in some serious necking, and they were embarrassed enough they didn't want to admit how far they'd gone – which, of course, made everyone assume they'd gone much further. Note that OTL, Sophia probably gave birth to an illegitimate child, rather later in life.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]6 the proposal is OTL, the permission to marry is not. The death date is OTL. The year of the proposal iOTL is the same as the year William got married in Berlin. [/FONT]

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

The Congress of Vienna 1814-5

The Congress of Vienna 1814-5

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]With the defeat of Napoleon, the Allied Great Powers convened a Congress in Vienna to decide on the future of Europe. Article XXXII of the Treaty of Paris stated “[/FONT]All the powers engaged on either side in the present war shall, within the space of two months, send plenipotentiaries to Vienna, for the purpose of regulating, in general congress, the arrangements which are to complete the provisions of the present treaty.” But when the delegates arrived, they discovered that the four Allied Powers of Prussia, Russia, Austria and Britain were meeting behind closed doors, and were hoping to hammer out a deal to be ratified by the whole Congress.[1] The French Delegate, Richelieu[2] protested, but was only able to expand the circle on several of the subcommittees formed to discuss specific issues.



The biggest issues at the beginning of the Congress were the Poland and Saxony questions. Russia was occupying the vast majority of Poland, as Prussia was Saxony. Austria, among other nations, was horrified at the thought of Russia extending that deep into the heart of western Europe, and was also horrified at the thought of Saxony, a major German kingdom simply being extinguished and swallowed whole by anyone. On the other hand, neither Prussia or Russia was willing to budge an inch on these issues.[3] The British Envoy, the Duke of Wellington[4] had instructions to cooperate with the Russians to improve relations, and so didn't take a hard line on these issues. Emboldened by the prospect of the Russians getting all Poland, the King of Prussia declared “Saxony is a matter of our national honour. Ask us for anything else, but we will keep Saxony.” To which Metternich is said to have responded “Fine, then give us Silesia!”.


No one really knows what went on behind those closed doors, as the accounts left by participants afterwards were mostly incomplete, and all self-serving, but it seems that once the logjam of the Poland / Saxony question was broken, that it was mostly a matter of carving up the rest of Europe.


While the whole basis of the Congress was supposed to have been “Restoration and Legitimacy”, the shady deals worked out by the Four Great Powers totally destroyed the that. Certainly, several princes were restored to their positions, often the ones they'd had before the war, but others were moved around, and borders were adjusted without consultation of the nations concerned. It was seen as a massive power grab on the part of three of the Powers.


The end result[5] was as follows:


France was basically left with her 1792 borders, and had many of her colonies returned.


Austria got Tuscany (back), Venetia (sort of back, they'd had it for a while during the war), Silesia (major gain), Illyria and Dalmatia and a principality formed from Rhenish Bavaria and some smaller neighbouring states.


Prussia got all of Saxony, the Rhein Province (aside from the bit that went to Austria), Westphalia, Belgium and Luxembourg and got East Frisia back.


Russia got almost all of Poland. Not only the old Napoleonic Grand Duchy of Warsaw, but also Posen (bordering Silesia and Prussia), and most of Galicia from the Austrians. It is set up as a semi-autonomous Kingdom in personal union with Russia, and with a liberal constitution.


As for the minor powers,

• Hannover got Lauenburg south of Denmark.
• Denmark got Swedish Pomerania, and there were other minor border adjustments.
• Since the Netherlands didn't get Belgium (as was the original plan), they got a consolation prize of French Guyana to join to their existing colony, doubling its size.
• Naples/Sicily. Even though Metternich pushed very hard for ousting Murat from Naples, Murat was well ensconced and it would have taken an invasion to get him out. No one wanted a new war, so he was allowed to stay. Ferdinand de Bourbon, however, kept Sicily even if he didn't get Naples back.
• Parma goes to the former King of Saxony, as SOME place had to be found for him. The fact that Parma had already been promised to Napoleon's wife, and the former Bourbon ruler was too bad.

What did Britain get? Well, they didn't WANT anything on the Continent. The other powers pointed out that even if they were returning a handful of colonies, that they still made out like bandits in the rest of the world (including probable significant gains of territory in North America). However, to acquiesce to the blatant power grabs, Britain did demand, and got, a ringing condemnation of the Slave Trade written into the final treaty. She also got slight revisions to the founding Act of the German Confederation (Deutscher Bund), see below.


Once the Great Powers had hammered out the basic agreement, they presented it to all the other powers at the formal Congress. The general reaction was shock – rumours had been flying about the general shape of the Treaty, but the actual package as a raw power grab was breath taking. Still, the Great Powers weren't terribly interested in making more than cosmetic changes, and they made it clear that if the minor powers didn't agree, they might lose even more. Eventually, most countries acquiesced.[6]


The last item of business, and one that wasn't completely imposed by the Great Powers, was the German Confederation, a loose alliance of German states under the leadership of Austria. The various nations agreed to form a perpetual union, never to go to war with each other, and to work towards economic cooperation.[7]
–
1 OTL



2 iOTL, Talleyrand was the French delegate and was able to blast open the closed process, at least open to France (and nominally to lesser powers). ITTL, he stays home in Paris as Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, and tries to direct things long distance. It doesn't work nearly as well. The Richelieu here is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armand-Emmanuel_de_Vignerot_du_Plessis,_Duc_de_Richelieu. He was on good terms with the Austrians and Russians, had served in the Tsar's army, etc., so seems to be a good choice for getting agreements from them. OTL, he refused a position in Talleyrand's government, based on his having been gone from France for so long – but what Royalist hadn't been.



3 again, OTL. Obviously, OTL, they were talked down.



4 OTL, Castlereagh was Leader of the Commons (since the PM was a Lord, he needed a deputy in the Commons), as well as being Foreign Secretary. He went in person to act as Britain's representative, and often ignored orders from the government. Eventually, he was replaced by Wellington. Here Wellington is sent at the beginning, as a pointed reminder that Britain wants to be listened to. Castlereagh WAS told to cooperate with the Russians, but decided to oppose them, instead.



5 basically, Prussia gets Belgium in exchange for Silesia. When Russia wants Galicia, Austria is compensated with chunks torn off Bavaria (mostly), at which point Prussia wants more territory on the Rhine. OTL, Russia only got the Duchy of Warsaw, while Prussia got Posen/Poznan, and Austria Krakow; Galicia stayed Austrian; Prussia didn't get Belgium or Luxembourg, but did get Swedish Pomerania; Austria didn't get those bits from Bavaria; Denmark got Lauenburg; Hannover got East Frisia; the Netherlands got Belgium. This is my best explanation for the Susano/Valdemar map we've already discussed. As for Britain, OTL they got an outlawing of the Slave Trade, but NOT in the treaty, and only as an agreement of the Great Powers. Buying e.g. Spain's support later cost them a lot of gold. Here, they get it all for 'free'.


Note, too, that in the 100 Day OTL (which didn't happen here), Murat (Napoleon's general who was king in Naples) tried to move north to support Napoleon. This let the Allies attack him back, and he was ousted completely. ITTL, the 100 Days never happens, and Murat stays in Naples.
OTL Parma was promised to 2 people. Here, the same, except it's a third who actually gets it.


Amazingly enough, the 'semi-autonomous kingdom with a liberal constitution' for Poland is OTL!



6 OTL, the Congress never actually opened at all. All the deals were made in back rooms (with a few more participants than just the big 4), and the Great Powers signed it. Individual nations were then expected to sign on bilaterally, and eventually did.



7 much like OTL, see [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]http://personal.ashland.edu/~jmoser1/confederation.htm for an English translation of OTL's constitution. The additions iTTL are a brief reference to 'economic ties' and a mention of co-ordination of foreign policy. Both were added to make Britain happy - an economically stronger Germany is one that can buy more British goods; and they want a stronger containment of France. Austria and Prussia agree to the additions because they are vague and non-committal. Besides, 'economic cooperation' benefits them, too, and 'foreign policy co-ordination' means 'follow my lead', or so they think. But it pleases Hannover and some of the other mid-size states even more.[/FONT]

 

[dreadnought jenkins]

Please let Poland have a better fate in this timeline. Please, please, please

I don't care if it stays Russian or not, only that it doesn't face the repression that occurred later on.

Maybe have the whole liberal autonomous Kingdom concept work out in this TL, and then have those ideas spread to other parts of the Russian Empire.

That, or maybe a reunited Poland (under Russian control) has a better chance at succesfully rebelling in an alternate November uprising?

Anyway, awesome timeline. As a Canadian, I approve.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Rebellions Post Congress (1815-23)

At the end of the Congress of Vienna, the Great Powers had agreed to meet on a regular basis to adjudicate differences and solve problems that might arise.[1] In 1817, they met at Aix-la-Chappelle, where the primary purpose was to check on the progress of the French occupation and how the Bourbon restoration was going.[2] France was given a clean bill of (political) health, and allowed to join the Allies, making it now the Quintuple Alliance. Tsar Alexander proposed that an Alliance Solidaire where all of the Great Powers would guarantee each others' borders and forms of government. This sounded quite innocuous, but Britain loudly protested, correctly perceiving that it was meant to maintain the current status quo (e.g. suppress rebellion, prevent liberal changes of government). Faced with Britain's refusal the Tsar withdrew his proposal.



The next crisis happened in 1820, when Spanish liberals revolted against Ferdinand VII, forcing him to keep his promise to re-instate the Constitution of 1812. France tried to get Alliance support, but Britain refused. She didn't object too much to France intervening unilaterally, but refused to let it be an 'Alliance' operation, even in name.[3] France managed to re-instate Ferdinand as an absolute monarch, but it took a couple of years.



Inspired by the Spanish revolt, the Sicilians revolted against Ferdinand of Sicily (or 'of the Two Sicilies' according to the Austrians) later that year. Austria briefly considered asking for Alliance cover for the operation, but decided not to. The British did send a small naval force to Naples harbour, warning Joachim I (i.e. Murat) to stay out of the affair.[4] (However, they also made it clear to the Austrians that they wouldn't stand for an expansion of their operation to Naples. Since Austria hadn't made any formal moves in that direction, they chose to pretend that they had had no such intentions, and that Britain was supporting them.)


Murat did, however, have to make good on his repeatedly delayed promise of a constitution for the Kingdom of Naples. (He had been using the line 'My, aren't you glad you've got me instead of a Spanish Bourbon', meaning Ferdinand I over in Sicily. His opposition could now say point to the 'Spanish Bourbon' (Ferdinand VII of Spain) who DID grant a constitution, and turn his argument on its head. Even though the French then crushed the liberal revolt in Spain over the next few years, reinstating Ferdinand VII's absolute rule, Naples' constitution stayed. Murat likes to be considered a liberal, enlightened ruler, but he'd prefer to actually be as much of an autocrat as he can get away with.)


There was unrest elsewhere in Italy, but the only other place where an actual revolt occurred was in Sardinia, where the revolutionaries wanted to put Charles Albert (currently 2nd in line) on the throne. Since Charles Albert dithered and didn't seize the opportunity, the revolt fizzled out.[3]


The Portuguese also had a revolt, but since it was in favour of the King (who had not yet returned from Brazil), it doesn't really count.[3]


Then the Greeks revolted in 1821. This Greek Revolt actually started in Rumania (!), as Phanariot Greek administrators tried to get the Wallachians and the Moldovans to revolt. They had thought they would have Russia's support (being an Orthodox revolt against the Muslim Ottomans). And they assumed the Romanians would follow. Neither happened, and this portion of the revolt failed miserably.


Then the second phase kicked off in mainland Greece (Morea).


As much as the Russians would have liked to support Orthodoxy, they hated rebellion even more, and they chose not to support either rebellion. The British government was interested in supporting relations with the Ottomans, and the other powers agreed with Russia. So there was no government support for this rebellion at all. However, there was massive support for the Greeks among the populace of Britain and France, so the revolt stumbles on for a while.[3]


–
1 iTTL, the strains produced by Russia and especially Prussia making such major demands, have engendered rather more distrust in those two parties – especially on the part of Austria, who would otherwise have been far more willing to join with them on suppressing rebellions.


2 Much the same as OTL, except the 100 Days hasn't happened, France got off more lightly, and the occupation was shorter. A similar congress happened in the same place iOTL in 1818. However, due to differing reactions to events, no more official Congresses are actually held. Instead, occasional ad hoc meetings of the 5 meet to discuss specific events.


3 again, as OTL. A lot of this is OTL, as you can see.



4 here's where the butterflies kick in. OTL, the revolt was based in Naples, as Murat had been ousted. ITTL, he's firmly in power. The Austrians claimed Murat was instigating the revolt, which he wasn't. However, while the British aren't willing to help crush the Sicilians, they do make an effort to prevent the fighting from expanding – stopping Murat from aiding the rebels (which he was, once the revolt started), and stopping the Austrians from using the revolt as a pretext to invade Naples. IOTL, Austria wanted 5 Power backing for his move. ITTL, because it had been refused for France, because it's only Sicily (not Naples and Sicily), and because the Austrians don't trust the Prussians as much as OTL, they decide to go it alone. They do warn the other powers of their intentions, which is why the British sent a naval force to Naples.


Note: these butterflies mean that there is no Congress of Troppau, no Troppau Protocol to use “peaceful means, or if need be, by arms, to bring back the guilty state into the bosom of the Great Alliance.” and no Holy Alliance.

 

[Shevek23]

So we see clearly enough, the opportunities for practicing the proposed principle of 5-power alliance to uphold stability slip by for expedient reasons; it is always in some power or other's interest to ignore this or that specific situation and thus prevent the alliance from being invoked, nor do any of the 5 slip so far out of bounds the others must slap them down. The upshot seems to be the 5-power "alliance" dies of neglect and when a situation finally arises to put it clearly to the test it will die of quaintness. The powers as they are then will line up on opposite sides as usual.

And we also see the liberal/reactionary split. I'm not sure if or how this diverges from OTL. Actually it seems that by being consistently if moderately liberal (being reactionary mainly by default and inaction, as in Greece) it's the British who are diverging; my impression is that the late Hanoverian reigns were generally quite reactionary, with simmering populist rebellions (eventually reforming into Chartism and thence into pre-emptive progressive liberal legislation in the mid-Victorian years) impelling long years of suspended habeus corpus and the like. I'm not sure why the post George III era gentry in Britain would be less terrified of the mob ITTL. There's Napoleon's inglorious end and more British pride in their role in putting an end to the Revolutionary period of France in general I guess, but I'd think that would just seem to further legitimize the reactionism of a "firm hand" in dealing with unruly commoners. It seems unlikely Canada itself is having a liberalizing influence on the motherland at this early stage though arguably it is something of a safety valve; with potential agitators instead moving to settle Canada, taking some of the pressure off labor markets on the worker's side (less competition?) and compensating the propertied who might be a bit less able to drive wages down with more stable politics (less in the way of Swing riots and the like? Or were those strictly a Napoleonic-era phenomenon? When was Peterloo again? Clearly after Waterloo...

Ah, here we go! 1819, OTL.

So I'm wondering if the victories in BNA could be sufficient in themselves to forestall or moderate the reactionary trend in post-Napoleonic war Britain symbolized so potently by this OTL watershed moment, or if there are related other outcomes of the alternate denoument of the war or even events in the war itself that put Britain on a more moderate track. Mind, it doesn't have to be completely transformed--in fact it can't be, or Britain cannot become the industrial leader of the world, or retain its position there insofar as she is already there in 1815. The fact is the radical surge forward of Britain's industrial capability is necessarily built on a heavily exploited working class, they can't all migrate to Canada! Nor can the objective situation be much ameliorated for them, so much of the drive behind working class radicalism, which would lead to ruling class reaction, still has to be there. We must be talking, at best, of a bit more velvet on the glove over what is still an iron fist.

So it may indeed be mainly a matter of key potential leaders of the more effective radical movements being a bit more diverted a bit more often, toning down the debate a bit. Maybe a few key reforms happen a bit earlier with less spectacular debate and confrontation, but by and large there will still be Dickensian and worse poverty, squalor, overwork, desperation; there will still be massive crime and drastic punishment, including transportation overseas. I forget if Australia is being developed as OTL or what.

Of course none of this means "liberalism" is a facade; indeed, many of the most brutal aspects of 19th century society were the very fulfillment of the ideals of "liberalism" as then defined, by people like the Utilitarians Dickens satirized as the "Gradgrinds." Or Ebineezer Scrooge!

Both the absolutist and liberal powers will stand for much all but the most crudely reactionary today would denounce, then, and we can see how certain populist trends might support absolutism not just for reasons of chauvinism or developing racism or the like, but for humanitarian reasons as well; until the meaning of liberalism in Western Europe evolves to include some basic social welfare policy in its core self-definition, an efficient and at least somewhat humane absolutism might seem quite attractive to lots of people by comparison to their realistic prospects in a truly laissez-faire liberal order.

I do think the safety-valve effect of expanded BNA on British life will have an increasingly visible effect; worker's wages won't fall quite so low, the housing and hours and working conditions won't get quite so terrible. Profits in Britain itself won't be quite so high, development won't be exactly as high or as widespread or fast. But there might be a bit more of it in Ireland, a bit more in Germany, delayed in Belgium a bit but then catching up, and a lot more in Canada. Maybe less overall in North America, with the USA repeatedly self-bankrupted and truncated, but considerably more under the Union Jack. Overall then Britain would be as strong or stronger than OTL but a substantially lower percentage would be in Britain itself--still considering how overwhelmingly this phase of the Industrial Revolution was a British phenomenon OTL, even with the peripheries a lot more developed and Britain a bit less so, the island will still strongly predominate within the Empire and the Empire will be seen as essentially limbs of a body with a British face by outsiders. (Except insofar as these are close neighbors of these "limbs;" the people of the USA will increasingly see Britain through a Canadian lens, for instance, and Mexico through Rio Bravo and British California)

Politically it might be easier for traditionalist reaction to enjoy peace and quiet in Britain for a while, but soon the lowered intensity of direct class struggle in Britain itself would be offset by the strange new populism of the colonies, which will react back on class relations in the motherland by setting new standards for the working people there to aspire to, both of material prosperity and political respectability.

I've been harping on the subject of the enhanced respectability of African-descended peoples in BNA, and noting the improved status of Native peoples there, because it may transform the nature of British colonial relations in Africa and generally in Asia when the scramble for formal colonies begins to pick up the pace. We've also seen the groundwork laid for smoother and more inclusive race relations in India as well, at least a potential channel to an improved state of affairs there has been carved out, whether policy takes it or blows it later remains to be seen of course!

Because OTL, a rather dark side of the rising influence of Britain's colonists was that on the various colonial frontiers, in Australia, South Africa, the Raj, and so forth a racism paralleling American forms of it was part of the package. If Canada sets a higher standard here and this becomes the template, the Empire may put down broader, deeper, multiracial roots and Britain's children who go forth may not return such a confused message of radical populism for white people and absolutism for colored ones, making the message of plebeian empowerment clearer and more steadfast.

Also the Empire may be built, presumably more slowly and painstakingly, onto much firmer foundations; an era of anticolonialism may yet come to pass and sweep it back, but there will probably be bastions of historically good rule that remain loyal and even though truncated, a solid Empire on which the sun truly never sets may remain.

 

[The Blue-Eyed Infidel]

Were I debating Shevek, I would say that there are swings and roundabouts. Yes, race relations in the British Empire are likely to be (marginally) better, although I'm not convinced as to the magnitude.

On the other hand, small-r republicanism has been dealt a severe blow to its prestige - the only thriving example of a republic at this point ITTL is the USNE, and the rest of the world probably views it, rightly or wrongly, as a client state of the British Empire.

Furthermore, there are "successful" examples of authoritarianism with Austria, Russia, and Prussia; Dathi also seems to be hinting that France is going to succumb to authoritarianism in the future, and I'm not convinced that Poland will set a successful, as opposed to a dangerous, example for the Russian tsar.

Philisophically, I'm probably diametrically opposed to Shevek, being a pessimist and a Hayekian. Whilst I prefer to live under a (classical) liberal regime, and believe that in the long run it is the best and most efficient system in the long, authoritarianism, done half-way right, can thrive and even prosper for extended time horizons (and a flexible defininition of the word "prosper"). Consider OTL Prussia 1815-1914 as an example.

I actually think TTL is going to be somewhat less liberal than our own; the lack of a successful America as an example and propagandist being the primary reason.

TB-EI

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

@Shevek
in the last post, most of it is OTL. The primary butterflies are a result of leaving Murat in Naples (in this post) and of Britain being MORE accommodating to the Reactionary Russian and Prussian demands (in the previous one).

No, the increased fear of Russia/Prussia here (due to their successful demands sinking in and also their increased arrogance) are primarily to be seen so far in the Germanies. Austria, for instance, is rather more leery of giving Prussia another inch anywhere, and the smaller German states are having their attention concentrated lest they fall next.

Where did I have Britain being more Liberal than OTL?

As for Peterloo. Oops. I just totally forgot about it, or rather forgot it would play into these posts.

Peterloo may actually have played out as OTL, I'll have to look into it.

However. As of 1822, we have already established that Canadian wheat production counts as 'domestic', and the proto-St.Lawrence seaway (first interation) opened in '21. So, Canadian wheat will be pouring into Britain, slowly at first, but in growing amounts, so the Corn Law problems are not going to be nearly as much of an irritation as OTL. From '22 on. Doesn't affect Peterloo.

As for British politics. The most reactionary Tory still counts as a liberal in the Germanies. There are very, very few constitutions at this point, and most are of the 'OK, you can have a parliament, and I promise to listen to it, but I don't promise to obey it', which is where England was in the time of the Stuarts. Only the absolutely most reactionary Tories would want to go that far back. Maybe not even them.

Is Britain pushing for universal democracy? no way no how. Is Britain pushing for open markets to sell its goods? Ya sure, you betcha. Does Britain feel completely comfortable or trust entirely completely Autocratic regimes? no, but they've got to work with them. Would Britain be happy to see taming constitutions in friendly German States? Yes, but they're not pushing for that now.

And, no, I really don't think that political developments in the Colonies (as they still are in the 1820s) will affect Britain that much, yet.

Does that help?

Britain doesn't move strongly liberal until Charlotte ascends the throne in '30. It's only after that that things like the Delian League even enter discussion.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

German Developments post Congress (1815-1830)

First major replacement for the retconned '1830' post:


German Developments post Congress (1815-1830)

Political
Bavaria granted a constitution in 1818. Duchy of Baden did, too, although it led to deadlock and was ignored for the next decade.



Economic
The first move towards economic coordination and freer trade was made by Prussia in 1818, when they created the first Zollverein (customs union) among the various provinces of Prussia. The next major effort was spearheaded by Württemberg, who wanted to open up a Zollverein among the various minor states of Germany, what some called Third Germany (behind Austria and Prussia). The initial talks didn't go very well, as Bavaria and Württemberg wanted rather more protectionist policies, and Baden and the two Hessian states (with better access to the Rhine for instance), wanted freer trade (lower customs tariffs).[1]


In 1825, Württemberg, Bavaria and a couple of the small Thuringian states formed the South German Customs Union, and the next year Baden, Hesse-Darmstadt and Rhenish Austria formed the South German Trade Union.[2] Since Baden and Bavaria both used the Gulden worth 5/12 of a Conventionsthaler, both the new commercial unions adopted that common currency. Having larger market areas, and a common currency facilitated trade within the area (and between unions), and increased commercial activity.


Seeing the success of the southern Unions, the more northerly states worked on their own. In 1828, Hannover, Hesse-Kassel and Brunswick formed the Norddeutscher Handelsverein (North German Trade Union)[3] Later Oldenburg and then Bremen joined. The currency used was the (Nord)Thaler[4], equal to 3/4 of a Conventionsthaler. Amusingly, while this currency had been used for some time as a currency of account, the first actual mintings were by the French puppet Kingdom of Westphalia - which by 1828 was, of course, part of Prussia, and so no longer used it (they used the slightly smaller Prussian Thaler instead).


So, by 1830 Germany was split into 5 trading blocks (Prussia, Austria, North and South German Trade Unions, and the Southern Customs Union), with 4 currencies – Prussian Thaler, Austrian Florin, Northern Thaler and the South German Gulden.[5]


The other major issue was weights and measures. Every state had its own 'foot' and 'pound', and they varied significantly in size. In fact, measures might vary from town to town. The first unification was in the Southern Trade Union. In much of the area, the French had (during the Napoleonic Wars) imposed the Metric system which was easy and convenient, even if new-fangled and foreign. Thus, folk measures gravitated to metric equivalents, resulting in a 'foot' of 25 or 30 cm, for instance, and a 'pound' of 400g or 500g, which made units more convertible – but still retained some familiar comfort. The South Germans picked a 30cm 'foot' and the 500g pound as the basis for their units. This eventually propagated to the other middle German Unions.[6]
–
1 OTL, what follows starts to diverge.


2 Süddeutscher Zollverein and Süddeutscher Handelsverein, respectively. OTL, I don't THINK that any minor states joined Württemberg and Bavaria, but this was the year that the Süddeutscher Zollverein was formed iOTL. Similarly, Hesse-Darmstadt wavered about who they should join. Baden wasn't big enough by itself, so the union of those two wasn't worth it; and they didn't get on well with their Hesse-Kassel, apparently, so joining with the northern states wasn't on. IOTL, they joined the Prussian Zollverein in 1828. ITTL, Rhenish Austria (which OTL was Rhenish Bavaria and part of the Southern Zollverein) is available to join with Hesse-Darmstadt and Baden, making a practical union. Austria allows this, as Rhenish Austria is way the heck separated from the other Austrian territories, since this is simply a trade union (no political involvement) and since, AFAIK, Austria didn't even have a Customs Union within Austria (the books make a big deal of Prussia creating an internal one, which makes me believe Austria didn't have one).


This guy: Friedrich List is important iTTL and iOTL, although I haven't written in exactly what the differences would be.



3 iOTL, the “(Mitteldeutscher) Handelsverein” was formed in 1828 with Hannover, Hesse-Kassel, Frankfurt and a few smaller states. Later Brunswick, Oldenburg, and Bremen joined. OTL it was sparked by the defection of Hesse-Darmstadt to the Prussian union. Here, Brunswick is on board from the first, and it's sparked by the success of the southern unions. Note that OTL it was “Mitteldeutscher Handelsverein”, here it's “Nord...”



4 iOTL and iTTL this coin was more commonly called the Reichsthaler (or just Thaler) at the time – but that term refers to so many different currencies over the years, that most modern (TTL) historians call it the Nordthaler (the Thaler of the Norddeutscher Handelsverein) or the Westfalen Thaler. The author quoted here obviously prefers 'Nordthaler'.
5 overly simplified. Bremen didn't join the Northern Union until January of 1831, and the Mecklenburgs and Lübeck aren't part of any union yet.



6 One source on old units: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alte_Maße_und_Gewichte_(deutschsprachiger_Raum) . Note that this chosen 'foot' is quite close to the English foot in size, which made trade with Britain a little easier, and is intermediate between the short foot Hesse used (25cm) and, for instance, the longer old French foot of ~32.5cm. It's quite close to the old Roman value of 29.6cm. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pied_(unité) Modern Germans iOTL apparently still use 'Pfund' (pound) as a name for a .5kg unit, or so I'm told. Foot = »Fuß« (foot) or »Schuh« (shoe) or »Werkschuh« (workshoe).

 

[trekchu]

This guy: Friedrich List is important iTTL and iOTL, although I haven't written in exactly what the differences would be.

Hooray! For he is a local hero around where I was born.

 

[Ming777]

I'm wonder when will we get back to the developments in North America?

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

I'm wonder when will we get back to the developments in North America?

Well, we've got a lot of world history to cover, that hasn't been.
We've got to get to
- 184x in Europe, which is taking longer since my part-post 'Belgium handwaves independence' didn't work
- the Great Potato Famine
- the non-Opium War(s)
at least.
Mind you, I do have most of the Transcontinental RR work done. Then we've got a couple of gold rushes... Politically, the country's going to grow and prosper (and pay off war debts). But aside from the RR, I don't know what's going to happen for the next decades, let alone beyond.

One of the reasons we've got to work through the European stuff is I've got to see what Alliance structures are going to look like. Is the US going to go to war with Canada again? Depends what the world looks like and what a war trigger might be.

We're probably going to spend at least as much time outside North America as inside from now on. Would be my guess. I don't have the whole thing plotted out - 'cause every time I try to get ahead of myself, the plot changes under me.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

As for Peterloo. Oops. I just totally forgot about it, or rather forgot it would play into these posts.

Peterloo may actually have played out as OTL, I'll have to look into it.

Having looked into it a bit, Peterloo, or something very like it, would have happened. Let's assume it did, and because it didn't change the shape of history (ie between TTL and OTL), we can say it happened essentially as OTL.

Thanks for pointing it out, tho.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Ummm... The unification of weights and measures is a "Zollverein" ?
(Zoll=inch, as well as customs, apparently.)

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

(Now you know what my poor wife has to put up with all the time.)

 

[Ming777]

Ideas for the future:

The beginning of aviation: If there is an ATL analog/brother of Alexander Graham Bell, perhaps by the 1890s, they might begin to develop the first fixed wing aircraft.

The Iron-Clad Age: Since we have proven the success of armored warships over traditional wooden hulled vessels, we might explore that, and coupled with the introduction of steam-engines, we could see the start of a new naval arms race.

Canadian relations with the rump United States might be hampered by their retaining of slavery and their resentment of Canada and New England.

Great Potato Famine: Like in OTL, the famine might lead to mass immigration to Catholic dominant areas of Canada, with the Americans being relatively hostile to Catholics.

Alaska: Will Russia sell Alaska ITTL. Perhaps the Brits decide to buy it as well.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Ideas for the future:

always welcome

The beginning of aviation: If there is an ATL analog/brother of Alexander Graham Bell, perhaps by the 1890s, they might begin to develop the first fixed wing aircraft.

no clue. Haven't worked things out nearly that far in advance.

The Iron-Clad Age: Since we have proven the success of armored warships over traditional wooden hulled vessels, we might explore that, and coupled with the introduction of steam-engines, we could see the start of a new naval arms race.

Oh yeah. The Gloire/Warrior equivalents are already in service iTTL, and have pretty much obsoleted wooden ships. Haven't got any plot worked on there, but it's pretty much a given. Iron production isn't nearly as high as it would/will be 2 decades later, so they'll be quite expensive.

Canadian relations with the rump United States might be hampered by their retaining of slavery and their resentment of Canada and New England.

yes. Not precisely sure how much, or where that's going. I'm not planning a Turtledove-esque permanent violent hatred.

Great Potato Famine: Like in OTL, the famine might lead to mass immigration to Catholic dominant areas of Canada, with the Americans being relatively hostile to Catholics.

Yep. Note that almost a million Scots left home, too, iOTL, and they would be more accepted in the States. Also Protestant Irish.

Argentina and Brazil are going to get a big chunk, too (of the RC Irish).

Alaska: Will Russia sell Alaska ITTL. Perhaps the Brits decide to buy it as well.

We have a goodly length of time before Alaska becomes an issue.

They are unlikely to SELL it to the Brits, since they're likely going to be on opposite sides of Alliance structures, and the Crimean War is probably not going to happen (which would be a good time to seize it), but ja, it's likely (almost certain) to end up Canadian at some point.

Don't know how, yet. It might be a 'purchase' like some of the US purchases : "we've taken the land, and you're not getting it back. Here's some money for a fig-leaf to make it diplomatically less questionable." Or the British 'purchase' of California iTTL.

 

[The Blue-Eyed Infidel]

We have a goodly length of time before Alaska becomes an issue.

They are unlikely to SELL it to the Brits, since they're likely going to be on opposite sides of Alliance structures, and the Crimean War is probably not going to happen (which would be a good time to seize it), but ja, it's likely (almost certain) to end up Canadian at some point.

Don't know how, yet. It might be a 'purchase' like some of the US purchases : "we've taken the land, and you're not getting it back. Here's some money for a fig-leaf to make it diplomatically less questionable." Or the British 'purchase' of California iTTL.

Intriguing.

I had anticipated a seizure in TTL's equivalent of the Crimean War, but if that isn't happening, then ... well, I guess I'll just have to wait and see along with everyone else.

Question, though: before or after the Alaskan / Yukon gold rush? You may have a situation similar to Texas / California IOTL if it's after; i.e. Canadian / VBNA settlers flooding a territory ruled by a seperate soverignty, and then agitating for annexation.

TB-EI

 

[Shevek23]

...
We have a goodly length of time before Alaska becomes an issue.

They are unlikely to SELL it to the Brits, since they're likely going to be on opposite sides of Alliance structures, and the Crimean War is probably not going to happen (which would be a good time to seize it), but ja, it's likely (almost certain) to end up Canadian at some point.

Don't know how, yet. It might be a 'purchase' like some of the US purchases : "we've taken the land, and you're not getting it back. Here's some money for a fig-leaf to make it diplomatically less questionable." Or the British 'purchase' of California iTTL.

Hmm, Russia allied with someone else against Britain.

I've lost track of how France is evolving--well, nothing in Europe has been taken past 1830 yet. We've been focusing on Germany, it seems settled that the northwest alliances of smaller states centered on Hannover will remain outside the Prussian hegemony, and perhaps Prussia has already reached an apogee and would do well to consolidate what they have. It's unclear how consolidated Germany will ever get.

OTL Bismarck had to do some shuttle diplomacy to get an informal "3 Kaiser Pact" between Prussian-run Germany, Austria and Russia, and it seems conventional wisdom that you can't have Austria and Russia in the same alliance for any great length of time. I forget if I posted my questioning that wisdom, wondering if good diplomacy, bilaterally between these empires or mediated by a third power (say, Prussia for instance) can settle the outstanding differences and come to agreeable terms between them for dividing any future spoils that might accrue to either on the Ottoman border, which, if the Polish border can be settled, seems the likeliest flashpoint of conflict.

OTL, with Germany united and a rising challenge to both Russia and France, the alliance between France and Russia seemed natural and it was to forestall this and leave France as isolated as he could that Bismarck labored to keep Russia friendly, or at least politely nonbelligerent. But with Germany divided, there is no single German great power to bother the French; the bother is likely to be the other way, with the Rhenish border states feeling threatened by French ambition. Having Prussia, Austria, or both as in TTL, having possessions in these western borderlands might actually facilitate alliances between one, the other, or both of these German powers with their main bases far to the east and France; they might be interested in expanding their control and willing to sacrifice some (more) German territory to French expansion in return for French help in reducing minor German states that stand in the way of all these grand schemes. The Western German states would be the ones concerned to resist France, and perhaps a Prussia allied with France on their other flank, and I think it's established Britain will favor at least the alliance that includes Hannover.

So the straight alternation pattern would imply a Russia allied with the Western German confederation(s), which by the way if the latter tend to include Denmark at least an allied partner, fits with OTL history where there relationships between Denmark and Russia. And that would have Russia indirectly allied with Britain, which you seem to have ruled out, at least for mid century.

Russia might even think they can go it alone, with their size and distance and relatively underdeveloped international trade which means less vulnerability to the British dominion of the high seas.

Going with the notion of an East/West Absolutist/Liberal Cold War (which I hardly mean to try to hold you to, if you've decided to go another way) I think the Prussians, held in a corner and frustrated by British schemes favoring Hannover, concentrate on a quasi-Bismarckian Conservative Alliance (can't call it a three-Emperor alliance since the Prussian king is hardly in a position to call himself Emperor of anything!), brokering agreements on the three borders meant to give mutual assurance they will henceforth be stable. So everything from the western Prussian border east pretty much moves as one power and while each is watching the others, none plans to move against them. Austria and Russia have ambitions into the Balkans but also a policy and mechanisms set up to divide these potential spoils equitably between them, to maintain parity. Austria hopes to keep itself together, retaining and consolidating what they can in Italy; Russia looks to expand at Turkish expense both in the Balkans and in northwest Central Asia, which implies potential conflict with Britain as that takes them toward India.

Prussia is boxed in territorially unless they turn on one of these allies, or crush the West Germans. However I think they might do an authoritarian, top-down administered version of industrialization and set up as the workshop--and arsenal!-- of the more expansive but less developed eastern powers.

Now a big open question is, how would France line up? It depends very much on the nature of France's own regime, and how economically successful French industry is. The more they hold their own in competition with the greater trading nations, the more likely even a nominal monarchy is going to adopt a liberal style. But if an autocrat does that he'd be risking some sort of republican or at least pro-parliamentary uprising or coup. OTL I gather Louis Bonaparte sort of midwifed the mature 3rd Republic that lasted until the Nazis conquered it; many liberal institutions were under autocratic control but matured until they could operate without a monarch at all. ITTL a Bonaparte would have tougher sledding.

But then again, OTL Louis Bonaparte spent some time in the USA, and was careful to avoid conflict with Britain; some analogous figure--say an actual Bourbon who spends some time residing in Canada--might fit a similar profile. The upshot would be an autocratic but liberal-leaning France, probably keen in classic French fashion to assert its independence of Britain and allied powers but not inclined to seek direct conflict with them.

The underlying social and economic forces leading to the events of 1848 OTL are probably at work here too, but it isn't clear that even dramatic events in France would necessarily lead to the downfall of the Orleanist monarchy. Then again I don't actually know all that much about Louis Philippe, certainly not enough to guess how likely some Orleanist is likely to take power in France around 1830 in the first place and if one does, how likely they'd be to lose it. OTL the Prussian monarchy held despite much opposition in '48, perhaps a French one can here. The main branch of the Bourbons will probably blow it as they did OTL, and if there is an Orleanist period that ends in serious dissent, and the possibly attractive figure of a cadet Bourbon from Canada comes forth, the '48 analog might be a return to that monarchy, and it go either shrewd-absolutist, tending to align with Prussia, Austria, and Russia against the liberal powers, or shrewd-parliamentary/liberal, tending to be a maverick member of the de facto liberal Western bloc. Or you may think of yet more possibilities.

If Russia is definitely against Britain, and if there is an Eastern absolutist bloc, I suppose one possible form of conflict between Britain and Russia might be the Russians going it alone--the alliance with Prussia and Austria holding to the extent that these two bordering powers give the Russians comfort in the form of secure borders and continued trade (overland) but aren't obligated to get drawn into actual hostilities with Britain and don't want to. If this war is not be some close analog to the Crimean War I guess it might be in the northern Baltic, with Sweden allied with Britain, or in the region of Iran and Afghanistan, or in the far east involving the rush to secure concessions in China and neighboring places like Korea. Only the Baltic war would embarrass the Prussians with the question of why they don't jump in to help. Austria is nowhere near any of these possible flashpoints.

The Russians don't have a lot of either shipping to commerce-raid nor overseas colonies to attack, Alaska being the only one I can think of.

The war could even directly be about Alaska, say emerging from a boundary dispute with BNA.

All right, I guess I should just stop guessing!

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Question, though: before or after the Alaskan / Yukon gold rush? You may have a situation similar to Texas / California IOTL if it's after; i.e. Canadian / VBNA settlers flooding a territory ruled by a seperate soverignty, and then agitating for annexation.

TB-EI

Hmmm... Good point that. If it doesn't happen before, it certainly should then, I agree.

 

[The Blue-Eyed Infidel]

Hmm, Russia allied with someone else against Britain.

I've lost track of how France is evolving--well, nothing in Europe has been taken past 1830 yet. We've been focusing on Germany, it seems settled that the northwest alliances of smaller states centered on Hannover will remain outside the Prussian hegemony, and perhaps Prussia has already reached an apogee and would do well to consolidate what they have. It's unclear how consolidated Germany will ever get.

{snip}

All right, I guess I should just stop guessing!

I probably should too, but -

IIRC, Dathi has hinted pretty strongly (perhaps even come tight out and said - I'm not sure) that France and Russia are going to allied against Britain at some point in the future, and that France is going to turn revanchist.

So the question is, where does the rest of Europe fall in.

Obviously, Portugal falls in with the British. Probably Sweden-Norway and Kleinstdeustchland (Hannover-Bavaria, if this occurs) as well.

Spain - probably a friendly (if that isn't too strong a word) neutral.

But the big question is which of Austria / Prussia falls in with France and Russia.

I could see it going either way; Prussia probably has fewer potential conflicts with Russia, but more with France.

TB-EI