1820 - Constitutional Russia, 2.0

  • Thread starter Deleted member 82118
  • Start date

Deleted member 82118

Andrew_Jackson.jpg

Andrew Jackson, US President (1828-1845), used the "Russian Treat' to increase his power.

Skirmishes between US and RAC soldiers in the American West started since 1835. For USA, Zavalishin violated the Monro Doctrine, and was danger for the USA, not only for Mexico. In 1836, US President Andrew Jackson goes to the third term under the slogan of “Strong power in the hard times”. Border war between the USA and RAC lasted until 21 October 1839, the USA and the UK [nominal Russian ally in the Holy Alliance, but afraid the Russian strengthening in the Americas] declared war to Russia and Spain.

terraoko-201507214-1.jpg

British-allied Tlingits attack Novoarkhangelsk

85322831a35e1b14837e024c184ef127.jpg

US Army figthing the Zavalishin's troops in Durango

паллада.jpg

Pallada, the most famous Russian Corsair ship

Situation changed immediately. Russian army was the greatest in Europe, but the 90% of Russian troops were dislocated in the Eastern Europe, not in the Eastern Siberia or Northern America. And Brinish naval dominance lead to Zavalishin and de Leon soon be isolated from their home Nations. Russian attempt to sent the Baltic Fleet in early 1840 to the Caribbean to broke the British blockade lead to the catastrophical defeat in Guernsey Battle. Some Russian ships managed to broke through the Atlantic, and made audacious corsair raids, but they can’t win the war for Russia. Situation in the Pacific was mostly the same, complicated with fact, that both Russian and British fleets not paying attention to the Asian nations. The most known episodes was Nagasaki, captured by Russian Pacific Squadron in May 1840, and fallen to the British in February 1842 – after the war in the, actually, Japanese territory; or British bombardment of Chinese port of Canton to prevent Russian ships reached there. That actions changed the situation in the Far East forever. War in the East mostly ends with the fall of Russian port Petropavlovsk of in January 1843. In the American theatre, U.S. troops capture Cuba and fight in Mexico. In Washington, President Jackson (he went to the 4th term, because “in the hard times, the Nation need the Leader”) meet with Mexican leaders, and they made a took a fateful decision – Mexican states joined the United States to “strong stand against the foreign attacks”.

mexicocity.gif

US troops parade in a libertated Mexico Sity.

War ended in 1843. After the Hague peace treaty, Russia and Spain had to go away from the Americas. Alaska and Puerto-Rico went to Britain, Cuba to the United States. US annexation of Mexico was recognized. More interesting was the secret separate treaty between the UK and Russia, dividing Far East. UK recognized China North of the Yellow River and Korea as the Russian Sphere of Influence, Russia recognized British claims to the South China and Annam. Japan goes mainly to the British sphere, but Britain recognized Russian claims to [sparsely populated mostly by Ainu and Nivkhs and undeveloped] Sakhalin, Ezo and Kuril islands.

USA and the UK entered the separate agreement, adjusted questions around border between UAS and the British North America.

1842.png

USA after the American War
 
Mexico will cause massive headache for Americans. They just will not accept annexation.

And why USA even would want annex Spanish language Catholic majority nation?
 

Deleted member 82118

Mexico will cause massive headache for Americans. They just will not accept annexation.

And why USA even would want annex Spanish language Catholic majority nation?

[In OTL 1840-s the idea, that USA would annex Mexico, was common - in European and Russian press at least]
Why USA annexed Mexico? - Manifest Destiny and idea of the United States as country for all americans. South plantators also wonted to expatnd slavery to Mexico..
Why Mexico joins USA? - well, after 2 defeats from Spain (in 1810 and 1838), Mexican states leaders wanted to be protected from the Eurpean imperial revanchism. Free and Democratic union of the United States of America looks very attractive. But yes, annexation lead to differen problems in the new big USA.
 

Deleted member 82118

PalaceSaoCristovao.jpg

Sao Cristovao - Portuguese Royal Palace in Rio de Janeiro

Spanish America mostly declared their independence in early 1820-s, but Portuguese America was another story. During the Napoleon invasion to Portugal In 1807, Portuguese Royal Family was evacuated to Rio de Janeiro, and that American city became the de-facto capital of Portugal. Regent, and, since 1816, King João VI Braganza was in love with Rio, and made the city the center of the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves – the new form of Portuguese Empire. During the Revolution in Portugal in 1820, João VI poudered the relocation back to Lisbon, but heeded the advice of the Russian Ambassador, Georg von Langsdorff, and stay in Rio, sending his liberal-minded son Pedro to Portugal as Viceroy.

Portrait_of_Dom_Pedro,_Duke_of_Bragança_-_Google_Art_Project_edited.jpeg (2).jpeg

Pedro IV of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves (1826-1835)

Era of Rio-centered Portuguese Monarchy ended in 1826. King Pedro IV was crowned in Lisbon, and was not going to move to Rio. Brazil was relegated to the ordinary colony again. This lead to discontent, leaded to revolts. In May 1827, Bahia, the first from Portuguese American provinces, declared an Independent republic. Next was Santa-Catarina in July, and Nothern provinces in October. Pedro sent army from Europe to crush the rebellions, but this attempt failed, and Portuguese troops were defeated. In 1829, Revolution spread to Rio, and the Republic of Brazil was declared, with Joaquim Gonçalves Ledo as the President. But, when attacks of the Portuguese were repulsed, and Portugal was forced to recognize the Brazil independence in 1839, Ledo’s Government, as Bolivar in the Spanish America, failed to reunite all Portuguese colonies, and his conflict with Sao Paolo Governor José de Andrada, ever lead to Sao Paolo create the independent republic. To 1840, there was 6 independent republics in place of former Portuguese America.
Brazil2.png

Former Portuguese America in 1840
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's refreshing to see a Russian TL from a Russian perspective. The idea of an independent resourcefull general dragging the Empire into war does seem possible though Britain and Russia sharing China 50/50 seems quite biased towards Russia with it being kicked out of the America's or is rather compensation? Your opponent losing some realestate and you giving him something you don't own! ;)
 
5-term. Jaskson wins 1844 Election, but died soon after.

Intresting. Someone breaks Washignton's heritage about two terms 100 years earlier than in OTL. Could this lead to earlier equalement of 22nd amendment?
 

Deleted member 82118

It's refreshing to see a Russian TL from a Russian perspective. The idea of an independent resourcefull general dragging the Empire into war does seem possible though Britain and Russia sharing China 50/50 seems quite biased towards Russia with it being kicked out of the America's or is rather compensation? Your opponent losing some realestate and you giving him something you don't own! ;)
After that treaty, Russia loose their main traiding outpost in Canton, and a perspectives of the naval base in Japan. Really, it was not an equal treaty.
 

Deleted member 82118

Kiseleff.jpg

Pavel Kiselev, Minister of Internal Affairs of Russia, and Architect of th "Great Libertation"

Loosing the American war was the shock for the Russian society – Russia did not loose the wars since XVIII century. The Idea, that there is something wrong in Russia, arise. And it touched not only questions of army and fleet reform, but also a problems of Russian society. Serfdom appeared in the spotlight again.
But the situation was changed since 1820-s. At first, landlordism in 1840-s were in crisis. 80% of estates were laid to the Imperial Boards of Trustees, most of them are re-laid. Crop yields at the turn of 1840-s were low and, there even was a famine in 1842-1844. Landlords need to feed their peasants, that costs a lot of money. American war leaded to Britain embargo to the Russian grain, that made revenues from estates fell. In that situation, many landlords embraced the idea to free their serfs in exchange for debt relief. Bloody Peasant Rebellion in Austrian Galicia-Lodomeria instill fear of the “New Pugachev Rebellion” to the Russian Landlords.
18461.png

1846 State Duma Election Results

As the result – 1846 Duma Election saw the Emancipators victory. Anti-serfdom Progressive party send 80 delegates from 220 [after in 1844 Siberia Viceregency was divided in 3 – into West Siberia, East Siberia, and Steppe Viceregencies, the number of delegates was increased]. Russian Landowner’s Union, opposed Peasants Libertation, won only 32 seats, and 23 seats were won by Moderate group, former Progressives, who was in a middle position. First time in the Russian history, Emperor, Duma, and Internal Affairs Minister Kiselev – all was for abolition of serfdom. The main question was about percent of soil, which would go to freed peasants. In that question, both Nicolay and Duma agreed, that Landlords mustn’t loose much of their property.

освобождение крестьян.jpg

Readig the St. George's Day Manifesto to people in St.Petersburg

24 June 1847, Duma finally voted for abolition of serfdom, and 26 November, Emperor Nicolay’s “Saint George’s Day Manifesto” declared all serfs in Russia free.
The main points of the liberation law were:
  • all serfs in Russia received personal freedom
  • freed peasants get their yards and 2 desyatins [2.18 hectares] of land per household.
  • other land stay in the landlords property.
  • landlord may hire peasants for work on his soil – for a fee.
  • state writes off all landlords debts.

otmena-krepostnogo-prava-9.jpg

one of many peasant's riots after the Manifesto

Peasants were glad to freedom, but land question lead to resentment. In Princevka [Malorossia Viceregency], Kandeevka [Tula Viceregency], and some other places peasants even revolt to fight the “Masters, who hide the True Tsar Will”. But to the beginning of 1850-s wave of revolts began to decline.
Serfdom in Russia was dead. But it was only first of the Great Reforms.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted member 82118

TTL, peasants received much less land, than OTL, but they were not need to pay for it, as in OTL. Also, reform took much less money from Imperial Budget, than OTL, because of Imperial Treasury does not need to pay compensation to the Landlords for land, that they give to peasants. Also, land was given to peasant families, not to the communities. Because of that, Russian peasant communities [Mirs] TTL were weaker, than OTL. Still main local authority in Russian villages, Mirs, unlike OTL , had no power to redistribute land . Russian peasants husbandry TTL went the way of hamlets and farms, [like in OTL Baltic lands], rather then the OTL community land management
 
And in the end Russia will benefit from a free farming class that will learn that their toil will pay off; as in the Soviet Union they will deliver a major share of agricultural produce.
 
I started catching up on this with some interest, but I have to say the American war stretches credibility in many many ways.

One point overlooked completely thus far is that OTL, Russia and the USA had very good diplomatic relations. I would think, thinking linearly anyway, that liberalizing Russia in the 1820s would tend only to strengthen that friendship rather than weaken it, it removes a major obstacle.

The true foundation of US/Russian friendship was of course that the two nations had little direct contact, and thus no conflicts of interest (beyond ideology, a point both governments ignored on the diplomatic level of their arms-length relationship). In practice, neither did much to harm or help each other. It was mainly a matter of sentiment, and convenience to the Russians that Britain was being inconvenienced by entanglement in trying to suppress the American Revolution. But US diplomats were grateful and since two of these who went to St. Petersburg were two future US Presidents (John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams--not of course an actual diplomat since he was traveling as the minor son of Adams, but he was old enough to remember personal impressions of Catherine the Great's court) they tended to personally reinforce the friendship.

Now since this was after a rather skimpy relationship, I don't suppose it would form any great obstacle to a sudden reversal, if major Russian and US interests were to conflict. And of course the expansion of the Russian far eastern enterprise that turned into huge claims on North America was, on paper, just such a conflict. But in fact the US presence on the Pacific was a toehold; the Russians were more frustrated by Mexican and British interests there.

I would like the author to trace a more concrete, less nebulous path toward confrontation on the North American Pacific. OTL, the investment of Russia in the American claims was pretty weak. They held Alaska largely by default of rival interests in penetrating there. Vice versa it was not easy to hold there, due to the difficulty of getting food, hence the Fort Ross venture. And it was the threat of the expanding Russian presence that drove the Spanish government of Mexico, known as "New Spain," to start the venture of the Franciscan missions expanding northward to guard the California coast. The missions served mainly as concentrations of Spanish power to repel Russian, or British, adventurers, and in part by denial of Native allies to the Russians, for the Russians like the French of New France worked largely by recruiting Native partners in their trading ventures--with the small numbers of actual Russians who went so very far away from the Russian heartland, they could hardly have operated on an all-Russian basis! Like the French, they worked by tenuous conversion of the Native Americans to Orthodoxy and largely with trade incentives. So, the California missions "dried up the sea" as it were by brutally subjugating the coastal peoples to a highly disruptive authoritarian system that killed them off more than it effectively used their potential labor power. Thus, the Russian venture to seek a site for a food-growing colony was rather weak, resulting in a few dozen people setting up Fort Ross, some hundred miles north of the Bay Area and on a site that was not particularly hospitable. Frankly I think they could have done better with the same people at many sites farther north, including Humboldt Bay.

Meanwhile, of course, Spain, subjugated in the Napoleonic wars (pre-POD here) lost control of Mexico and OTL never got it back. It was Mexican authorities who confronted the Russians at Fort Ross and demanded their withdrawal. (Had the Russians taken Humboldt Bay instead, the Mexicans would have been very ill placed to dislodge them and indeed might have remained unaware of them for a very long time! I have to suppose the Russians were not aware of Humboldt Bay when they picked the Fort Ross site.
-------
At this point I had recourse to reading more on the history of the Russian-American Company operations and this historic essay is very enlightening. I learn here that the reason Fort Ross was located so far south was actually a desire to trade with the Spanish holdings rather than to avoid them. And indeed, a diplomatic overture by Baron Wrangel to try to secure and regularize the status of the Russian colony in 1836 came to grief not because of Mexican resistance but because Tsar Nicholas I refused to countenance recognizing the revolutionary republic, which is a point in favor of the overall drift of your timeline, that Russia might indeed make war on Mexico. If they did so though it was not because of a desire to keep Fort Ross; the Russian settlement was not proving to be the producer of agricultural goods that had been hoped a generation before, while the initial attraction of sea otter fur hunting was diminished due to depletion of the stocks, and meanwhile the influx of both Mexican and Anglo settlers from the USA was undercutting the value of Russian trade goods once profitably sold to the Spanish and later Mexican locals while the price of agricultural goods to be obtained from California settlers was rising. Fort Ross was failing, OTL anyway, on economic grounds. In these perspectives a second venture at a place like Humboldt Bay would have been unwise, since the whole point of FR was that its development would be supported by Spanish settlers nearby to trade with, and no such help would be forthcoming so far north, whereas the experience of FR demonstrated that expectations of regional self-development were exaggerated.

Note that the story of the rise and fall of the Russian settlement in Central California overlaps your POD, being started before it and therefore presumably going on, in perhaps modified form, during Tsar Alexanders ATL reforms.

Now, given that Russia and the USA had good relations (and I don't know how OTL Nicholas I squared the self-identity of the USA as a revolutionary, anti-monarchial, democratic republic with his hostility toward these as shown by refusal to recognize Mexico) I'd have thought the Tsar would give some consideration to negotiating his interests in the New World with the USA.

Having read a little more though, it does seem that the apparent good relations between the powers were indeed a tenuous thing, and that the Monroe Doctrine (which it should be noted, was at least as much a British idea as American) was indeed adopted in part aimed against Holy Alliance schemes to restore Spanish power in the New World, and that Nicholas did try to use US good offices to get a green light for the project. I can see his being personally rebuffed in favor of British interests (so recently after the War of 1812 too!) might set him on a less Yankee-friendly course.

The most significant development you've mentioned so far to make Russian actions risking and in the end causing war between the USA and Russia is this matter of General Pestel's ultra-nationalism. The general himself you tell us was a republican and thus mortal enemy of the Romanov dynasty, but in the context of lasting and growing liberal reforms, opinion in Russia is clearly no longer a matter of the Tsar's will alone, not even officially. Clearly a middle ground between Pestelism and OTL conservative Tsarism might exist, in which constitutional loyalists to the dynasty adopt some of his chauvinist notions.

Ironically liberalism, with its nationalist baggage, may do more to poison US/Russian relations than any amount of ultra reactionary Tsarism did OTL!

Granting then the premise that the Russians do scheme, in defiance of the after all weak, unOrthodox, ultra-liberal US Republic's interests, to restore monarchial Spanish Empire to the Americas (presumably, unless I overlooked some details, the main thing Russia gets in the Americas is a strategic and trading partner in Spanish California, and the benefits of a global alliance with a strengthened Spain) and granting that a project that is foolish and ill-run is entirely within the run of normal historic behavior (especially when there is a Romanov or Hapsburg monarch involved, and here we have both!) then I suppose in broad strokes the US-British alliance against it falls into place, and these two Anglo powers, in cooperation, can be expected to win.

That said, I think the outcome of the USA absorbing all of Mexico is profoundly unreasonable. It isn't in the interest of the USA (if we assume that full Constitutional rights are immediately extended to the Mexican people top to bottom, and their states have the full status of US states--and to assume otherwise, that some racist hierarchy whereby only Anglo overlords and hand-picked Castilian-Mexican aristocrats are given full rights and control of their states with the majority being second-class, disfranchised peons is to sow dragon's teeth in the Republic big time) to attempt to swallow all of Mexico, nor will Mexicans, even if instantly and universally accorded full US rights, be very keen on it. And let's not lose sight of the kingmaker position Britain is in. To attempt to deny the republican ambitions of either American nation would be folly, but why should Britain favor the instant doubling of US population, area and power and raise up a bilingual, bi-cultural Federal Union? The alternative is obvious and palatable to all victorious parties--support an independent Mexico comprised of all parts of the old Mexican/New Spanish claims that are actually populated by significant loyal Mexican citizens. In other words, the USA might well lay claim to and be granted the vacant (of European-affiliated people) Indian territories of the interior between California and New Mexico, but these two regions, being settled by Mexicans, should remain with Mexico. I can see a case being made for Mexico to agree (grudgingly) to surrender California, so recently settled and with so many non-Mexican settlers, but not I think New Mexico, which has been part of the New Spanish and Mexican system for centuries.

Wherever the border is drawn, probably close to OTL (though perhaps never exactly where the OTL border is) Mexico should still still exist as a sovereign republic, because the Mexican participants in the anti-Spanish/Russian war can play off the ambitions and interests of both the USA and British Empire against each other, and the USA does not have decisive say because Britain is quite powerful.

I would suggest that the USA gets to annex California down to the north shore of San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento river system, following some branch into the Sierras--this gives it Marin, Sonoma, and the north central valley and all the land north to Oregon, in return for respecting Mexican sovereignty eastward. And that Mexico also loses the Great Basin considerably southward of the Bay's latitude, the river border going to the Sierra Nevada watershed then southward to leave Mexico the watershed of the Colorado River and all mission territory in Arizona and on east to New Mexico, where the border runs south along the Rio Grande to merge with the OTL Texan border. Thus the USA has Colorado and everything north and west, Utah and OTL state of Nevada, but not Arizona or New Mexico, and the Mexicans retain the southern California Central valley and south bay including San Francisco, and thus of course the Los Angeles/San Diego hinterland. US and Mexican citizens have reciprocal rights to trade in the other's territory and even to settle, subject to laws that treat them either as friendly aliens or naturalized citizens; each is responsible for keeping Indians in their territory from bothering anyone on the other side of the border, and of course respecting each other's mineral and other claims. The USA has no more than half claim on the Colorado River waters and on those feeding San Francisco Bay.

From the 1838 point of view, these are still tremendous and valuable gains for the USA; shared access to San Francisco Bay effectively neutralizes the zone as a desirable naval base for either side, unless both are very friendly and trusting of one another. But the US can develop Portland Oregon very aggressively; it is far from both Mexican and British claims. I note and approve that the USA has waived the claim on Puget Sound entirely to Britain, but the border follows the watershed and not the Columbia river shore, so the USA controls the latter river fully and thus can protect the Columbia mouth as a major Pacific port. Southern Oregon now enjoys a tremendous buffer of mountainous (not very desirable) coast down to the Golden Gate, and can put naval bases to safeguard its interests in that port at Mendocino, Bodega Bay and Drake's Bay. Inland, the northern Central Valley is excellent farmland, as are the valleys of Sonoma County and Napa. Gold, when it is discovered, is IIRC mostly north of the proposed border and the mineral wealth of Nevada is all US. So is the settlement-friendly land in the region of the Great Salt Lake. The routes to Oregon are secure, as is a set of routes to northern California.

Mexico on the other hand does not have to attempt to govern, defend or control much territory where Mexicans do not already live. She gets, relative to OTL, half of OTL US California, good control of the Colorado River (enough to veto excessive diversions into US territory and reserve at least half for herself, which enhances the value of northeast Baja California and northwest Sonora) and relative to OTL avoids a great humiliation. She now enjoys British favor, and if that becomes burdensome can court US favor instead, attempting to play both dominant Anglo powers off against each other.

Britain gains full control of the entire Puget sound region and I don't know how much of Russian Alaska, and has the potential to set Mexico against the USA (at the price of offering Mexicans the better deal of course).

Why then should Britons and Mexicans agree to let the USA absorb Mexico completely? If indeed common Mexicans think that the Anglo-Americans are going to let them enjoy full political and human rights alongside white Protestant English speakers, that might induce them to join the Federal Union, although it certainly will be inconvenient for them to be governed from Washington DC--perhaps Mexican influence will get the capital moved far west and south, to New Orleans or a Texan city or perhaps even to the Rio Grande. But I while I don't think the opposition to Papist brown Spanish speakers of mixed Indian/Spanish/African ancestry having equal rights and power will be as universal and monolithic as some assume, I fear it would be strong enough to poison the deal. Look what we did with the Philippines when we conquered them after all! This is many generations earlier, but that just means that if some forms of US bigotry have not had as long to evolve, others (anti-Catholicism for instance) have had less time to decay. If Anglo-Americans proclaim they will welcome the Mexicans in as equals, many will do so with their fingers crossed behind their backs. And I don't think the Mexicans will welcome Union with unmixed joy either.

For instance one issue Texas broke with Santa Anna's Mexican government over was that of slavery. Slavery was illegal in Mexico, full stop, and the Anglo-Texan settlers had to agree to free their slaves (along with adopting Roman Catholicism). Union means suddenly that all the new Mexican states are free to adopt slavery if they wish to. One hopes that the good element of Mexican culture abhorring it prevails, but US Anglo influence from south of the Mason-Dixon line--the part of the USA closest to Mexico after all--will twist arms to legalize slavery. Adoption of all those Mexican states--I count at least 19 on the map, and maybe more--will tip the Senate and Congress powerfully against the slavery interest unless at least half of them adopt slavery. So, either the US southern states will oppose entry of Mexican states and people on equal terms, or will only be mollified 10 or more of these states and half or more of Mexico's population are subject to slavery. Whereupon the northern, abolitionist old Anglo states will be up in arms lest some clever thimblerigging leaves non-slave states in the distinct and permanent minority.

All this is a mess that the USA can avoid simply by being restrained in annexations from the republic they were supposed to be in a war to protect and liberate. It also sidesteps pressure to move the capital, to change US linguistic rules and habits, issues of religious jealousies.

Another stumbling block to the war you've portrayed is Andrew Jackson's role in it. Certainly Jackson can be a charismatic war leader, but he's already earned those laurels. You can explain how Jackson gets a 4th and even 5th term due to being seen as the great hero of this glorious war, but I am scratching my head as to how he got the third term in which the war is prosecuted. OTL he was persuaded to step aside in favor of Van Buren, and I don't see why he wouldn't do the same here, before the war erupts. Matty Van can after all appoint Jackson supreme general in the war. With the victory under their belts, even on the more reasonable terms I suggest with Mexico still extant and even holding half of California and New Mexico, both have ample glory; Van Buren can reasonably be re-elected, Jackson retires to his final years with a very glorious name indeed. Conceivably after MvB's second term, Jackson runs for and wins a third term, only to die early in office.

The thing is, if you want an Anglo-American alliance, you'd do well to leave Jackson in some other role than President, for the man was a virulent Anglophobe. Martin van Buren can probably finesse that more effectively. You might say, well Jackson's mania is why the USA winds up so very aggrandized, but then we have to ask why does Britain come in and pull American chestnuts out of the fire, only to get nothing from the deal beyond some minor concessions of territory in the northwest and northeast (I do note how truncated Maine winds up being).

What is needed is a more reasonable Presidential succession, and this may open the way for the Anglo-American alliance you want, which ought to point to an outcome where Mexico is no worse off than OTL. As an American idealist, I'd love the idea of Mexican and US citizenship merging in the 1830s, but I don't think it has any realism to speak of unfortunately.

Neither does Jackson being elected to five terms.
 

Deleted member 82118

Saint_Michael's_Castle_in_St._Petersburg_in_the_19th_century.jpg

Saint Michael's Castle in Saint Petersburg/State Duma building. Ironically, residense of the despotic Paul I became later home of the Russian Parliament

In fact, the Great Emancipation of serfs stand the question of local authorities and self-governing in villages of now-free peasants. Before the Reform, Landlord personally was a single power in his lands. He organized the repairing of the roads and bridges on his land. He – if he wanted – build schools and hospitals on his lands. He send his peasants to the Imperial Army as soldiers. He was a Law in his lands – and the Supreme Judge for his peasants. Usually, landlords law was based at “my will is law at my land, and my fist is police at my land” – but now, the other police, law and authorities must be created in countryside.
State Duma started developing of the next reforms, but, as it many times was in Russian history, situation abroad change situation inside the country.
 

Deleted member 82118

IsabellaII.png

Isabella II, Queen of Spain (1833-1846)

Loosing the last American colonies was a tragedy for Spain. It lead ot only the economical profits from Cuba sugar plantations cut, but a signal – Spain is not a Great Power more. All looks like such as these politicians in Madrid gave up the soldiers, which fight and died for the Empire – and gave up the Spain itself – to the England and France – at least, many of Spanish people think so.
Rumors seems to be confirmed in 1845, when Queen Isabella II marriage talk starts. France and the UK – two main creditors of Spain – wanted the new Spanish king candidature to be consent with them. And Spanish government agreed with that.
It is the Treason! – said general Leopoldo O’Donnell, former commander of the Spanish troops on Cuba – and made a coup. Queen Isabella was forced to abdicate and flee to France (despite personally O’Donnell did not want to abolish the monarchy), and 17 May 1846 Spanish Republic was proclaimed.

Leopoldo_ODonnell (1847-1867).jpg

Leopoldo O'Donnell, first President of National Junta (1847-1867)

Republic government was based in many ways on Pestelian Rationalists ideas [first time in Europe]. Corteses of Spain were “temporary abolished”, and the Junta of National Salvation, with O’Donnell as president, took all power in their hands. Junta start to change the country with the iron hand. Agrarian reform started, the system of universal education was introduced. Church was separate from state.
As a result – to 1847, Catalonia, Valencia and Basque lands were in rebellion, and conservative opposition rise in all country. 25 years ago, such situation lead to the end of Riego regime. But now Holy Union was in ruins, and anti-revolutionaries in Spain were alone… .


1024px-Paris-Feb-1848.jpg

Barricades in Paris during the February Rebellion, 1848

In fact, Louise-Philippe I of france was think about the intervention to Spain. But, in 1847, French king had much less power (and popularity), than Louise XVIII had in 1823, so the idea of war vith Spain died. And 17 February 1847, Louise-Philippe I, survived 9 assassination attempts before, was shoot down by a republican supporter in Paris. His grandson, 8-years-old Louise-Philippe II, was proclaimed new King, with his uncle, Louise, Duke of Nemours, as regent. Regency of Duke Nemours, lasted less than a year – in the February 1848, economical crisis, lasted in France since 1845, turned into a revolt in Paris, ended with his emigration to Britain, and hero of the Napoleonic Wars, Marshal Auguste de Marmont, Duke of Ragusa , became the new Regent.

Marmont.jpg

Auguste de Marmount, Duke of Ragusa, Regent of France
 

Attachments

  • Leopoldo_ODonnell (1847-1867).jpg
    Leopoldo_ODonnell (1847-1867).jpg
    48.7 KB · Views: 101

Deleted member 82118

Episodio_delle_cinque_giornate_(Baldassare_Verazzi).jpg

Street figthing buring the rebellion in Milan

Revolutions in Spain and France started a domino effect across Europe, exhausted by the economical turmoil of the late 1840-s. The first was Italy, where Liberal protests spreads across all states, lead even to creation of the provisional government in Sicily. In the face of revolution, kings Carl Albert of Sardinia and Ferdinand II of Two Sicillies introduced liberal reforms, signed the moderate Russian-style Constitutions. But in the Austrian Northern Italy situation lead to war. 8 July 1848 rebels in Milan proclaimed a republic, 17 – the same thing happened in Venice. Lombardo-Venetia, created in 1815 as the part of the Habsburg domain, declares independence from Austria. New Liberal leaders of the Italian states support the Italian patriots in Milan and Venice, and in August, united Italian army, lead by Sicilian general Guglielmo Pepe, and famous Italian Revolutionary Giuseppe Garibaldi invade Lombardy. Italians, strengthened by French and Spanish volunteers, managed to took Milan and defeat the Austrian troops near Novara in Lombardy.

Petőfi_Nemzeti_Múzeum.jpg

Declaration of the Hungarian independence in Pest

At the same time, revolution begun in the Austria itself. 17 August – Hungaruan Diet refuse to impose a military tax for war in Italy, and declared independence of Hungary from Austria. In September – Republics was proclaimed in Prague, and even in Vienna – Emperor Ferdinand was forced to abdicate. Of course, Loyalist forces leaded by Field Marshal Joseph Radetzky soon retook Imperial capital, but now new Emperor Franz Joseph controlled very few parts of Empire – in fact, only Austria, Croatia (under the popular Governor Josip Jelačić), Serbian settlements of Military border, and some garrisons in Transylvania stay loyal to him. Young Austrian Emperor asked European Monarchs for help. The first, who agreed, was Emperor Nicolay I of Russia. But decision to send troops to Hungary lead to problems..

Battle_of_Stoczek_1831.jpg

Polish army fight Russians near Zambrow

With Poland. Polish Sejm opposed the idea of sending Royal Polish Army to fight against Hungarian rebels. 10 October 1848, Polish Sejm deposed Nicolay I from the Polish Throne. Polish Rebellion Started, and Sabaneev, Russian Viceroy in Warsaw, escaped only by a miracle. At the beginning, the rebels was successful – General Józef Bem managed to defeat big Russian Army near Zambrow, and even crossed the Congressiona Polish border, invading Russian Lithuania. Other polish troops Austrian Galicia and took Lwow. Polish rebels soon allied with Polish and Czech ones, an 16 December 1848 – revolutionary Governments of Poland, Lithuania, Hungary and Bohemia announced the creation the Republican Union.

Louis_Eugène_Cavaignac_MdesA_2014.jpg

Louis Eugène Cavaignac, first President of the Second Republic of France

French government - for the time being – officially keep neutrality in the European Revolutionary War. Regent Auguste de Marmount, and Prime Minister Adolphe Thiers did not wanted a big war, think France not prepared for it. Because of that, French government did not send support to the Italian or Polish patriots, and Thiers negotiated with Prussia and the UK about the neutrality. Such politics lead popularity of Marmount and Thiers to fail – with the economical crisis at the background. 12 March 1849 this lead to a coup in Paris. Monarchy was abolished, and Louis Eugène Cavaignac, hero of Algerian war and a convinced Republican, was proclaimed President of France.

Европа1849.png

Situation in Europe to May 1849
 

Deleted member 82118

Miloslaw.jpg

Polish rebels fight Prussian army in Pozen


Prussia, in the person of King Friedrich Wilhelm IV, and foreign minister Count Brandenburg, did not want to join the war. While Prussian police suppress all revolution attempts inside the country, and Prussian army helps monarchs of German states, such as Saxony and Baden, to fight radicals, leaders in Berlin didi not want to start a big war. In fact, Brandenburg even viewed the rebellions in Austria, as an way to let the main Prussian rival in Germany loose. But to the beginning of 1849, situation was changed. Prussia now was in circle of radical republican governments, and even if Russia and Austria will won – this would strength positions of that thwo empires, and weakened the Prussia. So, Prussia prepares to join the Crusade agaisst the “Socialists and Jacobins”. In March, Brandenburg met with Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Pozzo di Borgo in Königsberg, and the ministers agreed the Nicolay I plan to Prussian occupation of Poland in exchange for Neman river estuary with the sity of Memel goes to Russia. (This plan was, among other, manifestation of pestelian idea of “rational national borders”, with Poland, outstanding far ahead from the main Russian territory, was difficult to defend). The second problem was prevent war with France.

1.jpg

Soldiers of "Belgian Legion"


Personally, President Cavaignac did not wand the war, But his nation did, and he was – mostly – a hostage in that situation. When the radical rebublicans from so-called “Belgian Legion” crossed the border of Belgium, and the Belgium revolution started, France send army to help revolutionaries. At first, all was good to France. French troops soon took Brussels, to August – most of Belgium was under French control, king Leopold escape to London, and Belgian revolutional government start negotiations to join France. But the French invasion broken the London Treaty of 1839 (about Belgian independence), so this lead to a war. Russia declares war to France 17 August, UK (conservative government of Robert Peel) – 20, and Prussia – 21. 24 – French Belgian army, leaded by General Baraguey d'Hilliers crossed the Prussian border. At the early September – Republican Union (Polish) forces attack invide Prussian Duchy of Pozen. The war started.

венгр.jpg

Hungarian army surrended to Russians

It will be the tragic autumn for France. Prussians managed to defeat 120000 French army in battle for Kerpen near Colonge, and invade Belgium. To December – all Belgium was liberated, and Prussian-British troops invade France itself. In the Estern Front – war also lead to the counterrevolutionaries victory. In September – Russian army, lead by Paskevich, took Debrecen, and forcen the Hungarian army to capitulate. In Lithuania – Russians defeats Polish rebels near Radule, and pressed Poles out of Lithuania (but not crossed the Polish border, giving the matter of final defaetion to Prussians). 19 October Polish Ambassador Aleksander Colonna-Walewski (Napoleon I’s son) to discuss the Polish surrender to Prussia. Walewski Achieved surprisingly mild conditions of surrender. Poland was restored as Kingdom with own Constitution, Friedrich Wilhelm IV as King, and Walewski as Prime Minister. New (so-called Berlin-) Poland include Congressional Poland, Duchy of Pozen and Free city of Krakow. New Poland saved own money, army and government. In fact - Friedrich Wilhelm IV need Poland as the semi-independent buffer between Prussia, Austria and Russia.

In Hungary situation after defeat of the Revolution was some different. Franz Joseph followed the Nicolay I advice, and saved the Hungarian autonomy, but with new Constitution, which protected rights of minorities, sush as Slovaks, Ukrainians, Romanians and Serbs in Hungary. As a result – new Diet (1851 election), was dominated by Hungarian loyalists in coalition with Serb and Slovak nationalists.

53f3baba231fb2ab943bf69d5afb4092_1M.jpg

Red Flags Week in Paris

Defeat in Belgium destroyed the Cavaignac popularity, and in the first week of December 1849, there was barricades in Paris again. 10 December, the new – Socialist – Government of France was created, and the “Winter of Red flags” starts – withs communes (in Paris and the other cities) try to defend the Nation and build the better society. Socialist experiment in France may be successful – if there would be no intervention. Poor-trained “People’s armies” could not stopped Prussian, British and Russian offence. 3-month defense of Parise, and 5-month defence of Marseille was heroic, but all cities fell to the end of 1850. Decentralisation of Socialist Communard France lead to there was no authority to capitulate from the face of all the nation, but to February 1851 all recognized, that the war ended. New Provisional government in Paris, dominated by Legitimists, agreed to restore monarchy in France, with Henry V, grandson of the King Charles X, as the New King of France. The white banner was raised over the Paris – again. Revolutionary bloodbath in Europe ended.

Europe_1851_map_en1.jpg

Europe after the Revolutions were supressed, 1852
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top