Several interesting points, which may feed further developments and give the author ideas, thank you.
Let's see:
?I wonder how this Extreme Catholicism will play in Algeria & Morocco?
Well, a clericofascist regime that holds the Inquisition as a role model isn't especially geared to win the sympathies of its Muslim subjects, isn't it ?
OTL France experienced some serious serious revolts in Algeria during the 1870s, I assume that with this authoritarian and intolerant France-Spain they could become even worse. And the regime is likely to retaliate by turning really nasty. Hmm, perhaps genocidal scorched earth repression, large-scale massacres and deportations ?
?I also wonder how this will affect the 1870's rebellion in Cuba?
This is a rather interesting topic, one that has wider implications for the future of the TL. On one hand, this America is going to be even more eager than OTL to expand in the Caribbean, and they shall be even less tolerant of having a clericofascist colonial outpost in front of them than of OTL Spanish colonial rule. So they are likely to start the SAW (only extended to France ITTL) sooner than IOTL, possibly in the 1870s-1880s when the rebellion in Cuba starts (and the clericofascists likely aren't going to reap more allegiance from the Cubans than OTL Spain). OTOH, after fighting two major wars in quick succession, America is rather war-weary at this point, and I'm not sure when they shall have recovered enough to fight another major war vs. France-Spain. Typically, I follow the notion that modern nations involved in the great power game tend to fight major wars every 20-30 years before MAD, although exceptions may exist.
Moreover, TTL late 1800s America is going to keep a rather stronger army and navy than IOTL, thanks to the lesson of the 3rd Anglo-American war. This means that when they fight France-Spain, they are very likely going to win (unless they get Russia in the mix, which is a possibility, but even so, Entente victory isn't sure, as America fights on its home turf and the Entente at the end of a very long logistic chain). If this happens too early, it may bring down the Bourbon-Carlist regime before the Great War, and this would "waste" them for the TL, so speak. The nasty clericofascists are just too perfect to play the bad guys in the Great War and find their fitting Gotterdammerung end there. So I'm torn whether to let the SAW happen early in the late 1870s or early-mid 1880s, or make it a part of WWI in the 1890s. I welcome suggestions.
Enuff Italians/South Europeans migrated to Cuba 1870-1915, to raise the White population from 50% in 1860 to 70% in 1960. I don't see that happening ITTL.
Well, few Italians are going there, both because it's the colony of an hostile power and because Italian economy is developing quite faster than IOTL, its industrialization is getting accelerated by three generations. Whichever Italians (and Germans) still emigrate, since domestic industrialization can absorb most but not all of the population boom, they are going to the African colonies and the USA first and foremost (which have even more land to settle ITTL), then Argentina and Canada. But we may have more immigration from Spain, France, and allied Russia ITTL to compensate, the regime may foster colonial immigration, fascist-like regimes typically do (assuming the the USA don't conquer Cuba soon). Anyway, it's not a big problem (see below).
If the US accepts Santo Domingo in 1870's, I see problems with the Blacks.
In Santo Domingo there will be political problems with a Majority Black Population
In the US there may be attempts to push the Blacks into Hispaniola.
There is also the Blacks next door in Haiti.
Well, about St. Domingo and the issue of the Black population thereof and in the South, there are some points. First, as much as I know about the island republic, it was ruled and controlled (much like the rest of the independent Latin American republics) by an elite that belonged to the white or mixed-blood (Black or Native) mostly-white-looking minority. Moreover, you may notice that ITTL, Reconstruction in the South is taking a somewhat different course, where the 3rd Anglo-American War causes an early move towards sectional reconciliation. The North offers Marshall Plan-like economic relief and quick reenfranchisement of secessionists, in exchange for acceptance of the Civil War's outcome.
I reason out that this ought to create a different socio-political course for the South, where OTL hard-core segregation does not occur and the whites accept some amount of power-sharing, albeit inequal, with the blacks. At the very least, I expect that "one-drop rule" segregation does not manifest, and a "Brazilian" form of racial discrimination develops, essentially informal and socio-economic in character, not enshrined in a Jim Crow body of laws, aimed towards against the poorest and most African-looking Blacks, while affluent and/or whiteish-looking elites get socially accepted by the white community. This ought to ease integration in the USA of communities, like St. Domingo and early Cuba, if the latter is ever conquered early, that were ruled by such an elite.
As it concerns Haiti, however, I would deem that even "Brazilian" racism would want to keep it and its teeming masses of dirt-poor, uneducated, African-looking would-be immigrants at arm's length. As far as I know, anti-Haitian racism has been a constant feature in the more affluent, more whiteish Dominican society, with constant attempts to limit and expel Haitian immigrants and I expect this to get only amped up in an American St. Domingo. Say, constant attempts to make the border with Haiti as airtight as possible.
If the US has most of the Antilles, I don't see them being scared out of the Nicaraguan Canal by a Volcano postcard. The Canal would have been built before the Eruption.
Yup, this makes sense. I seem to remember that the Nicaragua Canal was technologically simpler to build than the Panama one, and therefore possibly it was feasible even in the 1870s-1880s. Surely with the expanded West Coast, this USA is even more eager to have a Canal ASAP.
As Such probably there is no Independent Panama.
As it concerns Panama, I'll go and say that I'm a big fan of mega-engineering, so as it concerns central America, I'm usually in favor of TLs where both Nicaragua and Panama Canals get built. I'm not sure if this USA is wanked enough that is willing to build both routes from the start (as in my other TL where it spans the Americas). But in any case it ought to be feasible a situation where we have two rival projects, America builds the Nicaragua Canal, another European power (Britain and France-Spain both look good candidates) builds the Panama one, then America later seizes control of the latter, either by conquest (for France, a result of the SAW or American partecipation in the Great War if the former folds into it) or by peaceful purchase (for Britain, it might go either way, it depends whether US and UK become strategic rivals or partners). Independence of Panama probably occurs much like OTL in this regard, at the sponsorship of whichever power builds the Canal.
If Canada gets Alaska, then they control the Entire length of the NW Passage.
Yep, all the more reason for America being eager to have a Canal under its control as soon as possible (and eventually seize control of the second, foreign-built one). As it concerns Canada, and Britain, I'm honestly uncertain about their eventual fate. I see abundant justification both for Canada to become a success story almost as big as OTL (there shall be more plentiful settlement of Northern Ontario and of Alaska-Yukon, to make up for the territories that the USA annexed, thanks to an early gold craze, which is going to happen), or to collapse, owning to growing Anglo-French Canadian antagonism, with Quebec eventually going independent, and Alaska-Yukon and Ontario falling in the lap of the USA.
Of course, this is also tied to the course of US-UK relations. I see good reasons both for them putting the 3rd Anglo-American War behind their backs and achieving OTL reconciliation, or for a lasting strategic antagonism to develop, with America being a third side in the Anglo-German-Italian vs. Franco-Spanish-Russian clash (I cannot see democratic America ever allying with the clericofascist Latin bloc, too big political differences, and they are going to fight a war about the latter's Caribbean and Pacific colonies sooner or later).
Differently from the Anglo-American war, which I purposefully PoDed into being and butterflied its outcome in order to give America those choice bits of Canada and set up the US-Canadian border which I deem barely proper to have for various reasons, I'm not especially committed to have either course to happen for both Canada and US-UK relations. Of course, the very existence of Anglo Canada offends my sense of geopolitical propriety (much like the existence of Austria, I cannot stand incomplete national unifications), so I kill it in a TL if I have a choice (Quebec has sufficient cultural distinctiveness to exist). But honestly I cannot tell whether it is more clichè for Britain and America to be friends or enemies, and so I purposefully left the door open for both outcomes ITTL.
?Are whe going to have a Scramble for Africa ITTL?
I don't see why not. The European powers have even more reason to vent out their imperialistic rivalries for a while in the relatively harmless carving up of Africa ITTL. However, we are going to see different borders, since Germany and Italy are much stronger and good buddies with Britain (even if it is not the BFF, one soul in two bodies, relationship that Berlin and Rome now share). E.g. Belgian Congo and German Tanganyka were the product of OTL butterflies that have no reason to exist ITTL.
In this kind of Italo-German success story TLs, I'm generally fond of letting the various powers mostly realizing their choice expansion turfs (Germany western central-southern Africa, Italy eastern northern-central Africa, France western Africa aiming towards a West-East axis, Britain the Cape to Cairo axis) with possible clashes on border areas happening between rivals (Fashoda equivalent, if the Great War does not happen earlier for some other reason, say new Balkan strife, Persia, the Great Game, the Russo-Japanese war, certainly looks a good GW flashpoint). Of course, with all the four big boys fully in the Scramble game from the start, the chances of the minors getting a sizable colonial empire grow faint: no Belgian Congo, and Portugal OTL sitted on a lot of valuable land which is not very likely to keep ITTL (hint, hint).
?Is there any way that the Japanese/Chinese war of 1895 could start this world's Great War.?
It is a possible flashpoint, although I see an earlier Russo-Japanese war more likely. As I said, I see the Balkan wars (without the Italo-Ottoman war of course, Italy already has the other powers' blessing to get Tunisia and Libya, and Turkey is not going to be defiant on this, since Italy helped save its skin from Russia), Persia, Afghanistan, Fashoda, and the Russo-Japanese war broad equivalents as good flashpoint, of course with schedules anticipated and details changed. I'm less convinced on the Japanese-Chinese war itself because I don't see any great power ever getting the side of China, which they all wanted to carve up. Of course, we might still have a post-war clash between Japan and Russia, backed by France-Spain, over the size of the Japanese booty. If Britain, backed by the Italo-German bloc, takes the side of Japan (however, this would require to anticipate the Anglo-Japanese alliance), you may have the Great War.
I see Spain losing the Canaries, and Madrid Islands.
Interesting, but to whom ? Britain, Germany, or Italy ? I definitely see Spain losing the Balearic Islands to Italy after the Great War.