A Plethora of Princes - (Thread 4) : Twisting in the sun

[Grey Wolf]

Another interesting fact regarding Texas would seem to be that Britain and France in OTL desired its independence to continue from a trading/financial point of view, and both of them pressed Mexico to offer Texas recognition of independence in the hope of diverting US interests from Texas.

Whilst not directly relevant to the ATL, if President Cass begins to listen to agitation for the annexation of Texas, one could expect a similar move. Britain, humiliated over Oregon looks to a less confrontational way of halting the spread of US power. France, back on track after the disruption of 1848 sees things in a similar fashion. The US expedition to the Yucatan is a salutory lesson in what will happen if they don't act.

Earlier was spoken of OTL British investment in the USA in this period; perhaps in the ATL that goes to Texas instead ? And maybe to Mexico ? The state of Anglo-American relations is a lot worse in the ATL after the late 1830s semi-war over the Canadas and then the near conflict over Oregon.

Grey Wolf

 

[JHPier]

1844 OTL the Dominican Republic gains its independence from Spain.

Not from Spain, from Haiti which had seized the Spanish half of their island in 1822.

 

[Faeelin]

Earlier was spoken of OTL British investment in the USA in this period; perhaps in the ATL that goes to Texas instead ? And maybe to Mexico ? The state of Anglo-American relations is a lot worse in the ATL after the late 1830s semi-war over the Canadas and then the near conflict over Oregon.

Britain invested in 19th century Argentina. I suspect they'll still invest in the USA.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Not from Spain, from Haiti which had seized the Spanish half of their island in 1822.

So much for web encyclopedias, lol

I fancy you are correct again

http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/caribbean/haiti180459.html

In 1804, JEAN-JACQUES DESSALINES crowned himself Emperor of Haiti, in imitation of Napoleon Bonaparte. He was assassinated in 1806. Haiti now split up into a northern-central Empire, under HENRI CHRISTOPHE, and a southern territory under president ALEXANDRE PETION. In 1818 Petion was succeeded by JEAN PIERRE BOYER, who reunited Haiti in 1820 and in 1822 occupied the Dominican Republic (Spanish Haiti), thus unifying the island of Hispaniola.
Yet, Haitian rule over the Dominican Republic was perceived as oppressive and foreign. After Boyer's death (1843), the Haitians were expelled. Haiti would see another Emperor, FAUSTIN SOULOUQUE (1847-1859).

Sometimes I think one needs a book on ever country in the world !

Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

Suggestions onward

So, what are we looking at ?

Cass after securing Oregon in 1849 turns his attention towards Mexico

There are twin crises here :-

1. Deseret which is looking to Mexico to legitimise their land-holding

2. Texas where Britain and France are working to get Mexican recognition of its independence in return for a vow never to let themselves be annexed by the USA

Add in the Yucatan, and probably to some degree British Honduras, and perhaps Miskitia (have to look up its 1849-50 status) and see what this mix provides us with ?

Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

Deseret actually works very well in this timeline seeing as they are in Mexican de jure territory but an area that is only really populated with US squatters at best. The USA may well seek to act against the Mormons, for which they would find Mexican legal protection useful. But would a bunch of heretics get it ?

Britain and France encouraging Texas and Mexico to come to an agreement on the no annexation clause agreed by Texas and independence agreed by Mexico.

California with the Gold Rush delayed for the moment as the influx has not occurred to OTL levels, instead Americans come only really from the North, and there many others head into N Oregon now

Grey Wolf

 

[eschaton]

Seems like unless there is a major confrontation with Britain, the U.S. is getting hemmed in in the South, which will totally unbalance the number of free states versus slave states even earlier than OTL. Which could lead to a civil war in the 1850s. It's interesting, because there probably would not be enough time for abolitionism to ramp up mass movement, or the Republican party even perhaps. This means the conflict would be seen more domestically and internationally as one of secession, and not the question of slavery, at least to a degree.

The territory shouldn't change the population dynamics of the war that much, but having a decade less industrial development will hurt the U.S. in a BIG way. Though odds are still in favor of the U.S., I could see a CSA like nation winning in this case.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Seems like unless there is a major confrontation with Britain, the U.S. is getting hemmed in in the South

Possibly, though at the same time they may end up being more pro-active in the Caribbean, already having a foothold in the Yucatan. An analogy of Walker's expedition to Nicaragua could occur, this time with direct US aid.

, which will totally unbalance the number of free states versus slave states even earlier than OTL. Which could lead to a civil war in the 1850s. It's interesting, because there probably would not be enough time for abolitionism to ramp up mass movement, or the Republican party even perhaps. This means the conflict would be seen more domestically and internationally as one of secession, and not the question of slavery, at least to a degree.

The territory shouldn't change the population dynamics of the war that much, but having a decade less industrial development will hurt the U.S. in a BIG way. Though odds are still in favor of the U.S., I could see a CSA like nation winning in this case.

Its certainly an interesting question of how the debate has developed. OTL both Van Buren and Clay feared that the annexation of Texas would open the issue up and pull their parties apart. This is more or less what happened, leading initially to the Compromise of 1850, the collapse of the Whigs and tensions throughout the 1850s.

In the ATL, the lack of this may well come to the same effect, you suggest ? The annexation of Northern Oregon promises more Free States in the North, albeit under-populated ones, but significant in terms of senate votes, if not in the House of Representatives.

How would the South view a quasi-independent Deseret establishing itself in Mexican de jure territory ? Given British and French shenanigans over Texan independence, it would seem most likely that the only room for expansion of slave states is seen to be the area currently claimed by Deseret

Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

I'm leaning towards the federation of Italy on Neo-Guelphist ideals occurring more or less peacably, with the Pope as nominal head.

Trying to work out what Austria's view of all this is is a bit complicated. Without OTL 1848 convulsions, Metternich et al remain in power in Vienna. I can see them viewing the federation as a bulwark against constitutionalism going too far - control it by using it. And especially as a block to Mazzini-style republicanism. However, they would be worried that if it gets out of control, it might actually spur the latter on.

In addition, Austria did not like Pius IX - they would have vetoed his election, but the Archbishop of Milan, carrying the veto, arrived at the conclave too late. So, I am thinking there is not great enthusiasm in Vienna, but its viewed as OK for the time being.

Piedmont-Sardinia will probably be the ones to upset the applecart, though Sicily has as much potential. How has Ferdinand II put down the autonomist rising ? Or has he accepted a kind of duality of rule, inside the federation ? I believe he was looking for support from the other states in the Italian peninsular in this way

Grey Wolf

 

[DuQuense]

National leaders all over Europe and Americas at this time 1850 onward were looking for ways to have more say in who was running the Church in their Countries [One of the charges in Castro's excommunication is his refusal to allow the Pope to appoint Cardinals in Cuba]

If Italy unites in some kind of Pope lead Federation [even if he is only figure head] You may get more moves towards Anglican type Church's in other Countries.

?Naples as the first dual monarchy as a model for A-H?

 

[Grey Wolf]

National leaders all over Europe and Americas at this time 1850 onward were looking for ways to have more say in who was running the Church in their Countries [One of the charges in Castro's excommunication is his refusal to allow the Pope to appoint Cardinals in Cuba]

If Italy unites in some kind of Pope lead Federation [even if he is only figure head] You may get more moves towards Anglican type Church's in other Countries.

?Naples as the first dual monarchy as a model for A-H?

Interesting points

As regards national feeling, one has to note that Tsar Nicholas I and Metternich remain untouched. Also, that the uprising in Paris in February 1848 looks in retrospect to be a purely domestic affair and has brought the generally popular Ferdinand to the throne. There have been no repurcussions in Germany.

On the other hand, Austria already has some vetoes and exceptions within the Catholic Church, more than anyone else I think. But, I'm sure that France and Spain also have kingly rights over church appointments ?

The Two Sicilies as a Dual Monarchy sounds a good tag - it wouldn't be the first, Poland-Lithuania comes to mind, and there were others in the early modern period (not least England-Scotland one supposes). But in its modern form, anyway.

King Ferdinand II would thus hold the title of King of Naples, King of Sicily and King of the Two Sicilies - I rather suspect he ALREADY holds all the titles, but it would become more formalised.

I suppose the next question is what does a Neo-Guelphist Italian federation actually DO ?

I know that rather than having Italy united under the Savoyans, Napoleon III in OTL came to a similar conclusion, he preferred a federation. I wonder what HE envisaged it would be like ?

Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

Part 3

OK, since this timeline isn't going to go anywhere unless I develop it, let's see :-

Deseret - I'm going to come down on the Mexican government overcoming their reservations and giving the Mormons permission to establish their home here. As an apparent enemy of the USA (they keep getting hounded out) there is the hope that they will serve as a buffer to them, as well as the hope that unlike Texas they won't prove to be a Trojan Horse for US ambitions. In addition, the area they are settling in is pretty much empty, largely only has US squatters in anyway, isn't good for much and has proved resistant to all attempts by Mexico to colonise it. This is not a long-term proposition, especially with a US president like Cass who has raised the stakes again.

Regarding Texas, I see similar considerations leading to Mexico bowing to British and French pressure to accept Texas as an independent nation. I guess that the border dispute will then be referred to a third nation (note that the New Brunswick/Maine border dispute was originally referred to the King of the Netherlands for arbitration). Some sort of settlement will be reached, and this will also delineate the Northern border where Texan claims seem excessive, especially with the establishment of Deseret as a neighbour.

In Britain, I'm looking at Lovell's government not having the legs to last for many years, and being replaced by a Reformist one under Lord John Russell. The political parties in Britain in this era, even in OTL, are not that easy to distinguish - although Whigs and Tories existed, there was flux between them, aswell as the Ultra wings of the Tories and the Radicals as extremists on both ends of the spectrum. In the ATL, the civil war has basically come down to meaning that four political groupings now exist - the Radicals, the Reformists, the Whigs and the Moderates. The first two basically won the civil war, the Whigs are what's left of the historical party after schisming and the Moderates are those conservatives readmitted to the political process. A lot of the aristocracy remain under attainder, and a fair number are going to be in exile in Hannover.

Regarding the royal family, King George V can be expected to try for a goodly number of children. Although genetically he is the same as the OTL son of Ernest Augustus, he has a different character in the ATL, not least because he didn't lose his sight in 1834. OTL this came after a fall from a horse; 1834 in the ATL is in the middle of the civil war where he is the second most important royal in the kingdom after his father. He is thus less of a melancholy chap, and in addition being cut off from his parents (in exile in Mecklenburg since 1836) means he has had to grow quickly to become his own man. His constitutional powers have been cut by the settlement of the civil war, but he still retains rights probably anologous to those enjoyed by his OTL namesake in the early twentieth century.

As for royal dukedoms, the majority are extinct. Only Cumberland, as a courtesy to the king, and Cambridge (held in the position of the King of Hannover) remain. Kendal, granted to the illegitimate son of the Duke of Sussex is under attainder. Sussex was killed in the civil war and his title is extinct. As are York & Albany, Clarence & Strathearn, Gloucester & Edinburgh, and Kent.

I see King George V as siring quite a number of children, for whom he would use in the first instance those titles usually given - Prince of Wales to the eldest son, Duke of York to the second son. After that I suspect that Clarence, Kent and we'll add Bath (an extinct title, previously non-royal) could be used for his fifth son. Some of this lies ahead, but one needs to get certain things clear in the mind

Grey Wolf

 

[Gladi]

I'm leaning towards the federation of Italy on Neo-Guelphist ideals occurring more or less peacably, with the Pope as nominal head.

Trying to work out what Austria's view of all this is is a bit complicated. Without OTL 1848 convulsions, Metternich et al remain in power in Vienna. I can see them viewing the federation as a bulwark against constitutionalism going too far - control it by using it. And especially as a block to Mazzini-style republicanism. However, they would be worried that if it gets out of control, it might actually spur the latter on.

In addition, Austria did not like Pius IX - they would have vetoed his election, but the Archbishop of Milan, carrying the veto, arrived at the conclave too late. So, I am thinking there is not great enthusiasm in Vienna, but its viewed as OK for the time being.

Piedmont-Sardinia will probably be the ones to upset the applecart, though Sicily has as much potential. How has Ferdinand II put down the autonomist rising ? Or has he accepted a kind of duality of rule, inside the federation ? I believe he was looking for support from the other states in the Italian peninsular in this way

Grey Wolf

Bright day
Well, will Austria get in this ATL constitution it did not get get OTL? The uprisings were used as pretext to dipell imperial council and block it OTL, ATL Ferdinand would remain on throne and liberal constitution should come into effect- we will not see Austria-Hungary, will we?

And Italy- how is it going to change wars with Austria? The 48 one won't happen and possibly without Napoleon III not even the second in fifties... But there is still going to be war between Prussia and Austria- OTL Italians were soundly beaten, but tied troops that could have been used aganist Prussians. Built on different matrix and without the confontantional young history, will they still join?

And I apologize for asking only about Austria- but it is only country I am comfortingly familiar- whole world of this timeline is very interesting.

 

[DuQuense]

Italy- As far as a Federation goes you can run the gauntlet, from US Rigorous, to early European Common Market.

the Question is how rigorous is the ideals of Neo-Guelphism [whatever] going to be able to over come simple Italian Politics as usual.

 

[eschaton]

Sorry it took me awhile...as to north south tensions...

Senate balance is going to be key here. So far, there are 14 slave states. I'm uncertain how where your POD effects some states admission, but there were 13 free states prior to 1945 or so. Iowa is going to gain statehood in 1846, Wisconsin in 1848, Minnesota in 1858, Oregon in 1859, and Kansas in 1861. Kansas *might* be able to go slave as a compromise, but it won't have enough people for quite awhile. in OTL, of course, soon after the admission of Texas the senate became lopsided, and there will be no California it seems, so the issues involving California becoming a free state will not be there. However, in general the issue of 'balance' will come to the forefront sooner than OTL, and the lack of any frontier in the west that the CSA can claim will only add to it. .

Deseret is too far off for the south to care IMHO. Without Texas, there is no easy access to Southern colonists anyway. I think that if California does end up annexed, there is no way that Deseret will stay independent however.

It might be interesting in the Mormons go even further west. With California mostly unoccupied, nothing is stopping them from migrating to far better land. Mexico might prefer to have them at its frontier however.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Bright day
Well, will Austria get in this ATL constitution it did not get get OTL? The uprisings were used as pretext to dipell imperial council and block it OTL, ATL Ferdinand would remain on throne and liberal constitution should come into effect- we will not see Austria-Hungary, will we?

I certainly can't see Austria-Hungary in the near future of the time in question. Hungary has not had its 1848 revolt so that major motivation is not there, and neither has there been upheaval in either Austria or the German Confederation. This is not to say there have not been incidents - I would not be at all surprised for example if Nassau has had to outlaw serfdom due to some knock-on effect somewhere down the line. There could be a mini wave of anti-serfdom, probably not in 1848 but in the proceeding decade.

As to the liberal constitution you mention - was Ferdinand going to grant this without much pressure ? I don't know anything about it, and the book I've ordered that will probably answer it will come along not soon enough.

And Italy- how is it going to change wars with Austria? The 48 one won't happen and possibly without Napoleon III not even the second in fifties... But there is still going to be war between Prussia and Austria- OTL Italians were soundly beaten, but tied troops that could have been used aganist Prussians. Built on different matrix and without the confontantional young history, will they still join?

Well, there MAY be a clash between Austria and Prussia but I doubt 1866 is anywhere near set in stone. If and when it comes about, we will see where the other powers are.

And I apologize for asking only about Austria- but it is only country I am comfortingly familiar- whole world of this timeline is very interesting.

Please don't apologise - a thread like this needs all the experts it can get, most especially with focused knowledge in areas I am not great in.

Thanks very much !

Grye Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

Ah Gladi, are you referencing this :-

http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h36-pol.html

Rising in Vienna
In Vienna,10,000 factory workers had recently been laid off, and students there favored democracy and civil liberties. Workers joined with students, and on March 12, 1848, a crowd of demonstrators was fired upon, and this unleashed a popular rising. Barricades went up, and the municipal guard went over to the side of the rebellion. Austria had been ruled largely a State Council, consisting of Metternich and four others. It was against Metternich, the State Council and the police that the rebels voiced their wrath -- not their Habsburg king, Ferdinand. Workers and students stormed through the imperial palace, and a terrified and scornful Metternich, not quite seventy-five, went into exile in England.

King Ferdinand accommodated the rebels. On March 15, his proclamation read:

We, Ferdinand the First, by the grace of God, Emperor of Austria, king of Hungary and Bohemia ... have adopted such measures as we have recognized as necessary to fulfill the wishes of our loyal people.

King Ferdinand promised to provide his subjects with a constitution, and people spoke of the coming constitution with joy. People were delighted by the thought of an end to police intimidation and censorship. Professors were enthusiastic about an end to restrictions and police spying. For a few days people danced, sang, wined and paraded in the streets. It was as if the Viennese were one happy family, including the city's Jews. For some conservatives it was the wanton masses exercising their lack of discipline. Princess Sophia was outraged at the weakness of her father-in-law, the king, and outraged at what she called the "liberal stupidities" of king Wilhelm in Berlin.

Then, a week after the rising, Vienna calmed down. Ferdinand abolished serfdom and promised more reforms. Liberalism and reform remained in the air, but with the economy damaged, word passed through the city that for the sake of everybody it was necessary to get back to work.


To my mind this rising is dependant on the copy-cat impetus from Paris. I guess I could think a bit and see if the less dramatic events in Paris (abdication in favour of Ferdinand who is still alive) would have less dramatic follow-ons ? Thus the abolition of serfdom and this constitution in Vienna ? I wasn't previously thinking on these lines though

Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

Egypt in the 1840s

What has been going on in the Eastern Mediterranean since the start of the 1840s ?

The Ottoman Empire remains under the terms of the Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi

However, the bonds of this treaty will have been pressed sorely by the aftermath of the Syrian revolt where Ibrahim crushed an Ottoman army and re-established control. Mohammed Ali remained in possession of Syria, and France's proto-alliance with Egypt stabilised that state.

At the same time, the death of Sultan Mahmud of the Ottoman Empire can be expected to have weakened that state, as its OTL boost from seeing Mohammed Ali beaten off by Britain and Austria has not happened. Despite Russia's distractions in the Caucasus, the death of Mahmud would usher in a degree of instability and Russia's obligations under Unkiar Skelessi would probably come into play. One can posit it either way, but doing so this way probably makes more sense for the long-term interest of this ATL.

One can also see the 1840s progressing without too much to mention. The problem comes in 1848 with Mohammed Ali's apparent insanity (temporary ?). Why did Ibrahim die in 1848 ? Had his life on campaign beaten him down ?

Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

On the other hand

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Egypt under Mehemet Ali and his successors

Mehemet Ali's Successors

On Ibrahims death in November 1848 the government of Egypt fell to his nephew Abbas I, the son of Tusun Abbasad. Abbas put an end to the system of commercial monopolies, and during his reign the railway from Alexandria to Cairo was begun at the instigation of the British government. Opposed to European ways, Abbas lived in great seclusion, and after a reign of less than six years he was murdered in July 1854 by two of his slaves.

Given French support, and 10 more years of a more successful wider-jurisdiction Egypt, Abbas' promising start might actually be sustainable

Any thoughts ?

Grey Wolf

 

[Gladi]

Ah Gladi, are you referencing this :-

http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h36-pol.html

Rising in Vienna
In Vienna,10,000 factory workers had recently been laid off, and students there favored democracy and civil liberties. Workers joined with students, and on March 12, 1848, a crowd of demonstrators was fired upon, and this unleashed a popular rising. Barricades went up, and the municipal guard went over to the side of the rebellion. Austria had been ruled largely a State Council, consisting of Metternich and four others. It was against Metternich, the State Council and the police that the rebels voiced their wrath -- not their Habsburg king, Ferdinand. Workers and students stormed through the imperial palace, and a terrified and scornful Metternich, not quite seventy-five, went into exile in England.

King Ferdinand accommodated the rebels. On March 15, his proclamation read:

We, Ferdinand the First, by the grace of God, Emperor of Austria, king of Hungary and Bohemia ... have adopted such measures as we have recognized as necessary to fulfill the wishes of our loyal people.

King Ferdinand promised to provide his subjects with a constitution, and people spoke of the coming constitution with joy. People were delighted by the thought of an end to police intimidation and censorship. Professors were enthusiastic about an end to restrictions and police spying. For a few days people danced, sang, wined and paraded in the streets. It was as if the Viennese were one happy family, including the city's Jews. For some conservatives it was the wanton masses exercising their lack of discipline. Princess Sophia was outraged at the weakness of her father-in-law, the king, and outraged at what she called the "liberal stupidities" of king Wilhelm in Berlin.

Then, a week after the rising, Vienna calmed down. Ferdinand abolished serfdom and promised more reforms. Liberalism and reform remained in the air, but with the economy damaged, word passed through the city that for the sake of everybody it was necessary to get back to work.


To my mind this rising is dependant on the copy-cat impetus from Paris. I guess I could think a bit and see if the less dramatic events in Paris (abdication in favour of Ferdinand who is still alive) would have less dramatic follow-ons ? Thus the abolition of serfdom and this constitution in Vienna ? I wasn't previously thinking on these lines though

Grey Wolf

Bright day
Okay, my book says monday, March the 13 about thousands people converged before the Lower House of Council (how to translate?) because petition of liberal burghers was on as topic of day. Part of the crowd entered, whereas Adolf Fishhof (doctor at Common Hospital [ah those translations] had a rousing speech and one student read week old Kossuth's speech. After that when people started dispersing, Archduke Albrecht attacked with troops attacked , killed five, and what zou wrote happened.

Buit first constitution was not enough, it was not good as all power was in hands of ruler and ministres only barely checked by Royal Concil (composed of House of Lords and House of Commons, with only wealthy being able to vote). Because of that another revolution happened. Results: One chambred Council of Realm(? Ugh hates terminology) that was elected with wide-spread lections wer ordered to made it. Also Austrians were allowed to go to Frankfurt. And also Ferdinand left Vienna for Olmutz.

It is question, if this does not happen at all, there were some tensions that had to be resolved, be it Kolowrat, Auersperg or Taafe. But I very much dount that we will see Bach in this timeline.
Argh, I will think about it more, promise...