Against Stupidity

Chapter 10: Some Thoughts on Thought:

A thought left unrestrained and unexamined is like a bull left in a china shop: there is some chance that the situation won’t turn bad, but why risk it?
~Francois Gravois-Smith[1]

The early Nineteenth Century is to a philosopher what a cup of swamp water is to a biologist: an source of nearly endless variations of things to observe. The French Revolution, in particular, is akin to the sugar cube added to that same cup of water: something that makes the already-striving life practically explode. For no-one was without an opinion on the French Revolution, and therefore no philosophy could ignore it. A hundred different movements rose up, some in support of the ideas of the Revolution, and others as a reaction.

Robert Roque Raltique, the Revolution’s famous leader himself, was always eager to add to the annals of philosophy. He is known for a near-endless optimism about human nature, combined with a strict pursuit of logic, particularly as it applies to human endeavors. It is thought that his theories were the eventual cause of the Second Thought movement in the American Confederation, and thus the beginnings of the modern psychology and sociology.

Just as important were his work on the doctrine of transnaturalism (the idea that a human being could overcome any aspect of his nature through an effort of will; often confused with the related but distinct concept of Natural Dominion, stating that it was human destiny to take charge of natural environments and bend them to human needs.) and his workings into Republican theory of government, seen as refinements on the works of Locke and the Fathers of America.

While many of Roque Raltique’s supporters joined him in singing the praises of Republicanism, not everyone agreed. Lukas Faerber combined the international trauma of the Revolution with his childhood experiences on the playground to create Collectivism. In Faerber’s view, the Divine Right of Kings had turned out to be useless against the will of the people. Therefore, the self-prescribed Natural Rights Republicans floated about couldn’t be much more. As far as Farber was concerned, there were no rights – only agreements granted by the people to each other. Rights arose from people’s will and therefore could be removed by it. If the majority of the people desired to plant a tree, the tree was to be planted. If the majority of people desired to build a railroad, the railroad was to be built. If the majority of the people desired to take one of their number, strip him of money and clothes, beat him senseless, then burn him on a pole, then that was what ought to happen. Faerber foresaw a direct democracy, with no limits.

In economic thought, the old European theory of Monetarism was slowly being replaced with the budding Marketism. The difference was that in Marketism what mattered was not the labor placed into the production of a good, but what someone was willing to part with to acquire it. A flower that grew on its own and was casually plucked could be valuable, but even if a thousand man-hours were dedicated to constructing an object so ugly no-one would pay a broken pence for it, then that object was worthless. The debate continued in full force between England, Avalonia, France, and AC. Easing it was the work of Clement de Laage. Prosecuted for the crime of translating works of philosophy and economics before the Revolution, with its advent he was not only free to do this work, but encouraged. Clement de Laage proceeded to found the world’s premier translation company, named the Silhouette in honor of his uncle, who de Laage claimed taught him everything he knew.

In epistemology, Rationalism and Empiricism continued their titanic clash. Like a great empire calling up its allies and satellites, they each brought a myriad associated schools with them. Among pure philosophers, Rationalism tended to dominate. However, for friends of other sciences, particularly those related to physics, the clear, bright lines of Empiricism were quite attractive, with their ability to discern correctness once and for all (or at least until more observational evidence arrived).

Empiricism in particular was becoming popular in medicine, where doctors found that checking if something works or not tended to have positive correlation with patients surviving. The doctrine of preventative care and vaccination espoused by Doctors Jenner and Guillotin slowly began taking root, under protest from the barber-surgeons.

In biology, the Theory of Selective Destruction tentatively arose, championed by Franz Achard, the father of the American sugar beet industry and his partner Nicholas Andrews. At the time this theory had none of the religious implications that the latter refinements would bring, and thus avoided the theological wrath of the holy men of the world. It simply refined the concepts of selective breeding and on how it could happen by accident. The most controversial aspect was Andrews’s claim that any trait could be selected for – even ones traditionally seen as negative.

That’s not to say the theologists weren’t busy. The changes happening in religion were enormous, as the old structures slowly lost their grip on power, and were replaced by the more open and human-controlled institutions of modernity. Many of them chose to join the Pope in his denouncement of the French Revolution. And many of them paid the price as more and more people in France and the American Confederation grew skeptical of the Pope’s ability to hand down political proclamations. Slowly, the power of the Papacy was fading, though the Iberian nations and Poland remained in Pope’s good graces.

The American Confederation was at that time a breeding ground for new religious ideas, born of the mixtures and clashes between the many religions of North America. Nowhere else did there exist such large quantities of Protestants and Catholics and Jews and Deists all intermixed. Protestants and Catholics in particular, actually, as many immigrants both from New France and France proper settled in the industrial cities of New England and Maine, while members of the originally British territories migrated north – either to Quebec City or else to many of the smaller places, closer to the fur animals, game fish, and timber that still made up New France’s primary exports.

Due to this admixture, many of them were forced to live right next to each other, particularly in factory neighborhoods. Often they even worshipped together, as over time factory owners found that whatever the priests thought, the average American really couldn’t care less about whether or not double predestination or transubstantiation were present, and they could save money by creating a sort of common chapel where a priest of one denomination or another would hand down a generic prayer.

This was only the beginning, of course. Soon the emerging concepts from European thought would have to deal with the resurgence of Greco-Roman ideas and the influx of Easter philosophy coming through the libraries of Russia and Britain. This would lead them to further changes and improvement, and in time transform the world into what we know it to be today. But even then, at the beginning, it was already an age of glory.

[FONT=&quot][1] An ATL character and a proto-psychologist.[/FONT]
 
Potatoes

True. The response of the British government was not necessarily because they're more concerned about Irish, but because they're skeptical of religious repression after the North America fiasco. Ireland has a long, hard road ahead of it.

Definately a long hard road--and a potato famine is likely. The butterfly effect will change when it occurs, but I'd say it's almost inevitable that it will happen. The big concern is how much Ireland's agricultural system has changed, but potato blights were common through all Europe.
 
Definately a long hard road--and a potato famine is likely. The butterfly effect will change when it occurs, but I'd say it's almost inevitable that it will happen. The big concern is how much Ireland's agricultural system has changed, but potato blights were common through all Europe.

The rent system hasn't gone away, so the situation is going to be roughly the same in that respect. The government's response may change, though. I'm finalizing that aspect.
 
Chapter 11: Look to the West: A tale of North and South


Politics is, I think, all that stands between good men with an agenda and a bloodbath.
~Ichabod Cornelius Wiehner


To understand the realities of American expansion into the Louisiana Territory, it is important to understand the nature of early American politics.


The first American party to arise was the Confederate Party. The second was the Whig Party. This much everyone knows. Fewer people understand the issues that divided them, with the majority of the population thinking that the Confederates were the Party of the North and the Whigs the Party of the South.


In fact, the political landscape was never so clear, nor so divided. While it is true that Confederates, styling themselves the Party of Adams, were strong in the increasingly industrial North, while the Whigs, being the Party of Jefferson, were just as strong in the still largely agrarian South, this was a symptom rather than a cause. In fact, the basic difference between the two parties was that the Confederates favored a strong government, and all that went with it, while the Whigs, still remembering a time when they were less directly controlled, pushed for a decentralized approach and more decisions at a local level.


In other words, the people of the North didn’t support the Confederates because they were Northern. They favored the Confederate emphasis on industry, complete with the infrastructure to stretch it out, subsidies and tariffs, and a strong National Bank. Likewise, the Southerners supported the Whigs because they often felt like they were paying for things that did not directly benefit them.


This was, at least, the situation for the first twenty or so years. But as the first decade of the Nineteenth Century rolled about, two issues took the front: slavery and immigration.


It is unfair to say that the Whigs supported slavery in and of itself. But they supported the right to own slaves they perceived the people as having. The Confederates chose to align themselves with the freesoilers, and in due time the abolitionists. With the mandated waiting date passed, things looked quite bad for the slave owners, particularly as New France, which had initially supported them in this fight, was gradually leaning towards abolitionism as well. The New French had never kept slaves in plantation structure, and had no use for them in their industries. They employed slaves mainly as domestic servants and, just like in the rest of the North, were growing increasingly reluctant about that practice.


The issue of immigration was almost equally sharp, and was the only thing keeping the Confederates from taking complete control of the North. For while many of the workers didn’t want immigration, citing undue job competition, the Confederates encouraged it in all its forms, particularly with the newly-opened Louisiana lands. Their ideal was a densely-populated country, with plentiful labor force for any project. The Whigs, while reluctant about government regulation, positioned themselves against immigration, earning the votes of the unemployed.
Ironically, while the Confederates held themselves to be the industrial party and the Whigs thought themselves the agrarian party, in practice just as some of the workers supported the Whigs because of immigration, many of the free farmers supported Confederates because of slavery – or rather the limitation thereof. They actually wanted to see slavery banned, since it would give them a way to stand against the plantations.


And complicating the picture further were the industrializing Southern cities. Richmond in particular was becoming the Confederate capital of the South, its textile industries and railroads drawing in Confederate sentiments. Elyton, only recently founded, would soon transform into a steel powerhouse. And the major cause of the Southern worry was actually the city of New Orleans. While at the moment it didn’t swing either way, it stood to become the commercial port of the American Confederation, receiving all the shipments going down the Mississippi. That would put it solidly into Confederate hands, and most likely grant to the Confederates the potential New Orleans territory being discussed.


It is therefore not surprising that the Southerners wanted to push forward just as soon as possible, to claim the territories immediately and hopefully increase their Delegate count to offset the North’s growing dominance in the House of Representatives. If enough territories could be created under Whig philosophy, they would have a chance.


It is also no surprise that Hamilton looked for an excuse to delay. Here was a great conundrum for him. Ideally, the Confederates supported the westward expansion, since it would go well with their Big Three Principles: Territory, Population, and Industry. But what they most certainly did not want was the spread of the plantation economy. Hamilton himself regarded it as a colossal waste, starving American lands and providing little of use. If instead of President he could be Dictator for just one day, it is certain that he would have abolished the plantations, replacing most of the cotton with a three-field system incorporating wheat and his precious sugar beets. The Hamilton project to destroy the Caribbean dominance over sugar was under way, but the going was slow.


Hamilton’s first stalling effort was the Homestead Act. While on the surface it was a way for land to be claimed, in practice it meant that the initial claims were limited to 160 acres. The move certainly made Hamilton popular with the small farmers, while stalling the advance of the plantations temporarily. Unfortunately for Hamilton’s agenda, the would-be plantation owners quickly found a workaround by hiring out the poor to stake their claims and then buying these claims up to form a proper-sized land bundle. Even so, some of the choicest cuts of land escaped their grasp, falling into the hands of people who genuinely intended to hold them.


And a short while later, Hamilton no longer needed to stall. There arose a more effective deterrent in the form of the Cherokee. The tribe took exception to the American westward expansion and acted to stop it. Evidently, they were unfamiliar with the results achieved by the Huron from just this sort of activity.


While the Cherokee would not have presented a problem during normal times, at the beginning of the settlement the American army was mostly stationed in France as part of the arrangement that made Louisiana an American acquisition in the first place.


The problem wasn’t necessarily in the shortage of men, but rather in the shortage of experience and of quality weapons (as opposed to the low-grade guns typically owned by farmers). This was a concern because, as the experiences of the Huron and Revolutionary Wars had demonstrated, wars were won by professionalism and organization. There was no doubt that the American Confederation could crush the Cherokee nation in any case – if worst came to worst, they could simply flood them with numbers. But that would involve unacceptable losses. Worse, it would involve undue militarization of the South, something the Confederates wanted desperately to avoid.


Following some general border unpleasantness, the AC government decided to go ahead with the Hull plan of further developing the remaining American forces. As quickly as possible, the best and brightest of the soldiers were picked out, along with the most able of the civilian volunteers and a few of the veterans successfully prodded back into service. These forces were then trained in quick attacks, destruction of property, mounted combat, and harsh-terrain fighting. For extra effectiveness, they were combined with the Iroquois squads.


The completed squads were christened ‘the eradicators’ and they served an invaluable role in the wars against the Cherokee and later the Shawnee. They would strike quickly to destroy Native villages in their entirety, leaving nothing behind for the warriors to come back to. This threat effectively hobbled the Indian ability to wage war effectively by tying them down.


With the threat of the Indians removed and Hamilton’s term ended in favor of James Monroe, the Southern expansion into the West could finally begin in full. But by this time many Northerners had moved ahead already, though not without problems of their own. The gradual westward movement of the railroads, secured by a Hamilton-signed contract that even Monroe could not revoke, meant the city inhabitants would have a much better chance of moving forward as well. The West belonged to America – but mostly to the North.
 
Chapter 12: Money, Dear Boy.



Nations do not go to war over ideology. Sooner or later, every war is about money.
~General Napoleon[1]


History is too often described in broad strokes of ideology and trends, neglecting all the little practical details that push these trends one way or the other. If full understanding of history is to become complete, this must change.


For a good example, one need only to look at the Spanish-American War. The following is the synopsis of history as it generally appears in textbooks:


After the French Revolution, the long-existing alliances of Europe were shaken up. Spain in particular went from being an ally to France and an enemy to Britain to the complete opposite, getting up in arms against the French Republic and allying with London to push the monarchist cause against democracy in Europe.


The change (according, once again, to the traditional textbooks) was motivated mainly by the fear of the advancing democracy and the desire by monarchist/aristocratic powers to contain it so as to ensure their own continued hold on power. Besides which, the flood of escaping French aristocrats was more effective than the occasional diplomat from the Republic at swaying the opinion of the upper classes – for the moment, anyway.


The transition was most radical in Spain precisely because the most escapees defected there. For those who did not have resources and connections either across the Channel or in the German states, Navarre was the best bet. While Louis XVI and his immediate family had been placed in custody, his brothers escaped and attempted to set up a monarchy-in-exile. King Charles IV of Spain was very much troubled by Louis’s predicament, since he counted the man as a personal friend of sorts and was in any case concerned about the idea that a king could be removed and confined.


Here, the traditional history books go on to suggest that it was this concern that ultimately prompted Spain to take action. That with the bulk of the American army in France and the French armies converted to Roque Raltique’s service, an attack directly on France was untenable. And that the war against America had been calculated to humiliate the young country and force it to withdraw its troops just to defend itself.


The other side of the story is generally known only to students of economic history, which is really a shame, since it is by far the more accurate account, with far more reason behind everything. Actions that, when viewed under the common interpretation, seem random and even stupid, appear in a whole new light as legitimate, if risky, choices.


The root cause of the war, strange as it may seem, lay neither in ideology nor in personal grudges, but in money. It was money that made Spain go to war with America, money that made Britain stay out of it, and ultimately money that ensured the war’s outcome.

The beginning lies in the Louisiana Bargain. It is well known that Robert Roque Raltique bought the help of the American Confederation with France’s possessions in America. It is only slightly less well known that the bargain also included the nullification of America’s debts to France. It is seldom realized that this did not include only the debts of the government, but nearly all debts originating in France. That meant the investments of many of the old aristocrats, as well as those of any company hostile to the Republic, were wiped out. Hamilton was only too happy to accept this, since it meant that at least half of his beloved National Projects had been effectively done at no cost.


The difficulty lay in the deep entanglements between the French interests and the Spanish ones. If the French lost their investments, many Spanish would lose their business partners, customers, or suppliers. As a result, the economic powerhouses of Spain soon raised a ruckus joining to the exiled Frenchmen. The combination of the economic and political pressure was, without a doubt, what forced Spain to the brink.


Spain was by no means the only nation to denounce the French Republic. It is true that no European monarchy was entirely happy about democracy making its way back to the Old World. Great Britain exerted its diplomatic influence to make things more difficult for the French, while also using the might of its navy – at that time still the most powerful in the world – to bully the American Confederation. Lands as distant as Russia and Sweden expressed their distaste for the state of affairs. Indeed, even the Pope took the time to hand down a fiery proclamation, mainly in response to the Republicans’ secularizing tendencies. These actions generally led to little. The British may have ruled the seas, but the Americans were quickly rising up to be their match, and their ships were well-defended. The European diplomatic net did not stretch across the Atlantic. And the Pope’s proclamations did more to undermine the power of the Vatican than the public support for France. Desperate not to look like they took their orders from the Pope, American Catholics turned out in droves in support of the French Republic.


However, Spain made the fatal mistake of not stopping at denouncements. In 1807, the fear and anger led the Spanish to make the ultimate gesture of defiance: they threatened to call in their debts. Faced with a choice between allowing the Spanish to dictate their foreign policy and striking back, there was little question of what the proud Americans would do. And so, with the approval of Congress, Hamilton announced that AC unilaterally canceled its debts to Spain – much like it did with France, only without the other side’s agreement.


For those who have kept reading this far, it must surely be obvious that it is this nullification that prompted Spain into military action. They could have accepted the existence of France. They could not accept the ruin of their economy.


The declaration of war was officially made on June 8th of 1807. To go against established historical wisdom once more, this was the better choice for Spain. The only reconciliation scenarios left at this point would leave Spain impoverished and humiliated. The war was not risking much more than that.


Likewise, it is easy to laugh at Spain for underestimating American strength today, when news travels at the speed of light and satellites watch from the sky. But in those days, information was a rare commodity. The rumors of the American eradicators had reached Europe, but they were still just that – rumors. The true strength of the military units was unknown, as was the extent of their success. America had rebuilt its forces – but Spain had no way of knowing. In short, it may be true that Spain had walked into North America expecting to find a cub and found a grizzly instead – but it had no reason to suspect anything but a cub was there.


It is also certain that the vaunted Spanish-British alliance was never going to be invoked. Simply put, the purpose of the alliance was to put pressure on France. The invasion of America was never in the works for Great Britain.
Even the most dedicated proponents of the idealist school of history will be forced to acknowledge that practical concerns ruled the British decisions. The British had nothing to gain in this war, and everything to lose. Any troops sent to America would have to be first withdrawn from other places – places where they could better serve the interests of the Empire. They could fight, and at best they could gain the recognition of debts for other countries. They could not hope to recapture any territory lost in the Revolutionary War, and their own territories in the Caribbean would lie open to American retribution. Worst of all, the British debts were by no means guaranteed from being cut off as well. Alone of all the civilized countries, AC could do this with impunity, secure in the knowledge that only a tiny fraction of its own finances were deployed overseas. For the most part, Americans invested within American shores, not in the least because America was perhaps the greatest of the world’s growing markets. And, most importantly, it was felt that if Britain were to enter the war, devoting its army and navy to the task, the American forces might be tempted to abandon their assignment in France and cross the Channel to force an end to the war.


In short, the quixotic attack of the bumbling Spaniards was in reality a calculated maneuver, foiled only by the unexpected strength of the American military.
I have no disagreements with the classical scholars on the course of the war itself. Simply put, it was not a war Spain could win. Their incursions into America led to swift retribution, with Americans counterattacking and occupying Florida and North Mejico before the Spanish even had a chance to realize the scope of the forces rallied against them.


As for the post-war settlements, here the classical scholars have no disagreements with me. There is no question of idealism when it comes to such negotiations. Economic interests rule, more openly than anywhere else.



Flush with victory, Americans made plenty of demands of Spain. Florida was the first item on the menu, of course. Used for naval landings in both Revolutionary War and the Spanish-American War, it was far too great a strategic vulnerability to be allowed to remain in hostile hands. Therefore, the Americans moved to annex it, completing their dominance over the East Coast.


Much more controversial was the demand for areas of Northern Mejico. Though those too had been used to launch attacks on the American South, that would not change even if they were annexed. The simple fact was that the Southerners wanted this land. Tejas in particular appealed to them. And what’s more, they had the political power to take it. With Hamilton replaced by the agriculture-sympathetic James Monroe, and great support in both Houses of Senate, the Whigs could finally get the land they desired – or so they thought.


So – who was right in these negotiations? Who was smart? Who can tell? America demanded Northern Mejico and ended up with little more than a slice. Spain conceded to the loss of some territory, and ended up losing the whole of the New World. Sometimes even the most practical of men cannot see what lies ahead.
Next, we shall use the context of practicality to look at the Spanish-American Revolutions…


[1]: ITTL, Napoleon is known as for his pragmatist philosophy, in stark contrast to the largely idealistic French government.
 
WOW! :)

This is utterly brilliant!

I must ask: Will we see Washington, D.C., established as the new capital? If it is, will it stay in the same place? Or has Boston become an immovable power center?

This is fantastic! Please keep it up!
 
WOW! :)

This is utterly brilliant!

I must ask: Will we see Washington, D.C., established as the new capital? If it is, will it stay in the same place? Or has Boston become an immovable power center?

This is fantastic! Please keep it up!

Thanks. Don't worry, the project is still going. I've just been trying to figure out some things a little further into the future before posting the immediately following events, since I don't want to write myself into a corner.

And yeah, Boston is pretty solidly set. With a greater sense of a national identity from the start, there's not really a need for a capital to be held separate from any of the 'states' as it's presupposed that the President and the Senate will be looking out for the whole of the country anyway. Plus, it's closer to the center of the American Confederation...before the westward expansion, anyway.
 
Chapter 13: Do The Revolution!

To be a Spaniard is to know shame.
~José Rebolledo de Palafox

The period spanning nearly a decade and a half from 1810 to 1823 is generally known in the Americas (minus AC, of course) as the Age of Revolutions. From the moment Mejico ejected the representatives of the Spanish Crown to the moment the last of the Spain’s colonial possessions was lost to them, it seems like Spaniards knew nothing but misfortune in the West.

One of the more interesting things from a historian’s perspective is that unlike the more famous American Revolution – that is the one led by the American Confederation – the majority of these revolutions were not planned or prepared well in advance. Rather, sensing a moment of weakness in the Spanish Empire, the various colonies took full advantage of that weakness. The Age of Revolutions was not a product of a group of masterminds. It just happened.

Mejico was the first to part ways with the Crown, and probably the one with the best reasons for doing so. Simply put, the Mejicans had no plans to give up their bountiful northern lands, even if Spain was ready to. With the Spanish army devastated, it had far less ability to project power. The damaged economy further weakened it while also ensuring it would be clamoring for higher taxes, particularly against the colonies.

The battle for the hearts of the people was remarkably short. Far too many were already resentful of the Spanish influence in their lives already.


Arguably, Spain could have won this war. But Mejico was only the beginning. Soon after, the various states of Central America joined it in declaring independence, in the beginning of a chain reaction. The more colonies refused Spanish rule, the larger Spain’s military commitments became. And the more overstretched Spain seemed, the more colonies had the opportunity to declare themselves independent.

The final mistake of the Spaniards lay in attempting to turn their remaining colonial resources against the rebels. Faced with the prospect of such a war, the colonies broke off one by one. Colombia; Chile; Argentina; to put it briefly, by the end of the decade Spain found itself at a war with every one of their subject states.

The Tragedy of Portugal simply does not get as much attention as the Tragedy of Spain, partly because the Portuguese imperial ambitions had never been as strong, and partly because their blow came quickly and then was over and done with. But it does bear mentioning that Brazil found itself dragged, almost inevitably, into the revolutions, effectively pitting the Iberian Peninsula against a continent and a half. Though the Portuguese war effort was really half-hearted, given the obvious lack of success Spain had shown despite its best efforts, it at least served to affirm an alliance between the two countries. An alliance they would sorely need as the inevitable end came crashing down and the imperial powers were forced to give up and run home with their tails between their legs.

Post-revolution, the world halfway expected the Southern powers to fuse themselves in a way similar to the American Confederation and create a new Spanish-speaking juggernaut. But in fact, that did not happen. Instead, Latin America dissolved into a dozen different countries, each one with distinct aims, thoughts, and government. Some states tried for democracy; others preferred a measure of authoritarianism. Mejico and Brazil even went so far as to declare themselves Empires. (Empires of what no-one could quite figure out).

For many of these countries, being cut off from European influence had not achieved the desired result. The existing poverty and the frequent lack of industry or education held back their development and left them off the international political field. For others, independence was everything they’d dreamt of.

For Europe, this loss meant something larger: the final non-British European empires had effectively collapsed, along with Continental ability to influence the events in other parts of the globe. The struggle to control the various New Worlds had gone from purely militaristic and economic to something of a philosophical, or even ideological effort.

The Age of Persuasion had begun.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
 
I'm officially subscribed to this-Good work!

How expansionist is the AC going to be? Are they going to claim all of Canada and the rest of the current US boundaries? Stretch into the Caribbean, and perhaps South America?

Or, in other words: Will we see an America that stretches from the North Pole to the South?
 
I'm officially subscribed to this-Good work!

How expansionist is the AC going to be? Are they going to claim all of Canada and the rest of the current US boundaries? Stretch into the Caribbean, and perhaps South America?

Or, in other words: Will we see an America that stretches from the North Pole to the South?

Not quite. The Caribbean is definitely off-limits for the moment, since AC has no desire to get into a fight with Great Britain.

Southern expansion is a matter of some balance. Essentially, there is struggle between the slave states, which want the land adjacent to themselves, and the free states, which prefer to curtail the expansion of slavery.

On the other hand the West is both open and 'empty' and definitely ripe for plucking. So they have quite a ways to expand still.
 
Chapter 14: Up on a Pole

To fight your neighbor is to invite ruin; how much better to fight the man three houses over!
~Duke Wellington

The rivalry between Russia and Austria was a nearly inevitable one. Since Russia’s effective victory over the Ottoman Empire, Austria had become their main competitor for land and influence. For such competitors to get along was rare back in those days.

All too often Austria found itself on the losing end of the rivalry. Russia’s attempts to revive the Byzantine Empire were increasingly cutting into the Balkans and Emperor Paul[1] wasn’t shy about eyeing Eastern Europe for expansion. Whatever friendship Austria and Russia might have shared after the German War, sixty years had been plenty of time to erode it. Now, the two countries stared at each other with anger, and looking for the slightest cause to throw down the gauntlet.

That much-sought cause came in 1811, with the Atrocious Killings. Two prominent Polish noblemen murdered within a week of each other. Both were prominent opponents of King Stanislaw and Emperor Paul. As the murder investigation had eventually revealed, they were also similar in a number of other ways, including cooperating in a land-grabbing project that eventually resulted in a displaced farmer’s intricate plan to assassinate them.[2]

At the time, the murders served as a horror to the rest of the Polish nobility. Already raging from the reforms imposed by the powerful monarchs and fearing the gradual mixing between the Orthodox and Catholic faiths which, while in many cases peaceful, inevitably led to conflicts and often left the most ardent followers of either faith feeling scared and alienated, the noblemen had had one fright too many. An emergency assembly was duly conducted and in due time a delegation was dispatched to Francis III, Emperor of Austria and the Holy Roman Empire. Citing multiple grievances, they begged him to step forward as the defender of Polish nobility and the Catholic faith.

Several political insults and ultimatums later, the armies of the two Emperors were marching against each other.

Some of the war was fought in the fields; the rest was fought in the streets of Polish cities, often without any involvement by the troops in uniform. The two parts were rarely related, and so shall be examined separately.

The battles of the fields are fascinating to any historian. The Polish-Austrian War was the first really big European war in a generation, since the German War which had established the very state of affairs that led to this new conflict. This meant that both sides had new weapons, new equipment, and even new ideas about how a war should be fought.

Ironically for being the technical victors of the last war, both sides were heavily invested in the tactics of its biggest loser. Prussian military, though ultimately collapsing under the pressure of the forces rallied against it, had made an excellent showing. Since then, their drills and strategies were incorporated in most industrial nations, particularly in Russia under Peter’s rule and in Austria (and, by extension the HRE). The Russians brought with them further innovations learned in the wars against the Ottomans and later the myriad opponents in Peter’s campaigns and later still those of Paul. Many of the Russians were veterans, while very few Austrians had been anywhere near a battle.

On the other hand, Austria had the advantage of the quiet backing by the powerful British Empire. Though the British took no part in this war directly, they were still committed to the failing idea of a European power balance. A victory by the ambitious, independent Russia would serve them ill. Thus, they provided Austria with their own military experts, for what that was worth, but also with funding and guns, including some of the smaller, more efficient artillery pieces that were serving them so well in Avalon and on the borders of India.

The early stages of the war were characterized by the erection of bivouacs by both sides. Defended with artillery and gunmen, they often made for good defense, as well as an excellent starting place for the bayonet charges that seem to have captures artists’ imagination so easily and permanently. In fact, troop mobility was one of the major innovations of the war, which makes it all the more odd that it lasted for all of seven years. Each week of those years was filled with charges and countercharges, encirclings and breakouts, and heroic last stands against overwhelming odds.

Some military advancements of note: Russia manufactured more guns than it had soldiers so that the bivouac defenders could potentially fire several times before the approaching columns charged it and things came to bayonets. The experience was a precursor of the easy-to-reload firearms that were only decades away, already preparing to make the tactics of this war obsolete. In the latter parts of the war, the Austrians successfully field-tested the British rifles, which proved more effective than the smooth-bore weapons. Too late to bring them true victory, they allowed the war to continue in its state of frustrating stalemate instead. Finally, Emperor Paul’s increasing reliance on the Cossack units for infiltration and choke-point control, creating the European equivalent to the American Eradicators should be noted. Though serving a different function, the Cossacks filled the same niche of elite special forces, much to the Russian regular troops’ disdain.

The enormous front stretched through most of Poland’s border (and frequently pushed either into Polish or Austrian territory, depending on the fortunes of war) and meandered its way into Slovakia and Hungary as an attempt by Russians to force Austria to over commit its resources. In fact, Austria managed to maintain enough troops on this front, though it did leave them unable to do anything about the Netherlands rebellion, in what has to be the single biggest stroke of luck the Dutch ever experienced.

The war of the streets was even more radical, as all the tensions that had been kept lidded by the sixty years of Russian pressure came to a boil and the supporters of the nobility clashed with the supporters of the royalty. Ironically, the Polish monarchists were very similar to the very people who traditionally supported democracy at the expense of kings. But the Russo-Polish reforms were in fact the very reflection of the ones promised by Republican governments, making the kings seem – oh irony of ironies – to be bastions of freedom against the aristocratic oppression.

The entrance of Russian troops into the riots tended to have a negative effect on the pro-Russian sentiment. The fact was that far too many Russians simply didn’t care about Poles, and the soldiers were not above causing unnecessarily large casualties in order to disperse a particular riot quickly. Because of this and because of the drunken debauchery the off-duty Russian troops perpetrated, their uniforms soon became a symbol of fear throughout Polish cities.

In fact, as the war continued, the Polish-Russian relations continued to deteriorate. Even among those who saw Austria as the greater enemy, the general view of Russians became one of a boorish, rude people.

At the end, the war simply petered out. Many of the Polish noblemen died or fled, while many others made their peace with the King. With that, Austria gave up on making gains into Poland and agreed to return to status quo – meaning that Russia would in turn pull out of Hungary and Slovakia.

Like so many other European wars, this one ended up as little more than a colossal waste of lives, money, and political capital for all sides – except for Britain, which came out of the ordeal smelling like roses, if a bit poorer.[3] As a result, the very British concept of limited warfare advanced. The idea was that while a clearly inferior enemy could be crushed with outright force, there could be nothing of the sort between the civilized countries (except if a sufficiently large number of countries teamed up to take a single one down – a situation increasingly less likely with emerging geopolitics). Instead, proper warfare in such cases consisted of limited commitment of troops, money, and equipment in order to achieve a concrete goal. Such warfare was also commonly conducted through intermediaries, similarly to Britain’s use of Austria.

As devastating as the financial and military losses for both empires were, the political ones were far worse. For Austria, the war cost them not only Netherlands, but also severely undermined the friendship with the Holy Roman Empire. As far as most of the member-states could see, they were continually getting pulled into Austria’s wars while receiving little benefit of their own. There are very good reasons why Francis III is generally accepted as the last of the Holy Roman Emperors. The anger in Hungary was only salt on the wounds.

For Russia, things were just as bad. If Paul had been a poet, he might have soothed the anger created by the war. If he had been an astute politician, he might have leveraged it into greater control. But Paul was, above all else, a warrior. Satisfied that he defended Russia’s interests in Poland, he left it alone, allowing its people to dream of a greater independence in Russia, so that it might no longer be used as a buffer state.

Moreover, Paul’s increasing use of the Cossacks granted them more power. By this point, the Zaporizhian Sich and surrounding territories contained nearly 100,000 men and the number of Cossacks within Paul’s army had risen to nearly 15,000. The Cossacks leveraged their military expertise into more and more independence, including an additional Sich within Crimea, to serve as a main stronghold for the forces intended to keep the Crimean separatists in line.

The theater was thus quite nicely set for the next set of wars.

[1] Not the OTL Paul I, as should be obvious by this point. But he still bears many resemblances to his temporal brother, including opposition to the power of nobility, which is going better for him than it did for OTL Paul.

[2] To the best knowledge of historians, without involvement by any political figure.

[FONT=&quot][3] Really just a bit. Great Britain has been doing pretty well financially.[/FONT]
 
Chapter 15: The Honor Of a Samurai (Is Worth its Weight in Gold)

Peter the Great was forced to make a window into Europe. These days Europe is chopping its own windows, so get your axe and prepare to swing!
~Marshall Saltykov

The second decade of the Nineteenth Century was an exciting time. The Age of Steel and Steam was still unfolding, and improvements were being made each day. Railroads raced across the landscape and the world proved a far smaller place than it seemed to the first explorers. Messages traveled faster, and so did men. In a world such as this, could any nation hope to remain isolated from contact like an island in the sea of time?

No. No, it could not.

This important fact was not yet recognized by the countries of the East. China, Japan, and Korea among others remained confident that they could stay separate and closed-in, far from the culture and the commerce of the powerful West. But even as the rulers of these lands sat in their splendid isolation, plans were being drawn up to break it wide open.

By this time, British Trading Companies had seized control of much of the world – at least commercially speaking. Granted monopolies and power by the Crown, a single Company could dominate the better part of a continent. Even when Great Britain was unable or unwilling to force other nations from excluding their own commerce, the Companies were still sources of nigh-unlimited money and power, particularly for those directly in control of them. The chance to start such a Company could be the opportunity of a lifetime.[1]

It is under those conditions that the fledgling Japanese Trading Company delicately slid its way into the various bays around Japan. Despite the persistent refusal by Japan to engage in any sort of commercial or cultural exchange, the First Japanese Trading Party had no while approaching Japan’s shores. The official sanction and protection of the United Kingdom came with them, as did a fully-armed British ship whose cannon would easily drive away any native belligerents – or so they thought.

In fact, things did not go smoothly. The young, ambitious men of the First Trading Party had little idea of what they were facing in the Tokugawa shogunate. Perhaps if they had been older, they would have shown more caution. Then again, maybe not. The ephemeral quality of wisdom does not always follow age.

In any case, the merchant ship along with the accompanying war ship landed in Dajima. The trading city was theoretically set up for the Dutch, though in practice the Netherlands, only recently reunited and still struggling to find political stability, had been trading considerably less recently.

It is not certain what followed. Several things are clear: The expedition set out and began transporting out their goods, as the leaders moved to penetrate Japan proper. The Japanese moved to stop them and an official party met the Company representatives. The latter refused to back off, secure in their apparent power.

Sometime afterward, something must have happened to cause the confrontation to degenerate into a brawl. At this point the remaining Britons saw which way the wind was blowing, retreated into their boats and attempted to leave the Japanese shores. In the next several hours, the merchant ship was sunk. The gunboat was able to rescue many of the crew. Having fired on several Japanese ships, it was running low on powder and ammunition. Many days later, the battered and damaged ship was able to dock in British India.

The incident provided the British with a magnificent casus beli.[2] It took a very short time indeed for the arrival of the illustrious Admiral Nelson and the deployment of the British units. Many of the soldiers were drawn from India, while others took the long trip from the Emerald Isles. Small contingents from Australia and Avalon were also present, getting their international outing.

What followed came to be known as the Hundred Days’ War, because precisely one hundred days passed from the moment the first British boot hit Japanese soil to the moment the Japanese Emperor signed the surrender papers.

There was never any real way for Japan to win this war. The British were fielding a thoroughly modernized army, with many of their contingents wielding rifles, while the remainder used the most advanced smooth-bore weapons. To combat this wave, Japan had to rely on its samurai army and conscripted peasants. Overall, this was as effective as fielding medieval knights would have been. Possibly less so since the samurai had not seen real combat within their lifetimes and were often little more than glorified bureaucrats. The British were superior in terms of both maneuverability and firepower and came down on the Japanese like a host of lightning bolts from the clear sky.

Taking control of shell-shocked Japan proved relatively easy. Many of the old power structures were kept in place, at least for now. The Emperor remained in his post; but British governors dictated all the decisions, and the slow transformation of the Japanese society had begun.

In more immediate terms, all Tokugawa control over commerce was erased. The Japanese navy was decommissioned and its ports opened. A new Japanese Trading Company was established, this time one headed by established businessmen. The fruits of British industry poured in.

Given the circumstances, the Opening of Japan surprised no-one. The subsequent opening of China, however, caught most of the world off-guard. And yet, in the year 1818 the Jiaqing Emperor announced his intention to open China to international trade, relaxing the restriction heretofore imposed on such activity. Moreover, he called on every civilized nation to send representatives and advisors to China.

It is traditionally accepted that this process was a calculated gambit. Once the news of how easily Britain defeated Japan came around, the Emperor realized his own forces would stand no better chance. With British possessions slowly encircling his nation, and British Companies hungry for more markets, it would be a matter of time before China was opened to the world, whether he liked it or not. Doing it on his terms, however, the Emperor was able to win important concessions from the West, not least of which was competition. Instead of becoming a captive market to a British Company, China enjoyed the competitively-priced goods of a dozen nations.

The same competition evident in commerce soon emerged in politics as well. By playing the various powers against each other, China would come to retain a large degree of independence. Great Britain and Russia would come to be the major competing influences, with the Franco-American Axis as a counterbalance to both. Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Austria, and even the resurgent Dutch also soon entered.

Naturally, any open door lets things come through both ways. Even as European commerce and military might poured into the East, along with Christian missionaries, various artifacts and writings left East in turn. Art and literature, both flowering and suppressed, made their way out of China and Japan to be observed by the Old World that suddenly felt very young indeed.

The traditions of Eastern religion in particular made a peculiar journey. Buddhism and Confucianism made their way from Imperial libraries of China to the Imperial libraries of Russia. Eventually, like every other book, they ended up in Paris, where they attracted great attention among the burgeoning theologicians at the coffee shops. The demand spurred supply, and soon Shinto made its way out of Japan and through London. And in due course someone thought to ask the Indian people for more detail about the practices of Hinduism. Always, the writings would hit Paris and then leapfrog the Atlantic to land in New York and from there spread across the American East Coast, to every two-bit philosopher who showed even the slightest interest.

Soon the lessons of the East became something of a craze among men of thought. The most distinct part was that despite not being based on the words of Jesus – or indeed any kind of a transcendent, benevolent creator – so many of the things written in the books resembled the most dearly held of Christian tenets. The rituals were different, but the values were the same. For some people this was a source of worry. For many, though, it was a cause of celebration. The other side of the world was closer than ever, but that was okay: it was inhabited by people who were just the same.

[1] A rather simplified account of something very complex, of course.

[2] Some might even say that someone within the government could have been hoping for a diplomatic incident…but we’ll never know.
 
This is probably a few steps ahead of where you're planning to go, but what is going to happen in the Middle East?
I do have a suggestion-An independent Kurdistan, and a separation or reconciliation of the two branches of Islam.
 
The appointment of Jean-Girard Depaul as the Governor-General of New France was, without a doubt, the biggest blunder in French trans-atlantic history. But the man’s worst deficiencies had not been obvious in France. At the court he was regarded as uncivil and over-familiar, always thinking he could see straight into men’s minds, but otherwise not particularly bad. Many people were glad to have an ocean between Jean Depaul and themselves, so when the previous Governor-General died in 1952, the court agreed that Depaul should serve as his replacement.
Perhaps they didn’t realize just how uncivil he could be.
That's a little late for France to have a Governor-General for a place called New France, don't you think?:rolleyes:
 
Interlude: American Presidents

John Adams (1780-1791):

The first president of the American Confederation, and the Father of the Country. Without Adams, America would not be America. He was the one to marshal the political will – for revolution and nation-building. The first President was neither a general nor an economist – he was a statesman.

Not content to see America become a country, he foresaw its rise to the status of the Great Power. And in doing so, he laid down the foundations for that rise. The great principles of the Confederate Party – education, internal improvements, and political unity – were laid down in Adams’ own time.

James Livingston (1791-1792):

Though Livingston is renowned as the hero of the New France theater of the Revolution, as a politician he is merely a footnote. A Vice-President chosen by John Adams to ensure that the North would not feel forgotten. Adams died late in his third term and Livingston came into possession of the most powerful office in the land. He maintained Adams’s policies for the remainder of his term, and was very cordial in vacating the Presidential Palace to Thomas Jefferson. He remained moderately active in politics, never taking office again, but throwing his endorsement behind candidates all over New France.

Thomas Jefferson (1792-1800):

The one-time ally of John Adams, he eventually became his greatest opponent. Jefferson believed firmly in the ideal of a small, limited government. He had helped the revolutionary effort to throw off the British yoke of oppression, but was perturbed by the Adams’s vision of a powerful central authority even closer to home. During his reign as President, Jefferson attempted to push many of Adams’s projects back. The Whig party he established would continue his work, standing for decentralization and free markets.

Alexander Hamilton (1800-1808):

No man combined being an economist and politician as simply and purely as Hamilton. Where others saw considerations of ideals or politics, Hamilton saw only simple economic truths. Like Adams, he wanted the country to be strong. And he knew that such strength would not come from soldiers and politicians, but from merchants and industrialists; and that if America were to become great it could not become a nation of yeoman farmers; it had to be one of factory workers, clerks, and lawyers. And such a nation needed the infrastructure to support it.

None may argue that Hamilton made every effort to create that infrastructure. And none may argue that his vision succeeded.

James Monroe (1808-1812):
A follower of Jefferson’s limited government ideas, Monroe is most notable for breaking the stalemate that had for so long existed between the South and Hamilton. Under his reign, new lands were open for settlement by plantation-owners. Unlike Jefferson, Monroe did not take on the internal improvements offered by the Confederates, but instead focused on undercutting their power elsewhere, and on bringing more of the free farmers into the Whig fold.

John Adams II (1812-1816):

The son of the greatest of the Founders, John Adams II was often named the Brother of the Country. In the eyes of many, he represented all that was great about the new generation. Hardworking, intelligent, and charismatic, he found his way to his father’s old office almost remarkably smooth. And his reign was characterized by a great era of calm, combined with a growing affluence. Collectively, they became known as The Era of Good Feelings.

But though the country was feeling good, Adams was not. He did not feel (and indeed was not) responsible for either the peace or the prosperity. Instead, he felt he’d lucked into a stretch of good times. He also found the duties of the President strenuous. Every day, he was asked to make decisions on issues he’d never even considered. Though Adams grinned and bore it, he declined to run for second term, wishing to pass the Presidency to someone more capable than he believed himself to be. Like many other presidents, he led a very successful life after leaving office. While his father had been an industrialist, he became a greater one, and though the Adams family produced no more Presidents, the Adams Company in time grew richer than many countries.

Pierre Blanchet (1816-1820):

A gifted orator and a very restrained man, Pierre Blanchet was perhaps the last of the Old Whigs. His principal aim was always to obey the will of the people. This was most clearly seen in his effort to engage China after its opening. Though foreign entanglement was very much against his own sentiments, he saw that the people wanted it, and so he supported it. He performed his duties to the best of his ability and showed a humility very unusual in a President of the American Confederation.

Robert Roosevelt (1820-1832)

For the first forty years of its existence, America had been ruled by politicians. Aside from the anomaly that was Livingston, the Presidents had all been serious statesmen who brought extensive political experience to the task. They governed cerebrally, holding their heads above their hearts. Roosevelt’s ascension changed all that in the blink of an eye.

A novice at political games, Roosevelt broke his way into the Presidency using only his personal charisma and his impressive war record. A hero in wars against the Indians and the Spanish, he captured the public’s imagination in a way no candidate for office had before. Like everything else he touched, Roosevelt left the office of the President changed by his passage.

Turbulent, passionate, and glorious, Roosevelt’s reign remains the most celebrated period of American history. It was a time when men were men and women were frequently also men; a time when a growing America stretched its muscles and a war-toughened President found his greatest opponent; a time of growth; a time of dreams; and Age of Adventure.
 
Top