AHC: No Potato Famine

[Stuyvesant]

Prevent the potato famine in any way, be it the blight doesn't affect ireland, or Potatoes do not become as important to Ireland.

 

[Thande]

The potato famine is pretty much inevitable due to (1) the vital place it had in Ireland as a staple, and (2) the lack of genetic diversity of the potato crop.

Having said that, if it happened earlier rather than later the death toll would be less as the crop became less diverse over time--this is what I did in my own TL, with the blight striking in the 1820s (also, there was a British government more prone to economic intervention helping out).

You do need to appreciate the difference potatoes made to Ireland, as they did to some other places such as Prussia and Poland--they meant that what was formerly almost worthless land could suddenly support a staple crop and led to a population explosion. The reason the famine was so bad was because the population had grown far beyond what other crops could feed. In the 1840s just prior to the famine, Ireland had a population of 8 million; now in 2012 it's only just got back up to about 6 million.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

The potato famine is pretty much inevitable due to (1) the vital place it had in Ireland as a staple, and (2) the lack of genetic diversity of the potato crop.

Having said that, if it happened earlier rather than later the death toll would be less as the crop became less diverse over time--this is what I did in my own TL, with the blight striking in the 1820s (also, there was a British government more prone to economic intervention helping out).

You do need to appreciate the difference potatoes made to Ireland, as they did to some other places such as Prussia and Poland--they meant that what was formerly almost worthless land could suddenly support a staple crop and led to a population explosion. The reason the famine was so bad was because the population had grown far beyond what other crops could feed. In the 1840s just prior to the famine, Ireland had a population of 8 million; now in 2012 it's only just got back up to about 6 million.

Exactly.

Lots of places in e.g. Northern Germany grew lots of potatoes, too, but there it was part of a whole crop package. Very few people starved in Germany or Poland (or North America, where the blight came first) as a result of the Potato failure, because there were other crops. Ireland was unique in that millions of people depended on potatoes as their sole crop (essentially). There WAS a LOT of hunger in '46 and '47, which directly led to all the rebellions of '48.

So, ja. Get the blight to Europe in, say 1830, and you'll have a lot fewer people starve to death (but a lot fewer Irish even in 1848, as they won't be able to get their numbers up to OTL values without the potato).

 

[Johnrankins]

The potato famine is pretty much inevitable due to (1) the vital place it had in Ireland as a staple, and (2) the lack of genetic diversity of the potato crop.

Having said that, if it happened earlier rather than later the death toll would be less as the crop became less diverse over time--this is what I did in my own TL, with the blight striking in the 1820s (also, there was a British government more prone to economic intervention helping out).

You do need to appreciate the difference potatoes made to Ireland, as they did to some other places such as Prussia and Poland--they meant that what was formerly almost worthless land could suddenly support a staple crop and led to a population explosion. The reason the famine was so bad was because the population had grown far beyond what other crops could feed. In the 1840s just prior to the famine, Ireland had a population of 8 million; now in 2012 it's only just got back up to about 6 million.

Wow, that is tiny. There are 10X as many people of Irish descent in the US than in Ireland itself! That surprises me. http://www.eurolearn.org/destinations/ireland/people_and_population/

 

[Thande]

Wow, that is tiny. There are 10X as many people of Irish descent in the US than in Ireland itself! That surprises me. http://www.eurolearn.org/destinations/ireland/people_and_population/

Well, not all of those Americans claiming Irish descent actually have it, you know But yeah, there was a big diaspora to the US following the famine.

What seems weird to me is when you look back on population figures from atlases published in the 1830s and they give Ireland's population as like 7 million versus England's 12 million--that seems insanely close to me considering nowadays you're used to thinking of England outnumbering Ireland 10 to 1.

 

[Wolfpaw]

Have the British actually try to help the Irish instead of deliberately letting them starve.

A good start would be to stop exporting massive amounts of food from Ireland.

 

[Bee]

The famine happened because Ireland grew just one strain of potato, the 'lumper'. Other strains weren't vulnerable to the blight, and the famine ended when other potato strains were introduced. Which is why Ireland is a major potato grower again. Unfortunately, it took years before people knew what was going on.

So to end the blight early, either Ireland grows a mix of potatoes from the beginning, or else someone gets inspired about the need to introduce a new strain much sooner.

 

[wolf_brother]

If you bump the potato blight up ten years you're only going to make the Revolutions of 1830 that much worse (or better, depending on their outcome and your own sociopolitical POV).

 

[Wolfpaw]

The famine happened because Ireland grew just one strain of potato, the 'lumper'.

That did not cause the famine, that caused a potato shortage. This was bad, but the famine was caused by the British continuing to export foodstuffs from Ireland during the famine. In fact, food exports from Ireland increased during the Famine because the British didn't give a fig about a bunch of filthy starving Catholics. Food was more than available in Ireland, it's just that most Irish were too poor to afford it.

 

[Thande]

Have the British actually try to help the Irish instead of deliberately letting them starve.

I would explain in detail why this is ignorance based on propaganda, but there are already about 500 threads on the subject.

I will simply let Prince Albert explain it in his own words, his memorandum on the subject at the time.

Osborne, 7th December 1845.

On receiving the preceding letter30 ... we were, of course, in great consternation. Yesterday Sir Robert Peel arrived here and explained the condition of affairs.

Footnote 30: From Sir Robert Peel, 5th December, ante.

INTERVIEW WITH PEEL On 1st November he had called his Cabinet, and placed before its members the reports of the Irish Commissioners, Dr Buckland, Dr Playfair and Dr Lindley, on the condition of the potato crop, which was to the effect that the half of the potatoes were ruined by the rot, and that no one could guarantee the remainder. Belgium, Holland, Sweden, and Denmark, in which states the potato disease had likewise deprived the poorer class of its usual food, have immediately taken energetic means, and have opened the harbours, bought corn, and provided [page 49] for the case of a rise of prices. Sir Robert proposed the same thing for England, and, by opening the ports, a preparation for the abolition of the Corn Laws. His colleagues refused, and of the whole Cabinet only Lord Aberdeen, Sir James Graham, and Mr Sidney Herbert voted with him. Sir Robert hoped that in time the opinions of the others would change, and therefore postponed a final decision. In the meanwhile the agitation of the Anti-Corn Law League began; in every town addresses were voted, meetings were held, the Times—barometer of public feeling—became suddenly violently Anti-Corn Law, the meetings of the Cabinet roused attention, a general panic seized on the mass of the public. Sir Robert called anew his Cabinet. In the midst of their deliberation Lord John Russell issues from Edinburgh an address to the City of London.31

Footnote 31: Declaring for the Repeal of the Corn Laws.

The whole country cries out: the Corn Laws are doomed.

Thereon Sir Robert declared to his Cabinet that nothing but unanimity could save the cause, and pressed for a decision.

The Duke of Buccleuch and Lord Stanley declared they could not take a part in a measure abolishing the Corn Laws, and would therefore have to resign. The other members, including the Duke of Wellington, showed themselves ready to support Sir Robert, yet, as the latter says, "apparently not willingly and against their feelings." Thereupon Sir Robert resolved to lay down his office as Minister.

When he arrived here he was visibly much moved, and said to me, that it was one of the most painful moments of his life to separate himself from us, "but it is necessary, and if I have erred it was from loyalty and too great an anxiety not to leave Her Majesty in a moment of such great difficulty. I ought to have gone when I was first left by my colleagues in a minority in my own Cabinet. I was anxious, however, to try my utmost, but it is impossible to retrieve lost time. As soon as I saw Lord John's letter I felt that the ground was slipping away from under me, and that whatever I might now propose would appear as dictated by the Opposition, as taking Lord John's measure. On the 1st of November the whole country was prepared for the thing; there had been no agitation, everybody looking to the Government, as soon as they saw this wavering and hesitating, the country decided for itself, and Lord John has the merit, owing to his most dexterous move and our want of unanimity."

On my observing that Sir Robert has a majority of one hundred in the House of Commons, and asking whether it [page 50] was not possible for him to continue the Government, he said:—

"The Duke of Buccleuch will carry half Scotland with him, and Lord Stanley, leading the Protectionists in the House of Lords, would lead to great and immediate defections even in Her Majesty's household. The Duchess of Buccleuch, Lord Hardwicke, Lord Exeter, Lord Rivers, Lord Beverley, etc., would resign, and we should not be able to find successors; in the House of Commons I am sure I should be beat, the Tories, agriculturists, etc., in rage would turn round upon me and be joined by the Whigs and Radicals, who would say, 'This is our measure and we will not allow you to carry it.' It is better that I should go now, when nobody has committed himself in the heat of party contest, when no factions have been formed, no imprudent declarations been made; it is better for Her Majesty and for the country that it should be so."

After we had examined what possibilities were open for the Crown, the conclusion was come to that Lord John was the only man who could be charged with forming a Cabinet. Lord Stanley, with the aristocracy as his base, would bring about an insurrection [or riots], and the ground on which one would have to fight would be this: to want to force the mass of the people, amidst their great poverty, to pay for their bread a high price, in favour of the landlords.

It is a matter of the utmost importance not to place the House of Lords into direct antagonism with the Commons and with the masses of the people. Sir Robert says very correctly:—

"I am afraid of other interests getting damaged in the struggle about the Corn Laws; already the system of promotion in the Army, the Game Laws, the Church, are getting attacked with the aid of the league."

After Victoria had in consequence [of the foregoing] decided in favour of Lord John, and asked Sir Robert: "But how is it possible for him to govern with so exceedingly small a minority?" Sir Robert said: "He will have difficulties and perhaps did not consider what he was doing when he wrote that letter; but I will support him. I feel it my duty to your Majesty not to leave you without a Government. Even if Lord John goes to the full extent of his declaration in that letter (which I think goes too far), I will support him in Parliament and use all my influence with the House of Lords to prevent their impeding his progress. I will do more, if he likes it. I will say that the increase of the estimates which will become necessary are my work, and I alone am responsible for it."
[page 51]

Sir Robert intends to give me a memorandum in which he is to make this promise in writing.

He was greatly moved, and said it was not "the loss of power (for I hate power) nor of office," which was nothing but a plague for him, but "the breaking up of those relations in which he stood to the Queen and me, and the loss of our society," which was for him a loss, for which there was no equivalent; we might, however, rely on his being always ready to serve us, in what manner and in what place it might be. Lord Aberdeen is said to feel the same, and very deeply so; and on our side the loss of two so estimable men, who possess our whole and perfect confidence in public as well as in private affairs, and have always proved themselves true friends, leaves a great gap.

In summary: the Corn Laws, which controlled prices of crops in order to benefit rich landowners and screw over the poor in England, had FINALLY just been dropped by the government. Directly intervening in Ireland would require their reinstatement. Half the government ministers refused and the government fell. Abolishing the Corn Laws had been the political cause in Britain for three decades. They knew that going back on that now would be absolute political suicide.

To put it in American terms, it would be like saying to Lyndon Johnson in 1967 "You can win the Vietnam War easily, but it requires rescinding the Civil Rights Act." Not happening.

So yeah, saying "the British government let them starve" is rather absurd. The British government fell over the response to the Irish famine. Can you imagine George W. Bush resigning the presidency over the failures to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina, for instance? That's the equivalent nowadays.

 

[Thande]

That did not cause the famine, that caused a potato shortage. This was bad, but the famine was caused by the British continuing to export foodstuffs from Ireland during the famine. In fact, food exports from Ireland increased during the Famine because the British didn't give a fig about a bunch of filthy starving Catholics. Food was more than available in Ireland, it's just that most Irish were too poor to afford it.

That is nonsense based on bitter Irish Catholic expatriate propaganda. As I said above, there are plenty of other threads on this subject in which people more versed than I in the specifics debunk this ridiculous legend. The food exports from Ireland were obviously a bad thing, but they were controlled by Irish landowners: Protestant Irish landowners who didn't care about the Catholics. The British government, as noted in my post above, was so concerned about the plight of the Irish that it self-destructed over the issue.

I suspect the misconception arises out of the silly racist claim by Fenians in the US that Protestant Irish aren't "real" Irish...

 

[Falkenburg]

That did not cause the famine, that caused a potato shortage. This was bad, but the famine was caused by the British continuing to export foodstuffs from Ireland during the famine. In fact, food exports from Ireland increased during the Famine because the British didn't give a fig about a bunch of filthy starving Catholics. Food was more than available in Ireland, it's just that most Irish were too poor to afford it.

To be more accurate, the 'British' didn't give a fig about a bunch of filthy starving Poor People.

Their being 'Irish' and 'Catholic' just made it more explicable to contemporary perceptions why they were 'Poor'.

Falkenburg

 

[Wolfpaw]

snip

All of this just confirms one thing; the British government allowed the Irish to starve--all while Ireland was producing enough food alleviate much of the woe--due to political expediency.

The government could have closed the ports (just as it did in the 1780s) in order to keep prices in Ireland down, which would have allowed them to ride out the blight.

Instead, political expediency led them to deliberately allow the Irish to starve, escorting badly needed foodstuffs from Irish farmsteads under heavy guard so they could be exported.

 

[Wolfpaw]

To be more accurate, the 'British' didn't give a fig about a bunch of filthy starving Poor People.

Their being 'Irish' and 'Catholic' just made it more explicable to contemporary perceptions why they were 'Poor'.

A fair point.

 

[Thande]

I should make clear that I'm not saying the British government didn't make stupid mistakes w.r.t. the potato famine: it clearly did (of course, when you change government in the middle of a crisis...) But for the most part this can be attributed to incompetence, not malice. If anything, the major mistake was failing to stand up to the Protestant-dominated Irish authorities, which were rather willing to let the poorer Catholics die at times.

 

[Wolfpaw]

That is nonsense based on bitter Irish Catholic expatriate propaganda.

I wouldn't call Cecil Woodham-Smith a bitter propagandist.

The food exports from Ireland were obviously a bad thing, but they were controlled by Irish landowners: Protestant Irish landowners who didn't care about the Catholics. The British government, as noted in my post above, was so concerned about the plight of the Irish that it self-destructed over the issue.

And the government could have ignored their requests to keep the Ports open, just as they did in the 1780s, but that didn't happen.

I suspect the misconception arises out of the silly racist claim by Fenians in the US that Protestant Irish aren't "real" Irish...

Yeah, over here "Irish"=Catholic and "Scotch-Irish" = Protestant.

 

[Wolfpaw]

I should make clear that I'm not saying the British government didn't make stupid mistakes w.r.t. the potato famine: it clearly did (of course, when you change government in the middle of a crisis...) But for the most part this can be attributed to incompetence, not malice. If anything, the major mistake was failing to stand up to the Protestant-dominated Irish authorities, which were rather willing to let the poorer Catholics die at times.

I'll clarify as well: I don't think that the the British government was rubbing its hands with glee at the thought of starving Irish, and indeed I agree that this was not necessarily a malicious act.

It was, however, the result of extreme moral cowardice and political expediency on the part of the British Government. The export-happy Protestant merchant-lords running Ireland had been curbed by London before; that they were not when the crisis was extremely more pronounced speaks volumes.

 

[mosodake]

The potato famine is pretty much inevitable due to (1) the vital place it had in Ireland as a staple, and (2) the lack of genetic diversity of the potato crop.

I wouldn't say that the blight was inevitable. Until recently there was only one strain of late blight in the Old World, which is probably the result of only a single introduction event. Butterfly that away, and you can delay the famine indefinitely.

 

[Gallowglass]

Not all the Protestants were "export happy merchant lords" - a lot of the medium farmers who suffered heavily during the Great Famine were Protestant, and in Antrim you had a heavier death toll amongst Protestants than you did amongst Leinster catholics.

However, banning all exports is foolish - you'd have food riots in Scottish industrial towns if you banned food exports from Antrim and Down. Glasgow and Ayrshire already had shortages due to the famine in Scotland that was concurrent with the one in Ireland.

Stopping cattle exports was unadvisible too. It's simple arithmetic, if you sell cattle abroad you can buy grain enough to feed many times more people than would have survived off the beef. There was definitely an argument to be made, however for banning wheat exports, although this would have had knock on effects in English food prices, probably leading to shortages in Manchester and Liverpool on par with those in the Lowlands.

It was in regulating the trade that the British government failed - stopping it completely was impossible, politically and economically. There was no easy answer, and that's coming from a proud Irishman.