Astonishing the World, Mk2: Kinda New, Somewhat Improved!!

[Nekromans]

Part 2!!!

WORLD HISTORY GLOSSARY
J. Anderson, Cambridge University Press, 1972

LEMBERG RIOTS - a series of Rutheno-Polish nationalistic uprisings in the Austrian Kingdom of Galicia-Lodomeria. The most famous two were in 1848 and 1854, and both times were suppressed by Austria and Russia. The second time caused Austria's entry into the Danubian War, something that had until then been in some doubt...

DANUBIAN PRINCIPALITIES - vulgar collective name for the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia. Popularised over the course of the Danubian War, the seizure of the Principalities was Russia's main objective in the war, and indeed the trigger for it.

FIRST PACT OF LEMBERG - the popular name for the treaty signed between Austria and Russia in the late nineteenth century, confirming both Austria’s entry into the Danubian War and the division of the Balkans into spheres of annexation and influence. Often confused with the Second Pact of Lemberg, confirming the permanent alliance of Austria and Russia.

CARTOGRAPHY SCANDAL – common name for the events surrounding the Prussian entry into the Danubian War. A copy of a treaty purporting to be signed by Austria and Russia was discovered by the Prussian authorities, together with a map detailing the effects of said treaty, which would result in the near-eradication of Prussia as a power, reducing its borders to 17th-century Brandenburg (with the Prussian Rhineland going to a restored United Netherlands). While historians are now certain that the treaty was a forgery on the part of Britain and France, with the intention of driving Prussia into a "defensive" war, at the time the authenticity was not doubted, mainly due to Prussia's desire for a casus belli to bring down Austria and Russia before they became too great a threat to Prussian statehood.


TIMELINE:

1853

July: Russia crosses the Pruth into Moldavia.
October: The Ottoman Empire belatedly declares war, and crosses the Danube into Wallachia. The British enter the Bosphorus Straits.
November: Battle of Oltenitza (on the Danube): Russia defeated. Ottoman naval squadron eliminated near Sinope, outraging France and Britain.

1854

January: France and Britain enter the Black Sea. (Their fleets do, that is.) Russia invades the Dobruja.
February: As the British try to convince the Tsar that he is an imbecile, the first British troops set sail for the Black Sea, to convince him that he is a weak imbecile.
March: The British and French Baltic Fleets set sail. Then they declare war.

April: British troops arrive at Gallipoli. Austria signs the Treaty of Lemberg with Russia, and declares war on the Ottoman Empire. Prussia abstains from deciding for now.​

June: The Cartography Scandal results in the Prussian entry into the war against Russia and Austria.


WARFARE OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY, Vol. VI
W. P. Padgett, Literati Publishers, 1967

Fronts of the Danubian War: Summary

DANUBIAN FRONT

The eponymous front of the war, it was mainly fought between Ottoman Turkey, Russia, Austria, Britain, and France, with the latter two being shipped across the seas by their governments to defend Turkey's possessions. Later participants included a token force sent by Prussia in an attempt to encourage solidarity among the Coalition, as solidarity is a rare trait in any European alliance and must be treasured when it is found.

The Danubian Front is perhaps most noted for the initial round of fighting, in which Russian troops pushed down through the Roumanias, Bulgaria and Roumelia to northern Thrace before being beaten back across the Danube by the forces under the command of the noted [1] General Lord Raglan. The Coalition managed to retake a good deal of the Roumanias before being outmanoeuvred by Austrian troops in Bosnia and Servia (a necessary occupation, as troop movement through the Carpathians would be erratic at best).

BALTIC FRONT
Also known as "the forgotten front", partly because it was mainly a naval war, and so of little interest to the various battle-enthusiasts. It focused on the British Baltic fleet (led by Sir Charles Napier) and the French Baltic Fleet (under Parseval-Deschènes), and of course the Russian defences. The principal objective of this front was to deny Baltic trade to Russia. While this goal was successful, with the previously prosperous Russian Baltic trade disrupted to a significant degree, the Coalition fleets incurred heavier losses than expected, mainly due to the deployment of blockade mines (developed recently by Immanuel Nobel).

EASTERN FRONT
Begun upon Prussia's entry into the war, this front technically consists of two separate campaigns intertwined into one by historians, usually on the grounds of geographical convenience. The belligerents were Prussia, Russia, Austria, and Polish partisans (later the forces of the Kingdom of Poland, upon Prussia's seizure of Warsaw and the Anti-Romanov Declarations).

While this front is famed mainly due to the reestablishment of Poland as an independent nation, it also played host to the Furnace Wars, as they are popularly known, in which Prussia and Austria attempted to throttle the industry of the other by seizing the other's most resource-rich territory, inconveniently located on the border of the two countries. This was ultimately to prove fruitless, with no border changes or mining rights being altered at Constantinople.


POLAND: A HISTORY
Stanislaw Komorowski, University of Doncaster, 1970

THE DANUBIAN WAR AND THE SECOND PHOENIX

… At the time of the Russian incursion of Moldavian soil that marked the start of the Danubian war, no one would have believed that, just a few short years later, Poland would have risen from the chains of Romanov oppression. The Polish nation had previously attempted to free themselves from the Russian dictatorship – most notably in the uprisings of 1830 and 1848 – but on both occasions, the imperialist powers were stamping down on their own people's attempts to grasp the reigns of power, and so refused to aid Poland in its hour of need, condemning a proud nation to be ground under the Russian heel for thirty years before it could regain its chance for liberation and self-determination. However, this would all change with the Prussian declaration of war…

Tsar Nicholas has been unprepared for the war, focusing instead on the Danubian front. In his arrogance, he had presumed that Prussia would not declare war, the nation having been leaning towards neutrality, and failed to anticipate the Prussian drive into Congress Poland, coupled with the largest propaganda storm seen yet. The Polish people were urged to aid Prussia in their toppling of the Russian tyrants, and in return they would be granted independence. While few Poles were convinced by the vapid promises of Prussia, with the Polish partitions still in living memory, it was evident to them that Prussia could hardly be a more terrible ruler than the Tsar and his stooges, and upon the liberation of Warsaw by Prussian forces, the Kingdom of Poland stood free once more. Friedrich Graf von Wrangel assisted the Kingdom for the duration of the war, and was mentioned in passing as a possible candidate in the throne in the aftermath, but was rejected in favour of candidates with claims more rooted in Polish history.

In the later phases of the war, Poland and her allies succeeded in driving Russian forces from the lands designated "Congress Poland" at the Congress of Vienna, the time at which the powers of Europe had last extinguished the flame of the Polish people. The town of Bialystok (sadly known to history as Belastok) was seized in the late summer of 1856, though little other Polish territory was returned to her.


WARFARE OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY, Vol. VI
W. P. Padgett, Literati Publishers, 1967

TREATY OF CONSTANTINOPLE

…By 1856, the war had ceased to be useful for either side. The boundaries had been set, the war had been fought, and now nobody had any idea of what could happen next. A war of attrition would take an eternity at this rate, but at the same time, direct attacks were out of the question. Both sides defended what they had extremely vigorously (though none more vigorously than the Polish), and offensives had become simply wasteful of cannon fodder. And so it was that, in March of that year, the Powers of Europe acknowledged the stalemate, and the diplomats of the continent convened on Constantinople to decide Europe's fate.

Though much wrangling and backbiting took place, the Treaty of Constantinople eventually took form:

• Russia to concede the independence of Poland, with Belastok to be part of the Kingdom (under King John of Saxony);
• Moldavia to become a Russian protectorate, while Wallachia remains semi-Turkish (as before the war);
• Ottoman Turkey to acknowledge Russia and France as joint protectors of Christians in the Ottoman Empire (the cause of the tensions in the first place)

The main loser in the treaty was Russia, as can be seen, and Tsar Nicholas was widely reviled for signing the treaty. It can hardly be considered surprising, then, that he should die suddenly and mysteriously just three days after the signing of the Treaty. The prime suspect appeared to be Tsar Alexander, who had never seen eye-to-eye with his father. Nevertheless, he succeeded to the throne, quite fortunately for Russia as it happens.

But as the troubles in Europe died down, those in America had only just begun…

[1] Diplomacy on the author's part here.

 

[Geordie]

Looking good, Nek.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

WARFARE OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY, Vol. VI
W. P. Padgett, Literati Publishers, 1967

Fronts of the Danubian War: Summary

DANUBIAN FRONT

The eponymous front of the war, it was mainly fought between Ottoman Turkey, Russia, Austria, Britain, and France, with the latter two being shipped across the seas by their governments to defend Turkey's possessions. Later participants included a token force sent by Prussia in an attempt to encourage solidarity among the Coalition, as solidarity is a rare trait in any European alliance and must be treasured when it is found.

The Danubian Front is perhaps most noted for the initial round of fighting, in which Russian troops pushed down through the Roumanias, Bulgaria and Roumelia to northern Thrace before being beaten back across the Danube by the forces under the command of the noted [1] General Lord Raglan. The Coalition managed to retake a good deal of the Roumanias before being outmanoeuvred by Austrian troops in Bosnia and Servia (a necessary occupation, as troop movement through the Carpathians would be erratic at best).
...
[1] Diplomacy on the author's part here.

Mind you, he doesn't say WHAT he was noted for!!

 

[Nekromans]

Much the same stuff as OTL, e.g. idiocy, ineptness, and otherwise being the very model of a modern major-general.

 

[MrP]

Ooh, interesting stuff, old boy. Some nicely worked-in comic asides, too.

 

[Thande]

Very good, Nek.

I love the University of Doncaster and the Wikipedian Pole writing there

The Ottomans don't seem to have done much in the Danubian War; I do hope you're not implying anything that would make AHP blow a gasket.

It all seems reasonable except perhaps the last part of the treaty - I'm not sure if it would be feasible for France and Russia to be joint protectors.

 

[Nekromans]

Very good, Nek.

I love the University of Doncaster and the Wikipedian Pole writing there

Just be glad I didn't call him what I was going to - Borys Hurganovitch.

The Ottomans don't seem to have done much in the Danubian War; I do hope you're not implying anything that would make AHP blow a gasket.

No, I just found that front pretty boring. Poland's where it's at. (I do hope he finds out that the map he blew his gasket over never actually happened...)

It all seems reasonable except perhaps the last part of the treaty - I'm not sure if it would be feasible for France and Russia to be joint protectors.

I assumed it was mainly symbolic, but a great honour. I may have been mistaken, however.

 

[Magnificate]

This timeline has potential and I plan on fallowing it.

For now minor comments only:

FIRST PACT OF LEMBERG

Treaty of Lemberg

A misprint in W. P. Padgett's book or a naming inconsistency?

Just be glad I didn't call him what I was going to - Borys Hurganovitch.

That wouldn't be a Polish-sounding name, would it?
BTW, besides some obvious nationalism I sense a hint of socialist rhetoric in Komorowski's writings - was that deliberate?
I also find it very amusing, in a positive way, that Komorowski conveniently forgot that Prussia was of the powers that partitioned Poland in the first place.

 

[Nekromans]

This timeline has potential and I plan on fallowing it.

For now minor comments only:


A misprint in W. P. Padgett's book or a naming inconsistency?

An inconsistency. Thanks for pointing that out - Pact is the correct word.

That wouldn't be a Polish-sounding name, would it?

No, but it was Polish enough at three in the morning.

BTW, besides some obvious nationalism I sense a hint of socialist rhetoric in Komorowski's writings - was that deliberate?

Short answer? Yes. Long answer? Maybe.

I also find it very amusing, in a positive way, that Komorowski conveniently forgot that Prussia was of the powers that partitioned Poland in the first place.

Selective memories, ultranationalists.

 

[stevep]

Nekromans

Some interesting ideas and I loved that sentence :"February: As the British try to convince the Tsar that he is an imbecile, the first British troops set sail for the Black Sea, to convince him that he is a weak imbecile. "

I would question the reference on Raglan. Not to much being noted because as someone said that is open to interpretation. However thinking that if the war got that much bigger and with Prussia tying up the bulk of the Austrian and Russian forces then the western component to a war in the Balkans would probably be led by a Frenchman, as they would be likely to supply the bulk of the forces. Not to mention they would probably be the better led and equipped.

On this point I find it rather difficult to see Prussian, prior to later reforms, holding both Austria and Russia so much nearer their heartland, even with widespread Polish support. Don't think they have the resources to do this for any length of time. I would also suspect there might be either western support to Prussia directly or some diversion, i.e. what was happening in Austrian N Italy during this period?

The division plan for the Balkans implied at least an approach to Greece to share in the spoils. Since Britain and France were already openly supporting the Turks that would be a hell of a risk for Greece, so reliant on friendly control of the seas. Did they bite or did they decide disgression is the better part of valour?

Steve

 

[Nekromans]

Part 3: The American Front

A HISTORY OF AMERICAN CONFLICTS
R. Perkins, Cloverleaf Press, 1965

PART IV: Slavery and the Southern Secession

…While the Southern Secession itself was undoubtedly inevitable, there is the chance that it may have been delayed for some time, were it not for the actions of Senator Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln had served for Illinois as a Congressman some ten years previous to the war, but had retired from public office, preferring instead to promote abolition through other means. The passing of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 was enough to bring him out of retirement, however, and he ran for Senator for Illinois in 1855, soon rising to the upper echelons of the new Republican Party alongside his fellow social rocketeer, William H. Seward. Lincoln quickly made a name for himself, putting his name to a great deal of anti-slavery legislation, gaining a following in the North (and numerous death threats in the South).

His most famous bill, though, was undoubtedly the Free Territory Proposal. Were this to be enacted, it would rescind the Kansas-Nebraska Act in its entirety, meaning that free-soil status would be the default status in all territories (with a plebiscite upon statehood as to slavery in that state). The South was near-uniformly enraged, with Stephen Douglas warning that “…the next such act could threaten Southern states with the loss of their heritage”. Though the legislation was, of course, opposed by most Southern Congressmen, it pleased a great deal of abolition-minded Republicans (and a few Northern Democrats as well). The Proposal passed by a hair. Suddenly, magnificently, the Union was carved in twain…

The Southern states were in uproar. Slavery was the god-given right of the white man over the Negro race, and who was Lincoln to try and deny this? The legislature of South Carolina noisily declared that they would have a vote on whether or not to remain in the Union. Though this was not the first secession threat the Union had seen, and note even the first from South Carolina, the announcement threw the judicial system into chaos, as they argued as to the legality of this decision. The matter was referred to the Supreme Court, and a decision was reached: the Constitution did not explicitly condemn secession, and as such it was legal. In the meanwhile, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Arkansas had voted to leave the Union, openly challenging the authority of the Supreme Court. President Buchanan condemned the secession as “illegal” for ignoring the Court’s constitutional role, and stated quite clearly that he considered them to be part of the Union. This caused further outcry in the South, and the states of Louisiana, Tennessee and Texas voted to leave the Union, though what remained of Congress voted not to recognise this, much to the chagrin of the Supreme Court.

So it was that, on the 24th of October 1857, the secessionist states founded the Confederation of American States. Vice-President Breckinridge of the Union had resigned his post at the beginning of the crisis, and now that move had paid off, as he was elected President of the Confederation. The defection of such a highly placed official to the secession could hardly fail to embarrass the Union, though Buchanan did not immediately appoint a new Vice-President, hoping that the storm might yet blow over.

Far from blowing over, however, the troubles in North America were just starting. The Union could hardly ignore a good portion of the country declaring itself to be a nation of its own, and especially not when it came to military matters. The situation was a powder keg, and the fuse was lit at Fort Sumter, South Carolina, where a group of Union soldiers had relocated in the wake of the secession – somewhat peculiarly, as the fort was extraordinarily indefensible, and had not even been fully constructed (or supplied). Confederal troops opened fire on the Fort, and began the Fourth American War.

Upon hearing of the Fort Sumter incident, Buchanan invoked the Insurrection Act of 1807, and declared a state of emergency. He attempted to unite the nation by forming a joint Administration with the Republicans, inviting Seward to become his new Vice-President, an act that would surely go down in hindsight as one of the greatest follies of his career, a remarkable feat for him. He appointed Winfield Scott as Commander-in-Chief of the Union’s forces for the war, who then appointed three commanders, one major general for each planned theatre of war:

• Robert E. Lee, Seaboard Theatre (coast to Kanawha)
• George B. McClellan, Tennessee Theatre (Kanawha to Mississippi)
• John C. Frémont, Western Theatre (Mississippi to California)

Though the war was begun in late March, the military matters consisted of minor skirmishes, especially in North Carolina and Kentucky (declaring themselves to be neutral in the conflict, though leaning towards the Union). The real war began with Winfield Scott’s singular notion, known to history as the Anaconda Plan. Named for the South American snake, it devised a strategy in which the Union would surround the Confederation entirely, moving in slowly and throttling the rebellion. While this plan seemed virtually guaranteed for success to the Union theorists, it failed to take into account possible obsolescences in intelligence – particularly the town of Vicksburg. The town was seen as a possible foothold for the Union, and Frémont and McClellan had each been instructed to take forty thousand men to what would no longer be a sleepy riverside port. However, the town had been fortified immensely in the six months since the war had begun, and the Union discovered that an easy victory was out of the question, as was much of Anaconda. McClellan was forced to delay the campaign to re-plan the offensive, gaining him not a few enemies in the Union camp. The planning for the Mississippi Campaign finally finished in the early spring of '59, and McClellan and Frémont were at last able to conduct their Vicksburg offensive. McClellan conducted a slow advance down the Mississippi, where he clashed with Confederal General Albert S. Johnston. The two were forced into a siege position, with entrenchment tactics prevailing due to the Confederal fortifications.

In the Atlantic and the Caribbean, the Union attempted to enforce a blockade of the Confederation, but the Royal Navy was not interested in the whims of “petty tyrannical hypocrites”, as Prime Minister Lord Palmerston so delicately phrased it. Britain was delighted with the outbreak of war, and when the Confederation proved itself capable of at least fending off the Union, Palmerston asked to consult with Confederal diplomats as to the terms of recognition and intervention, an issue also intriguing Emperor Napoleon. James Mason and John Slidell boarded the RMS Merlin to Westminster, but the ship was halted by the USS San Jacinto, commanded by Captain Charles Wilkes, an enthusiastic enforcer of the blockade. He insisted on confiscating Mason and Slidell, calling them “illegal contraband”, and caused a very predictable furore. It seems that the Confederation objected to its diplomats being kidnapped from ships, and that Britain had similar issues with its ships being boarded by Union sailors. The issue nearly sparked intervention there and then, but diplomacy took hold, and the Union apologised very loudly (to drown out the patriotic rows of their countrymen). Canadian officials were still suspicious, and materiel was sent to the border, but war did not break out.

Before the August of '59, the Union had been forced to avoid North Carolina where it could to avoid knocking it into the Confederal Camp, but the Confederation had no such qualms. After one brigade too many marched through the plantations, the state voted to officially condone Union troop movements in their state, allowing Lee and General Harney to sweep through into South Carolina, the First State of the Confederation, and nearly to the Georgian border, though they were repulsed by General Beauregard. Similar advances by the Confederation into Kentucky achieved the same result, with Kentucky abandoning neutrality to suckle at McClellan's teat. Contemporarily, General Butler of the Union landed in and captured New Orleans, ruling it with an iron fist. For the Confederation, the war had taken a turn for the worse, and they surely could not have won were it not for the New Year and the events of that time…

The Merlin affair cooled, British shipping happily ignored the Union blockade once more, delivering vital goods to the Confederation. President Buchanan was not pleased with this turn of events, and wished to persuade the Royal Navy to end her smuggling ways. To that end, he order a ship be dispatched to Bermuda, where the captain would make peace with the Governor. In what would be an unbelievable folly were it not for the regular occurrence of equally dense mistakes, the ship dispatched turned out to be the San Jacinto, with Captain Wilkes still at his command and still intent on enforcing the will of the Union. The Governor was unamused, and even less amused when he discovered that two of Wilkes' gunships had blockaded the main smugglers' harbour and opened fire on the RMS Trent, knocking out her steering. Wilkes made his escape, but Britain was outraged at his actions, demanding an official apology. They received something else entirely…

On the 4th of January, 1860, Senator Abraham Lincoln was invited to the White House by President Buchanan to discuss options in the case of a Union victory. They greeted each other in the lobby, and both were shot dead on the spot by the new porter, George Atzerdodt, who was immediately arrested. President Seward ordered an investigation into his background and discovered that he had recently returned from two weeks in Montreal – two weeks which could not be accounted for. Adding two and two to get five, Seward's administration concluded that the British government had ordered the assassination. Seward was swayed by this theory, and peppered his inauguration speech with "hidden" references to this belief. Britain was certainly not amused. Parliament approved a recognition of the Confederation, and were joined in this by France, while all British materiel heading for the Union was redirected to Canada and the South. The opening of hostilities – again, signed jointly with Napoleon – was declared on the 21st of February, 1860.

Though the Union blockade had proved fairly effective until now, it simply could not stand the full force of the Royal Navy, and was overwhelmed. Three French divisions were spared to reach New Orleans. At the same time, the Union finally overcame the defences at Vicksburg, and McClellan began his drive to New Orleans (still occupied by Butler). He was delayed by Johnston’s skilful manoeuvring, and Butler lead troops out of New Orleans to free him up. Sadly, this was when the French arrived. They found the city mostly unoccupied, and quickly claimed it for the Confederation again, quashing Union guerrilla tactics easily. Butler found himself “sandwiched”, as the phrase goes, between Bazaine (the French commander) and Johnston’s forces, and was forced to engage in a last stand, the result of which was predictable. His last words were supposedly “I die that Liberty might prevail”, the words hinted at in his journals, but his lungs had been penetrated, souring the moment somewhat. McClellan eventually penetrated Johnston’s forces, but was unable to retake New Orleans.

Throughout 1860, the Union found itself beaten back on all fronts. Beauregard and his forces pushed back on the seaboard, driving Lee into North Carolina with relatively few casualties on the Confederal side. Canadian troops forced Burnside to retreat deep into Union-held territory, while the Union was starved of outside help by the Royal Navy. The terrors of Finance and Munitions reared their ugly heads, and McClellan was forced back beyond Vicksburg, with his troops increasingly poached for the Northern Front. By Autumn’s fall, the War had effectively been lost by the Union, and truces were agreed. The official Treaty of Atlanta was signed by all parties involved, and forced the Union to recognise the Confederation, as well as her control over Arizona Territory (as defined by the Confederation) [1]. Congress impeached Seward, the first President to suffer that fate, and House Speaker William Pennington was granted the office until the Elections in November, 1861.

[1] This isn’t OTL Arizona, this is “Southern Arizona/New Mexico”.

 

[Nekromans]

Nobody loves me!

(NB: That was a poor attempt at humour.)

 

[Thande]

Nobody loves me!

(NB: That was a poor attempt at humour.)

I was waiting for someone else to comment, because I didn't want to say "Excellent work, Nek, sounds very plausible," only for some American knowitall to pop up, shoot 5000 holes in your alternate southern secession scenario, and leave us both looking like tits (great, warmed).

 

[Nicomacheus]

I was waiting for someone else to comment, because I didn't want to say "Excellent work, Nek, sounds very plausible," only for some American knowitall to pop up, shoot 5000 holes in your alternate southern secession scenario, and leave us both looking like tits (great, warmed).

I myself was waiting to see what other "American knowitall"s thought about the alt-secession. I suppose you're going with Lincoln getting the other Illinois senate seat (the Class 3 seat as opposed to Douglas' Class 2 seat), which seems plausible. (Though Lincoln's reason for not doing so in OTL was very sound: he didn't want to deny an ex-Democrat a Seat in order to maintain the new Republican party. And the chance to campaign against Douglas in 1858 was probably no small part, as well).

I don't really see any reason for the Supreme Court to start chattering unless there's case at issue. And the secessionists wouldn't be likely to submit to Federal courts, I'd think.

I suppose Buchanan reversal of his OTL decision that he could do nothing to prevent secession works. I think you're trying to have the Secessionists actively engage in a rebellious activity and hence force Buchanan's hand. You can probably get this result because the CAS will be limited to the Deep South...the folks who tend to be most firery of fire-eaters. Though I'd imagine a quasi-war period lingers while Buchanan attempts waffles.

It also seems strange that Lincoln proposes an act that would have such an effect, but his call for volunteers OTL had an similar effect on VA, so it could work. The Southern secessionists were a very strange breed (and distinct from later Confederate leaders as well) so they might well be skittish enough to react radically to Lincoln's proposal. I'm somewhat dubious, but it's your TL.

The one other thing you'd want to be careful of is that Congress will need to do some fancy footwork to allow Buchanan to appoint a new VP. OTL this wasn't done until explicitly permitted by the 25th Amendment. In TTL circumstances, I'd imagine it's Douglas proposing the arrangment in private to Seward or Lincoln: they pass a new Sucession Law granting the President the authority to appoint a VP by consent of Congress and in turn Buchanan will take the Republican line on the Union in the present crisis. My one question is that I'd have though that Douglas / Buchanan would want a Democratic VP, with the offer of the other more meaningful Cabinet posts to Republicans.

The constitutional argument for such an arrangement flows thusly. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution reads thus:

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

This section was changed in by the 20th and 25th Amendments. This section permitted Congress to specify further lines of succession but the text limits Congress' ability to do to cases in which the VP dies. However, this limitation hinges on the connotation of "both." It might be stretched to mean that Congress has power to declare what Officer shall act not only as President but also as Vice-President. I would bear in mind, though, that OTL such an interpretation was never used or to my knowledge mentioned. It might find credance in the crises of the war, however.

It might be more plausible, however, to have an earlier Cabinet Succession Act passed and give Seward the role of Sec State.

Nevertheless, I think much of the foregoing is secondary to the overall scope: an early, more radical and thus more geographically limited secession movement begins. And the US manages to provoke GB and France -- not unlikely given how friendly much of the British government were to the CSA OTL.

It does seem a bit much that the CAS gets Arizona Territory, but your TL. However, do they get Indian Territory as well? Also, you don't mention Florida, but I presume they secede as well.

Also, does the Earl of Derby still become PM in 1858-59 only to have Palmerston re-take the reins just in time to pounce on the upstart Americans? Which begs the question: does the Sepoy Mutiny break out? If so, is it over in time for GB to intervene in the Civil War or does that intervention come despite affairs in the east?

Overall, I lament the rending of the American Union, but look-forward to seeing some Austrian astonishment.

 

[Nekromans]

Hopefully some questions will be answered with this map of the fomer Union immediately after the Treaty of Atlanta:

 

[Thande]

Hmm...I can't see this incarnation of the CSA being much of a power, not without Virginia and North Carolina. It's too agrarian, and it has the disadvantage of all that sand without the advantage of it touching the Pacific at any point.

I suppose it could be built up by one of the European powers if the US is seen as an enemy, though.

Of course, the effects of a united Virginia staying in the USA may alter American culture both from OTL and the usual South-wins-the-Civil-War scenarios...

 

[Nicomacheus]

Hmm...I can't see this incarnation of the CSA being much of a power, not without Virginia and North Carolina. It's too agrarian, and it has the disadvantage of all that sand without the advantage of it touching the Pacific at any point.

I suppose it could be built up by one of the European powers if the US is seen as an enemy, though.

Of course, the effects of a united Virginia staying in the USA may alter American culture both from OTL and the usual South-wins-the-Civil-War scenarios...

Indeed. Without Virginia, Texas may grow to dominate this grouping, though not for some time. I'm surprised Tennessee joined, as well.

Certainly with Virginia remaining in the Union emancipation may be a more gradual process. Also, they're likely to keep being a strong source for US Presidents...like maybe Robert E. Lee.

 

[Thande]

Certainly with Virginia remaining in the Union emancipation may be a more gradual process. Also, they're likely to keep being a strong source for US Presidents...like maybe Robert E. Lee.

I was going to say it'd be a bit late for that, but I forgot Nek's version of the secession takes place earlier than OTL.

 

[Nekromans]

I realised last night that my map has all the modern states! >.<

I agree that the Confederation's future is not bright, what with all the industry being lost to the North in this scenario.

Thoughts: slavery in the Union and its future?

 

[Nekromans]

Just to let you know, I haven't abandoned this TL, and there's an update to be arriving soon on the subject of Europe. Sorry I've left it so long - exams and stuff for the last few weeks, you see, so I've only just got back some time to get back into things again.

May I also say how much I currently detest the German Confederation and the intraregional politics? Luckily, that problem is about to be reduced somewhat...