Claws of The Eagle

In terms of PODs, this timeline could probably be said to have a couple, but then in real life events and shocking occurrences rarely actually depend the one upon the other to happen. This is something of the 'coin-toss' approach to alternate history - why should it be set up as one POD only and then some sort of intellectual challenge thereon ? I am not trying to write a thesis or create an argument for some historical purpose, I am trying to tell a different story. The story of OTL is full of unlikely events and unrealised changes, things which begun and full of promise just wither on the vine, and conversely things which seem to have no promise at all but survive and prosper. This timeline takes events that could, in their individual cases, have come to pass, and weaves perhaps three strands together to make an ongoing narrative. One could perhaps argue as to whether there are three, or two, PODs but such an argument would be unnecessary, given that it matters not at all owing to the way this is set up. This timeline does not require every event to be founded on the one POD - why should it ?


(1) The Empire of Mexico

I remember reading of a battle that was decisive in the early movement against Agustin I, and which saw both Guadeloupe Victoria and Santa Anna only just escape with their lives from pursuit. It has often struck me that this would be an excellent POD.

In itself, it is not important whether the above is the POD here or not. The timeline is concerned more with the survival of Agustin I's empire, than with the hows and wherefores of the survival. It wishes to look at consequences and to throw wrenches into the great power-plays of decades to come. The reader can decide that the above POD is sufficient, or can decide to accept that something of equal effect has come to pass

The essential fact is that Agustin I Iturbide's empire survives its troubled first few years and settles down into a longer-term stability.


(2) The Texas War (The First Mexican War)

President Andrew Jackson's USA gets involved in the Mexican attempt to subdue the Texan secessionists

The war is a difficult affair and the result of the war is inconclusive

Texas becomes an autonomous borderland, with its autonomy guaranteed by the USA

As a note, in the wake of the war, Iturbide reasserts his imperial power by putting down the Yucatan rebellion


(3) Poor Queen Vic

In this timeline, Queen Victoria dies not long after ascending the throne from complications with her first pregnancy. She has thus produced no heir, and her widower returns to Coburg as did his sad counterpart twenty years before, Leopold widower of the much-loved Charlotte

Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, and King of Hannover since the death of William IV, now becomes King Ernest I of Great Britain and Ireland, much unloved, often despised, and frequently hated, but no one can claim he had anything to do with the death of Victoria, a frequent suspicion when she fell ill before her accession as he would have been the beneficiary. This time, though, he was in Hannover, and she died due to natural causes, a sad loss, but one placing the male-to-male descendant of George I upon the British throne

The years of his rule will not be easy ones, will be characterised by strife, civil unrest and frequent crises, but the country will bumble along and vested interests will always collude to prevent the situation from getting out of hand


(4) 1848

This timeline's 1848 sees a host of changes echo into effect

-a- Chartist Revolution in England
-b- Successful independence for Kossuth's Hungary
-c- Lasting independence for republics of Rome (Mazzini), Sicily, Milan and Venice
-d- A liberal Imperial Germany including Austria
-e- A longer-lasting French Second Republic
-f- The USA takes advantage of the situation to push "54 40 or war"
-g- Russia makes moves against the Ottomans

---a. With Queen Victoria having sadly died of complications during her first pregnancy, Ernest Augustus, King of Hannover and Duke of Cumberland, became King Ernest I. Ever unpopular, things came to a head in 1848 with a Chartist Revolution which saw his abdication, followed swiftly by that of his as-yet-childless (in the ATL) son, the Blind King George V.

The throne was taken by the aged Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge who was little more than a cypher for the revolutionaries as King Adolphus I.
Upon his death in 1850, his son ascends as King George VI
A much more robust and argumentative man, he rules more or less in opposition to parliament, but the reign of his father has served to cool tensions, and constant compromises are worked out to allow the machinery of government to work

---d. Germany 1848 - elected Emperor

Austria subsumed within Germany
- Franz Josef a young fellow never makes it as a ne effective ruler; gone with a whimper not a bang

Imperial Liberal Germany folds inwards in later years
- needs centralism etc to hold onto unity
- becomes less democratic as the centre needs to overawe the extremities

---f. With Britain in internal chaos, the USA pushes its 54 40 agenda and achieves its maximum aims
Note that this is a USA which has not recently fought Mexico and which therefore does not include California, New Mexico or Texas

I would imagine that the USA also sponsors an independent Canada as this is its best guarantee, and Britain is in no position to do anything about this

An independent Canada at this stage would consist of Upper and Lower Canada plus Quebec, with everything further West being territories with small populations and little representation. Thus the loss of the Pacific coast would be felt less back in Ottawa than it would have been in London

---g. Russia - They take advantage of European chaos to attack the Ottoman Empire
- recognition of Hungary swapped for acceptance of Russia's paramount position in the Principalities

Russia - Principalities is only step one


(5) The 1850s

The later war (early 1850s) with Mexico grows out of chaos in California after the gold strike, and with Mexico's attempts to control the situation bringing the empire into conflict with the ever-increasing US settler community, and eventually with the USA as their sponsor

The USA obviously does well in this war, but not overwhelmingly so as Mexico is a lot stronger than historically. The result is that Texas is officially independent and California divided in some way, with a portion of the South remaining Mexican and the rest annexed by the USA. The empire also retains the New Mexico lands; Texas probably is only to the Nueces

The US Civil war comes at the end of the 1850s
- the tensions have never been properly sorted out and even the 1850 Compromise of OTL doesn't exist here
- tensions from the end of the 2nd Mexican War, and California's inclusion in the Union add to the fire
- the vast Oregon Territory is as much a headache and a monetary gain as a victory over the UK
- the presidential elections bring a crisis to a head

Texas backs the CSA

Mexico however is friendly to the Union but uses US distraction to get involved in a war with Spain and ends up annexing Cuba

At the same time, Britain starts off friendly to the Union as the liberal majority over-rules a less-than-liberal king

In Europe, there is revolution in Paris as Louis Philippe's grandson is restored to the throne, the republic having staggered from one crisis to another

Britain's increasing involvement in the ACW comes partly as a response to French distraction, and partly causes increased instability in Europe as neither great power is now in a position to intervene in events

This most noticeably has serious consequences in Italy, where only great power intervention has held the post-1848 status quo together in a ramshackle league

Meanwhile, Spain's defeat to Mexico has led to the overthrow of Isabella II

The restored Orleanist king of France, Philippe VII, makes a powerplay to stabilise his position and gain instant kudos, calling for French 'compensation' for the 'New Germany' and seeking to purchase Luxembourg off the King of the Netherlands

This leads to rising Franco-German tensions

Italy exacerbates this, seeing a Murat-republican revolution in Naples (Sicily has been independent since 1848) and a similar event in Tuscany

- Note 1 -

Agustin I of Mexico
born 1783
He could well live until the end of the 2nd Mexican War which might serve to exhaust him and bring about his death c 1855, aged 72

His eldest son Agustin Jeronimo, b 1807, would succeed him
OTL he didn't have any children, but as Prince Imperial to a reigning monarch there is every chance he married and had heirs
OTL he died in 1866, which might be different in the ATL, but serves well enough to move the story on
If he followed in family tradition, and there is little reason to doubt he would, then he has a son now Agustin III who was born in say 1830

- Note 2 -

Louis Philippe of France, overthrown 1848 dies in exile in 1850
His eldest grandson (Louis) Philippe was born in 1838 and only really becomes a player on the international scene in the mid-late 1850s with the constant failure of the Second Republic. Coming of age at the right time he is able to benefit from widespread disillusion with the Republic and a restoration occurs at a time when Britain is increasingly distracted by events in the Americas (the US Civil War and the outbreak of the Mexican-Spanish War)

Taking the throne as Philippe VII, he married in 1864 his first cousin Marie Isabelle of Orleans, daughter of the Duc de Montpensier (brother of his late father)


(6) The 1860s

At the start of 1860s King George VII is finally convinced by parliament to allow them to declare war on the Confederacy, and Britain's entry on the Union side is one of the things which helps to finish off the war, albeit in the intermediate term

Britain and Mexico thus end up entering the ACW on the side of the Union

The restored French monarchy is backing the Kingdom of Sardinia in the North, against the republican forces elsewhere

Union victory in the US Civil War
- agreement with Britain and Mexico as their allies
- sees US recognition of Mexico's annexation of Cuba
- and Britain and Mexico agree to the USA's annexation of Texas (to the Nueces)
- plus the USA give a guarantee to the Mexican Empire on their mutual borders

Second Italian War
- The 'Murat' republican forces from the South swallow up the moribund Roman Republic and the infant republic in Florence and unite South-Central Italy in one republic
- But in the North, French-sponsored Sardinia forms a rival "Italy" annexing by popular acclaim Milan, Venice and the duchies
- Germany becomes involved on its Southern border

A Franco-German war is negotiated away with British intervention
After negotiation, Italy is divided between Sardinia in the North and the Republic in the South, with the Republic of Sicily outside this arrangement

Franco-German hostility
- one could imagine France acquiring de jure rights to Luxembourg and a long campaign to get Germany to agree to withdraw its last troops, with much difficulties in between
- Germany upgrades defences in the South, including one assumes in Carniola, Istria, Trieste which would all be German
- Germany may well ally with Murat's republic of the South

British Neutrality Patrol in the Mediterranean
- partly aimed at respecting Sicily's independence, so that the revolution is not exported from the mainland
- partly aimed at preventing either of the main Italian sides from gaining an advantage on the other

One could imagine that the moribund French Second Republic failed to subdue Abdul Kader in Algieria and that a de facto split of the country between himself and France came to pass.

Britain would presumably act with its naval forces to try to prevent the restored Orleans monarchy from changing this

End of Carlist Wars
- French support Carlists over liberals
- force a compromise, liberal Carlist son

Egypt
- Suez Canal is a French/Republican project
- Completed by the restored monarchy

Ottomans pleased
- no insult from Egypt
- Compromise on Egyptian ironclads : especially with regard to Russian machinations in "Compromise" Bulgaria

This latter has come about after Russian pressure on the Ottomans during the period of complete distraction of the other European powers

As the Compromise in Italy breaks down at the end of the 1860s and Europe heads towards war, Russia puts increased pressure on the Ottomans over Bulgaria (hence an Ottoman willingness to compromise with Egypt at this time)


(7) The 1870s

Britain and Germany oppose Russia on 'liberal' grounds
- leads to Bulgarian Crisis
had been in abeyance, now see no ends to it, full scale revolt

With Germany distracted by war on its Eastern border, France pushes things in Italy where all pretence at an intermediate solution has been abandoned and where Sardinia and the Republic are fighting a series of undeclared wars in the duchies and Northern Tuscany

The British Neutrality Patrol has moved to the Aegean with war blossoming in the East

1872-74 War
- Britain, Germany and the Ottomans versus Russia
- Strains lead to India Crisis; there had been no Mutiny in this ATL, but the strains of war with Russia lead to a blow-up in Anglo-Indian relations and a serious problem for Britain just as it starts military action against Russia in concert with Germany

Germany signs a secret non-aggression pact with France, including guarantees for Istria, Trieste and Carniola

This frees France to pursue its ambitions in Italy, helping Sardinia to defeat the republic, take Rome where the Pope's temporal powers are resumed, albeit on a power-sharing basis with the Savoyards, and push on into Naples

British naval presence, albeit reduced, discourages any attempt to cross the Straits of Messina and thus the Republic of Sicily survives

France and Sardinia engage in drawn-out guerilla warfare against Murat-republican forces in Naples

1874 Peace
- readjustment of the Polish border
- Hungary swallows vassal Croatia-Slavonia as no one looking
- Bulgaria emerges as autonomous


Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Part 2

No timeline is a complete work, anymore than a history book is a complete record of a time, or even an accurate one. After all, historical theories come and go, and historical sources wax and wane. We may like to think history is immutable but often people at the time only have a hazy idea of why what is happening is occurring, so looking back we are relying on essentially flawed sources, no matter how diligent we be. Secret documents released many decades after the event, or coming to light in foreign countries at a great remove, all manage to cast a different light on things we thought we knew. History is not a known, it is a best guess, and it is as much pertrubed by being written by those in the know as it is providing of enlightenment. By necessity history is a story woven of many unconnected facts that came together in a later narrative. It is an attempt to rid of the record of masses of extraneous information whilst creating and preserving the essential core, but what that is, and how it is to be rendered, is a matter as much for personal choice on the part of historians as it is of genuine historical record. Thus, this timeline omits many things that can be presumed to have happened, it creates strings of events that may not actually be causal in effect, and it includes assumptions that could be erroneous should better information come to light. In other words, feel free to help flesh it out, provide suggestions and ideas, but don't criticise it for not being what you want, that doesn't help.

I am not averse to rewriting this to get the progression right, but I will not delete the essential changes as that basically means starting again and why should I ?

What are we looking for and at ?

Mexican Empire that has and will develop New Mexico, Southern California and Southernmost Texas, plus Cuba which means a fleet of some power

OTL Mexico in the 1840s had some new steam frigates, and this could be an ATL where such a navy is developed and becomes a powerful regional player, feasibly the equal of the US Navy before 1900

The wars in Central America could also be looked at retrospectively. OTL the Central American provinces sided with Iturbide originally on the say-so, partly at least, of the guy who emerged as the power in Guatemala. Upon the OTL overthrow of Iturbide, they broke away as the UPCA, lasting a chaotic while until regional forces, especially strong in Costa Rica, broke them apart into independent countries

In the ATL, it is feasible that the Central American provinces are Mexico's distraction 1822-35, with them basically hanging onto influence there, albeit a sort of less-than-perfect sovereignty, and then with the Texas war, war against the USA etc, losing them to a united state in central America.

This would then put the Yucatan secession in a different light, see Iturbide say thus far and no further, but also see the empire set the boundary for sure, as it eradicates all resistance in Yucatan, it allows Central America to go fully its own way

Britain would have holdings and influence in Belize and Miskitia. What happens to these under King Ernest I ? I would imagine he would press for their retention, and possibly even for a greater militarisation than in OTL, maybe a functional base at Greytown, Miskitia, a cession from the Miskit king

Then comes 1848 and several years of British chaos, though it should be noted that British military and political organs overseas usually manage to retain functionality during domestic crises. The loss of Oregon and the independence of Canada could be balanced by the USA agreeing to the permanent British presence in Belize and (protectorate of) Miskitia

The question would then be what happens during the 1850s ?

The USA would fights the Second Mexican War over California
Presumably this has a Caribbean front, thought the more advanced Mexican Navy could be an important asset and could prove its worth preventing a US offensive gathering pace there

After this, the USA gets increasingly involved in its own internal problems

The UPCA endures but is increasingly riven by internal strife. Mexico recovering from the war with the USA, Britain pursuing its own policies and the USA collapsing into its own turmoil, all lead to a free-er environment for UPCA differences to come into the open and result in civil war

As far as the greater timeline is concerned, the question is whether these events have any larger bearing, or whether they just are. On the one hand, unrest across Central America would only affect the people living there, on the other hand it could be of strategic import. With the Mexican Empire to the North, with British colonies intrinsic and with Gran Colombia to the South, these lands would control their own destiny.

Could a third power interfere ? The French Republic in this period is too moribund, heading towards its own demise, whilst Spain likewise is not really going anywhere - its attempt to do so will lead it to disaster against Mexico at the end of the 1850s. Its possible that Spain attempts to use the UPCA to reinforce its position; Spain historically was VERY slow to give up, to relinquish its former territory. One could imagine some former territory in the UPCA doing a deal with the devil and accepting Spanish help against the rest. And this could then lead towards the Spanish-Mexican war at the end of the decade

Maybe Germany would get involved ? As a liberal Imperial power it has trade interests and could see a presence in Central America as a good doorway in. It might thus be inclined to support the centralising power perhaps against Spanish support for opportunistic breakaway provinces

In the wake of the Spanish-Mexican War this could lead to a boost for the centralising power and thus a concomittant one for the German Empire. This would be primarily a mercantile advantage but advantageous for the Germans

- - -

So as we enter the 1860s has anything of use been decided in this post ?

Well, the main area to consider from 1860 onwards would be the War of the Triple Alliance, Paraguay's disaster in life... But I cannot see how it would change down there due to events further North, so unfortunately Francisco Solano Lopez is doomed to lead his country to destruction. One could wish it were otherwise...


Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Last edited:
The UPCA endures but is increasingly riven by internal strife. Mexico recovering from the war with the USA, Britain pursuing its own policies and the USA collapsing into its own turmoil, all lead to a free-er environment for UPCA differences to come into the open and result in civil war

As far as the greater timeline is concerned, the question is whether these events have any larger bearing, or whether they just are. On the one hand, unrest across Central America would only affect the people living there, on the other hand it could be of strategic import. With the Mexican Empire to the North, with British colonies intrinsic and with Gran Colombia to the South, these lands would control their own destiny.
I could see TTL Mexican AH'ers obcessing with a Mexican annexation of the UPCA, like OTL American AH'ers and Canada.

?Could this Mexico, be the ones to build the Nicaragia Canal?
 
I could see TTL Mexican AH'ers obcessing with a Mexican annexation of the UPCA, like OTL American AH'ers and Canada.

?Could this Mexico, be the ones to build the Nicaragua Canal?

I was actually wondering whether I could get the Germans to do that !

Though, it could be problematic with the British still in Miskitia as this may well control the Eastern egress. However if Germany and Britain are allies (as against Russia) this might still work

Though your suggestion is an idea I could have run with if I'd had it earlier !

Thanks for reading and commenting
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I would imagine that the USA also sponsors an independent Canada as this is its best guarantee, and Britain is in no position to do anything about this

An independent Canada at this stage would consist of Upper and Lower Canada plus Quebec, with everything further West being territories with small populations and little representation. Thus the loss of the Pacific coast would be felt less back in Ottawa than it would have been in London

Grey Wolf

One point - Lower Canada was Quebec. You probably mean more properly Upper & Lower Canada and the Maritimes.
 
1) How much of the interior Northwestern provinces does the Republic of Canada control? Is 54'40" the boundary west of the Lake of the Woods (the boundary settled on in Webster-Ashburton)? I suppose it depends upon how land hungry the US is, but I could see such a border becoming very murky, particularly if gold is found in the Alaska/Yukon. The outcome could likely hinge on who owns Alaska. Is Canada truly independent or is it still British enough that it receives swathes of immigrants from the mother country?

2) With all the foreign involvemnet in the US Civil War are there ever foreign troops on US soil fighting the CSA? I could see Southern resistance getting a bit nastier if so. It also changes the aftermath of the war: does Reconstruction happen roughly as per OTL or does the additional weight allow the North to clamp down? Or does the need to insure US security against all of these "allies" prompt a quick Reconstruction?

3) How does Russia fair in the War of the Tripple Alliance? With a large German Reich participating, are Poland, Lithuania, etc. liberated from the Czar's control? How does the war strain India? Is it just due to the HEIC appartus not having been replaced by the Raj or does Russia make a real, effectual assualt via the Khyber Pass? (The latter seems unlikely to me).

4) What are immigration patterns like in this world? An earlier Civil War might put a damper on the droves of immigrants between 1848-1860. Is the Empire of Mexico friendly to immigrants? Are the UPCA?

5) Jackson OTL was a lame duck by the time of the Texas Revolution progressed far enough for the Texians to ask for assisstance. Plus, the Northerners blanched at the idea of adding swathes of slave territory to the US, tying Jackson's hands and those of Van Buren. Does the fact that they're resisting a monarchy come into play? If so, this dynamic reminds me of R. Sobel's For Want of a Nail with the Confederation of North America facing off (though never really confronting) the United States of Mexico. Your USA is much more likely to confront its southern neighbor than Sobel's CNA. Such a war would be...interesting. And bloody.

6) What are the internal politics of Mexico like? It seems to remain strong, but strong enough to avoid all the problems of OTL? Some of those problems are likely to arise even with a stable government: the geography of Mexico (two mountain chains, a high central plateau) serve to severely hamper development. Simply preserving the Empire doesn't seem to avoid the issues of anti-clericalism, local resistance, and extreme poverty that dogged Mexico iOTL. Is there something like a Parliament/Estates-General/Diet or is Mexico the Russia of the Americas?

7) On the multiple POD: Couldn't agree more. There are times when it almost becomes artificial to doggedly stick to one POD. The only reason it isn't done, I suppose, is that it creates the DBWI scenario: what if Victoria dies but the Burbon dynasty doesn't resume the throne?
 
Excellent questions - I will consider them in detail on my PC back at the flat later on today, and come back with answers maybe tomorrow or Thursday (depends on when I can find a PC with internet connection)

Off the top of my head, I have been wondering about Alaska - would the US being their immediate Southern neighbour make Russia more or less likely to want to sell it to them ? Does not having fought the Crimean War affect whether or not Russia wants to sell Alaska ?

I imagine immigration is still going on strong into Canada - after all in OTL it did into the USA, so a legal connection to the homeland isn't a prerequisite. Thus, one would be seeing British immigration into Canada following a similar pattern to that of the US - at a pinch I would say it is organised on the West coast of the Atlantic, rather than in any form of agreement with the government in Britain.

As for how far West Canada stretches, I would imagine that the Rockies in some form would end up being the border. In a way, the USA won't mind having a large and independent Canada to the North as no way can it be a threat to it, and it would very much play the part of a partner.

I wasn't really thinking of a Russian invasion of India, more like as you say the place collapses from the inside when tensions are heaped on it.

Very good point about the USA fighting a monarchy in the Mexican Empire being the possible cause for its involvement in the Texan war ! Thank you !

The rest tomorrow, along with a potentially amended version of what the very much discursive Part 3 I'm about to post below

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

1) How much of the interior Northwestern provinces does the Republic of Canada control? Is 54'40" the boundary west of the Lake of the Woods (the boundary settled on in Webster-Ashburton)? I suppose it depends upon how land hungry the US is, but I could see such a border becoming very murky, particularly if gold is found in the Alaska/Yukon. The outcome could likely hinge on who owns Alaska. Is Canada truly independent or is it still British enough that it receives swathes of immigrants from the mother country?

2) With all the foreign involvemnet in the US Civil War are there ever foreign troops on US soil fighting the CSA? I could see Southern resistance getting a bit nastier if so. It also changes the aftermath of the war: does Reconstruction happen roughly as per OTL or does the additional weight allow the North to clamp down? Or does the need to insure US security against all of these "allies" prompt a quick Reconstruction?

3) How does Russia fair in the War of the Tripple Alliance? With a large German Reich participating, are Poland, Lithuania, etc. liberated from the Czar's control? How does the war strain India? Is it just due to the HEIC appartus not having been replaced by the Raj or does Russia make a real, effectual assualt via the Khyber Pass? (The latter seems unlikely to me).

4) What are immigration patterns like in this world? An earlier Civil War might put a damper on the droves of immigrants between 1848-1860. Is the Empire of Mexico friendly to immigrants? Are the UPCA?

5) Jackson OTL was a lame duck by the time of the Texas Revolution progressed far enough for the Texians to ask for assisstance. Plus, the Northerners blanched at the idea of adding swathes of slave territory to the US, tying Jackson's hands and those of Van Buren. Does the fact that they're resisting a monarchy come into play? If so, this dynamic reminds me of R. Sobel's For Want of a Nail with the Confederation of North America facing off (though never really confronting) the United States of Mexico. Your USA is much more likely to confront its southern neighbor than Sobel's CNA. Such a war would be...interesting. And bloody.

6) What are the internal politics of Mexico like? It seems to remain strong, but strong enough to avoid all the problems of OTL? Some of those problems are likely to arise even with a stable government: the geography of Mexico (two mountain chains, a high central plateau) serve to severely hamper development. Simply preserving the Empire doesn't seem to avoid the issues of anti-clericalism, local resistance, and extreme poverty that dogged Mexico iOTL. Is there something like a Parliament/Estates-General/Diet or is Mexico the Russia of the Americas?

7) On the multiple POD: Couldn't agree more. There are times when it almost becomes artificial to doggedly stick to one POD. The only reason it isn't done, I suppose, is that it creates the DBWI scenario: what if Victoria dies but the Burbon dynasty doesn't resume the throne?
 
Part 3

People always like a timeline to provide answers to their own questions, but I am a great believer in posting the inner debate of the author. That way one can see what questions arose and what rationales were provided to come up with the answers. Thus this third post of “Claws of The Eagle” is provided as a discursive document, addressing some of the questions that would arise, and which readers might have asked.

What difference would an independent Canada mean ?

During the ACW, Britain would be less worried about potential strategic outcomes as it has already lost this battle

Canada focused on the East coast and friendly to the Union would be a natural ally to the USA, and would also help to direct Britain in that direction due to strong residual ties

After the ACW, Canada would develop in this twin position, independent but linked closely both to the USA and to Britain

- - -

What of Japan ?

Would the Bakufu get French backing, or in this time of turmoil might it turn to Germany ?

This assumes that the liberal German Empire would be out in the East in force
But where there is a market, there the merchants would be

But how open is Japan ?
The USA by the mid 1850s is from 54 40 in Northern Oregon down to mid California
One can assume Perry or an analogue works as per OTL

And into the 1860s, well the USA is of course distracted by its civil war
Britain, France ad Germany could all be out there vying for advantage

Germany is the one which remains outside of commitments until the 1872 war with Russia
Sure it has massive internal tensions and it has great involvement on the peripherary of events
But in itself, it has energies and power-projection that are in search of a home

In many ways a liberal German Empire would see exacerbated the tendencies towards colonies and commercial ventures becoming colonial ones that in OTL Bismarck at first tried to prevent, and which was also seen in colonial dreams in Belgium and Second Empire France in Indo-China during the OTL 1860s period

Perhaps not initially confident enough for colonies, one could well imagine this Germany pursuing alliances, spheres of interest and privileges across the world, and that this could well come to encompass Japan, especially as France undergoes a collapse in overseas power during the 1850s and with the Restoration has many more immediate foci for its attention

If Germany is involved with the Bakufu during the 1860s can this in any way change the course of events ?

A greater look at the Far East would ask immediate questions about the Taiping and about where Britain and France in OTL invaded China in the early 1860s. In this timeline, France is less involved in the Far East whilst Britain is involved as a participant in the US Civil War. This doesn’t mean no involvement in China, but could provide something of a vacuum to fill, that Germany would be keen to step into

Thus one might well see an Anglo-German axis for the China crisis, a solution as per OTL, but with negligible French involvement and instead an increasing German presence in the theatre. If this is coupled with German support for the Bakufu, then we could change the course of events in Japan

One would imagine that Putiatin’s mission to China goes more or less as historical, albeit without the adventures of the Crimean War to distract him. If Germany replaces France, then Russia could pose as the saviour of China against Britain and Germany, and thus gain its aims in the Maritime Provinces, even as much as in OTL, regardless of the fact that China did not intend to cede this amount of territory

So, back to the crux of the question - would Germany’s support for the Bakufu really affect the outcome ? Considering that in OTL, the Shogunate metamorphosed into a republic based on Hokkaido after defeat on Honshu, this would appear to have a strong naval element.

A united Germany would certainly invest in a navy, and having Istria/Trieste would have a strong Mediterranean presence as well as a Baltic and North Sea one. One would imagine that at some time there would be an analogue of the Zanzibar treaty of OTL where Heligoland was ceded to Germany for colonial possessions going to Britain. Given closer relations between the two, the Taiping etc, perhaps this occurs in the mid 1860s.

Given Germany’s commercial impetus one would imagine that on foreign stations they would have armoured frigates/cruisers, and that what battleships exist are solely coast defence in the North and are Med-orientated in the South, but not deployed away from Europe before the 1870s

Thus, I don’t see German help being able to prevent the Meiji assault on Hokkaido as per OTL. It is an interesting question as to what the defeat of the last remnants of the Shogunate means for European friends of the victor.

With Spain only just recovering from civil war, under a constitutionalist minor Carlist prince as king, and with Britain more involved in China than in Japan, it might ironically open the door for either France or Russia to step forward as an ally of the new imperial Japan.

This probably is not greatly relevant until the 1870s so, having been decided unless a reader can come up with something better (please do !), can be left for now

- - -

I guess an honourable mention should be made of the Mapuche, but without even the dream of French support I can see no other fate for Patagonia-Araucania than that of OTL


Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Very much like the format of the above. Many of my questions below hinge on the domestic politics/national characters of the nations in question. Determining these seems necessary before you can really explain the dynamics of the international system iTTL.

On Canada:
The "Northern partner" effect is interesting, particularly if it leads to greater US-UK cooperation in the 19th century. I wonder if this might lead to some kind of semi-official Anglosphere institution, analgous to Winston Chuchill's English-Speaking Association from If Lee Had Lost the Battle of Gettysburg. I also suppose this changes the dynamic between Quebec and Anglo-Canadians, since the Quebecois in TTL are no longer so vastly outnumbered.

Does Newfoundland join TTL Canada from the start or do they remain a British possession?

What kind of government does the RoC have? I assume that Canada will operate as a confederation, but how much federal power is there in your smaller Canada? OTL the Canadian federal government is more limited, in some ways, than the US, particularly IMHO as regards sole federal sovereignty over the internal market.

How much does "we are not the US" form part of the essence of Canadian national character? I guess I'd look to see diferent patterns of immigration between the US and Canada iTTL as a reason for their differences: for example, perhaps the Scandinavians who OTL settled in the Minnesota and Wisconsin, will end up in Manitoba and Ontario? All of this presumes, that your not ammenable to a gradual merger of the two Federal Republics against the totalitarian monarchist menace posed by Imperial Mexico. (If you are, a good reason is if the Mexicans buy/conquer Alaska, giving the Canadians a stake in the game.)

On Britain and British Politics:
You say that the Chartist Revolution in England takes power in 1848, forcing Ernest I to abidicate in favor of George V, who then abidicates in favor of Adolphus I. All that abidication kind of makes the head spin. In anycase, IIRC iOTL the Chartist pretty much just wanted representation in Parliament. It's one of the great example for the stability of Britain in the Victorian Age that a great worker's movement really just wants to be allowed into the political system, rather than to destroy it. Does Ernest I take steps to deny the Chartists before Parliament can do so? I kind of like this explanation, because it allows Parliament to step in and grant the Chartist's demands in a way that upholds Parliamentary supremacy. In this way, 19th century British politics are more a continuation of the 18th century struggles between the monarch and his faction than the birth of "popular government." Except of course that the latter occurs TTL because of the former.

How do all of these changes affect the Brittish stance on Free Trade? OTL, the singular event that cemented Free Trade as the cornerstone of British policy was the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846. If Ernest I is a more George III-like monarch, does he take a role in this debate? Too much royal intervention in British politics is questionable, but it would set the stage for successful Chartism two years later. Nonetheless, you suggest that George VI is a much stronger, much more assertive monarch than Adolphus. If so, then perhaps Free Trade does not gain the kind of promience it did OTL, because the monarch/monarchists oppose it as limiting their power? In any case, the British relation to Free Trade will determine what kinds of imperial endeavors the British undertake and what kind of British Empire evolves from the remaining settler colonies.

Also, in the original discussion, you say that Britain caves into US pressure over 54'50" because of internal dissension. I guess I'd like to know what kind of interal pressures these are because oftimes the quickest way to solve internal chaos is for a foreign power to start up with belicose statements like "54'40" or Fight."

Presumably Ernest, like previous Hanoverian Kings of Britain iOTL, rules Hanover completely separate from the UK. However, what does Ernest do when Imperial Germany is born? It's hard to see how such a Germany doesn't include Hanover, but it's equally hard to see how Ernest as you portray him wouldn't greatly protest being robed of his German birthright. Perhaps he adds to his unpopularity and tries to start a war before the Chartists stop him?

Nonetheless, the later discussion you give regarding German shipping and a potential deal with Britain in regards to Heligoland seems to suggest a benevolent attitude towards Germany on the part of Britain. This seems a little hard to countenance, without some back story. A strongly mercantile, naval, even if avowedly liberal, Germany posses the same threat to the Royal Navy that Wilhelmine Germany did OTL. Just because they're nice Germans doesn't mean that Britain can trust a strong navy based in the North Sea. Tensions are probably diffrayed by Anglo-German cooperation in the war against Russia and by a saner, more liberal response from Germany to British fears (perhaps they accept limitations on their navy). Furthermore, a Germany that includes all of OTL imperial Germany, plus Austria, by a single stroke of a pen upsets the balance of power within Continental Europe.

German Politics:
All of the foregoing presumes that "liberal" Germany is not devoid of strong power-politicians, Prussian army officers (even if they're not dominant), and counter-revolutionaries. I assume that none of these hold power initially, but that doesn't mean they never will in a democractic state. If they don't, how are their concerns allayed with Germany? Even if Germany's rise is peaceful, at some point the sheer concentration of industrial might encouraged by her liberal government will give her neighbors pause.

A Modest Proposal: The Canal War

If Imperial Mexico is indeed a strong nation, as you suggest, than a naval contest with the US in the Caribbean seems natural as far as geography goes. Presumably there's also one in the Pacific, but it'd constrained by the Pacific's sheer size. However, if Mexico has already wrested Spain's remaining colonial posessions in the 1860s, then what's the casus belli? I'm assuming that Mexico also takes Puerto Rico, if for no other reason than the two always seem to be taken at the same time, though Puerto Rico could be one (Mexico tries to annex it and the US steps in to assert Spanish rights or the US tries to buy it and Mexico steps in to protect its sphere of influence). The logical choice, barring additional colonial claims, is the issue of trans-isthmian canal. I remembered last night that in Turtledove's TL-191, there's mention of a point in time when a US President Mahan threatens war if the CSA builds a canal in Nicaragua; the threat means no canal in TL-191. Hence the idea of Canal War as a culmination of a Mexican-American naval arms race.

In your ATL, things get a bit more interesting. Firstly, a strong Mexico controls the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, and might build a canal there all by itself. Unlikely, but at least enough to prompt an Imperial government to investigate other points along the isthmus of Central America. The UPCA controls one, in Nicaragua, and Gran Colombia the other, in Panama. I think my favorite is if Mexico somehow finds itself at war with the UPCA, perhaps because they filibuster an independent Panamian Republic which the UPCA wants to protect from Mexican influences (and prevent itself from being hemmed in). This prompts the UPCA to ally with the US (and Canada, by extention). This creates a nice Monarchists versus Republicans contest in the Americas, particularly if the Empire of Brazil and Argentina participate.

There is potential for a Pacific theater including Hawaii and possibly the Phillipines and Southern Pacific Islands as the two American powers struggle for control of the oceans. Also, an Alaskan front of some sort, if Mexico has Alaska. This might happen if Russia prefers a fellow absolutist power as a buyer or if Mexico simply seizes the land (as the United States of Mexico do in Sobel's For Want of a Nail, granted they control all of the N. American Pacific Coast at the time).

Also, one might even include dueling canals as part of this campaign. Mexico starts one at Tehuanatepec after being ejected from Panama. The US/UPCA start on in Nicaragua (since it would be quicker to build). Ample room for Britain to get involved too through British Honduras and a Caribbean Neutrality Patrol.

I don't know anything about the Machupe and Patagonia, but if the Canal War creates a monarchist-republican Cold War in the entire Americas, then perhaps there's a chance for one side or the other to step in.
 
Last edited:
(4)

Ernest Augustus was viewed as such a reactionary by liberal and reformist elements in Britain, that had Victoria predeceased William IV, and Ernest assumed the throne in succession to his elder brother there was the high possibility that Britain would have seen mass civil unrest, even civil war within months, years at the most.

In this timeline, this intense reaction is somewhat mitigated by having briefly had Victoria as Queen, and Ernest overseas in Hannover. Though far from enthusiastic about his return, some of the hatred pre-1837 has dissipated and the political nation is prepared to work with him, albeit holding their nose whilst doing so.

However, over the ensuing decade things are not at all easy. Ernest Augustus would interfere as much as possible, act to block reforms, to promote his own agendas, support lame-duck prime ministers of a minority party, that kind of thing. I certainly agree with the suggestion that free trade and electoral reform would be opposed by him, and that the anger of ten years, provided with this spark, could well be what blows up into a Chartist Revolution in 1848

I also agree that two abdications seems excessive, but that is why the revolutionaries eventually accept old Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge - not so much because he is an ideal candidate, but because a third abdication would make them seem ridiculous. As an old man, they hope they can control him, despite the fact that his son, now the Prince of Wales, is vehemently opposed to them.

The two years of Adolphus' reign would see the initial extremist elements amongst the revolutionary government fade away to be replaced by more sober heads willing to work with the old political heirarchy. Regarding the legitimacy of the revolutionary government, one could imagine that after taking power, and getting Adolphus' coerced stamp of approval, the first thing they would do is pass a law of universal male suffrage and ensure their re-election. Thus, ironically, Britain having been a good distance behind where it was in OTL in electoral reform, suddenly leaps ahead now of where it was in this period.

However, suffrage reform does not bring with it a change to balance of power between monarch and parliament, and upon Adolphus' death and George VI's accession this conflict is returned to anew. The 1850s would basically see George VI attempt to regain some of what the crown has lost, and in a world where laws need royal assent he has a bargaining power perhaps equivalent to what the US President has with regards to his veto of Congressional laws. George VI can't make his own laws, since universal suffrage is unlikely to bring to power a government he can agree with, but he can impede the business of government, and block changes. It would become something of a political power-play between them, often with acts of brinksmanship

I have this coming to a head during the US Civil War where popular sentiment is in support of the Union, and the government eventually wears down George VI until he agrees to accept Britain's entry into the war as a belligerent.

One could imagine that after this the government increasingly has the upper hand throughout the 1860s and can build upon precedent. However, the 1872-74 war could change this. With the Indian Mutiny breaking out, and the war ending in a compromise that pleases no one, the government could be seen to have taken too many powers to itself, being able to enter wars offhandedly, and there could be a reaction to this.

Whilst one aspect of this reaction could be to demand a vote in the House on war, another aspect, probably backed by a resurgent Conservative element would be that the need for the king's assent for war be made stronger, perhaps being based on privy council meeting rather than on governmental one (the privy council basically includes opposition leaders and retired elder statesmen so could be assumed to be more conservative than a government ministry)

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
(5)

The position of the British armed forces in 1848 might be key to understanding British foreign policy at this time. One would imagine that initially that part of the army deployed in London (usually elite cavalry regiments) remains loyal to Ernest I, confronting the Chartists, possibly even firing on them. But he reaction to this among the public, and probable mutinies of less-elite units when ordered to fire on crowds eventually leads leading politicians to convince Ernest (in his late 70s IIRC) to step down in favour of his son.

George V's reign is short and full of turmoil. Within Germany, Hannover indeed would be finding itself subsumed within the German Empire. It was ruled by a viceroy during the reign of the Hannoverian kings, often the brother of the king, and in this case its quite possible that its George, son of Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge who is the luckless viceroy at this juncture (being the nephew of King Ernest I).

At the same time, the Americans press their claims in 'Oregon', using IIRC armed settler bands as a kind of shock force, moving in to the land. Their occurs a constitutional revolution in Canada, and together with US claims, Britain is faced with a declaration of Canadian independence. All this occurring whilst some sort of balance is being attempted back home between conservative elements surrounding George V and revolutionary elements who are now in effective control of the country.

At this moment, one imagines that the armed forces are basically sitting back and waiting to see who prevails. Sure, reactionary elements and revolutionary elements alike might make demonstrations of loyalty to one side or other, sometimes even in the form of mililtary actions, but the general staff is not going to initiate an all-out civil war on its own.

The same would go for the navy, and thus essentially Britain's power-projection capabilities are severely reduced just at the moment when overseas crises call upon them. The impasse between George V and the Chartists could reach a head with threats of an immediate US declaration of war, which would not just affect the disputed territory in the Pacific North-West but trans-Atlantic trade and Britain's economic stability, fragile that it is due to internal upheaval.

I portray George V's decision to abdicate as being personal rather than forced. He is in a position he does not want to be in, facing two apparently intractable sides, and dilemmas he has no idea of the solution to. At this moment, stepping down in return for personal guarantees of the life, liberty (and fortune) of himself and his abdicated ailing father might well seem to him to be the best option on a personal basis. Britain has never had a blind king before, and one could well imagine the amount of vitriole that radical newspapers make of this unhappy fact, such things as he cannot see where the country is going, he's too blind to see the future etc.

His abdication takes the succession across to the Cambridge line, with old Adolphus seeming a good temporary filler, someone who can be badgered by the Chartists into signing the necessary legislation into place, and at the same time defusing risk of war with the USA by agreeing to the 54 40 demand and recognising Canadian independence.

Adolphus's son George, now Prince of Wales, appears at this juncture tarnished by his failure to prevent the loss of Hannover's independence. This would be something that the vast amount of British people could not care about at all on a territorial level, but George's role in it would seem important as an indicator of his possible strength of character.

I am basically dealing here with Hannover being seen as a secondary issue beside the potential for all-out civil war within Britain, and though the Hanoverian kings might huff and puff about what is happening there, neither the conservative faction nor the revolutionaries really care enough to want to get involved.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
(6)

Regarding friendly British-German relations, not withstanding commercial and some early colonial rivalry, one could point to the OTL parallel of British-French relations in the same period. There was some suspicion, some rivalry, but no thought that the lifeblood of empire was under threat. This is the 1850s, 60s, 70s not the 1900s; at this time, Britain is not seriously considering a global threat to her trading position.

Thus I see relatively easy co-operation with a German empire that appears to be as liberal as the British have become. There would certainly be universal suffrage, and a focus on free trade, whilst I have tried to reason the development of the German navy to be one focused not on battle squadrons at this time. Granted we are in the heat of naval development in the 1860s, but I would reckon that Germany would have more armoured frigates/cruisers deployed than she would any real strength in guns. Her ironclads would be coastal defence in the Baltic/North Sea, with the only modern state-of-the-art battleships in the Med.

Thus, I don't think Britain is feeling any kind of naval rivalry to be a problem at this time; indeed, the growing number of German cruisers around the world might well reinforce this lack of threat. If Britain is increasing its numbers of ironclads/battleships at a similar, or even slightly lesser, rate then whatever Germany does cannot threaten her position, even if it undermines seriously the position of other European powers.

Basically, I don't think Britain would mind Germany developing as a strong number two with significantly less power than Britain has. In this period that is the best that the German Empire can attain.

- - -

As a curious aside what is the possibility of Frederick, Crown Prince of Germany (after 1861) marrying Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge. He is born 1831, she in 1833. We often forget that Frederick's OTL wife, Queen Victoria's eldest child Victoria was almost ten years his junior. Thus, if he is looking for (or if being looked for him is) a wife, then the sister of King George VI of Britain could be an interesting possibility. I'm not sure how he would have liked it, though !

- - -

I have the highpoint of British-German co-operation be the war against Russia 1872-1874 and the low point be its unsatisfactory (for all parties) ending. Each nation would feel that some other let them down, and where Britain and Germany are concerned this could result in the beginnings of an acrimonious split

Also, if in Britain it results in a reversion of powers to the monarch with regard to the declaration of war, then this would signal a degree of change that progressive factions in Germany would consider dangerous. They might then become wary of their own Crown Prince and his wife, for the opposite reasons than they did their OTL counterparts !

That is if we go with a marriage between Frederick and Mary Adelaide...

- - -

I envisaged the ATL version of OTL's Zanzibar treaty as not being with regard to a colonial possession in such far-off places as East Africa, but perhaps with Germany ceding some sphere of interest or hard-won commercial rights to Britain in return for Heligoland sometime in the 1860s. Perhaps even this is some result of a marriage between Frederick and Mary Adelaide ?

OTL Frederick's marriage to Victoria was in 1858, this being as soon as it was decent, the bride being just 17. OTL also one notes that Mary Adelaide of Cambridge did not marry Francis, Duke of Teck till 1866 when she was 33, and he 29. But in this ATL, the family of Cambridge rises to prominence from the late 1830s as the line next in succession to that of Ernest Augustus, and becomes really important from 1848 with the abdication of George V of the Cumberland line.

Thus from the end of the 1840s Mary Adelaide, whatever her personal traits, would have been someone that monarchs across Protestant Europe would have had note of. I suppose the question that would be raised is why would Frederick not marry someone else earlier ? It may be doubted that he would be anywhere near as smitten by Mary Adelaide as he was by Victoria junior in OTL !

Possibly though the marriage IS mooted and constantly has the British government throw wrenches into the works. Thus, the final caving in of George VI over a declaration of war on the CSA in the US Civil War might be tied in with the government finally giving in over his sister's proposed marriage, and maybe in 1862 or thereabouts Mary Adelaide is free to marry Frederick of Germany, now Crown Prince after his father's accession to the liberal imperial crown in 1861.

- - -

Thus, after 1874 it might be seen that Frederick is at risk of being infected through his wife with George VI's resumption of some parts of the royal perogative in the conservative British backlash at the unsatisfactory outcome of the war with Russia.

Whilst, Wilhelm I and his government go their own way away from the British alliance in the wake of recriminations and worries, Frederick would be in a more difficult position, and the fears of the German press could well be that his accession would signal a return to a more powerful form of monarchy !

Ironic how things can turn about !


Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Disraeli

Regarding Disraeli, one would imagine that AFTER 1848 he is in a better position than many other Tories, since he is not a member of the aristocracy.

He could well even rise to some prominence in the rather smaller opposition to Chartist parliamentary rule, and may even be one of the leaders of a small King's Faction

After the conclusion of the 1874 war, and moves to reasssert some kind of royal perogative, Disraeli may even end up with a shot of being Prime Minister

- - -

Now, all of this depends on his having been able to rise in prominence during Ernest I's reign. If we have Ernest blocking Corn Law reform, then Disraeli's pro-protectionism could well bring him to favour. Ernest was also a strong Orange Protestant, and whilst Disraeli's Young England was not of the same vein, it DID feature a strong Anglican rennaissance at its core, so common ground could be found there IMHO

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I have the highpoint of British-German co-operation be the war against Russia 1872-1874 and the low point be its unsatisfactory (for all parties) ending. Each nation would feel that some other let them down, and where Britain and Germany are concerned this could result in the beginnings of an acrimonious split
IIRC the Russian population of Alaska when the US bought it was 5 ~6,000, mostly fur traders that lived with the Natives.
If the US didn't buy it -- and Germany has Ships in Japan,
Perhaps whe can get a German Alaska, It would only take 3~4 ships, plus the treaty afterwards.
 
Last edited:
IIRC the Russian population of Alaska when the US bought it was 5 ~6,000, mostly fur traders that lived with the Natives.
If the US didn't buy it -- and Germany has Ships in Japan,
Perhaps whe can get a German Alaska, It would only take 3~4 ships, plus the treaty afterwards.

An interesting idea - I will look at Alaska and the trans-oceanic canal tonight and post my thoughts tomorrow (all being well)

Thanks for reading and commenting
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
6.5 (Britain in 1848-50)

Regarding Britain in 1848 I'm thinking that the mechanics of what happens is something along these lines :-

Remember that under the parliamentary system, it is up to the king whom he appoints Prime Minister. Logically he will appoint someone whom he can hope will have the necessary majorities in parliament to pass the laws to govern. But a minority figure can be made Prime Minister if he can gain a working coalition, even on an issue-by-issue basis.

Whilst this system was of course stronger in OTL at the start of the 19th century it was still the basic idea in place behind Ramsey MacDonald leading the National Government at the start of the 1930s, and the appointment of Churchill as Prime Minister in 1940.

Thus, in 1848 with the country aflame, Chartists controlling the streets etc, Ernest I is going to be looking to find someone in parliament who can govern effectively in this crisis. He would be forced to consider leading Whigs, anyone who would be prepared to compromise to work with him. But basically it would fail - the demand on the street is for him to go, his efforts to remain in control are leading the country towards civil war etc. His advisors would eventually advise he abdicate in favour of his son

George V is in no happier position as the basic demand of the Chartists is for immediate electoral reform and elections. He is going to try to steer some sort of middle path using parliament, but parliament by this stage is basically hamstrung. I would imagine that the Chartists have set up parallel organs of government in London and the major cities, perhaps on a local basis but with a coming together in some sort of Chartist Congress.

Eventually, unwilling to carry the burden of responsibility he too abdicates. The Chartists are then faced with an old Adolphus I who gives in to their demands as much as is possible under the parliamentary system. Once electoral reform is carried out, then the Chartists will get their power anyway because they will be in a position to carry through further reforms.

IIRC votes in parliament need a simple majority of those present to be legally binding. One could well imagine that the aristocracy are by and large unable to function in the Lords, the Chartists are out to get them, they dare not come to London, and for those who do, its feasible that the king is forced to create a whole host of lower peers to outnumber them.

In the Commons, Radicals, Whigs and Reform Tories would all know that the only way to avoid open civil war is to vote the electoral reform law through, whilst leading opponents are going to be hounded into not appearing, arrested by citizens militia on trumped-up charges that kind of thing

Once the vote is through the Commons, elections will take place, by the very nature of the situation chaotic, and with the forces of conservatism in a disadvantage. Patronage will break down with many of the leading landowners under siege, under lock and key or simply fled. The Chartists, perhaps many of whom stand as something like 'The Charter Party' would win a significant majority. They would then be in a position to legislate longer-lasting changes

One imagines that the most fundamental of these would be the abolition of the House of Lords or its reform into some kind of regional senate based loosely on the American system, but with its powers greatly curtailed.

Getting a working parliament again, getting the people off the streets, getting respect for the legal government back, making compromises and peace with opponents so as to reduce tension, and getting their electoral reforms carried through to completion is all likely to take the whole of the rest of the 1848-50 period.

Thus upon Adolphus I's death and with the accession of George VI, parliamentary democracy is back on course, and the more extreme demands of the Chartists have been mitigated by circumstances. There are for example still aristocrats, still major landowners, but their power has been legislated away - they no longer have voting rights in the Lords, and they no longer control seats in the Commons by patronage. They do ironically, have equal rights to sit in whatever reformed emasculated upper house comes into being, and they do have money and position that could be used directly in electoral matters. They also remain in positions of importance in the economy, and able to use their money for industry and trade. Basically, the aristocracy will continue to exist, but more on an 'American' basis in that money breeds influence and breeds more money.

The scene is then set for the 1850s, where George VI exerts the rights remaining to the monarch, and where struggle between parliament and monarchy is the name of the game. He is not so much trying to undo the changes to date, but to remain in control after them.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
7

Regarding the form of government in Mexico, it comes down to whether we are looking at an autocracy in the long-run or some kind of pseudo-constitutional empire. Personally, I feel that the latter would be the more likely to develop, though the power of the head of state remains paramount.

In looking at parallels, we could see something initially along the lines of the early Second (French) Empire, or even Nazi Germany, where there IS a legislature but its deliberations have little legal effect and which mainly serves as a platform for the head of state's policies and speeches.

In time this may develop into something more closer to Wilhelmine Germany, where there is a balance between the powers but the head of state has the ultimate say, not least because the government/ministry he chooses does not have to be drawn from the legislature or reflect the make-up of the legislature in any way.

We could perhaps posit three distinct periods in Mexican constitutional history up to the 1870s, a first more autocratic period which lasts from the formation of empire at the start of the 1820s to the Texan War in 1835, then a transitional phase from 1835 through to the end of the US Civil War. This latter would include in it the Second Mexican War (with the USA), the Spanish-Mexican War and Mexican alliance with the Union, and could well end at the death of Agustin II from natural causes. The third phase would then be the one analogous to Wilhelmine Germany and be in place from, the mid 1860s onwards

1848 does not specifically affect Mexico, the revolutions and great changes being confined in their primary sense to Europe. There is of course the knock-on from this, the US ultimatum over Oregon, and the independence of Canada, but these affect Mexico directly in only minor ways. Of more import to Mexico is the gold strike of c1849 and the ensuing crisis with the USA over settler rights, ultimately leading to war, and to fighting to control losses rather than to emerge victorious.

Agustin I's death puts the seal somewhat on this period, and the reign of his eldest son would see a rapprochement with the USA, and a refreshing in Mexico's power, a move away from the losses of the war which culminates in the Spanish-Mexican War whilst the USA is busy in its civil war. This rennaissance could be seen to take the place of any far-reaching cnostitutional reforms, and whilst this period is one of transition, the balance between forces would swing to and fro as dictated by events.

Only with the end of the US civil war and the death of Agustin II would the balance swing that degree further towards constitutionalism that Mexico becomes an analogue of Wilhelmine Germany in how the relationship between assembly and monarch is governed.

- - -

Regarding the Russian sale of Alaska, I really don't see the Mexico option as being realistic, mainly for two reasons

-1- I am dubious that Mexico could raise funds dedicated to such a purpose without descending into internal conflict

-2- I don't see how Mexico could take possession of Alaska against the wishes of the USA who would vehemently oppose any such move and, even at the risk of war with Russia, seek to forestall it by intervention themselves

Whilst I am attracted by the possibilities inherent in a German purchase of the province I feel that similar objections would occur.

Sure, the German Empire would have ships in the Far East but these would be of the armoured frigate and cruiser kind, enough to support commerce and foreign policy against native regimes, but not to challenge navally in the face of determined opposition.

In addition, whilst the Reichstag could be expected to support German overseas adventures aimed at securing markets, spheres of influence, allies and even vassals, this is the period up to the mid 1870s that we are looking at and I cannot see it voting funds to buy a province at the ends of the Earth for which no one can see any particular value (had anyone been able to, Russia would not have sold it)

I can though imagine that Russia would not want to sell to the USA, America replacing in this equation the OTL position of Britain as someone who would just become TOO large in acquiring the province.

The natural solution as far as I can see is to sell Alaska to Canada, a neutral independent whose centre of gravity is way away in the East and who can never mount a serious military threat. In fact Canada will be hard-pressed to do anything with Alaska except take formal possession of it, but by virtue of being a partner to the USA could expect the USA not to intervene in any such transaction in this period

As for finance, Canada would simply borrow the money. The purchase makes more sense on territorial grounds than it does for any of the other potential purchasers and the Canadian legislature will be more positive in response.

Will it make a difference who the creditor nation is ? If this sale occurs in the aftermath of the 1872-74 war which seems as if it would make most sense in this timeline, then the most logical creditor would be the USA itself, as Germany and Britain are both coming out of a war. The alternative would be France...

- - -

The history of the trans-oceanic canal in this timeline is going to be tied up with the history of Mexico's relationship with Central America

I made some suggestions in Part 2 and its now time to firm these up into 'canon' and to make any alterations or embellishments needed for the viability of the timeline

I have Mexico's main attention pre-1822 in beng to hold onto the majority of power over Central America in the face of decentralising tendencies. Since the allegiance of these areas depends on the acquiescence of the ruling classes and on the political power of the Imperialists among them, Mexico's hold is never going to be as strong as it is within the main body of the empire.

Thus I see a series of troubles, and that when Mexico is forced to concede Texan autonomy under US guarantee after the 1835 war with the USA, the Central American provinces, following defined legalistic channels break away to form the UPCA, perhaps initially under token Mexican suzerainty but de facto independent

Crisis in the Yucatan and secessionist tendencies there provides the line in the sand for Agustin I - he will accept Central America's loss but not that of the Yucatan, so Mexico fights hard and uncompromisingly to maintain their rule there, and succeeds, helped not least by skilled veterans of the war with the USA

Mexico then has to deal with a series of crises from Yucatan through California to war with the USA in the early 1850s. In this period, the UPCA will be developing its own independent identity, and at the same time I have posited that Ernest I's government pre-1848 would foster greater development of Britain's colony of Belize and protectorate of Miskitia (Mosquito Coast)

The chaos in British international relations in 1848 might actually aid its position in Central America if the USA agrees to recognise and accept Britain's paramouncy in both Belize and Miskitia as part of the deal ceding Oregon and Canada, the one to the USA, the other to independence. For the USA such a deal would have the advantage of potentially throwing a spanner in the works of any potential Mexican revanchement, which would be seen as the greatest danger in Central America at that time

However, the outcome of the Second Mexican War and the aftershock of 1848 for Europe could well be that for most of the ensuing 1850s the UPCA is left alone to collapse in upon itself. Only a young and thrusting German presence would be making itself felt, but as a newcomer to the area it might make commercial gains but will not affect the strategic outlook immediately.

Mexico sees the death of Agustin I, the accession of Agustin II and a rearmament that eventually leads to the Spanish-Mexican War. The USA sees increasing internal conflicts that eventually lead to the US Civil War. Britain is struggling to come to terms with its internal changes, and then struggling to achieve a workable balance between King George VI and the Chartist government. France's 2nd republic lurches from one crisis to the next.

Thus, I see the UPCA ironically being given time to create its own problems. I envision Spain getting involved in these, partly because it never really accepted its loss of control in the Americas, and partly because a new foothold would give it additional economic and strategic leverage. One thus imagines a secessionist area like Costa Rica enlisting Spanish support (the Devil it knows) and Mexico increasingly supporting a weakened central authority - thus leading to the Spanish-Mexican War at the end of the decade

We could thus see Germany hanging on the coat-tails of Mexico's victory, supporting the centralising authority in the UPCA with both commercial and some military aid, and laying a foundation at the start of the 1860s for a later greater involvement

- - -

The idea of a trans-oceanic canal may well have been mooted, but it won't be until the success of the Suez Canal has been achieved that anything serious would be done.

In this ATL I have Suez start out as a dream of the Second (French) Republic but be carried forward as a flagship project of the restored Orleans monarchy, completng roundabout where it did in OTL and opennn with a magnificent ceremony attended by the Ottoman Emperor and the heads of state or their senior representatives of all major powers

This would certainly make an impression across the Atlantic, coming at the end of the 1860s and perhaps seeming to herald a new era of engineering and technological marvels.

Mexico could well be beginning to enjoy something of an economic boom, a decade after the end of its last involvement in war, and that a victorious one, half a decade after the death of Agustin II and the accession of Agustin III bringing about some liberalisation of the constitution, and in the light of German ventures in Central America probably some liberalisation in the economy and joint ventures with German companies

Thus the initial canal proect could be a speculative German-Mexican investigation as to where best to build it. In OTL this kind of thing went on for more or less the whole of the 1870s. Here I don't suggest any such length, but the investigation would include such in-depth geographical surveys, including across Miskitia, the UPCA and Gran Colombia's Panama province that it will take a few years at least to be sure where best to undertake this colossal project

And in the meantime, what might indeed be termed a European War of the Triple Alliance has taken place, 1872-1874, Britain, Germany and the Ottoman Empire against Russia. Many factors, including the Indian Mutiny, mitigate a war to the death and the outcome is a compromise which suits no sides. What it has done though is to distract and draw off all participants for a few years, and then leave them aggrieved and looking to achieve something elsewhere after the end of the war

Agustin III may well want to build the canal across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec but without superior German engineering and foreign finance this is going to be an impossibility. The geographical studies will have meanwhile reported back that the Miskitia/Nicaragua route through the lakes is the easiest to realise, but beset by potential political problems as it includes two different political jurisdictions

By this time Britain will have increased its hold on Miskitia and the Miskit king is now very much a vassal, rather than the ruler of a protectorate. Greytown (or its ATL equivalent by name if it is assumed that Ernest I's rule never sees much of Grey) has developed into a formibade British naval base, perhaps drawing off some of the OTL developments of Kingston, Jamaica.

The Nicaragua Canal cannot be built without British involvement. At this time Britain is experiencing something of a mild conservative backlash, the recent Russian war having being entered into by parliament without reference to the king, and now the question of the royal perogative having become an electoral one on the unsatisfactory outcome of the war. It is even possible that Disraeli might end up, possibly briefly, as Prime Minister in 1875

I can see the conservatives needing to prove themselves in a positive light - it is all very well to say that the previous government did everything wrong, but you need to do something successful in order to seem to prove the point. Involvement in a major commercial/capital venture would seem an attractive option - it does not require military force, and it is linked to a positive national image, as France achieved with the successful completion of the Suez Canal

Thus, I can expect British support for Mexico's plans for a Nicaragua Canal, government and commercial loans and a high degree of involvement

This of course will not please Germany, already alienated from Britain by the damp squib of an ending to the 1872-74 war with Russia and now seeing Britain take over its place in Mexico's canal plans

Here, I do very much like the idea of competing trans-oceanic canals. The only viable alternative site is ofcourse Panama, and gaining Gran Colombia's acquiescence would mainly be a matter of finance and effect - Germany pays and Gran Colombia benefits.

The question then comes down to whether the USA gets involved ? I cannot see France as getting involved in either the British or the German project, and probably in Paris they excuse this inactivity by immersing themselves in Ottoman and Egyptian projects.

Does the USA enter as a partner of Germany ? I cannot see an overbearing strategic need for them to do so. The sale by Russia of Alaska to Canada would occur at this time, and US banks would be helping to finance their friend acquiring the province, but at this stage it has no larger knock-ons. It might well come down to a question of where and whether the USA can make an impact, rather than one of rivalries and enemies

Whilst still remaining on friendly terms with Britain and Mexico, the USA could take the position that the only place that its money will work to any advantage in terms of a trans-oceanic canal is if it buys into the German venture. This would be a commercial rather than a political decision.

The president may in fact be someone who has gained financially from the c1858-1862 US Civil War, someone whose businesses profitted greatly and a decade later was able to finance a presidential run for 1874. I don't know who I am suggesting here, maybe readers have suggestions ?

But I am suggesting that he is a businessman rather than a war hero/veteran, and he sees US interests as first and foremost being represented in commercial involvement.

It could also be a good time to foster good relations with Germany. Coming out of the Russia war, Germany is very . . . jumpy might be the best word. Things did not go according to plan in the war, bitterness with its allies abounds, and now Britain is seeing something of a conservative backlash that the Reichstag, noting that the Crown Prince is married to King George VI's sister fears might be on the cards for them also.

Germany thus may well welcome with open arms even a tentative half-hearted American overture, and thus by the late 1870s we would have two rival canal ventures, one Anglo-Mexican in Miskitia/Nicaragua and one German-American in Gran Colombian Panama

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
8

I suppose this is a post of questions. Partly its spurred by my knowing that I have taken people's suggestions, thrown them up in the air and had them come down really rather differently than people suggested. But mainly the questions arise because there are areas I have not yet focused on :-

-1- If Mexico in the late 1850s war with Spain ONLY takes Cuba, what then would be the development of Puerto Rico if it remains under Spanish control ? IIRC no revolution occurred there in OTL and Spanish rule was reasonably settled until the US conquest. Would this then provide the now constitutional Carlist monarchy with a Caribbean base to be able to play some sort of great power politics from in the latter 19th century ?

-2- Reiterating others' questions, but now stating that my previous 7 posts have, I hope, established what is 'canon' here, what kind of Reconstruction has most likely occurred in the ex-CSA/Texas of this ATL ? Was there a general proclamation of emancipation for the slaves (note how rather late in the day Lincoln delivered one in OTL and how narrow its confines were) ? What are the potential other ways to solve these issues going forward ?

-3- Is it INEVITABLE that the destruction of the East India Company and the end of the Mughal Emperor's independent existence will result in an Empire of India for the British king ? I rather got the feeling that Victoria in OTL was thrilled about how it all turned out, indicating that it was never a foregone conclusion that she would end up Empress. I was envisaging some resentment on George VI's part that the disolution of de jure but never de factor Mughal rule does not result in his becoming an Emperor. What, then, would a reformed British administration in India be like ?

-4- Does the 1872-74 war result in Russia moving to emancipate the serfs ? And if it does, does it do it exactly as per OTL ? Do OTL Aleksandr II's small-scale constitutional plans have a better chance of a look-in here ?

-5- What of France ? Can it develop a hegemony in Ottoman and Egyptian territories/spheres or will soon Britain and Germany (which through Istria and Carniola has a Med fleet) interfere significantly ? Or will growing Anglo-German rivalry in the late 1870s over rival trans-oceanic canal projects leave something of a vacuum that France can quietly exploit ?


Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Top