Claws of The Eagle

-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 ?

Geographically, I suppose so, but what is the value to Spain of the Caribbean possession? Presitge, obviously, but there's little in the way of "access to markets" that most imperialists sought. Perhaps they sell the island to someone to focus elsewhere. This seems the smart play for a truly canny Spain looking to become power-political in the late 19th century. Focus on the Philipinnes, maybe occupy Formosa and trade with China will Britain is bogged down in India?

-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 ?

Firstly, your dates for an alternate Civil War make that war's history much more interesting (below you suggest 1858-1862), since they divorce the war from Presidential elections and would include a war time election. Let's say your casus belli for the Civil War is some combination of an extended bleeding Kansas and an earlier raid on Harper's Ferry, fueled by the ferevent desire to find lebensraum for the peculiar institution. The South is more sensitive to attacks on slavery since they have less land in which to expand, so they declare that since the Federal Government will not take it upon themselves to protect the South, the South will take matters into its own hands. This South secedes as a block, led by Virginia and South Carolina, rather than South Carolina alone. West Virginia may not counter-secede in this case, since to do so would be the same treason just defeated at Harper's Ferry.

Under a President like Buchanan (let's say it's him for the sake of convienence), the South gets ample time to puts its affairs in order after secession. Rather than blame poor generals, the public blames him for the poor conduct of the war. He may even by successfully impeached. Let's say that Lincoln still manages to become the Republican nominee (this is far from certain since Seward was better known and more popular, but rejected for being to extreme, not the same kind of concern in the middle of the war).

A President Lincoln whose election has not caused the wide-spread revolt of slave-holding states will take a far different outloook on the war. IOTL, Lincoln resisted from emancipation because he beleived that Southern Unionists would be a more effective 5th Column. ITTL, President Lincoln will be elected by the Republicans running on a platform to win the war. They only manage to win against democrat doves by running on a campaign to make the war about ending the evil of slavery. (This may be a stretch, but we need something to make the contest of 1860 interesting.) This position is also part of President Lincoln's plan to bring foreign allies into the war, which has been going quite badly for the north, suffering from invasions and secession of Maryland in 1859; maybe even Kentucky and Missouri in response to Lincoln's election. Buchanan would not endorse the same means Lincoln had to use to keep these states in the Union.

Lincoln's Republican party is thus more radical than OTL. Reconstruction would probably also be more radical, though still tempered by Lincoln's outlook. This probably extends to a debate between the ultra-radicals like Thaddeus Stevens and Lincoln over "war-guilt" ammendments to the constitution which would perpetually punish Southern states (by removing or reducing their senate representation, for example, or by carving them up into new states, or by forever disenfranchising all those who fought in the rebellion). Lincoln manages to defeat these, but the Civil War Ammendments of TTL may go even further in increasing the preemience of the Federal Government in enforcing the rights of slaves. Jeff Davis and Robert E. Lee may even find themselves hanged on the National Mall as a warning to all "Traitors against Justice." (Maybe this is what Lincoln must concede in his fight with the ultra-Radicals). Lincoln's struggle in TTL will be to concede the need to grant blacks eventual civil rights; he will demand a strong Freedman's Bureau to educate them for this purpose. The South's resentment of the use of foreign invaders entrenches Reconstruction for a longer time. (American AHers of TTL have all sorts of theories about the Civil War without Britain and Mexico).

As an elder statesman (the increased vigiliance of Reconstruction keeps him from being assassinated) Lincoln begins to agitate for workers' rights under the TTL 14th Ammendment and for an end to "militant" Reconstruction. The Union must become whole and strong to resist foreign powers, he beleives. I always like Lincoln's antics as a elder statesman. He probably writes an awesome autobiography. Maybe he can become Cheif Justice a few years after his presidency. Think of all the cool opinions. In any case, a Lincoln Court would retain the spirit of Reconstruction as new birth of Liberty, rather than using anti-trust laws to block unions.

Even with this Radical Reconstruction, the Transcontinental RR is built and the Homestead Act is passed. Perhaps the efforts of the Freedman's Bureau result in staving off the development of sharecropping and a more quickly industrialized South; alternatively, the Bureau's efforts may keep former slaves as something like peons since "they still need to educated." I doubt this would persit long under Justice Lincoln, however.

Again, I offer the above as a potential. The question of a Presidential election in the middle of the Civil war and a casus belli that's not a presidential campaign still need to answered. Also, the TL described above has mixed results for the respective powers of the Presidency and Congress. On the one hand, President Buchanan is impeached, but his Vice-President OTL was John Breckinridge and as acting President he proved TTL worse than Buchanan; his home state seceded out from under him in the last month of his term. Congress only refrained from impeaching him, because he only took office in December 1859, with 18 months to serve. During those 18 months, however, Congress took on more power than it held OTL. Lincoln's Presidency did much to restore the powers of his office, but Congress gained much from the crisis of 1859.

-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 ?[quote/]

I suppose Britain could chose to reform by setting up a colonial government. When Australia or Canada OTL had such governments (true, this one would not be representative, self-rule), the British monarch did not assume new titles. The more divided nature of TTL Britain and the increased power of the monarch may present qualms about granting him the grandiose title of Emperor of India. Although IIRC a conservative government will probably preside over the reforms to India, so perhaps the "King-Emperor" is their way of reinforcing the power of the monarch over foreign policy.

I do wonder what Britain will do vis-a-vis its settler colonies (presumably still Australia and New Zealand, though I haven't heard anything about South Africa). There will of course be pressure at some point for home rule, but Britain may react differently without the expereince of Canda. Even so, granting these colonies combined home rule may not lead to development of "Dominion" status since the settler colonies will be relatively close together. They may not be nearly as independent as OTL Dominions grew to be. If Germany is active in the East, with growing Anglo-German rivalry, Australians, New Zealanders, and South Africans, may be loyal subjects, fighiting for the King-Emperor.

-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 ?

I would guess so. OTL Nicholas II conceded greater reforms after defeat in the Russo-Japanese War. If anything, a defeat at the hands of Britian may produce more orderly reform. Being defeated by the Japanese was humiliating in 1905 because they weren't European. At least failing against the British and Germans, the Russians had lost to the most powerful states in Europe. The Czar will want reform to better compete, but may not face popular uprising because of such a failure. The reforms may even be more successful than OTL, though Russia will probably resemble OTL Wilhemine Germany/ATL Mexico. True Liberalism a la Germany, Britain, or America will remain unthinkable.

They're may still be more potential in Alaska. The Canadians are the obvious choice, I agree. But I would see a potential healthy cooperative relationship between Mexico and Russia, given the resemblance of their governments. However, you seem to suggest cooperation between Britain and Mexico in the Great Canal Game. (I'm happy you liked the idea of competing canals). Nonetheless, it does seem to me that the Pacific may beckon with a Mexican Manifest Destiny if the Caribbean is to constrained by intervening Great Powers and the USA.

-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 ?

In Egypt, I imagine Britain would still have all sorts of interests in maintaining its route to India and the Australian Colonies, but even the British Lion only has so much time. I would expect them to do better in West Africa and beyond, since those areas will see the quickest lag in British response if the canal in Mexico proceeds apace.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Overall, I quite like the shape your ideas, Grey Wolf. I do wonder, however, at the shape of American ideas about isolationism given the greater role of foreign powers in American history. The Monroe Doctrine seems to die a quiet death of yellow fever in your proposed Canal Escapades, but the outline of the story seems quite reasonable.

I still wonder how Canada and the USA are different. Maybe there's some crazy folk like myself who wander around Washington and Ottawa talking about the advantages of a "New Act of Union" between the two sister American Republics. The aquisition of Alaska, however, does make Canda a transcontiental power. I'm not sure this dampens the appeal of a Pan-North American. Since Canada would include Pacific interests, they would not object per se to the same interests of the US. Perhaps the slowth growth of an permanent alliance and integrated command structures would suffice, however. A Canada including a strong Quebecois element will probably resist US integration, since Quebecois influence would so radically decrease.

As a potential Tycoon for your US canal, what about a US Grant who was drummed out of the Army for drunken disorderly conduct (and losing Kentucky)? He finds something to cure him of his alcoholism and builds Standard Foods of North America. Building on his experience as a dry goods clerk, he uses combined RR interest (as OTL Rockefeller did oil) during the war to supply Union troops. He then expands operations by developed mechanized threshers and irrigation supplies. His interests span Canada and the US, and include a growing tropical fruit empire in Central America. Upon his death, he creates a scholarship program to unite the Republican students of North America.

I think the question is the degree of antipathy between Canada and Mexico. The antagonism between the US and Mexico seems self-evident, but is Canada equally disturbed by the New World Monarchy? Or is sentiment in Canada something like: O Blessed Canada, So Near to God, So Far from Mexico, So Sheltered by the USA?

Best of luck on salvaging your computer,
Nicomacheus.
 
Last edited:
About the Mexican/American Border in California, I would suggest the coast ranges south of Montererey. Monterey was the Spanish capital of Alta California, and OTL Mexico (I assume that would still be true of ATL Mexico?). I think the Mexican goverement would want to hold onto it, so giving America the Central Valley may be exceptable. The Southern part of the Border woul be the Tehachapi MTs and then up to the New Mexican border.. My other suggestion is continuing the OTL border of New Mexico (the nort hone that is) or a bordar close to it all along California, but that would divide the Central Valley.
 
About the Mexican/American Border in California, I would suggest the coast ranges south of Montererey. Monterey was the Spanish capital of Alta California, and OTL Mexico (I assume that would still be true of ATL Mexico?). I think the Mexican goverement would want to hold onto it, so giving America the Central Valley may be exceptable. The Southern part of the Border woul be the Tehachapi MTs and then up to the New Mexican border.. My other suggestion is continuing the OTL border of New Mexico (the nort hone that is) or a bordar close to it all along California, but that would divide the Central Valley.

Thank you - I will look into this when I get home and have a map. So far I had gotten as far as thinking that the USA has to have San Francisco and Mexico retains San Diego and that the border is somewhere betwixt the two. If what you say fits this perfectly, I'd be very happy to along with it :)

There is a note of course (not connected with the above), about the viability of a transcontinental railroad since Mexico holds onto the New Mexico Territory. However, since 54 40 was achieved the actual dynamics of the US West coast are skewed Northwards anyway, so I wonder if there is a possibility of building the route to somewhere like Astoria/Portland, that part ?

Best Regards
Grye Wolf
 
There may now be something of a hiatus unless I can fix the problems I have caused my computer this morning !

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=78328

If anyone has any suggestions or help please let me know !

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

I have reformatted and reinstalled Windows XP, except now its telling me to "Activate Windows" and saying I only 29 days to do so ! Not sure what it means, and not sure what happens after 29 days if I don't !

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Geographically, I suppose so, but what is the value to Spain of the Caribbean possession? Prestige, obviously, but there's little in the way of "access to markets" that most imperialists sought. Perhaps they sell the island to someone to focus elsewhere. This seems the smart play for a truly canny Spain looking to become power-political in the late 19th century. Focus on the Philipinnes, maybe occupy Formosa and trade with China will Britain is bogged down in India?

I wonder if its possible for Spain to sell Puerto Rico to someone like Gran Colombia or Venezuela ? I don't fancy them giving it to another European power, and the USA after a victorious civil war might well reinforce that part of the rather stilted Monroe Doctrine

The idea of Mexico in the Pacific also makes sense, and I'm wondering whether we can get a Mexican protectorate over Hawaii perhaps ?

Everything else I am going to take home and study in detail, then respond to in detail. Thank you very much for it all !

I will post the couple of bits I wrote last night, but they will possibly change in the light of my digestion of your thoughts :)

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
9 - Thoughts into the 1870s

Just spent the past 3 1/2 hours reinstalling programs and finding data files for the computer I fucked up this morning. Am just a little annoyed with myself, would like to behead myself and feed the head to the sharks...but one must adopt a positive attitude, and I suppose it teaches me not to be FUCKING STUPID ! Not to change things I don't understand and lock myself out of my own computer...damn they're weird things !

---------------

From the late 1870s onwards

I very much like the idea of having both competing canal projects come to fruition - financially and physically there is no reason why not. The Panama project has German-American finance and can overcome the horrendous geography, whilst the Mexican-British one would be plodding along nicely, though probably bringing with it full Miskit subjugation to the British - though in OTL they had to do this to the Nicaraguans, so its probably no great problem comparatively speaking

One has to consider Europe at this time, and one finds that in the wake of the 1872-74 war, German-French relations are at a high ebb, as Germany basically abandoned its more grandiose hopes in Italy in return for French guarantees of what they already had. Britain, which steps in to save the South, would see this as another German betrayal on top of the two-way misunderstandings leading to compromise that have ended the war with Russia

The situation in the Caribbean is only serving to exacerbate this

The mid 1870s would thus be the ideal period for the liberal German Empire to begin to look seriously for colonies of its own. Previously in the 1860s Germany has given up some spheres of influence, commercial pre-eminences in order to get Heligoland from Britain, at the time of Crown Prince Frederick's marriage to Mary Adelaide. These lost interests are probably in either, or both, Southern Africa or South America - to make things somewhat different from OTL, perhaps they see Germany relinquish protection over German settlers in Southern Chile after the defeat of the Mapuche. Britain would thus take over this role...

One could remark that in this period Spain is probably undergoing a mild rennaissance under its liberal Carlist king. With Cuba, and probably Puerto Rico, lost almost two decades ago, the new regime would have a three-fold focus - 1. South America, 2. the Pacific, and 3. Africa. I do not foresee any corollary to the birdshit war with Peru of OTL, but I do see Spain positioning cruisers off the Western coast of South America, especially after Britain takes over German interests in Araucania

But mainly one would be looking at Spanish actions in the North Pacific, and in Africa. Belgian colonialism of OTL was something of an aberration, and owed a lot to the confused situation between the other powers in Central Africa. If Spain focuses its attention earlier on the Congo coast, and allies to Portugal in so doing, then the opportunity for an interloper to jump in is more limited. In addition, in OTL Leopold I of Belgium gained by association from being Victoria's uncle, his son Leopold II her cousin, but here neither are anywhere near as close to the Cambridge line as they were to the Kent line.

George VI probably still had time for Leopold I, but would view Leopold II in an increasingly negative mode. The liberal German Empire would probably see the Reichstag have similar feelings, whilst Philippe VII of France would not want to encourage greatness in such a historically minor neighbour.

I could thus see the late 1870s and early 1880s seeing a very different battle over the Congo. As per OTL, Germany may well step into fairly established secondary power's shoes, such as that of the Arabs in East Africa, especially if everyone else is focusing on the Western entrance.

This is all running parallel to the Twin Canals, and one would expect it is seeing German cruiser squadrons deployed around the world - unless directly challenged at sea or meeting overwhelming odds on land they are sufficient to defeat any potential local rival...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Just spent the past 3 1/2 hours reinstalling programs and finding data files for the computer I fucked up this morning. Am just a little annoyed with myself, would like to behead myself and feed the head to the sharks...but one must adopt a positive attitude, and I suppose it teaches me not to be FUCKING STUPID ! Not to change things I don't understand and lock myself out of my own computer...damn they're weird things !


Don't feel too bad. The darn things aren't as smart as they should be. Who cares how fast it is, with all those brains it should be able to tell me how not to mess it up!

I very much like the idea of having both competing canal projects come to fruition - financially and physically there is no reason why not. The Panama project has German-American finance and can overcome the horrendous geography, whilst the Mexican-British one would be plodding along nicely, though probably bringing with it full Miskit subjugation to the British - though in OTL they had to do this to the Nicaraguans, so its probably no great problem comparatively speaking
I'm glad you like the idea. I wonder what kind of medical advances will accompany the efforts. TTL, 4 great powers will advance a substantial sum of money in the effort. Better understanding of tropical disease would also have far reaching impacts on European colonization in Africa, particularly a Spanish Congo which you later postulate.

One has to consider Europe at this time, and one finds that in the wake of the 1872-74 war, German-French relations are at a high ebb, as Germany basically abandoned its more grandiose hopes in Italy in return for French guarantees of what they already had. Britain, which steps in to save the South, would see this as another German betrayal on top of the two-way misunderstandings leading to compromise that have ended the war with Russia
I think I'm confused: does Britain step in to aid the South or the North. Previously, I thought it was the latter: that the newly democratic Parliament wanted to crusade against slavery. If Britain does act to recognize the CSA, things will indeed be harder for the US. Although an independent Canada means that British entry simply makes the naval blockade questionable, rather than threaten a war on two fronts. So I guess it's not really the end of the world nor much of a problem for the US.

I could still see at TL such as I outlined above playing out, with Lincoln coming to power to make the war about slavery. Such an action might also put a serious damper on Canadian feelings about Britain, since they presumably are involved in the contest as well. Foreign opposition will probably add weight to a war party, so I'd probably have Britain wait until ~1860 to get involved. If additional border states do secede around the time Lincoln comes into office, or just before, then that might spur British recognition. This also leaves Lincoln with a good amount of domestic trouble at home and ample political struggles.

The situation in the Caribbean is only serving to exacerbate this

The mid 1870s would thus be the ideal period for the liberal German Empire to begin to look seriously for colonies of its own. Previously in the 1860s Germany has given up some spheres of influence, commercial pre-eminences in order to get Heligoland from Britain, at the time of Crown Prince Frederick's marriage to Mary Adelaide. These lost interests are probably in either, or both, Southern Africa or South America - to make things somewhat different from OTL, perhaps they see Germany relinquish protection over German settlers in Southern Chile after the defeat of the Mapuche. Britain would thus take over this role...
OTL, overseas colonies was a part of Wilhelmine Germany's search for a place in the sun alongside Great Britain. It was an issue of prestige, which Bismark thought ill-advised. I can't remember if Bismark is influential in your Germany--been reading too many 19th century TLs--but his point would find even greater voice in a more liberal Germany. Canal participation is a different matter, since it would allow naval bases and the like. A colonialism focused on acquiring bases for a world wide navy and perhaps for access to the Far East, would probably be what Germany might do. Africa doesn't seem like the best investment.

One could remark that in this period Spain is probably undergoing a mild rennaissance under its liberal Carlist king. With Cuba, and probably Puerto Rico, lost almost two decades ago, the new regime would have a three-fold focus - 1. South America, 2. the Pacific, and 3. Africa. I do not foresee any corollary to the birdshit war with Peru of OTL, but I do see Spain positioning cruisers off the Western coast of South America, especially after Britain takes over German interests in Araucania

But mainly one would be looking at Spanish actions in the North Pacific, and in Africa. Belgian colonialism of OTL was something of an aberration, and owed a lot to the confused situation between the other powers in Central Africa. If Spain focuses its attention earlier on the Congo coast, and allies to Portugal in so doing, then the opportunity for an interloper to jump in is more limited. In addition, in OTL Leopold I of Belgium gained by association from being Victoria's uncle, his son Leopold II her cousin, but here neither are anywhere near as close to the Cambridge line as they were to the Kent line.

George VI probably still had time for Leopold I, but would view Leopold II in an increasingly negative mode. The liberal German Empire would probably see the Reichstag have similar feelings, whilst Philippe VII of France would not want to encourage greatness in such a historically minor neighbour.

I could thus see the late 1870s and early 1880s seeing a very different battle over the Congo. As per OTL, Germany may well step into fairly established secondary power's shoes, such as that of the Arabs in East Africa, especially if everyone else is focusing on the Western entrance.

This is all running parallel to the Twin Canals, and one would expect it is seeing German cruiser squadrons deployed around the world - unless directly challenged at sea or meeting overwhelming odds on land they are sufficient to defeat any potential local rival...
I like all of the above. My only question is this: does it lead to war or is this TTL's version of the Great Game of UK/Russia?

I wonder if its possible for Spain to sell Puerto Rico to someone like Gran Colombia or Venezuela ? I don't fancy them giving it to another European power, and the USA after a victorious civil war might well reinforce that part of the rather stilted Monroe Doctrine
The US is always a possibility. Also, if the US is victorious in the Civil War while at the same time fighting Britain, do they insist on any territorial compensation (the Bahamas, Bermuda, Jamaica?). Perhaps, Newfoundland is freed pending a plebiscite on joining Canada, the US, or gaining independence? I'd expect that the UK conceding the re-absorption of the CSA is probably enough, and the US would rather have an indemnity in any case given the demands of fighting the war.

I wonder if with Britain involved, the war might be longer, say from 1858 to 1863/4? If the war is over in early 1864, Lincoln might chose to do a Polk and step down after accomplishing all his platform (wining the war). This makes Reconstruction somewhat harder to manage, but might be a reason for Chief Justice Lincoln to come back into national politics. He accepts the post to moderate the Civil War amendments passed by ultra-radicals. Later, he uses them to their fullest on labor issues.

Regarding the actual sale, I'd think if it's difficult for Mexico to buy Alaska then it'd be even harder for Venezuela or Gran Colombia. Does Mexico have access to any gold/silver producing lands in California, Nevada or Colorado? That might give them the wealth to buy Alaska. In any case, I could see such a sale conforming with something like a Mexican Monroe Doctrine: Mexico also wants to keep the Western Hemisphere free from European entanglements, so it can dominate the remaining states. This could explain Mexican participation on the side of the US in the US Civil War once Britain enters on the side of the South. There would then immense irony when competition between US/Mexico canal projects leads both to bring in European partners. US/Mexican competition would then mirror UK/German competition. There would also be immense irony to the reader that Mexico had its own version of Yanqui Imperialism.

Am I right that the US does at some point fight a short war with Mexico for the northern bits of the OTL Mexican Cession? If so, Mexico shows a substantial amount of restraint in a decade(s) later helping it's main rival stave off political disaster in the Civil War. I would imagine the Mexican Empire might be substantially more stable than OTL Mexico, since it maintains a strong Central government throughout its history. This government would be autocratic but have a kind of populist bent, just as the absolutist Kings of France in the ancien regime support the people against the nobility: it's anti-slavery and a little anti-clerical to support poor workers/peasants. Russia might learn from this example.
 
Southern ITALY

First to clear up a misunderstanding :-

One has to consider Europe at this time, and one finds that in the wake of the 1872-74 war, German-French relations are at a high ebb, as Germany basically abandoned its more grandiose hopes in Italy in return for French guarantees of what they already had. Britain, which steps in to save the South, would see this as another German betrayal on top of the two-way misunderstandings leading to compromise that have ended the war with Russia

was with reference to the South of ITALY, where Britain initially acted to prevent the North over-running, tho eventually settled for defending Sicily's independence as it was all the force she could spare during the 1872-4 war. Sorry I should have been clearer, especially as Britain does not actually "save the South" long-term anyway !

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
The California border

OK, the Techapi Mountains looks excellent as a border. If you take the line from Point Arguello on the coast, midway through the coastal mountains (so as to include Santa Barbara in Mexico) to the ridges of the Techapi range, and then swing up along the Sierra Nevada to 38 degrees latitude (around Mono Lake).

The border then could be on the 38 degrees line Westwards until it meets the Rocky Mountains, then down Southwards towards the OTL Mexican border though splitting the OTL Westward extension of Texas in half along the Guadeloupe Mountainsn (thus placing El Pasa in Mexico), remembering that the Texas border further South is on the Nueces not the Rio Grande so its unlikely to bulge so far West up here.

This also avoids "OTL Border Syndrome" and though it gives Southern slices of Nevada (including Las Vegas), Utah and a South-Western square of Colorado to Mexico, it also means that the USA ends up with about 50% of the OTL state of New Mexico. It seems more logical to base the Western and Eastern borders of Mexico's Northern extension upon mountain ranges, though this is not really possible with the Northern limit, hence 38 degrees latitude (I think its latitude, yes ?)

Unfortunately my carefully-collected mass of internet maps were among those items lost in the computer disaster, and the atlas I have is too large to go onto the scanner (the scanner is half printer half scanner and sticks up on one side, so I can't position the huge book to overhang both sides so I can get the mid section of the page ontyo the bed). If I can fnid what happened to my tracing paper when I moved flats I will copy it on that, but elsewise I'm waiting till I'm at the library Monday evening for to find new maps I can DL and use.

The only Monterey I could find on my modern map was up by San Francisco which is beyond the specified border and would undoubtedly end up part of the USA. If there was one South of the Techahapi Mountains I apologise for not finding it !

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
US-Mexican Relations in the 1850s

Am I right that the US does at some point fight a short war with Mexico for the northern bits of the OTL Mexican Cession? If so, Mexico shows a substantial amount of restraint in a decade(s) later helping it's main rival stave off political disaster in the Civil War. I would imagine the Mexican Empire might be substantially more stable than OTL Mexico, since it maintains a strong Central government throughout its history. This government would be autocratic but have a kind of populist bent, just as the absolutist Kings of France in the ancien regime support the people against the nobility: it's anti-slavery and a little anti-clerical to support poor workers/peasants. Russia might learn from this example.

You are right that on the surface the timescale looks stange, but the splintering of the USA into Northern and Southern parts has changed the appearance of things

Timescale-wise

1849 California Gold Rush starts
c 1850 US demand rights for miners
c 1851-2 Second Mexican War
- This results in California North of the Techahapi Mtns, New Mexico (sic) North of the 38th Parallel, and East of the Rockies going to the USA.
- It also results in formal independence for Texas, with the Southern border on the Nueces

1858-62(+) US Civil War
- The CSA is in alliance with the Republic of Texas in this war
- Mexico fights a war against Spain 1858-60 and gains Cuba
- 1860 sees British and Mexican alliance with the UNION

The way I see it, Mexico's main enemy is the South in so far as the North cannot per se have any territorial ambitions against it. In addition, the terms of the alliance would see Union recognition both of Mexico's annexation and of the Nueces border (basically the two areas that Mexico is most concerned about)

The victorious Union gains British and Mexican support for annexing Texas as a result of the war.

Texas is probably the only theatre that Mexican troops actually fight in, though perhaps there are sporadic clashes on the Texan EASTERN border with CSA forces late on. In addition, Britain's role is probably primarily naval and advisory, and Mexico could get involved in some joint naval/marine expeditions in the Caribbean etc

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Spain's sale of Puerto Rico in the 1870s

Regarding Gran Colombia or Venezuela I was looking at Spain's sale of Puerto Rico, rather than Russia's sale of Alaska

Do you think that Spain would ask a price for Puerto Rico that was beyong the reach of either Gran Colombia or Venezuela ?

I would imagine that Gran Colombia is gaining economically from the US-German canal project in Panama ? Does this gain come through in terms of increased capital, or is it simply seen in local areas of economic boom ?

My main thought was that if Spain decides to sell Puerto Rico in the 1870s, then its not likely to see it to Mexico (even though their last war was now 15+ years ago, there would be sufficient bad blood remaining for the idea not to be politically possible in Madrid). Since the USA would step in to prevent the purchase by any European power, then we are left with the USA itself, or with another LOCAL power

Of course the USA might be the best bet, especially with a Canal operation in Panama, but I fancied at least exploring the potential of Gran Colombia or Venezuela buying it ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
(10)

Regarding this timeline's US Civil War, were congressional elections at that time still mid-term ? Thus 1858 would be in the middle of a presidency, but with congressional elections as the spark ?

I have to apologise for the complete loss of all my US history files - whilst they clearly made their way ONTO the hard drive from some form of backup, now that I have had to reformat and reinstall, I cannot find that back-up and I never re-backed-up the History section of my hard drive. Thus I am rather talking in the blind here

What I do have is the maps I uploaded to my new website

http://alternatehistoryfiction.0catch.com/usaexpandingborders.html

- - -

One wonders what the effect of potentially incorporated territory in Oregon would have made to elections - would ALL of Oregon from OTL Oregon Territory (with its far Eastward extension) up to 54 40 be one state ? It seems unlikely, and thus one might see a division between North and South Oregon, very large states geographically but sparsely populated at this time.

IIRC there were pretty easy minimums for statehood re population and it really depended on Congress deciding to vote for a change. Could this be involved anyway in the 1856-1858 arguments that eventually lead to civil war ?

IIRC Buchanan was more or less a nobody so what you suggest might well make sense - instead of the president forcing a civil war by his personality, in this case the president would more or less see one develop before him and be unable to stop it.

I do wonder about Fremont tho - OTL was he not the chap who was instrumental in California ? In this ATL he might well have emerged as an important leader during the Second Mexican War of the early 1850s that arises out of the 1849 Gold Rush. Thus by 1856 he may actually be a viable presidential candidate able to achieve victory ?

The result of the Second Mexican War would be to have divided California as previously mentioned, with Los Angeles still in Mexico and the Tehachapi Mountains being the border. It would be viewed as having brought the vast bulk of California into the Union, and the border being based on mountains is probably seen as a sensible one. In other words, no one associated with victory in the West would be tainted by what looks to us like a lesser victory - THEY do not know differently

If we do posit Fremont as the victorious candidate in 1856 we should look at where OTL he got his support, and all of this was in the North. Maryland even went to a third party candidate. Clearly in the ATL of 1856 there are some great differences in the electoral college - no Texas at all as it is independent, but whilst California is smaller its electoral college vote is probably the same.

Maybe the bringing about of statehood for North and South Oregon was associated with a similar drive for Kansas ? This might bring around greater earlier troubles there as suggested, and would also mean that the 1856 election sees three additional states in the electoral college.

Perhaps Fremont owes the balance of votes that elects him solely to the West, to California and the Oregons, and with the South united against him this sets the scene for a 1858 mid-term congressional election schism ?

- - -

I do like the idea of a more co-ordinated Southern secession, led by both South Carolina and Virginia, and bringing in states such as Tennessee, Kentucky and even Maryland, without the historical aberration of West Virginia being created (surrounded on all sides it would be a rebellion only)

If the president, and thus the Union, depends to an ahistorical degree on West coast votes and states this could be very interesting with regard to how the Union response plays out. Across central USA are still territories, largely Indian territory (Utah, Nebraska, Minnesota, perhaps something in OTL Oklahoma).

I find the idea of a 'Northern' president bringing about secession more appealing that a 'Southern' one like Buchanan. Either way, Fremont sees the South seccede, and the Union at first in great difficulties in response

I think the fall of the Federal Territory should be an element of the early years, and one assumes the flight of the Union government - to Philadelphia ? Or could we make it New York in this timeline ?

I also like the ideas for U S Grant, and could see him emerge as a successful commander, perhaps as a counterpoint to failures all around. Lee, who one supposes fought with distinction in this timeline's Second Mexican War, would be leading the CSA, albeit younger but presumably not TOO young to be paramount ?

I do wonder who the Confederacy's political leader is in this period. How powerful was Jefferson Davis in the later 1850s ? One assumes that Buchanan actually has some sort of powerbase, and might be a major figure in the early Confederacy

- - -

Then one is on to 1860, the intervention of Britain and Mexico, and a presidential election. Probably Mexican intervention is mainly directed against the CSA's ally in Texas so that Mexican forces never, or perhaps rarely, engage CS forces in CSA territory. Britain is probably more overt, but the New York Union government would not WANT British TROOPS in North America, but would be very happy at British naval forces aiding the Union, plus British investment, British pioneers behind the lines, British engineers seconded to the Union etc

I would reckon Fremont is rather a lame duck in 1860 - he is revealed as only being able to begin to turn the war by using foreign allies, and his responsibility for the predicament the USA is in would be undeniable.

I wonder whether Seward would be a good bet for the victorious candidate across Union states in 1860 ? He might indicate a greater willingness to work with foreign allies, whilst at the same time be able to motivate the Union to greater efforts. In both he could position himself as the successor to but also the successful alternative to Fremont - ie he advances those policies which help the Union, but he is sufficiently distant from disasters to be able to suggest new policies which mirror old ones, but come at a different time

With no internet at home and with all my US history files destroyed, I have to ask a couple of questions :-

- What state was Seward from ?
- What might Douglas' role be ?
- What might Lincoln's role be ?

- - -

I can certainly see what you mean about a mid-war election in the Union polarising opinion. I would like to propose the above scenario, especially as political parties during the 1850s were in flux. Thus I don't see Seward opposing Fremont as being illogical

If as you say Seward is more extreme, presumably in an emancipation sense, then the mid-war election would have included slavery as a decisive factor. The names of the parties involved are probably changed by rampant butterflies - what was the main pre-Republican faction called, as I imagine Fremont fronts something like this ? Whilst Seward fronts a new entity called the Republicans...

Thus in 1860 Seward is defeating a near ally, but in the fraught circumstances of a civil war this fact goes out the window, and government incompetence, military disaster and ambiguous responses to various things would allow Seward to present Fremont as a danger if left in charge

- - -

Now, I see what you mean by the victorious party being more radical than OTL. I like the idea of Thaddeus Stevens emerging as a major player in the immediate post-war period. The idea of dis-establishing the defeated states is a strong one, but I agree that is likely to be defeated. Maybe Lincoln is Seward's VP in this ATL ? And maybe he is positioning himself for a run at the top job

Thus maybe after 2 Seward administrations Lincoln is in a position to challenge for the presidency, perhaps 1868 is a year where clear-cut political platforms no longer make sense. One would imagine that some of the secret agreements that Seward made with Britain and Mexico have become general knowledge, and though he announces that as per Washington he won't seek a third term the political landscape has been blasted open

- - -

I realise I am going against some of the excellent suggestions hithertofore, but I do feel that Fremont would make a good Lincoln analogue

I also like changes - Fremont, Seward, Seward, Lincoln to me has a lot more potential than starting with Buchanan and playing OTL games

Albeit that I do accept and recognise the suggestions as a viable and GOOD alternate history, just one I will strip the ideas out of but do my own thing over...



Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
11

Looking further into the world, I like the idea of a British colonial government for India. Whilst a precarious (as in first) conservative government might be in power in London, I don't see them risking such a divisive policy as an Imperial crown for George VI

Although pro-monarchist, I think putative Disraeli's administration (if we can allow it to be his) would be mainly concerned with the reassumption of power and the destruction of previous, now failed, power structures. Thus creating India is a colonial government may well make best sense in the 1870s, especially as it would get Opposition support

- - -

Regarding other British colonies I am guessing at a diminution of Afghan and Burma wars, an acceptance of the status quo on those borders and a focus elsewhere

Regarding Southern Africa, I would think that Britain would pursue the war against the Boer despite defeats. But in this ATL I am suggesting they actually win in this period, and that the Boers becomes as per New Zealand and Australia

- - -

I agree that a result of 1872-1874 war may well be Russian emancipation of the serfs. The war has been inconclusive and unsatisfactory for all participantas, but that may make the issue of serfdom easier to deal with in the aftermath as it appears to be unconnected from enemy activity

And yes I don't think Russia will develop too far even if an analgoue of Aleksandr II's constitutional ideas comes into being. The centre won't grant powers it wants to keep for itself

I'm going to run with the Canadian federal republic buying out Alaska, but with the Pacific seeing a Mexican power play, Hawaii especially being included in this

I could certainly see a strain of unification thought between the USA and an independent Canada, but one has to remember that in addition to racial differences there is around 60 years of divergence to consider. The leaders of Canada, even if Anglophone and sympathetic to the USA would still consider the two to be different countries

Sure there would be extremists suggesting a union, but other than some vague idea of Manifest Destiny they would have little in he way of argument to support their stance.

- - -

I really DO like the idea of U S Grant as a tycoon !

Regarding
"O Blessed Canada, So Near to God, So Far from Mexico, So Sheltered by the USA?"
. . . yes probably I think that is the attitude in Ottawa etc


Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
The one near San Frnasisco was the one I was talking about, but thats fine. I like the border you've made it makes sense.
 
The one near San Frnasisco was the one I was talking about, but thats fine. I like the border you've made it makes sense.

Thanks, I found a pretty good map then tried to draw the border on in MS Paint at the library (the only graphics thingy here) but for some bloody stupid reason tho I selected Green, it would only draw in Grey (!!!)

So, I hope you can see the idea of the map. I got a bit angry and wasn't as careful as I would've been if I'd got the colour I wanted, sorry

Oh and it was too small for me to read the latitude numbers so the N boundary might not be where I intend it to be...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
.

crapmap.jpg
 
Maybe this was what I intended ? I really AM shit with maps, especially when ones I use in a large atlas have to be converted into diddly ones on a PC screen that I can't see the details of properly... The N border's supposed to be straight not wavy but I can never hold my hand steady enough to achieve that, sorry

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
.

another crap map.jpg
 
Wow, so much to talk about. Overall, glad to see you're making these ideas you're own. I'm currently working on an Athenian TL, so being able to take a mental holiday in the much more reliable 19th Century is quite welcome.

On the Civil War and US Politics:
OTL, The Free Soil Party formed in 1852. It was a third party to the Whigs and Democrats. I think Fremont might have run as their candidate. The Republicans formed for the 1856 Presidential elections, incorporating both the Free Soil stance on slavery and the Whig platfrom of internal improvments, and Fremont was definitely their candidate. Fremont did gain his reputation on the basis of California, but at that point he's more a stand-in: he's a good face to put on the movement, but not the kind of political mover/shaker that Seward or Lincoln were. I seriously doubt Fremont could win in 1856: the Democrats would poll to well based on immigrant politics in Northern cities, unless they fracture per OTL 1860. A potential solution is for Fremont to get an electoral and popular plurality, but have the House throw the election to a democratic candidate based on moderate third party and/or continued Whig adherence in the border states.

Buchanan was not a Southerner; he was from Pennsylvania. (In fact, he's the only President from Pennsylvania, to this day.) He could still have emerged as a compromise candidate in 1856. The Southerner I mention was Breckinridge, who was Buchanan's VP.

I was thinking the ATL Civil War might run something like this:
-1856: Republicans contest the presidency; Fremont loses in a close election (maybe it goes to the House, increasing Southern fears)?
-1857: ATL Bleeding Kansas
-1858: (January) Assualt on Harper's Ferry, slave uprising led by Northern Abolitionists; Virginia secedes, leading much of the South. (November-January 1859) Republicans take control of Congress in mid-term elections.
-1859: Republicans impeach President Buchanan for failure to uphold the Union. VP takes power as President.
-1860: Republicans win Presidential Election on Emanicpation Platform.
-January 1861: Kentucky, Maryland secede, join CSA.
-March 1861: New President takes office, issues Emancipation Proclamation, proposes 13th Amendment. Britain joins the war.

[-October 1861: Concerns over the growing power of Richmond result in the secession of Arkansas and Lousisiana from the CSA. The two doubly-rebelious states ask become part of the Republic of Texas.
-November 1861: The Empire of Mexico declares war on Texas.
-February 1862: After losing 10,000 men in a single afternoon in the pyrrhic Battle of Louisiville, Union General US Grant loses his command. He is faced with taking up the military governorship of Idaho territory or resignation; he choses the later.]

Now as to who they new President might be: Electoral politics couldn't shift too far westward, since Oregon and California probably aren't admitted until after 1850 and hence are not counted in the census until 1860, which will not impact their electoral votes until 1864 at the earliest. Before then, they just have the minimum of 3 votes (2 Senators, 1 Representative). Lincoln is still more a nobody than Seward and a more radical Republican Party has more reason to go with Seward. If anything, Seward may hbe seen as the compromise between Fremont, a radical, and Lincoln, a moderate. Lincoln's backing in the convention may therefore be crucial to chosing Seward over Fremont. Seward was a senator from New York, which will easily dominate a Presidential race without the Southern states in 1860. Also, OTL Congress admitted Nevada and Oregon which participated in the election of 1864 for the first time; they only had 3 votes each.

If Lincoln is passed over as too moderate, than it may be difficult for him to gain office in 1868, unless his platform is to recast Reconstruction. "With Malice Towards None" could make a good campaing slogan, I guess, but I kind of like the idea of his becomming Chief Justice. A war hero president (maybe Sherman?) is the more likely candidate for a post-war campaign. This also gives Lincoln the opportunity to remake the Constitution into a mandate for equality. Lincoln is probably given a high cabinet post; maybe Attorney General or Secretary of War, since he doesn't have the training, polish, or expereince to make a good Secretary of State.

I'm not sure what Douglas might do, nor what the Democratic platform might be in 1860. If he still proposed Kansas Nebraska, Douglas is likely to be something of a political exile after the outbreak of a Civil War. The Democrats may favor, however, either peace (let them go peacefully) or less radical means of fighting the war. A Constitutional Unionist approach to an ongoing struggle. They don't want to let the Radicals turn the Civil War into a mandate for sweeping social change.

Also, I had thought that US Grant would become a tycoon because he fails as a general. (If Kentucky secedes, then Grant probably wouldn't have been well thought of back East). But it works if he's only mildly successful as well. Odds again would be against his becoming General of the Army of the Potomac.

On an Independent Texas?
I guess I must have missed the part about Texas remaining an independent country. Being a Texan, part of me does want to cheer, but I'm curious as to how this comes about. You suggested earlier, I beleive, that the First Mexican war occurs because of US backing to Texas revolutionaries. The early this happend the more likely in my opinion is Texas annexation, since you've already overcome the concerns of New England and the North regarding slavery to get the intervention. It's of course possible that the US favors supporting a fellow republic against monarchic Mexico, but demurs of actual territorial incorporation due to the slavery issue.

I'm not sure how this would affect the development of expansion politics and the question of slavery: historically, the annexation of Texas and the Mexican War began the debate about the expansion of slavery that culminated in the Civil War.

Conceing the question of independence, why would an otherwise netural country ally with the rebel CSA? The CSA itself would be much larger and purpotedly more powerful than Texas herself in 1858. It's not as if the CSA needs Texas outright military support. Indeed, it'd be more convienient to have Texas as a neutral power: this would keep open a supply line. Perhaps the CSA has promised Texas additional land?

A potential interesting line, however, is if Texas remains neutral up until maybe 1859-early 1860, at which point the far western states of the Confederacy, upset because of some internal matter of CSA politics choose to secede from the Confederacy and join the Republic of Texas. (Say LA, AK, and Indian Territory). [This might be hard, since I doubt an independent Republic of Texas would have a federal structure to easily absorb the new states as such.] Presuming the offer is made, Texas can't say no, but Mexico can't allow Texas to grow so strong and hence enters the war. This will make Reconstruction very much harder: does the USA annex Texas by force of arms? Does the USA simply conquer back its rebellious states from a country it already recognizes? All of these could make it well worth leaving Texas independent, just difficult.

On Canada:
Okay, I'll concede that a Canadian purchase of Alaska is far more likely than Mexico. I also recognize the huge difference in national character between the Maple Leaf Republic and the USA. I would wonder, however, what kind of transcontinental settlement and railroad is possible in Canada with the US controlling 54'40 west of Minnesota. Sharing a northern route with the US may therefore make some sense. Also, you never addressed my question about Newfoundland and the Maritimes: the former might stay British. The later probably starts out Canadian, but they may not like it too much.

I'd also expect that some of the Radical Republicans might take some inspiration from Canada: its federal republic will assuredly not incorporate the legacies of slavery (electoral college, for example) that the US Constitution did. Maybe the Canadian constitution incorporates other elements that the Radicals also emulate or react to in Civil War Amendments.

Unionist sentiment between the two countries is, I agree, more the dream than reality. I wonder, however, if there might not emerge greater sentiment for foreign alliances resulting into somekind of proto-OAS between American Republics, particularly if the US and Canada want to support the UPCA against Imperial Mexico.

On Puerto Rico and the Caribbean:
I'd imagine the US will jump at the chance, given it's Canal Project, and the desire to have bases to counter those of Mexican Cuba. The Florida Keys will probably also see substantial build-up.

Also, the US may pursue larger purchases from minor European powers of Carribean islands: all Danish posessions (including Aruba and Recife, not just the Virgin Islands); maybe Dutch Guiana; maybe French islands, if the French are looking to concentrate on West Africa. It seems to me these powers have fewer reasons to participate in the Canal Race Naval build-up, since it offers them power vacuums elsewere (except a France looking to counter German moves).

There's also sorts of potential fun with Haiti and the Dominican Republic facing off on Hispanola. Do they join the UPCA? Do they side with competing alliances?
 
I'll certainly read this in great detail tonight and get back to you tomorrow !

The reason I was unsure of Buchanan was this map of the 1856 OTL election :-

http://www.alternatehistoryfiction.0catch.com/010usa.html

He's a won a sweep of the South, so I can't see immediately how everything turns against him so dramatically that they seccede a couple of years later

Fremont on the other hand has won the majority of the North

I suppose the Mid-West is the problem area - butterflies could give him California and the Oregons, but what would he need to win in Missouri, Illinois, Indiana ?

Alternatively, I open to being convinced that despite winning the entirety of the South, Buchanan would be seen as enough of an enemy that the Southern states secceded ?

- - -

When I suggested Lincoln for 1868 I was running with an earlier idea of yours that he might become VP...at least I think it was yours :)

But your alternative suggestion makes a lot of sense too, as does Grant not being TOO successful

I might shudder to think what a President Sherman would have been like ? Maybe Sheridan instead, or is he too young ?

- - -

My thoughts on Texas were that the 1835 War resulted in their autonomy under US protection, and the c1852 war their independence, as a gradual line of development

The US Civil war could see Texan involvement for one of two reasons
-1- Either its going so well for the CSA, Texas jumps in to be in with the spoils (it could get territory from the defeated Union, including recognition of claims on the US side of the peace border with Mexico)
-2- Or the war looks like it could turn bad for the CSA and they jump in to shore up the South fearful of what a vengeful North as a neighbour would be like

More cogent answers when I've read in detail and written up comments tonight
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I do not think Mexico would be comfortable having the US annex again Texas. A weak neighbour is better than an strong one that has "taken" land from you. What about Mexico and Britain supporting texan independece?

It would be also funnier to have some de-stabilization in the US that could lead to a weakening of the institutions and the rise odf some sort of "caudillismo" like IOTL South America. Having coups led by generals and probably a fragmentation of the Union.
 
I'll certainly read this in great detail tonight and get back to you tomorrow !

The reason I was unsure of Buchanan was this map of the 1856 OTL election :-

http://www.alternatehistoryfiction.0catch.com/010usa.html

He's a won a sweep of the South, so I can't see immediately how everything turns against him so dramatically that they seccede a couple of years later

Fremont on the other hand has won the majority of the North

I suppose the Mid-West is the problem area - butterflies could give him California and the Oregons, but what would he need to win in Missouri, Illinois, Indiana ?

Alternatively, I open to being convinced that despite winning the entirety of the South, Buchanan would be seen as enough of an enemy that the Southern states secceded ?

The 1856 election was more one between parties than between individual candidates. Buchanan had such strong support in the South because he was a Democrat and the Democrats had just passed the Kansasa-Nebraska Act which seemed to open up new lands for slavery. Also, by this time the Whig Party had fallen apart in the South, hence it's a Democratic stronghold OTL. The South was vocally opposed to Fremont's candidacy, given the nature of the Republican platform. Southern states will secede, IMHO, outside the context of a Presidential election if they truly believe that the Federal government can no longer protect their interests (i.e. slavery). More on this in a bit.

When I suggested Lincoln for 1868 I was running with an earlier idea of yours that he might become VP...at least I think it was yours :)

But your alternative suggestion makes a lot of sense too, as does Grant not being TOO successful

I might shudder to think what a President Sherman would have been like ? Maybe Sheridan instead, or is he too young ?

I think Sheridan might be too young. Sherman would be fun! He'd be a perfect President to say Thaddeus Stevens as VP. Plus, if Grant is less successful, maybe Sherman is the Union general who emerges from the war most prominent.

Yeah, I probably did ruminate on Lincoln in 1868, but I think it makes more sense to have him not run: the radicals will want one of their one on the ticket, but a war hero in 1868 makes too much sense, so Lincoln can't be President. Plus, Sherman is not only a war hero, but a Southerner who saw the light from the beginning.

My thoughts on Texas were that the 1835 War resulted in their autonomy under US protection, and the c1852 war their independence, as a gradual line of development

The US Civil war could see Texan involvement for one of two reasons
-1- Either its going so well for the CSA, Texas jumps in to be in with the spoils (it could get territory from the defeated Union, including recognition of claims on the US side of the peace border with Mexico)
-2- Or the war looks like it could turn bad for the CSA and they jump in to shore up the South fearful of what a vengeful North as a neighbour would be like

Hmm, I think I see a way to resolve matters:

1835: USA supports Texas "liberals" against Mexican Imperial forces (slavery will become a major issue even earlier than OTL)

1837: First Mexican War settled. Autonomy for Texas. Northerners prevent annexation.

1837 - 1848: Pretty much as OTL.

1848: Polk (or similar politician) election. Polk first settles 54'40": without Texas in the Union it will take him a bit longer to find a casus belli with Mexico. The North is okay with this, since the Oregon territory is ill-suited to slavery, they beleive. The South simmers.

1849: Gold Rush in CA. Southerners also emigrate to Texas.

1851-54: Second Mexican War breaks out over California c.1851 and accusations that Mexico has refused to fully respect the autonomy of Texas. Fremont leads the campaign into California. The invasion of Mexico City happens on schedules and the USA requires full recognition of Texas, along with its claims to Santa Fe, and TTL's version of the Mexican Cession.

1852: Polk seeks re-election to complete the war.

1854: Congressional elections hinge on the question of organizing the newly conquered territories of California and the West. Oregon territory has also not been organized, nor has much of LA Purchase. The elections are bitter, with Southern democrats villifying the Free Soil Party (who also villify the Southerners). A few Free Soilers are elected to Congress. Southerners are incensed about the potential immediate application of California for statehood as a free state; northerners feel similarly about its rejection when Congress convenes. Stephen Douglas again proposes Popular Soveriegnty as a Compromise. This launches Bleeding Kansas (which occured somewhat later OTL.) The South is outraged when the Federal government intervenes to restore order and supervise elections, which chose a free constitution. The officer in command is Fremont. The South beleives he tamper with the election; he may indeed have done so.

1856: Democrats chose Buchanan as President. They chose him as a nobody: they need a candidate who can contest races in the North so as not to concede them to the Republicans. The Republicans run Fremont, the Liberator of Kansas.

1858: John Brown, an abolitionist hero of Bleeding Kansas, launches a raid on Harper's Ferry, which provokes a slave insurrection in Virginia. Federal authorities are slow to act (too may troops have been sent West). After bandits storm Richmond, slaughtered by the Virgina militia (the New Minutemen as they will become known). A secession convention is called; an ordinance of secession is narrowly passed. South Carolina immediately joins in, as does the Deep South.

I'd say that Texas won't join the war straight out. They will be "neutral." If Texas does get involved, it will be late in the war, probably to "protect our brothers" from invasion. If it's up to me, AK and LA ask them to do so. Mexico would probably want to intervene, but I'm not sure that would alter much. The crucial matter, however, is that there will probably need to be a Peace Treaty of some sort to end the war. This is strange since the US will insist on reincorporating the South. I can't figure out how Britain feels about this.

Given the strong realpolitik in British Policy, I'd expect that here they might try something: the easiest point might be for some kind of plebiscite in LA and AK (maybe elsewhere) where the CSA splintered before the war ended. Those states chose to join Texas rather than be ruled by the USA as occupied territories. (The US has the choice of mild Reconstruction to entice them back or radical Reconstruction and driving them out; I think losing two states might be worth the price to some Radicals: this way, they think, the North will always outnumber the South). They insist, however that if LA joins Texas, the parts of LA East of Mississippi be counter-ceded to the USA and that it be declared an international waterway. The cool dynamic here is that you can make a very Radical Reconstruction work for the US because the diehard Southern nationalists emigrate to Texas. Once freed, black Texans might very well counter-migrate to the US. The Radicals are going to have quite the pickle on their hand when they realize they've created a Black South.

Also, the Treaty would set the stage for Anlgo-Mexican cooperation and a cooling off between the US and the UK (due to the LA/AK issue), which would lead into US-German co-operation in the Canal Race.

(You could have the same thing without Texas' participation and the whole business of LA and AK seceding from the CSA, if you feel like I'm making Texas a bit too big. Also, it occurs to me that Houston would make a great new Capital for the Greater Lone Star Republic, since it's now more focused on the Gulf of Mexico. I swear, the fact that it's my hometown played no role in this suggestion. :))

_____

If in fact you go with this whole Texas thing, having Texas buy Indian Territory at some point would be fun. They use oil money to do so; the US is only too happy to have some one else deal with the Indians...and then they get a little red-in-the-face when the Texans discover more oil in Oklahoma. Also, you know, Texas could buy Puerto Rico.

Okay, okay, I'll stop with the uber-Texas wank.
 
Last edited:
Top