-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: