OK, some issues arising :-
I've gone with Newfoundland including Labrador and thus Britain preserving a colonial holding on Canada's Eastern seaboard. Canada opposes this, supported by the USA, but as part of the 1860-1861 agreements that result in a British-Union alliance in the ACW, the USA drops its support of Canada's claims. After the final Union victory in 1863, I can see this as the source of SOME rancour between Ottawa and a rebuilt Washington DC. But in general it won't get in the way, and after Canada's purchase of Alaska from Russia in the 1870s. Canada is more or less reconciled to British rule off its Northern East coast.
I want to look at the idea of a Canadian canal/rail system in the late 1870s/early 1880s that includes at least the Yukon, and maybe Alaska. NW Canada is full of major river systems and huge lakes, and I want to explore the possibility of linking all these with a system of canals, and linking railways
I think the idea of spurs off the US trans-continental railway Northwards to Canadian provinces, and then local lines would work well, and would lay the foundation for a Canadian-US economic union in the 1880s
Why does the purchase of Alaska decrease Canadian fervor over Labrador? It doesn't supply any coastal access nor does it represent any strategic interest. It does have prestige value in increasing the extent of Canada and making it a transcontinental power, but I would imagine the desire for Labrador would only increase if such a position is acheived.
I will defer to others on the question of transportation access to central Canada and Alaska. I will say that I'm skeptical about canal projects: they don't offer any increased economic benefit (unless they allow truly ocean-going vessels) over rails but at a vastly increased cost. If the OTL CPR was built largely as a political matter, both because of BC and the need to control native populations, perhaps a similar matter fuels Canada to brave sub-Artic conditions. It might also be a reason for Canada to participate in some way in one of the canal projects.
The feasibility of the rail might increase if it occurs say in the first decade of the 1900s, after intergration with the US has just failed (you mentioned close calls so I'm assuming there's some kind of event at some point). The issue is probably rancorous in Canada, but it prevails because the independence movement does so as well.
The 1870s sees, as discussed previously, the joint Mexican-British Nicaragua Canal Project on the one hand, and the joint US-German Panama Canal Project on the other, both projects being pursued to eventual conclusion. The US effort includes the purchase of Puerto Rico from Spain, and private investment in the form of U S Grant's Standard Foods conglomerate
The situation in the Congo would develop throughout the later 1870s and the bulk of the 1880s, seeing Portuguese in the South, Spanish on the West coast, French where they could, German from the East and British from sundry directions, with the Ottoman Empire in Equatoria, and probably France best able to exploit this in order to get its nationals into the area.
Standard Foods! Hooray! I was thinking about this: a company so designed will probably include investments not so much in agricultural land, but mostly in products to grow food easier, like a mechanical reaper, irrigation, refridgeration, fertilizer. They probably also package a lot of foods, like Armor did OTL. A controversial issue is whether to have the company engage in anything like sharecropping: owning agricultural land and renting it out in the South. This might change Southern politics considerably. In any case, an agribusiness and food maufacture conglomerate will do interesting things to the Grange movement of the 1880s-90s and thus impact any sort of ATL Progressive movement. All fun stuff.
Within Britain, the later 1870s is the period of the first modern Conservative government, under Disraeli, after a quarter of a century of variations on the successor parties to the Chartists. This government, which supports the royal perogative of King George VI, is very much feeling its way, and whilst the no-victors peace with Russia laid the foundations for its, probably shocking, electoral victory, Disraeli in no way feels strong enough to suggest that in the wake of the Indian Mutiny, King George be declared Emperor. In fact, the idea probably only exists at the extremist fringes of his party, and he is not in any way aware of a potential insult to the king, presuming as he does that such a thing is just not feasible
This makes an eminent amount of sense, I think. I wonder how this might change British patterns of imperialism, though. Does it impact the tenor of rule in the subcontinent?
The 1870s I am thinking will see an increasing level of US-Mexican rivalry in the Pacific, and the friendship and co-operation treaty that Seward and Agustin II signed at Havana in 1863 will probably lapse after the ten year renewal period. This fits in nicely with the rival canal projects, and will allow 'Powers Politics' (as I think it is best called) to develop in logical, but allo-historical ways.
Very cool. BTW, did anyone pull a Commodore Perry and open relations with Japan in the 1840s? Maybe Mexico could. Or Spain, as part of its newfound expansive foreign policy.
Whilst I agree that on the one hand US-Canadian relations are going to be brought closer by the development of the railways and a common economic sphere, enough differences will remain to keep the two republics apart. For a while, in the wake of the US Civil War, these include the USA's treaty accepting Britain's possession of not only Newfoundland, but also Labrador. But after Canada purchases Alaska from Russia, this issue becomes much less of a problem, and from the later 1870s onwards the main argument is the separate development of the two republics, their traditions, their history, and their identity. A majority in Ottawa always remains in favour of independence, despite some close calls in the years ahead.
You know, I'm begining to quite like the Canadian Republic. Again, I'm curious to see how it's different in structure and tradition from the US: I love competing federal systems. I'd presume that Canada will maintain a Westminister-style Parliament, but perhaps they pioneer a semi-Presidential system. I'd guess they'll have a written Constitution, but I would imagine they will not simply replicate the US system.
Presumably the Canadians TTL still treat Native Americans/First Nations better than the US OTL or TTL. And then of course there's the Quebec influence. I'd also expect however that just as the US is beginning to try to stopper waves of immigrants, Canada is eager to accept new citizens. This might mean a different demographic make-up.
OK, the British-Mexican canal (aka Nicaragua Canal) presumably brings with it the subjugation of the Miskit from being a protectorate to being a full British colony - the USA cannot complain too much since in the 1860/61 agreements it accepted British paramountcy in Miskitia, though they probably would complain SOMEWHAT at the change of status. Britain would probably leave the Miskit king in possession of theoretical power, just cut him out of actual power and build up the facilities at Greytown (if it still bears its OTL name)
If the British partner with the Mexicans, than do relations between the US and Britain sour as a result or cause? OTL the UK was a huge investor in the US in the 1870s-90s. And TTL the UK has just stepped in to save the Union in the ACW. Alternatively, the British probably have no need to continue to support the US and may favor supporting Mexico along a balance-of-power theory. Though I have some caveats about this below.
The German Empire in the early 1860s with Mary Adelaide's marriage to Prince Frederick included the cession of German interests in Araucania to Britain, despite the fact that the majority of Chile's new settlers are Germans. Outside of the home country they are the responsibility of whatever power takes them on, so here that is Britain by treaty in Europe. This of course is no good for the Mapuche, but in this timeline even if they did bag a French adventurer to be their putative king, Paris never encouraged their dream, and their lands are systematically divided between Argentina and Chile as per OTL, but with Britain more involved than OTL in the Chilean side
This might bring in its wake, perhaps in the 1870s, a German reaction, increased immigration into Argentina, increased German relations, political and commercial with the Argentines, so that perhaps by 1880 Germany is the paramount power there, whereas Britain is that within Chile.
The end of the 1870s, beginning of the 1880s could see great tensions grow out of this. This is confused by the death of Wilhelm I and the accession of Frederick III, accused of being pro-revanchist due to his marriage to the sister of the British King George VI who under a Conservative administration is succeeding in clawing back some of his priveleges and perogatives.
Frederick III favours peaceful co-existence, and despite a S American war in the Pacific breaking out he manages to maintain German neutrality, and also that of their ally Argentina. On the Pacific coast, British-supported Chile defeats Bolivia and Peru and annexes three coastal provinces, without the OTL occupation of Peru that accompanied this - Britain's support is enough for Lima to cave in and accept the inevitable.
British companies soon gain a commercial dominance across Chile, from Tierra del Fuego to the Peruvian border. In part this is balanced by a growing German domination of Argentina throughout the 1880s
I think there might be something of a problem with not having British influence in Argentina: if they have alienated the US in the Canal Race and cannot rely on Canada because of feelings regarding Labrador and Newfoundland, then where are the British going to buy their food? There's still Australia and New Zealand and the settler colonies in Africa, I guess, but I wouldn't think they can readily replace Canadian grain or the vast resources of the US. This assumes that the British have enacted Free Trade in a manner similar to OTL, which one presumes the Chartists would TTL, and the British Isles are no longer self-sufficient in terms of food. Chile cannot replace the ranches of Las Pampas.
If antipathy between the US and UK as well as Canada and the UK grows during the 1870s because of the Canal Race, then the UK may recognize this lack. Luckily, they may have a convieneint solution: take a significant stake in US Grant's Standard Foods. Grant in the 1870s will probably be looking for capital and a business structure to survive a post-war environment. British money keeps his business afloat and the British encourage him to invest abroad. If SF does put emphasis on agricultural technology, the British may be interested in using this in Australia and New Zealand. This catapults Standard Foods into a multinational conlgomerate with access to vast sums of capital and markets. And also ironically makes US Grant into something similar to the international superstar he was OTL. Furthermore, this may increase trepidation against the corporation in the US and do similarly interesting things in terms of Grange/Populist/Progressive politics later in the century.
I agree that Spanish revived imperialism would be massively focused on the Far East where their possession of the Philippines and N Pacific island groups would make a superb base for future operations.
Thus, under its constitutional Carlist monarch, Spain is pursuing in the 1870s and 1880s the twin policies of the Congo and of the Far East. Without having to worry about the Caribbean, one could imagine Spanish naval forces occupying strategic Congo coastal segments, and at the same time power-projecting from out of Manila
Tons of fun here: Spain shall rise again!
1872 and 1876 are election years in the USA - one perhaps expects Sherman to win re-election in 1872 but by 1876, when US policies, and others, are in full flow, Sherman will be thinking of standing down and, whether he considers a 3rd term or not, there will be a major challenge to his authority. But who from and how ?
Is Sherman as lackluster and incompotent a President as US Grant was OTL? (He even admited it in his memoirs; you've given Grant a new lease on life--and probably his liver--with the Standard Foods chain of events). Let's say he's not, so corruption isn't an issue. He's kept Stevens' radicals in check, but equivalents to the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendements have all passed. The Freedmen's Bureau is still working away, though it may be having budget issues as it tries to find 40 acres and a mule for every freed slave. At the very least though, Freedmen Bureau schools are making headway. Nonetheless, by 1876, Southern states have probably been re-admitted to the Union. Northern troops are probably still garrisoned throughout the South and something like the KKK may be an issue as would lynching, etc.
OTL, the Democrats gained a lot of support from "liberals" or Bourbon Democrats. They believe above all in small government as classical liberals: in the South, they gained prominence in the constitutional conventions that wrote new constitutions for Southern states. They enforce small government with things like making sure the legislature only meets for 5 months every other year (a legacy of theirs which Texas still has to this day, for example). Nationally, they object to the budgetary requirements of Reconstruction--the drain created by garrisoning the South and the Freedmen's Bureau--and the income tax institued to fund these measures. Though Sherman probably keeps up support for the garrisons and supports efforts to crush the KKK (and may hang them all as rebels), these new Democrats have significant support amoung Southern whites. They also have a fair following in the North, due to immigrant politics, continued Northern racism and feelings that enough is enough.
Thus the 1876 election probably emerges as a contest about the future of Reconstruction. The Republicans will have a hard choice to make: Sherman may seek another term on a mandate to continue Reconstruction, but unlike a war, Reconstruction if continued is seemingly without end, so Sherman if nominated will probably lose since he will have broken the tradition of 2 terms. I did a bit more research and Stevens was a mistake on my part; in fact, OTL he died in 1868 at the ripe old age of 76, so maybe he's not the best choice for Sherman's VP. Better to go with Charles Sumner. OTL Sumner died in 1874, so at least he's got longer to go and has similar politics to Stevens. Even if he's not dead in 1876 (the vice-presidency could remain vacant before the 25th Amendment), his cause may have run out of steam.
OTL, the Election of 1876 was monumental: at the centenary of American Independence, the Presidential election hinged on corrupt vote counts in Florida, South Carolina, and Lousiana. A deal was struck that in exchange for a Republican victory, Reconstruction and Civil Rights would be allowed to die a quiet death in the South; from 1877 onwards, grandfather clauses, Jim Crow laws, and sharecropping created a new kind of injustice south of the Mason-Dixon line. The injustice of the this event probably prompted Mark Twain to write
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.
For TTL's election of 1876 the vote would probably remain very close. If the Republicans have been more committed to Reconstruction and less plagued by corruption under Grant, then James G. Blaine may have won the nomination (OTL he lost by only 100 votes on the first ballot); Rutherford Hayes emerged as a compromise due to his consummate ability to offend no one. Blaine on the other hand was Speaker of the House and father, to some extent, of the 14th Amendment; in a debate about how to give votes to the South, Blaine proposed that votes be apportioned according to population (rather than voters) to be fair to the North, but encourage the adoption of the 14th Amendment to ensure that blacks in the South were allowed their rights. Whether he did those things TTL or not, he'd make a good candidate running on a continuation of Reconstruction. Tilden will probably still make a good Democratic candidate: a classical liberal who supported laissez-faire government and a reform candidate who had successfully jailed New York's infamous Boss Tweed.
If that election had played TTL as per OTL, then Blaine may win. However, I'm not sure that Texas would suffer too much in terms of electoral votes, since most of its population base would be included in a Nueces border. In anycase, the Democrats actually won the popular vote so perhaps the different electoral count favors them. I'd prefer this option: if the Democrats win outright, but the Republicans maintain strength in Congress, perhaps due to the Senators from the Pacific Northwest. The Republicans, importantly, have not conceded Reconstruction. And Chief Justice Lincoln remains at the Supreme Court to uphold the civil rights granted to Freedmen; born in 1809 and without the harrowing experince of presiding over the Civil War, Lincoln can conceivably last into the 1890s.
The Freedmen's Bureau probably dies; however, I'd expect the Republicans to retake the House in 1878 out of northern fears of what the Democrats might do if left unfettered. At this point, they propose a 2nd Homestead Act as a compromise on the future of Reconstruction: instead of the Freeman's Bureau, former slaves will be eligble for Federal assitance (probably transportation, supplies, and tools) in taking up land of their own in the West; requirements for working the land would be similarly lowered. The South would love this, since it might actually encourage blacks to move and allow them to regain majorities in their own states. The Republicans may also attempt to win support from farmers in some way (OTL, the 1876 election saw the first minor party emerge due to grange-like politics, the Greenback Party, which wanted a paper currency to help farmers pay their debts).