Claws of The Eagle

Another Houstonian? Excellent.

For those who have never learned anything about Texas history, Houston was the capital of the RoT between 1836-1838 (I think the dates are correct), while Austin was being built.

However, at this point in time, there's nothing particularly special about the town. Buffalo Bayou is too shallow to provide a good shipping channel (OTL, the Ship Channel was built in the 20's, right?), and has to defer to Galveston as a port (this would be the status quo until Galveston was destroyed by hurricane in 1900). So if you want a capital that's prominent and has Gulf access, I'd actually say Galveston makes a bit better case than Houston.
 
Another Houstonian? Excellent.

For those who have never learned anything about Texas history, Houston was the capital of the RoT between 1836-1838 (I think the dates are correct), while Austin was being built.

However, at this point in time, there's nothing particularly special about the town. Buffalo Bayou is too shallow to provide a good shipping channel (OTL, the Ship Channel was built in the 20's, right?), and has to defer to Galveston as a port (this would be the status quo until Galveston was destroyed by hurricane in 1900). So if you want a capital that's prominent and has Gulf access, I'd actually say Galveston makes a bit better case than Houston.

All very, very true. Unless of course a prescient Representative has concerns about how liable Galveston is to be hit by a hurricane. Houston is too, but it's not in the path of a storm surge. Maybe they'll change their minds in 1900.

Also, the Ship Channel traces its histroy back further than 1920. First drafts of plans began in the 1870s. It wasn't pursued in 1880s. In 1907, a channel had been dug of 18.5 feet; then Houston launched a more ambitious plan. In 1919 the fully dredged channel saw the first truly ocean going ship sail all the way up to the Port of Houston. (see this article for more details).

All that is to say that if a larger Republic of Texas is looking for a Gulf coast Capital, a canal in Houston may happen sooner.
 
Last edited:
I rather like the idea of Britain holding onto Newfoundland - it would make their intervention in the US Civil War that bit more logical, for instance. The question, though, is whether Labrador is treated as being part of the Newfoundland colony, and if it is whether Canada would want it, would resent not having it, would offer to buy it at any time ?

Regarding the other Maritime provinces, I envisaged them joining Canada at the outset, indeed I miswrote that sentence at first but did correct it off the first post when somebody made a comment.

With regard to Texas, I think I answered this in my last post yesterday and don’t want to go down the route of secessions from the CSA etc. Their main aim probably was a mixture of gaining territory from the Union mixed in with not wanting to be dominated by the North, and this would have come together in a move at some time to join the war on the side of the CSA. They may even have misread signals in London, believed that Britain would stay out and that Mexico, just concluding a war with Spain would not dare to enter the war without British backing.

Were you suggesting that Lincoln be something like Attorney General during the war, or its immediate aftermath, and then later become Chief Justice ?

A good point about Canadian trans-continental rail having to piggyback off the USA at some point, but I don’t know at what date historically Canada achieved this anyway ? It could well not happen till the late 1880s at least, especially if the US transcontinental line is further North (with Mexico holding New Mexico) – this more Northerly transcontinental could then produce the spurs into Canadian territory, bringing about some kind of economic union in the process ? Not sure of this idea yet, but thought I would float it.

OK, it seems most likely that the USA will purchase Puerto Rico from Spain. Having lost Cuba to Mexico, and with new adventures in West Africa, and ongoing possessions in the North Pacific, I can accept Spain seeing a sale as a way of raising much-needed revenue. As Cuba was lost to Mexico, not the USA, the stigma of selling to the US will be much less.

I don’t however think anyone else is going to follow suit, or see why they should consider it. France certainly is not going to sell Martinique or Guadeloupe, whilst the Netherlands with Dutch Guyana are never going to sell Aruba etc. Even Denmark really has no reason to sell the Danish Virgin Is – OTL they held onto them till 1917, so I don’t see why they would want to give them up early in this timeline

Regarding colonies for Germany, a liberal empire would have commercial and trading interests at the heart of the political classes. These in OTL formed a large body of opinion in favour of colonies, as far as I recall, so I reckoned that in a less overtly militaristic Germany the quest for colonies would follow markets rather than be a search for glory or a place in the sun. Thus German involvement in the Congo could perhaps replace some of Belgium’s in this timeline to some degree, whilst Spanish involvement, freed of Caribbean commitments, and under a constitutionalist Carlist king could replace more of it.

I quite like the idea of the Congo becoming even more a version of the Great Game than it was in OTL and certainly think this is something that I will work on from the end of the 1870s onwards

Africa might not seem like the best investment to us, but it certainly did at the time with rubber foremost in the Congo, later minerals etc in the South. Trade also requires railways and railways require contiguous territory…

As ever, please note that I wrote this at home Tuesday night, and that any further comments any readers added to the thread have not been included in this reply, but will receive replies of their own. Thanks !

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I realise I'm not as expert on this part of N American history as others, but I need the Mexican Empire to remain strong, and for this end it certainly can't be invaded in depth or see its capital fall to US forces at the start of the 1850s - for another thing that would make a rapprochement impossible at the end of the same decade, whereas if the war is confined to the borders, then the loss of California North of the Techahapi Mtns and only the Northern most New Mexico territories above the 38th parallel make sense

If Fremont is going to lead the campaign in the West I still don't see why he can't win the election in 56 ?

OK, I'm willing to accept a Sherman-Stevens presidency/vice-presidency from 68, I was just worried that Sherman might be TOO radical in the South. Equal rights for blacks is fine, but I don't want to see the states disestablished

I'm thinking we're going round in circles a little. I'd prefer Texas WEAKER than OTL really, its independence rather than autonomy only lasts the 52-62 decade and the latter couple of years of that is under Mexican invasion. In addition, the US-Mexican border along the Nueces/Rockies/38th parallel/Techahapi makes a good set up for future problems, which creates dynamics for the story later

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
On Texas and Mexico:
I was in fact surprised that Texas stays independent for so long. Thoroughly understand the need to keep Mexico strong, just got carried away with thinking about Texas; it's a hazard of my birth, I suppose. Nonetheless, my apologies for confusing the issue. A Radical Reconstruction would have ample cause to annex Texas forcibly in order to purge slavery from North America.

About the 2nd Mexican War, I was uncertain if Mexico would agree to a land cession with only border territory occupied. Perhaps they have a greater reason to get out of the war fast.

On the carreer of Lincoln:
It's of course up to you, but I think Attorney General is probably right, at least for Seward's first term. Lincoln isn't expereinced enough to be either Secretary of State or of War. He was a lawyer, however, and would have been enough a mover&shaker that he could have wrangled AG as the price of his support of Seward.

I think he might move around in the Cabinet a bit during the course of Seward's two terms; maybe he takes Secretary of the Interior as Reconstruction becomes too radical for his tastes. His OTL administration's interest in the Homestead and his frontier roots suit him for the task. I'd also see him as something of a compromise choice for Chief Justice: IMHO, Sherman would probably end up being a moderating influence as President. Destroying an opponent in war is one thing, but I think Sherman would also understand the importance of rebuilding the foundations of the American Republic. Thus, he's probably draws the line at disestablishing the old Southern states or at penalizing their representation in Congress. He will prefer to remake their societies just as OTL he devasted their countryside to teach them the folly of rebellion.

On Fremont:
Well, if Fremont wins in '56, then the South may secede then and there. They threatened to do so OTL, and from the little I know of him, Fremont was a more radical candidate than Lincoln on the issue of slavery. An earlier intervention in Texas will probably accelerate the tide of the free-soil v. slavery debate in the US, but it will be troubled by the Democrat-Whig two party system, since the Whigs aren't suited to campaign on a free-soil ideology, which is more connected to Northern industrial workers than Whig ideas about internal improvements which appealed to the Old Northwest.

Also, immigration was a major issue in the 1856 OTL election, causing the formation of another third party, the American Party, aka the Know-Nothing Party, that was rabidly anti-immigrant. This Party also drew most of its support from northern cities, as did the Republicans in 1856. By OTL 1860, the Republicans had become established enought that the permeated the countryside. Democrats, I beleive, did well in 1856 because the North was split between Know-Nothings, old Whigs/new Republicans, and Democrats, while the South was solidly Democratic, which will not change TTL. The three-way race I beleive gave the elections to the Democrats in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Illinois and Indiana might shift to the Republicans' camp, but they're not enough to tip the scales. Also, support for the Democrats in 1856 meant support for national union and the status quo; the border states, including Illinois and Indiana, both North and South will side democratic for this reason.

A counter-argument still exists: an earlier anti-slavery free-soil movement might see earlier penetration of the Republican party, which could conceivably head off the formation of the Know-Nothings if the Whigs collapsed sooner. A diminished deadlock period in the 1850s might dampen the Southern response to a Republican victory in 1856. If Fremont is elected, perhaps they threaten to secede, but do not until forcibly anatagonized by an expanded Harper's Ferry/slave uprising under a Republican president. Again I don't think this likely because OTL Fremont was more radical on slavery than Lincoln.

On a Canadian Trans-Continental Railroad:
I must admit, I'm no expert. Wikipedia has two articles of interest on the subject: one on trans-continental RRs in general and one on the main company of the Candian RR, the Canadian Pacific, which includes a map of the CPR's modern lines. OTL, the first US line was completed in 1869, but it had been discussed and planned as early as the 1850s (Jefferson Davis as Secretary of War under Fillmore or Pierce completed a survey of potential routes, BTW). Canada did not complete a line until 1885; then it did so because it was a condition of British Columbia's entry in the Canadian Confederation in 1871.

I'm not sure what Canada would do TTL. When does Canada acquire Alaska? In the 1860s when the US did OTL? Also, how far east does 54'40" extend? OTL the Orgeon dispute mainly concerned territory west of the continental divide. The 49' border between the Lake of the Woods and the Rockies was settled earlier in the Webster-Ashburton Treaty in 1842. If Canada does not hold the land between 49' and 54'40" east of the Rockies (Rupert's Land, it was called I think), than most of the settled territory is also lost. This is probably unlikely, however. Nonetheless, connection to Alaskan territory would be very difficult for Canada. Today, many towns on the Alaskan cost (eg. Juneau) have no connection by road or rail. A RR to OTL Anchorage would be very difficult to build and would probably appear fairly daunting to Canada. This might increase the odds of somekind of transport rights for Canada to Alaska on a US RR: the US RR would terminate at OTL Seattle and would allow access by sea to Alaskan settlements.
 
Last edited:
1) How much of the interior Northwestern provinces does the Republic of Canada control? Is 54'40" the boundary west of the Lake of the Woods (the boundary settled on in Webster-Ashburton)? I suppose it depends upon how land hungry the US is, but I could see such a border becoming very murky, particularly if gold is found in the Alaska/Yukon. The outcome could likely hinge on who owns Alaska. Is Canada truly independent or is it still British enough that it receives swathes of immigrants from the mother country?
the OTL boundary line was 49 degrees to the Rockies. I believe that the 54-40 was only for the disputed 'Oregon' territory (OTL Oregon, Washington, BC), so most of Rupertsland (in particular OTL Saskatchewan and Alberta) would still be *Canadian.
 
On a Canadian Trans-Continental Railroad:
I must admit, I'm no expert. Wikipedia has two articles of interest on the subject: one on trans-continental RRs in general and one on the main company of the Candian RR, the Canadian Pacific, which includes a map of the CPR's modern lines. OTL, the first US line was completed in 1869, but it had been discussed and planned as early as the 1850s (Jefferson Davis as Secretary of War under Fillmore or Pierce completed a survey of potential routes, BTW). Canada did not complete a line until 1885; then it did so because it was a condition of British Columbia's entry in the Canadian Confederation in 1871.

I'm not sure what Canada would do TTL. When does Canada acquire Alaska? In the 1860s when the US did OTL? Also, how far east does 54'40" extend? OTL the Orgeon dispute mainly concerned territory west of the continental divide. The 49' border between the Lake of the Woods and the Rockies was settled earlier in the Webster-Ashburton Treaty in 1842. If Canada does not hold the land between 49' and 54'40" east of the Rockies (Rupert's Land, it was called I think), than most of the settled territory is also lost. This is probably unlikely, however. Nonetheless, connection to Alaskan territory would be very difficult for Canada. Today, many towns on the Alaskan cost (eg. Juneau) have no connection by road or rail. A RR to OTL Anchorage would be very difficult to build and would probably appear fairly daunting to Canada. This might increase the odds of somekind of transport rights for Canada to Alaska on a US RR: the US RR would terminate at OTL Seattle and would allow access by sea to Alaskan settlements.
Moreover, the existing CPR line was incredibly expensive - largely due to the expense of building across the Canadian shield (blasting through granite, filling deep muskeg swamp, etc,etc). The only reason it was politically feasible to raise the money and build the line was because a) the promise to BC, and b) the second Riel Rebellion. The latter allowed the Canadian military to proceed to the west over the partially completed line to put down the rebellion, without going through US territory.

Now, having to build through even worse conditions (Arctic and sub-Arctic crossing of the Rockies, rather than temperate crossing; plus greater distance through the mountains), coupled with a much less desirable terminus (BC was a thriving colony, Alaska at the time, not so much), and I just don't see a TransContinental Canadian rail line ITTL.
 
[pickyness]Oooh, a transoceanic canal! Is that sort of like a hyperglorified viaduct?[/pickyness]

I believe it was the term used at the time :)

- - -

However, it did get me thinking whether a WATER route makes most sense for NW Canada. I remember reading about hopes for inland seas with the early explorers and all these river systems and lakes up there. With the purchase of Alaska would it be possible to create a waterway from settled Canada to the borders of Alaska, or at least deep into the Yukon ? Later it could be completed with a railroad at the far end ?

Thoughts, anyway :)

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Definitive Statement on the US Civil War

I am going with Fremont winning in 1856, and the early 1850s producing somewhat different political parties within the US than it did in OTL. I don't see why OTL's exact development should be mirrored, so am suggesting two competing parties formed from the Whigs. In 1856 the one fronted by Fremont very much has the upper hand, and against the Democrats it wins the presidential election due to the votes from the West Coast (California, and the Oregons) and a swing in the Mid-West. The South goes firmly Democrat, for Buchanan.

The US Civil War breaks out in 1858 as various issues come to a head, compromises not having previously been made, Fremont's government increasingly seen as alien, bloody fights over Kansas and Nebraska, and what is seen as preferential treatment for the non-slave states of California, N and S Oregon having had their passage eased into the Union

The first act is the joint secession of a couple of states, then the secession of most of the slave states, including here Kentucky and Maryland.

As civil war breaks out, the attempt at secondary secession in Western Virginia fails as Confederate forces are able to crush what is now just a revolt.

Washington DC falls to Confederate armies, and the Union government relocates to New York City

The Confederate capital has been established at Birmingham, Alabama and remains there

The first couple of years of the war are pretty disastrous for the Union, and see substantial losses and defeats.

The Republic of Texas allies with the CSA and invades the Great Plains, whilst to the South the Empire of Mexico is busily involved in a war with Spain, which culminates in early 1860 in the annexation of Cuba

Meanwhile in Britain, the Chartist government attempts to force King George VI into entering the war on the side of the Union, but the king holds out, partly because he is fighting for the royal perogative, and partly because he has for the past couple of years been mired in the question of his sister's proposed marriage to Prince Frederick of Germany, which the British govermnent has been dead set against

In the US Civil War, Grant has emerged as a mediocre commander, the secession of Kentucky having somewhat cut the ground from under him, and his own skills not having emerged so much from the drink and depression that had set in after the Second Mexican War. He still commands, but on the secondary Texas/Great Plains front

1860 is a turning point in the war. Seward, fronting the second party to have emerged from the wreckage of the Whigs, successfully challenges Fremont for the presidency, and makes it clear well before polling day that he is willing to concede certain points to Britain and Mexico in return for help against the CSA. Fremont's unwillnigness to do so has increasingly looked like petty spite as the Union has gone from disaster to disaster

1860 also sees agreement between King George VI and his government - in return for at last supoprting the marriage of Princess Mary Adelaide, the king agrees to war in support of the Union, as long as the president asks for it

With Seward's by-then entirely unsurprising landslide victory in 1860 this becomes an inevitability and in early 1861 a treaty of alliance is signed at St Johns, Newfoundland. In return for immediate British aid, the USA will drop all of its support for Canadian claims to Newfoundland and Labrador, and also recognises Britain's possession of Belize, and protectorate of Miskitia in the Caribbean.

British aid in the war is immediately in the form of a largescale naval commitment, and soon grows to include railways, logistics, engineers, specialists, advisors and later on marine assault forces in the Gulf of Mexico.

Soon after the alliance with Britain, Seward's government makes a similar one with the Empire of Mexico, recognising Mexico's annexation of Cuba and guaranteeing the borders of the 1852 treaty (the Techahapi and Sierra Nevada Mtns up to the 38th parallel, then across to the Rockies and down to the Texas border)

1861-63 sees the war turn in the Union's favour. Mexican forces invade Texas, on a secret understanding with the USA that Agustin II will raise no claims to the area after the war. Mexican naval forces join with those of Britain in operations against the Southern Confederate coast, and eventually Mexican marine forces join British-led operations against the same coasts.

Texas is eventually overrun by Mexican forces, some of them joining up with Grant's army in the North, most of them pushing on to face fierce Confederate resistance on the CSA's Western border.

Union forces, reorganised under Sherman progress the war to the eventual siege and sack of Birmingham, in late 1862 and the final cleaning up operations in 1863 as the Southernmost states attempt to negotiate their way out of the Confederacy and the war, but to no avail as President Seward demands the complete unconditional surrender of his enemy. It is this period which sees especial British-Mexican marine operations in the South.

With the final surrender, signed in Tallahassee, the US Civil War ends in Spring 1863.

Mexican forces evacuate Texas, leaving it to Grant's army, whilst Agustin II and President Seward meet in Havana to sign a treaty of friendship and co-operation, and for Mexico to put in writing its acceptance of the USA's annexation of Texas, as defined in the treaty of 1852, i.e. to the Nueces River.

Seward wins re-election in 1864, his second term being taken up with dealing with die-hard Confederate resistance (in this timeline spurred in part by the idea of the Union being traitors, their having invited in the Mexicans and the British) and with the first Reconstruction efforts.

Abraham Lincoln becomes Attorney General under this second Seward administration and is responsible for much landmark legislation dealing with emancipation, civil rights and the relation of individual to state, and state to federal government.

Grant retires from the army, and puts his energies into and his name towards Standard Foods, a large-scale corporation, initially based upon his experience of canned foods, and rations in two wars, but inevitably growing and branching out in the years of peace. He makes his fortune, and becomes something of an international tycoon during the late 1860s and 1870s, eventually ploughing a large amount of his company's money into the Panama Canal project of the latter half of the 1870s.

Seward does not stand for a third term in 1868, but his nominated successor, Sherman wins a landslide, with Thaddeus Stephens as his Vice President. The legislation of Abraham Lincoln is enacted in full, and in the latter part of Sherman's administration Lincoln is elevated to the Supreme Court, eventually becoming Chief Justice in the 1870s.

This is the result of a long series of discussions, and whilst undoubtedly flawed, I have no intention of going over it again. Thank you very much for all of those who had input into this, and for the many ideas that I considered, played with but eventually discarded.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I believe it was the term used at the time :)

[darn! out pickied. How will I ever live it down?:(] Thanks for the correction.


However, it did get me thinking whether a WATER route makes most sense for NW Canada. I remember reading about hopes for inland seas with the early explorers and all these river systems and lakes up there. With the purchase of Alaska would it be possible to create a waterway from settled Canada to the borders of Alaska, or at least deep into the Yukon ? Later it could be completed with a railroad at the far end ?

In one word, no. The first problem you have is water freezing in the winter. Now, on the OTL St.Laurence system, while it's closed IIRC 3 months of the year, you can run significant ocean going ships all the way to the Lakehead or Duluth at the western end of Lake Superior.

Now. The Great Lakes would probably not be a good route, as getting north and west from there would be... difficult.

So. Lets try the Hudsons Bay route.
http://www.portofchurchill.ca said:
The current shipping season runs from mid-July to the beginning of November. The use of icebreakers could significantly lengthen the shipping season.

The Hudsons Bay Company used York boats (larger than canoes, but rowed and still portaged around rapids, etc.) to get goods and furs up and down rivers from Churchill and especially York Factory into e.g. Norway House at the north end of Lake Winnipeg. (see e.g. http://www.hbc.com/hbcheritage/history/transportation/yorkboat/
) also

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0008756 said:
The typical boat had a 9.1 m keel and overall length of 12.6 m, beam 2.7 m and inside depth of 0.9 m. It carried 6 to 8 tripmen and a cargo of over 2700 kg. By the late 18th century the HBC had boat-building stations from James Bay to Ft Chipewyan, and in 1795 York boats were first built at Ft Edmonton. In the early 20th century York boats were of 3 sizes, "60 pieces" (2700 kg), "100 pieces" (4535 kg) and "120 pieces" (5440 kg). By the 1920s the York boat had passed from service.
(a 'piece' was a 90lb Troy (=~72lb Avoirdupois) bale of fur)

Note: Ft Chipewyan is on Lake Athabaska in northern Alberta, Ft Edmonton is Edmonton Alberta

So we should be able to get rowed York boats from York Factory to the Mackenzie river delta on the Arctic ocean. But thats a long way from 'canal boats'. And much of the route is on Canadian Shield (solid granite) so doing 'improvements' like locks etc. would be very very expensive.

Moreover, even if you reach Great Slave lake, say, take a look at a topographical map and try to figure out how you're going to get a waterway between there and the Yukon.

Carrying really high value items that can be carried on a voyageur's back like beaver pelts? sure.

A practical method of transport? no
 
Thank you :)

Which raises the interesting question of how Canada is going to govern Alaska, if it can't create a viable land link to it ? Initially, I doubt anyone particuarly cares as there's hardly anyone there, and they're either Russian or Native American (er, to use the politically correct term).

But after gold is discovered in the Klondike ?

How feasible is to build a railway from the plains to Yukon and thence to Alaska ? Assuming this becomes something of a major prestige project could it be done at this time ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

In one word, no. The first problem you have is water freezing in the winter. Now, on the OTL St.Laurence system, while it's closed IIRC 3 months of the year, you can run significant ocean going ships all the way to the Lakehead or Duluth at the western end of Lake Superior.

Now. The Great Lakes would probably not be a good route, as getting north and west from there would be... difficult.

So. Lets try the Hudsons Bay route.


The Hudsons Bay Company used York boats (larger than canoes, but rowed and still portaged around rapids, etc.) to get goods and furs up and down rivers from Churchill and especially York Factory into e.g. Norway House at the north end of Lake Winnipeg. (see e.g. http://www.hbc.com/hbcheritage/history/transportation/yorkboat/
) also


(a 'piece' was a 90lb Troy (=~72lb Avoirdupois) bale of fur)

Note: Ft Chipewyan is on Lake Athabaska in northern Alberta, Ft Edmonton is Edmonton Alberta

So we should be able to get rowed York boats from York Factory to the Mackenzie river delta on the Arctic ocean. But thats a long way from 'canal boats'. And much of the route is on Canadian Shield (solid granite) so doing 'improvements' like locks etc. would be very very expensive.

Moreover, even if you reach Great Slave lake, say, take a look at a topographical map and try to figure out how you're going to get a waterway between there and the Yukon.

Carrying really high value items that can be carried on a voyageur's back like beaver pelts? sure.

A practical method of transport? no
 
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

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.

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

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

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.

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)

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 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

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 ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
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).
 
Last edited:
Top