Claws of The Eagle

An awesome Timeline, sir! I like especially that you try to be unique from OTL as much as posssible to be plausable. Mexico seems to be interesting, I wonder if a full out war will break out between the US and Mexico?
Anyways, great job! :)
 
I will of course read the comments in detail back at my flat and make a detailed reply, but a couple of immediate thoughts here

-1- Stevens is probably OK to go on the ticket with Sherman in 1868; after all no one KNOWS he's about to die. If he lasts until inauguration then flakes out in mid 1869 (we might as well give him a few extra months, since butterflies and the drive of being in power can prolong his life), then the question is what happens to the vice presidency if the incumbent dies in office ? I seem to recall that one of the earlier presidents was in this position, and ended up simply NOT having a VP for the rest of the term. Was any amendment passed to remedy this ? If not, would it have been by 1869 in this timeline ?

If not, then the 1872 election would see a new vice-presidential candidate on the ticket with Sherman, and that could be as you suggested ?

-2- With violence continuing in the South after the war I could imagine some terrorist organisation has taken the place of OTL's KKK, something with a more sensible name (!) and with a more overt policy of violence and resistance.

This of course is going to have ramifications on how Reconstruction progresses and on related electoral matters


Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
-1- Stevens is probably OK to go on the ticket with Sherman in 1868; after all no one KNOWS he's about to die. If he lasts until inauguration then flakes out in mid 1869 (we might as well give him a few extra months, since butterflies and the drive of being in power can prolong his life), then the question is what happens to the vice presidency if the incumbent dies in office ? I seem to recall that one of the earlier presidents was in this position, and ended up simply NOT having a VP for the rest of the term. Was any amendment passed to remedy this ? If not, would it have been by 1869 in this timeline? If not, then the 1872 election would see a new vice-presidential candidate on the ticket with Sherman, and that could be as you suggested ?

Before OTL's 25th Amendment to the US Constitution, passed in the 1950s, the vice-presidency remained vacant upon the death of a sitting President and the ascension of his VP as President. While succession acts determined Presidential succession (Speaker of the House, then Pres. Pro Tempore of the Senate), there was no method short of election to replace a sitting VP. The procedure for doing so is unique since it's the only appointment that involves the House of Representatives. Thus Stevens could easily die in the middle of Sherman's term and the office of VP would remain vacant. It would have to be filled in 1872, but here Charles Sumner would be a convenient replacement for Thaddeus Stevens since they are probably chosen not for any electoral reason (i.e. to win a particular state/region) but to assuage the more radical side of the Republican Party.

-2- With violence continuing in the South after the war I could imagine some terrorist organisation has taken the place of OTL's KKK, something with a more sensible name (!) and with a more overt policy of violence and resistance. This of course is going to have ramifications on how Reconstruction progresses and on related electoral matters

As to the influence on Reconstruction politics, indubitably. Indeed, simply having a single President inexorably alters ATL's Reconstruction. IMHO, the KKK of the 1860s was fairly violent, but concentrated mostly on lynching blacks, rather than a guerrila-military resistance to Union authority. This KKK is institutionally distinct from the modern version, which was really founded/re-organized in the 1890s-1900s. The extent of true military resistance will likely depend on the tenor of the CSA's defeat: is there an equivalent of Appomattox and the other surrenders of the CSA's field armies?

When I was writing my suggestions above, it occurred to me that Reconstruction couldn't be too difficult or enmity with Mexico in the 1870s and 1880s will be too much a stretch for the US. Alternatively, this enmity could be the driving force behind a movement to final conclude Reconstruction and move on about the business of the country.
 
Comments already written over the weekend and posted here before I read what else has been said :)

It strikes me that post-ACW politics seem to have resolved themselves in OTL back to a kind of North-South divide, in effect if not in detail. For instance the talk on the Democrats acting to stifle Reconstruction, Freedman Bureau actions etc, indicate that the money-motive and the fear of big-government essentially seems to have mitigated in favour of a revival of Southern interests as the 1870s went on.

To posit something different, I was wondering about the following as ideas :-

- the guerialla/terrorist nature of Southern resistance would go on into the 1870s and 1880s and eventually develop into a situation where it becomes its own rationale, like one might have been able to see in N Ireland were it not for the ability of Sinn Fein leaders to acept negotiation - without a political wing, the Southern 'freedom fighters' could well be doomed to the cycle of violence we see with such as ETA in OTL.

- instead of letting up on the South, the 'North' continues to push the agenda there as heavily as it can, not as a prelude to laying off but in order to get all the legislation from Congress and the Supreme Court enacted, even if at the point of a gun. Imagine militia being deployed against their own populations (as per Civil Rights enforcement in OTL) but here, of course, membership of the state militia (IIRC predecessors to the National Guard) would be strictly controlled and perhaps initially restricted to Northern settlers etc

- there is not a revival at national level of the Democrats, instead the two Whig-successor parties (ie represented in the later 1850s by Fremont and Seward) evolve into two distinct power blocks within the USA. In time they would come to espouse different things - this is especially the case according to the maxim that opposition breeds reform. The successors to Fremont would adopt positions on issues opposed to those espoused by Seward and Sherman, and would see a distinct and cohesive ideology emerge out of this

- I am wondering if we can get a lasting West-East split as far as identity is concerned out of this, not one that could lead to secession, but where the Opposition (what would Fremont's party have been called anyway, and would it have changed its name in the wake of his mid-war defeat ?) could rely on votes in California and the Oregons, for example

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

As is suggested, the election of 1876 could be crucial here. After two terms of Seward, and two of Sherman, the country is ready to ditch the Republicans and this West-focused successor party to Fremont is the Opposition.

If Sumner is the VP on the ticket for 1872, and he thus follows Thaddeus Stephens to an early grave (1874) leading this time, if not the previous one, to the need for a constitutional amendment to allow for a replacement VP mid-term, then the 1876 election is going to see a new generation of politicians on both sides

This election occurs also in the MIDST of US involvement in a joint canal project with Germany in Gran Colombia's province of Panama. Commitment to this project will probably be a given for both major parties, but they could have vastly different strategic visions as to where this should go

I might wonder whether the Opposition (as defined above) would feel that the USA has not focused enough energies on N Oregon (OTL British Columbia), feels that allowing Canada to buy Alaska was a betrayal of their interests, and favours a Pacific-first policy that up to this date has not been in evidence ? If the 1876 election is fought on a foreign policy platform these issues could be at the fore ?

- - -

If Blaine emerges as the Republican candidate, one note to make is that in the 19th century (and even in this century if you look at Stephenson and Nixon), defeat in one election does not mean that he would not make a recovery and stand again later.

Thus, Blaine could be the defeated Republican candidate, but could still emerge as the Republican candidate 4 or even 8 years hence (if he's still alive ?)

But who is fronting the Opposition ? The past 20 years would have seen a completely different political evolution to OTL, which whilst good for differences in the timeline would bring about a wide variety of different fates for politicians we know of in OTL, as well as greater prominence for those who never rose to great-enough prominence.

For example, history tells us that politician A joined the Number 1 Party and did xyz, but in this timeline the Number 2 Party could have been closer to his ideology at that time, and with better opportunities instead of being a bit-player he may have emerged as a leading figure in his party

So, suggestions for leading Opposition candidates in 1876 ?

- - -

Apologies that this has been an entirely N American post ! But in a sense the USA is playing catch-up with the rest of the timeline, so hopefully the discussion and decisions from this post allow it to achieve this

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Before OTL's 25th Amendment to the US Constitution, passed in the 1950s, the vice-presidency remained vacant upon the death of a sitting President and the ascension of his VP as President. While succession acts determined Presidential succession (Speaker of the House, then Pres. Pro Tempore of the Senate), there was no method short of election to replace a sitting VP. The procedure for doing so is unique since it's the only appointment that involves the House of Representatives. Thus Stevens could easily die in the middle of Sherman's term and the office of VP would remain vacant. It would have to be filled in 1872, but here Charles Sumner would be a convenient replacement for Thaddeus Stevens since they are probably chosen not for any electoral reason (i.e. to win a particular state/region) but to assuage the more radical side of the Republican Party.

Cool, that goes with what I posted just now, and if Sumner follows Stephens to an early grave mid-term there may well be moves for an amendment for the election of a replacement VP - I wonder if the process would differ from OTL's if it was decided in the mid 1870s ?


As to the influence on Reconstruction politics, indubitably. Indeed, simply having a single President inexorably alters ATL's Reconstruction. IMHO, the KKK of the 1860s was fairly violent, but concentrated mostly on lynching blacks, rather than a guerrila-military resistance to Union authority. This KKK is institutionally distinct from the modern version, which was really founded/re-organized in the 1890s-1900s. The extent of true military resistance will likely depend on the tenor of the CSA's defeat: is there an equivalent of Appomattox and the other surrenders of the CSA's field armies?

When I was writing my suggestions above, it occurred to me that Reconstruction couldn't be too difficult or enmity with Mexico in the 1870s and 1880s will be too much a stretch for the US. Alternatively, this enmity could be the driving force behind a movement to final conclude Reconstruction and move on about the business of the country.

Interesting, I'll have to think about that !

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Comments already written over the weekend and posted here before I read what else has been said :)

It strikes me that post-ACW politics seem to have resolved themselves in OTL back to a kind of North-South divide, in effect if not in detail. For instance the talk on the Democrats acting to stifle Reconstruction, Freedman Bureau actions etc, indicate that the money-motive and the fear of big-government essentially seems to have mitigated in favour of a revival of Southern interests as the 1870s went on.

All true, but don't discount the money motive or the fear of big-government. Or for that matter, resurgent Northern racism.

To posit something different, I was wondering about the following as ideas :-

- the guerialla/terrorist nature of Southern resistance would go on into the 1870s and 1880s and eventually develop into a situation where it becomes its own rationale, like one might have been able to see in N Ireland were it not for the ability of Sinn Fein leaders to acept negotiation - without a political wing, the Southern 'freedom fighters' could well be doomed to the cycle of violence we see with such as ETA in OTL.

- instead of letting up on the South, the 'North' continues to push the agenda there as heavily as it can, not as a prelude to laying off but in order to get all the legislation from Congress and the Supreme Court enacted, even if at the point of a gun. Imagine militia being deployed against their own populations (as per Civil Rights enforcement in OTL) but here, of course, membership of the state militia (IIRC predecessors to the National Guard) would be strictly controlled and perhaps initially restricted to Northern settlers etc

Hmm, the North could certainly push their agenda much harder than they did, OTL. The first way to do this is by executing at least some of the top Confederate leaders for treason and rebellion. This could go a long way to creating the impetus for the kind of resistance movement described above. This is coupled with much stricter disenfranchisement of any Confederate army officers than OTL. Thus the Party of Reconstruction (Sherman's Party) wants to create a voting base in the South of Freedmen and the poor whites who did not support the Confederacy.

More than likely it's not the state militia that's used, but actual Federal troops that remain on "occupation" duty in the South. They did OTL until 1876. The removal of these forces was the major part of the "Compromise of 1877" that ended OTL's Reconstruction.

While there were some northern settlers to the South (Carpetbaggers), I don't think they would have the numbers to create a state militia large enough to counter the ex-Confederates/CSA sympathizers. That could change if they start to admit Freedmen, but at some point somebody in the North's going to get awful edgy about that.

- there is not a revival at national level of the Democrats, instead the two Whig-successor parties (ie represented in the later 1850s by Fremont and Seward) evolve into two distinct power blocks within the USA. In time they would come to espouse different things - this is especially the case according to the maxim that opposition breeds reform. The successors to Fremont would adopt positions on issues opposed to those espoused by Seward and Sherman, and would see a distinct and cohesive ideology emerge out of this

I suppose it's possible that the split which saw Seward replace Fremont results in a fissure of the Republican party. OTL the original former whig/anti-slavery party was the Free Soil Party. There could perhaps be a major split between the Free Soilers and the Republicans over issues like the Homestead Act, tarrifs, and immigration. Eventually the Free Soilers can evolve into the Party of the farmer, per my comments on Populism in the previous post. The question is will this party be able to absorb former Democratic elements in the East in order to become a national prescence? Most likely they are for low tarrifs, against the gold standard, internal improvements and for some kind of Homestead regime that lets already in the West get more land. TTL Republicans are for high tarrifs, using Homesteading to compensate veterans of the war, favor immigration, and Reconstruction policies rather than internal improvements (they prefer to spend money on justice before roads, for example). They are in short the Party of Eastern industrialists. There's still the issue that in the east, there will be a faction of folks that is anti-immigrant, a large power base of OTL's northern Democrats. I don't think it's possible for any kind of North in the US to avoid a split on this issue, so Sherman's Recontruction Republicans can't simply co-opt the old Northern Democrats.

Also, in OTL, the Republican party had encountered difficulty in the 1870s with their own "liberal wing" who defected to Horace Greeley in 1872. This did a lot to remake the Democats into a national party again. Liberal again means small government, low taxes, low budget, no standing army--all fears created by the scale of Reconstruction. A similar effect might happen, but with the Free Soilers (Fremont's Opposition Party).

There might be the possiblity to create a temporary three party system of sorts. The Northern Democrats remain a power in New York and Boston and Philadelphia, but the Free Soilers remain powerful in the budding West Coast. In the South, people are probably divided between the Free Soilers and the Republicans and the Democrats. Given the first-past-the-post elections, three party systems are "predicted" not to emerge, but they can if they are regional. The situtation will be not dissimilar from the dynamic of Labour, LibDems, and Tories in present day Britain, where Labor runs candidates in most places, but runs against alternatively a Tory or a LibDem depending on the region (my understanding is Tory in the South and LibDem in the North). That is there are really a number of different two-party systems: in the West one between Republicans and Free-Soilers; in the Northeast, between the Republicians and Democrats; in the South, it may be a bit more of a three-way race as electoral patterns emerge following Reocnstruction, but it's probably the Republicans-Free Soilers (who are more unified in the military atmosphere of the South) and very unreconstructed Democrats. It may be harder for any kind of "Solid South" to emerge if disenfrachisement is more wide-spread and there are two parties to hate.

I'm not sure however how stable this situation will be, since the obvious paring will be Free Soilers and Northern Democrats. Also, there's not a real East-West divide here that you were looking for. More on this below.

- I am wondering if we can get a lasting West-East split as far as identity is concerned out of this, not one that could lead to secession, but where the Opposition (what would Fremont's party have been called anyway, and would it have changed its name in the wake of his mid-war defeat ?) could rely on votes in California and the Oregons, for example

The main problem will be population in the west: the West won't have enough for a very long time, unless one radically accelerates the pace of settlement. One solution is to have some party create more, smaller states in the West (the example of North and South Dakota in OTL, which the Republicans created to gain more electoral votes than if they had made one state). In the east the main problem with an East-West split is that the East can't agree on anything due to the differing interests of the industrial cities, whether they be immigration policies, unions, or tarrifs.

There is potential for something like an East-West split if you presume an earlier rise of Grange/populist politics due to a very fragmented party system as suggested above. This is why it'd be nice if Fremont's party is the Free Soil Party, since name-wise they can transform very nicely into a pro-Farmer party.

I would imagine three-way politics to continue through 1876. It might be funny, however, if the 2nd Homestead Act, which passes on the support of Republicans and Northern Dems, is the final straw which catapults the Free Soilers to National prominence. The existing farmers in the west would get very angry if the Federal government decided to help freed-slaves to what they viewed as their brithright.

As is suggested, the election of 1876 could be crucial here. After two terms of Seward, and two of Sherman, the country is ready to ditch the Republicans and this West-focused successor party to Fremont is the Opposition.

Again, I'm kind of liking a three-party system for TTL's 1870s. The election of 1876 will be crucial, but only because the Republicans only manage to win with Democratic support. Civil Rights, etc. are probably in place but I still think the fate of the Freedman's Bureau would be the issue and a compromise deleterious to the interests of Western farmers will prompt the Free Soilers to gain a national following, since "Western farmer" usually means all farmers.

If Sumner is the VP on the ticket for 1872, and he thus follows Thaddeus Stephens to an early grave (1874) leading this time, if not the previous one, to the need for a constitutional amendment to allow for a replacement VP mid-term, then the 1876 election is going to see a new generation of politicians on both sides

The fun of a three-party system is that it creates a situation rife for constitutional reform, since it will probably force a Presidential election to go to Congress. Hence, fixing the Vice-Presidency could be one of host of issues to fix. I think the solution for appointing the VP will probably be followed TTL, but maybe not the part of OTL's 25th Amendment which deals with the disability of the President (i.e. the VP acting as President if the President is in a coma).

This election occurs also in the MIDST of US involvement in a joint canal project with Germany in Gran Colombia's province of Panama. Commitment to this project will probably be a given for both major parties, but they could have vastly different strategic visions as to where this should go

I might wonder whether the Opposition (as defined above) would feel that the USA has not focused enough energies on N Oregon (OTL British Columbia), feels that allowing Canada to buy Alaska was a betrayal of their interests, and favours a Pacific-first policy that up to this date has not been in evidence ? If the 1876 election is fought on a foreign policy platform these issues could be at the fore ?

I would say that no US election, indeed no election in any country, is ever fought on a solely foreign policy platform during a time of peace. That being said, there may be significant difference on questions of expansion and the nature of US power projection (isolationism, imperialism, constructive engangment, etc.). I would imagine that the Free-Soilers like the Canal Project: it will compete with transcontinental rail for shipping prices and may force the RRs to lower their rates (gosh darn US Grant and his Standard Food!). The Repulicans, who probably represent Northern Industrialists, will probably like it because it is a big project rife with contracts to bid-out. The Democrats, or whatever the anti-immigration, low tarrif party call themselves, manage not to like it because it spends money and involves the US overseas. This probably adds to their slow decline into a minor regional party.


If Blaine emerges as the Republican candidate, one note to make is that in the 19th century (and even in this century if you look at Stephenson and Nixon), defeat in one election does not mean that he would not make a recovery and stand again later.

Thus, Blaine could be the defeated Republican candidate, but could still emerge as the Republican candidate 4 or even 8 years hence (if he's still alive ?)

Certainly.

But who is fronting the Opposition ? The past 20 years would have seen a completely different political evolution to OTL, which whilst good for differences in the timeline would bring about a wide variety of different fates for politicians we know of in OTL, as well as greater prominence for those who never rose to great-enough prominence.

For example, history tells us that politician A joined the Number 1 Party and did xyz, but in this timeline the Number 2 Party could have been closer to his ideology at that time, and with better opportunities instead of being a bit-player he may have emerged as a leading figure in his party

So, suggestions for leading Opposition candidates in 1876 ?

I'll refer you the wikipedia article on OTL's 1872 presidential elections. It contains a great list of people, along with vote counts, since that year Democratic candidate Horace Greeley died before the electoral college, meaning that electors voted for all kinds of people for the Democratic VP (who would assume the Presidency upon inauguration).

Also, if the party of Seward and Sherman is more radical, than I'm not sure why they'd split with Fremont. Sure there's the issue of fighting the war, but Fremont was rabidly anti-slavery? Perhaps Seward thinks Fremont is too focued on abolition and it keeps him from winning the war?
 
Last edited:
I will read and study this in detail

The Fremont/Seward thing goes back to my assumption of butterflies in the early 1850s so I don't want to go over it again, but I envisaged TWO parties coming out of the Whigs, one fronted by Fremont which wins in 56 and one fronted later by Seward which is initially smaller but when Fremont blows the war takes its place in 1860 as the larger of the two

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I will read and study this in detail

The Fremont/Seward thing goes back to my assumption of butterflies in the early 1850s so I don't want to go over it again, but I envisaged TWO parties coming out of the Whigs, one fronted by Fremont which wins in 56 and one fronted later by Seward which is initially smaller but when Fremont blows the war takes its place in 1860 as the larger of the two

Ah! I forgot that part. No wonder I was confused. Nonetheless, this only increases my conviction that Reconstruction sees a three-party system emerge, at least for a while. Makes the US politics of the 1870s-1880s a bit more lively than OTL! :)

Look forward to your thoughts.
 
Ah! I forgot that part. No wonder I was confused. Nonetheless, this only increases my conviction that Reconstruction sees a three-party system emerge, at least for a while. Makes the US politics of the 1870s-1880s a bit more lively than OTL! :)

Look forward to your thoughts.

A three-party system seems like a great idea, as it would allow the social aspects to merge with the Manifold Destiny aspect and play out three ways, covering all.

I didn't get as much time to write what I was going to write last night as it was fluffy FREEZING and I lay in front of the gasfire all evening with a STTNG book instead of sit in the study in the draught of the ill-fitting front door !

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
A three-party system seems like a great idea, as it would allow the social aspects to merge with the Manifold Destiny aspect and play out three ways, covering all.

I didn't get as much time to write what I was going to write last night as it was fluffy FREEZING and I lay in front of the gasfire all evening with a STTNG book instead of sit in the study in the draught of the ill-fitting front door !

Nothing so warms the soul like a STTNG book. Glad you like the three-party idea.

Warm wishes.
 
Just thought I'd say what a great timeline this is.

Just a thought, and a little late to post no less! Vancouver Island was created as a seperate colony 1849. Did it still get picked up by the United States? I'm thinking it most likely did, but I thought it would be neat to see a British holdout on the Pacific coast of North America.

The Canadian railway situation. It couldn't be done at least until the turn of the century. The terrain just won't allow it. Permafrost, muskeg and mountains all in one stretch. But, by the time 1901-10 rolls around the line should be completed to Edmonton (in OTL the RR reached Grand Prairie in 1916). So... most of the railway is done by 1916. If you don't have to cross the rockies, perhaps more track is laid elsewhere, and by the time the goldrush runs around maybe the track could be up at Grand Prairie, and then the government could start the remainder of the trans-continental.

In this TL too, there's a good chance the East coast will, and later the prairies will be better off economically.Having a national East-West trade policy hurt much of the country while helping out central Canada. If there's earlier reciprocity, and more treade with the United States, the "national policy" most likely won't develop. Which means a weaker Ontario/Quebec and a stronger Maritimes/prairies.

Just some thoughts.
 
Bringing the USA up to date with the rest

OK, I quite like the idea of having some of the CSA leaders executed at the end of the ACW and that adding to the presence of Mexican and British forces on CSA soil as a long-term influence on post-war 'guerilla resistance'. In fact, the execution thing meshes quite well with how I described the war ending - with the siege and fall of Birmingham and the collapse of the CSA as an entity, but with the unaffected states attempting to break away and negotiate on the terms of their ultimate sovereignty with the victorious Union. One by one these states are over-run, and it is these final months of conflict which see British and Mexican marines landing in the South.

I could see the initial surrender terms at Birmingham not including any executions, indeed in being reasonably generous as per OTL (sword and horses) but for anyone who AFTER that point continues in resistance much tougher sanctions would accrue. This thus includes the leaders of the breakaway states, with Seward announcing he is accepting nothing more than the unconditional surrender of the CSA. Leaders of these states, and any senior military officers (from other states) who continue to fight on will be executed after capture.

This of course is a recipe for such leaders to never surrender; even though one could imagine laws being passed to allow their men to surrender without prejudice, it would not apply to their leaders. Some 'names' from the ACW would thus continue to fight on as guerilla leaders in the swamps and mountains, taken down a few year on year, with some never accounted for and legends growing around them.

In time, the original movement begets new generations and this resistance/pseudo-KKK fight becomes a fact of life. A name for them could be useful ? I reject weirdo names like the KKK, and would look for something that either sums up Southern Heritage (Dixie something ?) or which harks back to a mythical resistance to the British (on the lines of Sons of America). Ideas ?

- - -

I think I will bow to better-informed expertise on N American politics in the latter decades of the 19th century as I am increasingly out of my depth and only going to get absolutely bogged down if we can't move on from here. the three-party idea, with two born of the one-time Whigs and with the other the Democrats (I suppose). Together these three have intersecting interests which allow them to cover all the necessary conflicts in N American politics, social policy, economics and Manifest Destiny.

I don't really think it is possible for me to go into great detail on this as I don't really understand it all ! And I am pretty much convinced that even should I spend hours researching it and come to a consensus with myself, that would immediately be challenged because I had overlooked something I never knew about.

To get beyond this quagmire I would rather resort to a bit of generality/vagueness, call it hand-waving if you would. Basically, after Sherman's second term the Republicans put up Blaine in 76 but he loses to the representative of the third party, the other born of the Whigs, perhaps with the Republicans and Democrats pulling equal shares in second place. This third party I am thinking is a conglomeration of Pacific-first interests, West coast merchants, Great Plains settlers, Oregon settlers, and nationally farmers, smallholders etc. I dunno, something like that ! Its only the genus of an idea and I don't want to get stuck on it.

- - -

If we can now blend the USA history back into the general outline, we would find ourselves in the late 1870s heading into the 1880s...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Regarding the Panama Canal, there is a lot of mythology grown up about de Lesseps' failed attempt of the 1870s-80s, but essentially it comes down to two things, IIRC - (1) he wanted it to be a straight-through canal without locks, (2) this meant taking the most direct route. When the Americans came in in the early years of the 20th century they changed this - a system of locks and thus the ability to use existing bodies of water, removing some of the most difficult work from needing to be done. In contrast, the proposed Nicaragua Canal was always going to be built like this.

In this timeline, therefore, with the Germans and Americans working on the Panama Canal, it is going to be proceeding in the most logical, necessary manner, backed by German and US capital, and worked on by their best engineers. In a sense, the Nicaragua Canal is easier (lots more inland bodies of water to use) but it is a lot longer, and it also complicated a lot more by politics.

The Panama Canal goes through a single province of Gran Columbia, and both principle investors are external players. The Nicaragua Canal goes through the UPCA and Miskitia, and both principle investors are very much internal players. The Mexican Empire used to rule in the UPCA, then after accepting its loss has fought for influence there, whilst Britain had a protectorate over Miskitia which it is increasingly turning into a colony as it needs to project its influence there.

I would imagine these two building projects as a race - whoever can get their canal operational first will be able to line up the biggest shipping lines who are waiting to route operations that way. Later on, there will be competition, with services, prices, extras etc all thrown in to attract customers from one route to another, and the share of traffic and revenues will probably even out, but whoever gets in there first will receive a one-off revenue surge that would go some way towards paying for the investment in the first place.

With the USA purchasing Puerto Rico and seeing in the election of 1876 the more Western-orientated party take the pesidency away from the Republicans for the first time in sixteen years, the political landscape has changed. The canals thus also become part of an increasing US-Mexican rivalry in the Pacific, with the Caribbean a strategic adjunct to that. Mexican Cuba and American Puerto Rico serve as their forward bases among the island nations, and island colonies, whilst Britain builds up its own power base, exerting pressure on Miskitia, building up 'Greytown' and securing its hold on Belize.

Germany of course is going to be the odd one out here, but what it lacks in terms of colonies it has in markets - an existing base in the UPCA, now enlarged upon by its investment in Gran Columbia, and one assumes other nations nearby such as Venezuela.

France, the Netherlands and Denmark continue to hold their Caribbean colonies, but their strategic focus is more out in the Far East than the Caribbean, or in the case of France also focused upon Africa, where too one finds British, German, Spanish and Portuguese interests increasingly coming into rivalry during the 1880s.

I thought a summary would help to prepare the ground to move this on somewhat. Apologies for a certain recent absence from online; I spent 31 hours straight in my flat waiting for the electrician before having a pint in the pub, coming back and sleeping, waking up this morning and settling down for another long wait during which I've written this, but had no means of sending it until I came to the library.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Just thought I'd say what a great timeline this is.

Just a thought, and a little late to post no less! Vancouver Island was created as a seperate colony 1849. Did it still get picked up by the United States? I'm thinking it most likely did, but I thought it would be neat to see a British holdout on the Pacific coast of North America.

The Canadian railway situation. It couldn't be done at least until the turn of the century. The terrain just won't allow it. Permafrost, muskeg and mountains all in one stretch. But, by the time 1901-10 rolls around the line should be completed to Edmonton (in OTL the RR reached Grand Prairie in 1916). So... most of the railway is done by 1916. If you don't have to cross the rockies, perhaps more track is laid elsewhere, and by the time the goldrush runs around maybe the track could be up at Grand Prairie, and then the government could start the remainder of the trans-continental.

In this TL too, there's a good chance the East coast will, and later the prairies will be better off economically.Having a national East-West trade policy hurt much of the country while helping out central Canada. If there's earlier reciprocity, and more treade with the United States, the "national policy" most likely won't develop. Which means a weaker Ontario/Quebec and a stronger Maritimes/prairies.

Just some thoughts.

Thank you very much for your thoughts and comments

Yes, I envisage Vancouver going to the Americans, though it might be interesting to look at whether later it could become a state in its own right given different patterns of settlement ?

I will look at your Canadian railway comments in more detail back at the flat and make a more cogent response, and hopefully be able to post it from my parents' place where I will be from tomorrow

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
J
The Canadian railway situation. It couldn't be done at least until the turn of the century. The terrain just won't allow it. Permafrost, muskeg and mountains all in one stretch. But, by the time 1901-10 rolls around the line should be completed to Edmonton (in OTL the RR reached Grand Prairie in 1916). So... most of the railway is done by 1916. If you don't have to cross the rockies, perhaps more track is laid elsewhere, and by the time the goldrush runs around maybe the track could be up at Grand Prairie, and then the government could start the remainder of the trans-continental.
Getting a RR across the prairies is easy. I could easily see a line from Winnipeg through either Saskatoon and Edmonton (CN route) or Regina and Calgary (CP route) by about 1890. The route would likely first connect to Minneapolis down the Red River, but then to the lakehead (Port Arthur) for an 'all Canadian' route (even if the connexion to cental canada is by ship). Getting a connexion north to *Alaska and east across the Canadian Shield. Well, yes, that would certainly take until 1910 or so.
 
1. If you're going for references to the American Revolution, "Sons of Liberty" is always good, though H. Turtledove's Two Georges has them as the anti-imperial terror group. You could also use "Committees of Correspondence" which would be ironic since they would blow things up instead, though again is very similar to Eric Flint's 1632. They could also be the "Anti-federalists", or the "Society of Brutus" (Cincinnati wouldn't make sense and Bruti sounds strange).
 
In time, the original movement begets new generations and this resistance/pseudo-KKK fight becomes a fact of life. A name for them could be useful ? I reject weirdo names like the KKK, and would look for something that either sums up Southern Heritage (Dixie something ?) or which harks back to a mythical resistance to the British (on the lines of Sons of America). Ideas ?

OO, OO, [waves hand in air frantically trying to get the teacher's attention] I've got one. OK, we want 'southern', we want 'new life/rebirth/Resurrection/Easter', so I present to you the





"Dixie Chicks"



[runs and ducks for cover]
 
OO, OO, [waves hand in air frantically trying to get the teacher's attention] I've got one. OK, we want 'southern', we want 'new life/rebirth/Resurrection/Easter', so I present to you the

"Dixie Chicks"

[runs and ducks for cover]

Well, we could but... :)

I cxould see Dixie SOMETHING but Chicks doesn't sound hard enough...

Dixie Fire ?
Dixie Phoenix ?
Dixie Heart ?

Dunno...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Top