Lol
.I wonder how Catholic "Gilbert" will be accepted by the common man and the church in the new (and hopefully balkanized as fck) "United" "States" of "America"
Death of a Republic (A monarchical USA timeline)
- Thread starter Schnozzberry
- Start date
Lol
.I wonder how Catholic "Gilbert" will be accepted by the common man and the church in the new (and hopefully balkanized as fck) "United" "States" of "America"
Lol
I wonder how Catholic "Gilbert" will be accepted by the common man and the church in the new (and hopefully balkanized as fck) "United" "States" of "America"
Yeah, early America was all about seperation of church and state....except when it came to oppressing anyone not considered protestant. The extermination order aimed at the Mormons is one such example. And while the election of JFK has toned down anti-Catholic sentiment America hasn't quite grown out of hating "Papists".
The Marquis is a canny man. There's no reason why he can't convert to Protestantism to salve public feelings like reverse Henry IV situation.
Whilst the Marquis was Catholic, Nothing I have ever read about him has ever really spoken about any kind of religious fervor in him. He is always written about as a man more interested in the military, Politics and the rights of his fellow man. In my opinion if he believed he could do more as a protestant then as a Catholic I think he probably would convert.
I think that Gilbert was big on religious toleration, so there is a chance that he would remain Catholic in order to help gain support for Catholics in America. Furthermore, if Gilbert (yes I know that the name Lafayette is more popular, but Gilbert is a pretty great name) remains Catholic it could help America further integrate French Canada or former Spanish colonies through that religious connection.
Also just a question, did the Marquis hold any landed titles in France? And if so to what extent? Would he have to revoke any French titles to become America's king? Also could Carpet bagging Nobility from European Nations come to this new Monarchy, for instance the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth fell apart around this time period, and the Nobles of that area were big fans of the checks and balances that are in the American Constitution, and finding themselves with their country annexed by neighboring powers America would seem like a great place to seek their fortunes. Just to be clear I'm Catholic and want to see as much Catholic influence in the US as possible.
Death of a Republic: The title drop update.
Schnozzberry
Gone Fishin'
Sorry I didn't get back to you all quickly, without meaning any offense to @Alexander the Average, when I saw I had >50 alerts from likes, I just tuned everything out. Seriously though, I'm really glad you like it.
Glad you like it so far, despite some of my historical stretching. I know trying to get to a predetermined point is typically bad form, but when I set out to write this timeline, I didn't want the first half to be focused on slavery because it would almost certainly overshadow the struggle between the states vs the federal government, democracy vs authoritarianism, monarchism vs republicanism, etc. This is understandable, early American history was so heavily influenced by it, but I feel like if this was removed from the equation, America's political history would be far more "interesting." As for a Regulator victory, I do think it would be interesting to see a revolutionary America during this age, especially if the French Revolution went as usual. With the chaos in the colonies during this time period, the Regulators might do pretty well. I'm also pretty sure there is a timeline with a revolutionary USA, but I can't remember what it was called.
Since the rattlesnake is/will be a republican symbol ITTL, I want to see Rattleman, the fanged crusader.
And as for the Catholic v. Protestant thing, don't worry. That will be important. But, I've already got a spoiler filled section where I explain the Patriot Corps in some detail that I felt ought to go into a spoiler tag for those who don't want spoilers. So enough with the chatter, on with the update!
"Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide."
--John Adams
With the destruction of the republican army in Boston, the situation for the the republicans went from not the best, to terrible. Across the republican states, the various governments began to scramble to regroup and reform some kind of resistance except for the government of the Republic of Maine which surrendered to the monarchists on July 14th, and the Republic of Vermont which was attempting to remain neutral.
The monarchists were not idle either, pushing into western Massachusetts occupying Springfield on July 20th, and Great Barrington on July 27th. With the fall of the Second Republic of Massachusetts came the question of what should happen to the republican territories. Congress had been divided heavily on the issue, with records of a dozen separate plans surviving to modern day. When it came to the former Second Republic of Massachusetts, three plans dominated. The first being that the territory should be near instantly re-integrated into Massachusetts. The second plan was to establish a military occupation district that would last for some time before re-integration into Massachusetts. The third plan was to establish a new state of Western Massachusetts which could constitutionally retain their republican government. All three plans had powerful proponents, and harsh critics, but Governor Shays favored the third plan, arguing it would be better for Massachusetts to split rather than continue on divided. On August 3rd the three westernmost counties of Massachusetts: Berkshire, Worcester and Hampshire counties were re-organized into the District of West Massachusetts by the once again returned Massachusettsan government. The plan was for the District to vote either to secede from Massachusetts and form a new state, or to be reintegrated into Massachusetts.
With Massachusetts moving to potentially grant the republican rebels their own state, Congress began adapting the idea to the whole republican war. On August 29th, Congress adopted an official plan for reconstruction in the North. The plan dealt with each state individually and was only an advisory plan and went as follows:
The New Legion was one of if not the most radically republican organization at the time, and with the republican governments losing, the New Legion planned to “decapitate the great monarchical Medusa” by assassinating monarchist leadership. Between September 19th and September 27th, Lafayette was shot at point blank in the left shoulder before beating the would be assassin unconscious with his holstered sword and fists. James Clinton was shot at, with his would be assassin being fatally stabbed during an attempt to flee. George Clinton, the Director of the People would initially survived two attempts to shot him, before he was fatally beaten and stabbed on September 25th, eventually being replaced by a reluctant Robert Morris. As for James Madison, the Director of the State, it is unknown what happened to his assassins, but no attempt to assassinate him took place. This led to some conspiracies that Madison had orchestrated the whole thing to try and seize power for himself. In addition to the attempts against the executives, four congressmen and the governor in exile of Georgia, Thomas Pinckney, were assassinated with a further thirteen assassination attempts occurring. On the 27th however, the New Legion was ordered to disperse by the republican government. Instead however, members of the New Legion began to pack up and flee to the Ohio valley.
The New Legion attacks were able to slow the monarchist army somewhat, but nevertheless on October 15th, Albany fell to the monarchist forces, with the republican Congress attempting to escape abroad. However, on October 28th, the republican Congress and the final remnant of the republican army was captured by the monarchist forces. The republican conflict was over, but the chaos had only just begun. While a number of republicans were placated by offers of retaining republican governments in the individual states, a large proportion would migrate westward into the Ohio river valley and even crossing the border into upper Louisiana. With the already weak relations with the natives in the region, the increased immigration only further worsened relations.
Glad you like it so far, despite some of my historical stretching. I know trying to get to a predetermined point is typically bad form, but when I set out to write this timeline, I didn't want the first half to be focused on slavery because it would almost certainly overshadow the struggle between the states vs the federal government, democracy vs authoritarianism, monarchism vs republicanism, etc. This is understandable, early American history was so heavily influenced by it, but I feel like if this was removed from the equation, America's political history would be far more "interesting." As for a Regulator victory, I do think it would be interesting to see a revolutionary America during this age, especially if the French Revolution went as usual. With the chaos in the colonies during this time period, the Regulators might do pretty well. I'm also pretty sure there is a timeline with a revolutionary USA, but I can't remember what it was called.
Since the rattlesnake is/will be a republican symbol ITTL, I want to see Rattleman, the fanged crusader.
And as for the Catholic v. Protestant thing, don't worry. That will be important. But, I've already got a spoiler filled section where I explain the Patriot Corps in some detail that I felt ought to go into a spoiler tag for those who don't want spoilers. So enough with the chatter, on with the update!
"Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide."
--John Adams
With the destruction of the republican army in Boston, the situation for the the republicans went from not the best, to terrible. Across the republican states, the various governments began to scramble to regroup and reform some kind of resistance except for the government of the Republic of Maine which surrendered to the monarchists on July 14th, and the Republic of Vermont which was attempting to remain neutral.
The monarchists were not idle either, pushing into western Massachusetts occupying Springfield on July 20th, and Great Barrington on July 27th. With the fall of the Second Republic of Massachusetts came the question of what should happen to the republican territories. Congress had been divided heavily on the issue, with records of a dozen separate plans surviving to modern day. When it came to the former Second Republic of Massachusetts, three plans dominated. The first being that the territory should be near instantly re-integrated into Massachusetts. The second plan was to establish a military occupation district that would last for some time before re-integration into Massachusetts. The third plan was to establish a new state of Western Massachusetts which could constitutionally retain their republican government. All three plans had powerful proponents, and harsh critics, but Governor Shays favored the third plan, arguing it would be better for Massachusetts to split rather than continue on divided. On August 3rd the three westernmost counties of Massachusetts: Berkshire, Worcester and Hampshire counties were re-organized into the District of West Massachusetts by the once again returned Massachusettsan government. The plan was for the District to vote either to secede from Massachusetts and form a new state, or to be reintegrated into Massachusetts.
With Massachusetts moving to potentially grant the republican rebels their own state, Congress began adapting the idea to the whole republican war. On August 29th, Congress adopted an official plan for reconstruction in the North. The plan dealt with each state individually and was only an advisory plan and went as follows:
- Massachusetts: Western Massachusetts was to be ceded to Connecticut, Maine was to be allowed to vote to establish it own state. Only the section for main was adopted.
- New Hampshire: A new statewide government was to be created following a vote on the status of New Hampshire as a monarchical or republican state. Fully adopted.
- Maine: Not a state, but Maine was to be allowed to keep their republican government should it vote to be a state. Full independence was not acceptable. Fully adopted.
- Connecticut: Was to be reorganized to include Western Massachusetts, permitted to retain their republican government as per the Constitution. Fully adopted.
- Rhode Island: Should hold a vote on whether or not to join the Union.Rhode Island would be allowed to retain independence. No vote was held, but Rhode Island did remain independent.
- New York: Was to allow both the territories of the republican revolt and Vermont to vote on whether or not to establish their own states. Initially rejected, the plan was largely adapted due to political tensions and a general inability to properly enforce the law in upper New York and Vermont led to the New York government reversing their decision.
- Vermont: Not a state, but Vermont was to be allowed to keep their republican government should it vote to be a state. Full independence was not acceptable. Fully adopted.
- New Jersey. The state was to split into two, the northern half monarchical and the southern half republican. Fully adopted.
The New Legion was one of if not the most radically republican organization at the time, and with the republican governments losing, the New Legion planned to “decapitate the great monarchical Medusa” by assassinating monarchist leadership. Between September 19th and September 27th, Lafayette was shot at point blank in the left shoulder before beating the would be assassin unconscious with his holstered sword and fists. James Clinton was shot at, with his would be assassin being fatally stabbed during an attempt to flee. George Clinton, the Director of the People would initially survived two attempts to shot him, before he was fatally beaten and stabbed on September 25th, eventually being replaced by a reluctant Robert Morris. As for James Madison, the Director of the State, it is unknown what happened to his assassins, but no attempt to assassinate him took place. This led to some conspiracies that Madison had orchestrated the whole thing to try and seize power for himself. In addition to the attempts against the executives, four congressmen and the governor in exile of Georgia, Thomas Pinckney, were assassinated with a further thirteen assassination attempts occurring. On the 27th however, the New Legion was ordered to disperse by the republican government. Instead however, members of the New Legion began to pack up and flee to the Ohio valley.
The New Legion attacks were able to slow the monarchist army somewhat, but nevertheless on October 15th, Albany fell to the monarchist forces, with the republican Congress attempting to escape abroad. However, on October 28th, the republican Congress and the final remnant of the republican army was captured by the monarchist forces. The republican conflict was over, but the chaos had only just begun. While a number of republicans were placated by offers of retaining republican governments in the individual states, a large proportion would migrate westward into the Ohio river valley and even crossing the border into upper Louisiana. With the already weak relations with the natives in the region, the increased immigration only further worsened relations.
The term Patriot Corp is used as a blanket term for three different groups of republicans that emerged in the early United States.
The first were the “Settler Patriots” which was born out of the large number of republicans who immigrated to the western territories following the defeat of the republicans in 1788. The Settler Patriots formed small tight-knit communities in the west that government themselves under the republican principles they admired. These communities were highly defensive and hostile to encroachment on their self-governing abilities to the point that a number of these communities survived the First and Second Global Wars and the Roosevelt regime, only finally being demolished by a systematic campaign of the Nikist government in 1934.
The second type of Patriot Corp were the “proper” corps which were remnants of the republican armies. These Patriot Corps would disperse somewhat throughout the United States and eventually lose their military roles entirely becoming social clubs by the mid-1800s. Many Patriot Corps have survived to the modern day, including the New York Patriot Corp which the current Director of the State, Friedrich Trump III is a member of.
The third type of Patriot Corp were the most sinister type of Patriot Corp, the “Radicals” of whom the infamous New Legion were a part of. The Radicals were organizations which strove to destroy the American monarchy, and were often noted for violent actions such as the 1788 assassinations or the Bleeding Summer attacks. The violence of the Radicals ultimately proved to be their undoing, as the Bleeding Summer attacks directly resulted in the rise of the Roosevelt regime which defeated the Radicals by 1910.
--Ishikawa Yoshiteru
The first were the “Settler Patriots” which was born out of the large number of republicans who immigrated to the western territories following the defeat of the republicans in 1788. The Settler Patriots formed small tight-knit communities in the west that government themselves under the republican principles they admired. These communities were highly defensive and hostile to encroachment on their self-governing abilities to the point that a number of these communities survived the First and Second Global Wars and the Roosevelt regime, only finally being demolished by a systematic campaign of the Nikist government in 1934.
The second type of Patriot Corp were the “proper” corps which were remnants of the republican armies. These Patriot Corps would disperse somewhat throughout the United States and eventually lose their military roles entirely becoming social clubs by the mid-1800s. Many Patriot Corps have survived to the modern day, including the New York Patriot Corp which the current Director of the State, Friedrich Trump III is a member of.
The third type of Patriot Corp were the most sinister type of Patriot Corp, the “Radicals” of whom the infamous New Legion were a part of. The Radicals were organizations which strove to destroy the American monarchy, and were often noted for violent actions such as the 1788 assassinations or the Bleeding Summer attacks. The violence of the Radicals ultimately proved to be their undoing, as the Bleeding Summer attacks directly resulted in the rise of the Roosevelt regime which defeated the Radicals by 1910.
--Ishikawa Yoshiteru
interesting. What exactly will distinguish the republican and monarchist states that makes this deal acceptable.
I wonder if we will see a Texas analogue though anti union here as a republican nation founded by Settler patriots in the Southwest?
I wonder if we will see a Texas analogue though anti union here as a republican nation founded by Settler patriots in the Southwest?
Md139115
Banned
BOO! WHAT THE HECK DID YOU ALL REVOLT FOR!
Oh no... now everything is ruined.
Understandable, but doesn’t all men are created equal mean anything?
NOOOOOOO!
Darn, he's a perfect choice. Washington's heir and all that...
I like the man, even if I don't like the position...
Yeah, he'd make a good sovereign, but still, ours?
Plato did say that the best government is tyranny (in the Greek sense) by a supremely competent individual...
Ohh... this may actually be for the best.
GOD SAVE THE KING! LONG LIVE THE KING!
Schnozzberry
Gone Fishin'
The difference between monarchist and republican states is governance. Since the states are allowed to determine their own government structure, republican states can reject any and all elements of monarchy such as noble titles or methods of address, or having a monarchical leader.
Taxes.
Plato did say that: “Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy.” This is no doubt the logical end result, eh?
Vive le Roi!
Schnozzberry
Gone Fishin'
Hi everyone, I'm back with an interlude on France in an effort to prove the weird things I've been writing about the Dutch have a purpose, and that purpose is to bugger up the French Revolution. I'm not perfect on French history, so if anyone has recommendations, advice or complaints, they are quite welcome.
“Who ought to be the king of France-the person who has the title, or the man who has the power?”
-- Pepin the Short
With Europe unwinding into the Great Dutch War, France remained peculiarly neutral. This wasn’t due to a lack of reasons to join the war, but due to rising internal tensions over the economic state of France. Following the Dutch Republic declaring bankruptcy, rumblings began to come from both the French nobility and French bourgeoisie. Rumors began to fly across France, claims of plots to overthrow the King by either the nobility or the bourgeoisie, reportedly in order to ensure the debts owed by the Crown to these groups be paid. Whether or not any one of these rumors was true, Louis XVI ordered an earlier assembly of the Estates-General to resolve the economic situation and stave off any potential plot. Finally assembling on June 7th, the resummoning of the Estates-General represented just how close to the brink France was. To further highlight the instabilities arising in France, on the same day, violence wracked the city of Grenoble as a mass riot engulfed the city. For three days violence would reign in Grenoble before the French Army finally put it down. It was just the faintest glimpse of the violence to come.
During the initial opening, as was tradition, a sermon was held during which the leader of the sermon, the Bishop of Nancy Anne-Louis-Henri of La Fare, spoke against the decadence of the royal Court, especially the Queen. The response from the crowd was uproarious applause from the First and Second Estates, and only minor applause from the Third Estate. This was the first time a bishop had been applauded during a church ceremony, and the first signs of tension between the King and the upper Estates had surfaced. The remainder of the opening ceremony went without any issue, and the Estates-General began debate on June 9th.
While the critical issue of the Estates-General was finance as the freshly rehired Jacques Necker reminded delegates during a long-winded speech, one of the first issues brought up was of how the Estates would vote. The largest Estate, the Third Estate prefered a vote by head where every individual would vote on an issue, while the smaller First and Second Estates prefered that each Estate vote as a whole, and their votes have equal weight. The issue was decided by the King who decided the Estates would vote by head, a decision born out of frustration from the humiliation he and the Queen received during the opening ceremony, and by Louis XVI’s desire for minor reforms. The common people and the Third Estate received this decision well, somewhat legitimizing the King’s claims to be a King of the people.
With the Estates voting by head, the Third Estate joined forces with liberal nobles and some of the lesser clergy to begin pushing reforms of various kinds. While the reform-minded delegates of the Estates outnumbered the counter-reform members, poor organization hindered their efforts during the initial months. By late August however, Dr. Joseph Ignace Guillotin emerged as the de facto leader of the reform movement. The counter-reform movement however had a leader from the beginning with the president of the First Estate, Philippe-Claude, the Count of Montboissier-Beaufort-Canillac opposing any reform measure every step of the way.
Over the next few months the two factions would squabble with two different and competing ideas for France. The reformists wanted to establish a parliament with a constitution, and planned on reforming the tax code to strip a number of economic privileges from the nobility and higher clergy. The counter-reformists on the other hand wanted as few as possible economic reforms to pull France out of debt and a maintenance of status quo elsewhere.
On August 17th, as the reformists began to properly organize, the first reform proposal was passed by the Estates-General which would strip a number of feudal rights from nobles. Both the nobles and the reformists met with the King, arguing their various cases for and against the proposed reforms. In the end, Louis XVI accepted the reforms largely because the reform promised to rake in upwards of three million livres or about 5% of the national debt. As the month of August went on and the reformists continued organizing, increasingly radical ideas began to be debated by reformists with the First and Second Estates resisting every step of the way. Finally, on August 28th, a plan emerged. The reformists’ plan was to completely overhaul the French taxation system into a centralized system which would effectively strip the provinces, the nobles and the church of many of their feudal rights. While the plan promised to potentially solve the debt crisis, few nobles or clergy were willing to accept even small loses of privilege, let alone the large scale reduction the reform plan called for.
This was too much for the bulk of the First and Second Estate. On August 29th, the First and Second Estates put forward a petition to King Louis, demanding he put an end to the “foolish daydreams” of the reformists. Louis refused, intending on hearing out what the Estates-General might produce. Then, the nobles threatened the King, stating that they would overthrow Louis should he refuse stop the reform and protect their feudal rights. In a rare moment of certainty and bold courage, the King refused to halt or disband the Estates General. And, with that, the anti-reform First and Second Estates departed, reassembling in the Château de Vincennes, a few miles east of Paris. Here they declared themselves to be the Conseil d'État, proclaiming that if the King of France was refusing to perform his duties as sovereign, his status as sovereign was to be revoked and that the Duke of Orleans, Louis Philippe II was to be the new King of France.
News of the Conseil’s declaration spread like wildfire across the French Kingdom. While the core territories of France remained loyal, much of the periphery was under control of the nobility and revolted. Within weeks, the majority of France’s southern and eastern provinces were in revolt with the Conseil fleeing to Lyon after it became apparent that Paris and the surrounding territory would remain under Louis XVI’s control. Outside of the south and east, the only province to revolt was Brittany. The Bretons refused to join forces with the Conseil, however due to political tensions between the Breton Parliament and King Louis XVI, the Breton Parliament refused to cooperate with King Louis XVI’s government.
Almost immediately skirmishes between the Conseil’s forces, dubbed the Conseillères, broke out. The loyalist army was significantly stronger than the army of the Conseilléres, however an attempt to launch a quick attack on the Conseilléres failed on October 12th with the Battle of Dijon. During the Battle, the 20,000 strong loyalist army divided into two in order to surround the 10,000 strong Conseilleres. However, in a horrifying accident, the two sections of the loyalist army ended up attacking each other during the night after the royal flag of the loyalists, a white flag with the predominantly blue Bourbon coat of arms, was mistaken for the royal flag of the Conseilleres, a white flag with the predominantly blue Orleans coat of arms. The Disaster of Dijon, as the incident came to be known, allowed for the Conseilleres to rout the loyalist army in what was one of the worst military disasters in French military history. The Disaster allowed for the Conseilléres to consolidate their control, and spelled the end of any hope of a swift victory against the rebellion.
“Who ought to be the king of France-the person who has the title, or the man who has the power?”
-- Pepin the Short
With Europe unwinding into the Great Dutch War, France remained peculiarly neutral. This wasn’t due to a lack of reasons to join the war, but due to rising internal tensions over the economic state of France. Following the Dutch Republic declaring bankruptcy, rumblings began to come from both the French nobility and French bourgeoisie. Rumors began to fly across France, claims of plots to overthrow the King by either the nobility or the bourgeoisie, reportedly in order to ensure the debts owed by the Crown to these groups be paid. Whether or not any one of these rumors was true, Louis XVI ordered an earlier assembly of the Estates-General to resolve the economic situation and stave off any potential plot. Finally assembling on June 7th, the resummoning of the Estates-General represented just how close to the brink France was. To further highlight the instabilities arising in France, on the same day, violence wracked the city of Grenoble as a mass riot engulfed the city. For three days violence would reign in Grenoble before the French Army finally put it down. It was just the faintest glimpse of the violence to come.
During the initial opening, as was tradition, a sermon was held during which the leader of the sermon, the Bishop of Nancy Anne-Louis-Henri of La Fare, spoke against the decadence of the royal Court, especially the Queen. The response from the crowd was uproarious applause from the First and Second Estates, and only minor applause from the Third Estate. This was the first time a bishop had been applauded during a church ceremony, and the first signs of tension between the King and the upper Estates had surfaced. The remainder of the opening ceremony went without any issue, and the Estates-General began debate on June 9th.
While the critical issue of the Estates-General was finance as the freshly rehired Jacques Necker reminded delegates during a long-winded speech, one of the first issues brought up was of how the Estates would vote. The largest Estate, the Third Estate prefered a vote by head where every individual would vote on an issue, while the smaller First and Second Estates prefered that each Estate vote as a whole, and their votes have equal weight. The issue was decided by the King who decided the Estates would vote by head, a decision born out of frustration from the humiliation he and the Queen received during the opening ceremony, and by Louis XVI’s desire for minor reforms. The common people and the Third Estate received this decision well, somewhat legitimizing the King’s claims to be a King of the people.
With the Estates voting by head, the Third Estate joined forces with liberal nobles and some of the lesser clergy to begin pushing reforms of various kinds. While the reform-minded delegates of the Estates outnumbered the counter-reform members, poor organization hindered their efforts during the initial months. By late August however, Dr. Joseph Ignace Guillotin emerged as the de facto leader of the reform movement. The counter-reform movement however had a leader from the beginning with the president of the First Estate, Philippe-Claude, the Count of Montboissier-Beaufort-Canillac opposing any reform measure every step of the way.
Over the next few months the two factions would squabble with two different and competing ideas for France. The reformists wanted to establish a parliament with a constitution, and planned on reforming the tax code to strip a number of economic privileges from the nobility and higher clergy. The counter-reformists on the other hand wanted as few as possible economic reforms to pull France out of debt and a maintenance of status quo elsewhere.
On August 17th, as the reformists began to properly organize, the first reform proposal was passed by the Estates-General which would strip a number of feudal rights from nobles. Both the nobles and the reformists met with the King, arguing their various cases for and against the proposed reforms. In the end, Louis XVI accepted the reforms largely because the reform promised to rake in upwards of three million livres or about 5% of the national debt. As the month of August went on and the reformists continued organizing, increasingly radical ideas began to be debated by reformists with the First and Second Estates resisting every step of the way. Finally, on August 28th, a plan emerged. The reformists’ plan was to completely overhaul the French taxation system into a centralized system which would effectively strip the provinces, the nobles and the church of many of their feudal rights. While the plan promised to potentially solve the debt crisis, few nobles or clergy were willing to accept even small loses of privilege, let alone the large scale reduction the reform plan called for.
This was too much for the bulk of the First and Second Estate. On August 29th, the First and Second Estates put forward a petition to King Louis, demanding he put an end to the “foolish daydreams” of the reformists. Louis refused, intending on hearing out what the Estates-General might produce. Then, the nobles threatened the King, stating that they would overthrow Louis should he refuse stop the reform and protect their feudal rights. In a rare moment of certainty and bold courage, the King refused to halt or disband the Estates General. And, with that, the anti-reform First and Second Estates departed, reassembling in the Château de Vincennes, a few miles east of Paris. Here they declared themselves to be the Conseil d'État, proclaiming that if the King of France was refusing to perform his duties as sovereign, his status as sovereign was to be revoked and that the Duke of Orleans, Louis Philippe II was to be the new King of France.
News of the Conseil’s declaration spread like wildfire across the French Kingdom. While the core territories of France remained loyal, much of the periphery was under control of the nobility and revolted. Within weeks, the majority of France’s southern and eastern provinces were in revolt with the Conseil fleeing to Lyon after it became apparent that Paris and the surrounding territory would remain under Louis XVI’s control. Outside of the south and east, the only province to revolt was Brittany. The Bretons refused to join forces with the Conseil, however due to political tensions between the Breton Parliament and King Louis XVI, the Breton Parliament refused to cooperate with King Louis XVI’s government.
Almost immediately skirmishes between the Conseil’s forces, dubbed the Conseillères, broke out. The loyalist army was significantly stronger than the army of the Conseilléres, however an attempt to launch a quick attack on the Conseilléres failed on October 12th with the Battle of Dijon. During the Battle, the 20,000 strong loyalist army divided into two in order to surround the 10,000 strong Conseilleres. However, in a horrifying accident, the two sections of the loyalist army ended up attacking each other during the night after the royal flag of the loyalists, a white flag with the predominantly blue Bourbon coat of arms, was mistaken for the royal flag of the Conseilleres, a white flag with the predominantly blue Orleans coat of arms. The Disaster of Dijon, as the incident came to be known, allowed for the Conseilleres to rout the loyalist army in what was one of the worst military disasters in French military history. The Disaster allowed for the Conseilléres to consolidate their control, and spelled the end of any hope of a swift victory against the rebellion.
So a civil war between feudalism and central authority be it autocrat or a possible parliament.
This is going to be ugly. But not as much as OTL I expect.
This is going to be ugly. But not as much as OTL I expect.
Md139115
Banned
Indeed, and the important thing here is that the king and the royal family are on the side of the reformers. That means that Europe is not going to get involved to that great of an extent as it did in the First Coalition. It also means that we might see a French constitutional monarchy existing into the 20th century. It may even mean that Napoleon is just going to go down in history as an insanely good general, not the man who nearly conquered all of Europe.
What's the reaction to a Frenchman (as I assume the good Marqis is?) in charge of America?
A validation of "French Greatness" I would assume for the French. And the British likely red with rage. After all the colonials fiestiness over Republic and democracy, they make a Frenchman their king?!
Schnozzberry
Gone Fishin'
Sorry I didn't respond everyone, for whatever reason I just never hit send and just had this draft for yonks.
While this certainly won't be as bad as OTL, I don't know how easily OTL could be topped. I'm not 100% sure of how accurate this is, but according to a couple of accounts I've read, the effect of the French Revolution and subsequent wars was enough to noticeably change France's demographics and economics to put them on the path to be eclipsed by Germany as the dominant Continental power.
Certainly true, unless things go very wrong.
Well, even if France went full Revolution, Europe is currently fighting a large-scale war and probably couldn't intervene properly. But, the exact stability of the French monarchy is still up in the air. There is a historical precedent for the 3rd Estate to go a bit bonkers. And as for Napoleon, he may not even become a general due to class divides in the French military but who knows? It's still a few years until he would be rising to any sort of status if he does.
Well, there was a civil war... But outside of that, there will be reactions due to this, but one thing is a potential piece for intrigue in Quebec and Louisiana due to the Marquis' status.
Oh no, I've given the French justification to be even more smug! And the Brits being angry definitely will be important.
While this certainly won't be as bad as OTL, I don't know how easily OTL could be topped. I'm not 100% sure of how accurate this is, but according to a couple of accounts I've read, the effect of the French Revolution and subsequent wars was enough to noticeably change France's demographics and economics to put them on the path to be eclipsed by Germany as the dominant Continental power.
Certainly true, unless things go very wrong.
Well, even if France went full Revolution, Europe is currently fighting a large-scale war and probably couldn't intervene properly. But, the exact stability of the French monarchy is still up in the air. There is a historical precedent for the 3rd Estate to go a bit bonkers. And as for Napoleon, he may not even become a general due to class divides in the French military but who knows? It's still a few years until he would be rising to any sort of status if he does.
Well, there was a civil war... But outside of that, there will be reactions due to this, but one thing is a potential piece for intrigue in Quebec and Louisiana due to the Marquis' status.
Oh no, I've given the French justification to be even more smug! And the Brits being angry definitely will be important.
Oh God, just bing read this amazing tl. May I ask what the name of the royal dynasty of America is? It's not the most uncommon thing for people to create diffrent surnames when they achieve significant status change. How about the royal "house of America"...unless that's to plain.
