Dominion of Southern America - Updated July 1, 2018

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by Glen, Feb 22, 2010.

Tags:
  1. stevep Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Glen

    Interesting that Prussia-Poland is willing to work with Austria on this rather than being rivals. Is their leadership not wishing to overtake the Hapsburg's as the dominant German power? Although that would be likely to be a deeply unpopular move in the Polish part of the state.

    Steve
     
  2. teg The Worst Unionist

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Location:
    Aberystwyth
    Most likely the Prussians see Germany as a bigger threat than Austria, so they are willing to work with the Austrians... for now;)
     
  3. stevep Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Teg

    Damn, too many TLs. I had lost track and was presuming that if Prussia was still relatively small Austria would be dominating Germany.:eek:

    Steve
     
  4. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Relations with Wild Indians in the Provinces west of the Mississippi had been initially shaped by Texas. When the Texans gained independence from Mexico, initially they had reasonable relations with Indians in the region, who had sometimes had peace and sometimes war with the Spanish and the Mexicans after them. However, when Andrew Jackson became president of Texas (and later Counsul of the Confederation), things took a decidedly more confrontational course. While Jackson espoused respect for native cultures publicly, he also stated that he felt that Texans and Natives could not share the land, and sponsored their removal to the west; the desolation of New Mexico. The tribes of the Caddo confederacy, rather than deal with Jackson, migrated to western Arkansas Province. The Comanche had a much looser structure than other major tribes, and under Jacksonian pressure the southern and central bands took different tacks. The central ones close to Arkansas moved north into the region, in some cases blending with the Comanche already there and the Caddo who joined them. The central bands, however, were more likely to migrate or be forced to the west and the New Mexico territory. This brought them into further contact and conflict with the Navajo peoples who were the predominant group in New Mexico. When the Southern Rebellion against Britain broke out, many of those tribes of western Arkansas fought the Confederationists, though saying they sided with the British may have been an overstatement.

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    The Provinces of the Dominion of Southern America, in the aftermath of the slaver rebellion, vacillated between concilliation and additional pressure on the western tribes. Many of the Caddo derived tribes found some accomodation with the whites moving into the region of western Arkansas. The Comanche bands in Texas administered New Mexico, due to their raiding ways, were as often or not forced into more and more marginalized lands and to the west, even as far as eastern Albion Province. Some of the migratory bands of the Dene peoples, Apaches, clashed with the Comanche, some merged together with them. The Navajo branch of the Dene peoples were actually more likely to side with the Dominion, their more settled ways better meshing with the society of the Dominion.
     
  5. scholar Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2010
    Location:
    United States
    Interesting update. It certainly appears to have foregone the worst of the OTL treatment of Indians.
     
  6. thekingsguard Founder of Korsgaardianism

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Location:
    Virginia - near the USA-CSSA Border
    But then, they would be dealing with truely counterfactual history :D
     
  7. stevep Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Glen

    Good insight into the developments with the western Indian people's in the dominion. Glad that things seem to be going better for them than OTL, although of course those further north suffer as a result.

    However in the above section there seems to be a typo? You differentiate between the southern and central bands taking different tacks then mention the central bands twice?

    Steve
     
  8. GrizzlyTrotsky Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2010
    I feel the need to come out from lurking to say that Austria-Hungary would have no canonical grounds to make the statement that the Chair of St. Peter was empty; Jus exclusivae was never recognized in any sort of canon law, so there is no lawful declaration that can be made stating that the state of Sede Vacante exists. So unless they are setting up their own Churches... actually, either way, I'm doubtful that either of these countries would be able to make this declaration without it being a blatantly obvious power grab. Nor could they do this without there being a fair amount of unrest, especially in Poland as the Catholic clergy would be forced to swear allegiance to a Protestant Emperor.
     
  9. teg The Worst Unionist

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Location:
    Aberystwyth
    Who says the Austrians care about cannocial law? After all, the Pope doesn't exactly have many divisions, does he?
     
  10. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    While that makes perfect military sense, in fact for political reasons the official capitol remains St. Petersburg. Many of the mundane functions of the government have been moved to Moscow, however, so that the capital could be evacuated with minimal disruption in the event of war.
     
  11. Falastur Fighting Swiss-wank since 1291

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2009
    Location:
    Hitchin, Herts
    I have no knowledge of Vatican law but I also was surprised by Glen's move here - the idea of an anti-Pope was just so unexpected, I thought Rome's supremacy of the Catholic church would be undeniable by this point. I won't argue the point, however, though if the end result is a situation where Catholic Churches become national (i.e. not just one anti-Pope but many) I think I'll start to worry about the Catholic Church's hopes of remaining a significant denomination or whether we'll just see it fragment into a hundred little groups rather as Protestantism did...and I say that as a Protestant with no real reason to favour Catholicism. It just seems so...natural for their to be one Catholic Church spanning the world. Even if there is only intended to be one anti-Pope for now, well...the precedent has been set. What's to stop any other monarch now demanding his Catholic clergy submit to his personal rule? And what is to stop those groups then splitting under internal pressure, or over doctrinal dispute, or as the result of shifting borders, etc etc etc?

    I presume, however, citing Chekhov's Gun (tell me to shut up and stop ruining the suspension of disbelief if you want and I'll stop doing this, Glen ;) ) that the picture of Stephansdom in Vienna there was as it is being mooted as a good location for Vatican II. I wonder, if that does happen, what would become of Vienna city centre? Would the new anti-Pope press for his own extra-sovereign territory? And if does, surely he needs more than just one church to be in any way independent? But if that is the case then much of Vienna's core heartland districts must be ceded and lost to the Emperor of Austria-Hungary. Then again, am I perhaps contradicting my earlier opinions that the new Pope would likely be nothing more than an Austrian puppet with the Emperor as the actual and legal head of the church?

    Actually, I'll apologise now. That last paragraph was more than a little bit inspired by the fact that I was on holiday in Vienna this summer and instantly recognised the church, and its cleverly-disguised scaffolding with a canvas picture of the church covering it up (which is why part of the church looks so unnaturally grey). I kinda just wanted to show off :p Sorry :eek:

    Ah good. I wasn't the only one who originally read Glen's post as assuming that the Prussia-Polish were not subjecting their clergy to Austria-Hungary but were establishing their own monarch as head of the church within his own borders. I now suspect Glen indeed meant the Polish clergy submitting to Vienna, but could you clarify which you meant please, Glen?
     
  12. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Glad you liked the speculative history update.:)
     
  13. SpazzReflex Induce vomiting if contacted

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2010
    Location:
    The Pit
    Ah, Another liberal Pope. Will this be a trend or is this going to be rebutteled by several conservative popes later on?

    Prupol is quickly becoming a the conservative military monster I keep forgetting that it is. Hetalia is screwing with my mind.

    And while my Arawok ancestors were some great distance away, I feel a connection to the Plains Indians whenever I read about the 'Indian wars'. Thank God for Dominion Intervention!
     
  14. GrizzlyTrotsky Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2010
    It matters because there are going to be plenty of Catholics who will be vehemently against the break from Rome. It appears that both goverments are setting themselves up as the new Heads of Church, which is exactly what the King of England did, and that didn't go over without some violence erupting. Not only that, but generally governments try to fabricate some kind of legal standing when they do something THAT drastic. (Generally being the keyword, of course). And when you are dealing with ecclesiastical matters, canon law does sort of matter.

    However, I could see this potentially happening if the Austrian cardinals (outnumbered by liberal Italian (who would make up the bulk) and other Western European cardinals) would cause some sort of disruption, and then getting ejected from the conclave. There could be standing then for the Emperor to do that.

    I still have a huge issue with the idea that the Prussia-Poland Kaiser would magically be able to split the national hierarchy away from Rome without there being incredibly serious ramifications domestically. The Poles are going to see this as nothing more than an attempt to make them Protestant and very blunt prussianification (or whatever it would be called), making it less, not more likely they'll want to commit to their relatively new state. Of course, the Kaiser might be very short sighted, there have been plenty of such rulers, but without ramifications? Admittedly, the post was brief enough that perhaps Glen will tell us more in depth about the situation later!

    Also, I'd hate to let my concerns here give the wrong impression - I've been following this thread very closely for the past few months, and I absolutely love it! Glen, you've done a fantastic job with it so far. It's definitely one of the best Timelines on the board.
     
  15. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    The actions of the Austro-Hungarians and Prussian-Poles toward Pope Pius X were the most egregious examples of Korsgaardian regimes taking advantage of the Austro-Hungarian denial of legitimacy, but not the only ones. At first, Pope Pius X, though furious, listened to the counsel of the Vatican to address the issue with patience. He issued first entreaties appealing to the universal brotherhood of the Catholic Church. Many of the clergy in Eastern Europe stayed silent, hoping the powers would work out their issues with the Holy Father. The few who spoke in favor of the state's position on the Pope found themselves richly rewarded and their pet projects favored by patronage. The few who dared raise their voices against the state in support of the Pope, if foreign-born found themselves deported, but if native to the nation often as not simply disappeared. The Pope's outrage when this pattern of disappearances was legendary. He gave an ultimatum to the Austro-Hungarian Emperor to renounce his stance against the Pope and produce his supporters (a similar letter was sent to the Prussian-Polish Kaiser, but since it was a Catholic Emperor who was seen as the instigator and poor legal fig-leaf of legitimacy the Korsgaardians had, the ultimatum was primarily addressed to him). The Emperor dismissed the letter by stating that he did not recognize the name on it (Pius X). In 1883, after years of diplomatic wrangling and accusation and counter-accusation, the Pope finally lost patience and excommunicated the Emperor of Austria-Hungary. He merely ignored the ruling as invalid. By then, the clergy had learned that Austria-Hungary was a Catholic nation under the Emperor's protection until a 'proper' conclave and election was held for Pope, recognizing Austria-Hungary's 'God-given duty' to screen out 'questionable' choices for the Papacy. In Prussia-Poland, the Kaiser appointed the very popular Primate of Poland as the protector of the Catholic faith in Prussia-Poland until 'a legitimate Pope could be certified'. While the Primate had been an appointee of the late Pius IX, he had been won over to the Kaiser's side by his elevation of the Polish (and Catholic) people of his realm to a respected partner with Prussians in the establishment of the modern (Korsgaardian) state.

    Pope Pius X
    [​IMG]
     
  16. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Not mine, but from that timeline.
     
  17. GrizzlyTrotsky Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2010
    Well, now I'm even more intensely curious as to what will happen next.
     
  18. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Isn't it just?

    What a terribly disconcerting image!!:eek:
     
  19. Iserlohn Amateur Cartographer

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2009
    Location:
    County of Mark
    I've got to say... That schism is fascinating yet disturbing. It doesn't suprise me that the genuinely Korsgaardian Prussia-Poland does so, but A-H... I have the feeling that war will break out because of stuff like that.

    And since when does A-H follow Korsgaardian principles anyway? Did I miss that part?
     
  20. eschaton Muckraker & Rabblerouser

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    I'm sorry Glen, but I think you're bumping up Korsgaardism a bit too much.

    I can understand why Prussia-Poland, Austria, and Russia embrace it, as it is a way to ideologically justify reactionary forces.

    However, I just do not see how it can develop into a mass movement similar to OTL's Fascism. Fascism worked as a mass movement mainly because it united the people (generally the middle classes) against a scapegoat - usually communism, sometimes other enemies both internal and external. It also helped that the ruling class was terrified enough of the alternative (a socialist revolution) that much of it was willing to go along. ITTL, there just isn't the history yet to allow for this.

    Let's start with Mexico. It's plausible to me that given the economic downturn, a charismatic strongman who privately holds Korsgaardist ideas would come to power, and would implement his will once he holds the reins. But popular support for the agenda itself would be limited. I also find it hard to believe the army took the coup lying down, unless they were already deeply embedded.

    If the Korsgaardists take control of the U.S., I will stop reading and commenting upon the TL, full stop. TTL's USA might be a bit more centralized than OTL, but on the other hand, without a civil war, the national narrative for why a strong central government is needed hasn't developed yet. I could see a conservative protectionist populist movement developing with an economic downturn, but it wouldn't associate itself with what's going on in Europe, and would be at least rhetorically, if not in practice, against the power of the federal government.