Look to the West: Thread III, Volume IV (Tottenham Nil)!

[Shevek23]

You also clarified how the "Battle of Salinas" is a dustup at none other than the OTL Salinas River, although it was on a scale considerably smaller that I imagined.

And as I found out trying to learn how that river got its name OTL (as a clue to how another one much farther north might have got it instead), the river having the characteristics it is named for OTL seems to require a considerable amount of settler activity near it, to divert its surface waters and dry it up. (Much of the river is underground so it doesn't go away, but the salt marshes formed due to diversions). But that makes sense considering the New Spanish development drive and the gold rush drawing in the motley crew of settlers there by now.

Nice job screwing up my sympathies too; there isn't really anyone I can root for in this fight--too late for the various native peoples I fear, though perhaps they did a little better than OTL due to the New Spanish regime being a bit more native-friendly. But only a little if they have missions; those places were basically extermination camps OTL anyway. It was not quite the intent of the OTL project to accomplish that of course, but the forced confinement exposed the native peoples to every Eurasian disease in the book, and of course the form of religious conversion and cultural transformation the friars imposed amounted to cultural genocide in itself--and that was of course coupled to social transformation meant to make instant peasants of them.

Exterminating the Indios was not the goal--but subjugating them so that they could not be agents free to make political deals with rival powers was. Mainly the Spanish and their OTL Mexican successors feared the Russians, who did have a New-France-like policy of forming alliances with natives--ITTL there is a lot more to fear from their influence of course--the English were also a factor OTL as the ENA is here. If denying the Russians potential native allies meant physical as well as cultural genocide--well, that was unfortunate but no doubt an unavoidable misfortune, given the larger stakes.

ITTL, I do gather the New Spanish regime is more comfortable with working with sufficiently compliant Native peoples and so perhaps this timeline's version of the Missions was not quite the string of hellholes it was OTL; perhaps there were more instances of native peoples being permitted to relate to the government and the incoming New Spanish settlers as distinct peoples retaining much of their old identity and organization openly, and even personal autonomy so not all of them were herded into these concentration camps. But on the other hand the foreign challenges the OTL mission system was a response to come earlier and stronger so there is more haste, and the authorized, preferred New Spanish settlers came in sooner in greater numbers--then were themselves swamped by the gold rush mob.

Who else to favor? I'd have liked to champion the success of the New Spanish Kingdom within the larger Empire of the Indies (I'm pretty sure I have my terms muddled there, can you remind us the name of the overall Empire and of the various kingdoms again?)--but they are moving, under Carolinian influence, in a Burdenist racist direction--good for the Native peoples perhaps (those not dying in droves from sudden exposure to the Eurasian disease cocktail and of course any who don't conveniently die off are people in the way, albeit people with more of their rights respected in principle if not in the event) but very bad for people of African descent--New Spain is committing more, not less, to slavery and under Carolinian influence the ameliorating effects of the Latin slave code will doubtless be brutalized to the harder form the Carolinians favor--they are themselves the active, leading parties in setting up large slave-based enterprises, citrus plantations in what is called OTL "Southern California" and tropical fruits in central America. So my sympathy for the New Spanish, indeed whole Empire of Indies, system is much diminished.

Well, of all the Western Hemisphere polities my allegiance and sympathy long ago veered away from the compromised ENA to the USPA--which of course has the apparently ominous fate of going Societist hanging over it. But even if there is some grand alliance between the northern confederations of the ENA (the real ENA, just as the Union was the real USA OTL in the Civil War) and USPA, they will have some tough fights ahead of them--Carolina is already at least roughly equivalent to the OTL Confederacy, lacking much to the west but more than making it up with island provinces to the south. Unlike the OTL Confederacy, Carolina is a long-established union in its own right; it won't suffer the decentralization and new-minted status of its OTL counterpart. And Carolina will assuredly have the alliance of breakaway French Louisiana (and its island provinces in the Caribbean) and apparently the Empire of the Indies. OTL the Union Navy was far superior to the Confederate one; surely ITTL the Carolinians supply much of the manpower and hulls of the ENA Navy and will face the Northern fleet on much more equal terms--again reinforced by the Louisiana fleet and the doubtless mighty fleets of the Empire of the Indies. To get to the northern parts of California by sea the ENA fleet must run this formidable gauntlet all the way to the straits separating South America from Antarctica; even USPA aid will only buy them a respite before facing those terrible waters, then an escort northward to again face the Empire of Indies Pacific squadrons all the way to the bay known OTL as San Francisco. Or of course ENA elements can opt to go via the Indian Ocean and across the vast Pacific--a friendly USPA, which at last report held the Philippines, would again be a help, but still it's one hell of a long, slow haul going that way.

Overland, a triple Carolina, Louisiana, New Spain alliance would harass and interdict the already difficult routes to California. Especially if the synergy of Burdenist pro-Native ideology and New Spanish deeper Native roots enables the latter especially to capitalize on their holdings in New Mexico and recruit various Native tribes as auxiliaries--I'm imagining Apaches and Comanches, along with Navajos, seizing strategic passes in the Great Basin. The overland movement of the northern ENA forces and settlers will be diverted far northward. Or else the ENA must recruit a very big army for a nasty fight on far-flung frontiers, against largely Native forces, which will make for considerable awkwardness in dealing with the other Native alliances who live farther north--even the Howdensee, despite their long accommodation, might become a dangerous element of unrest.

If the ENA is to prevail, at least in upper California, I see it happening via a strong movement into OTL Oregon/Washington, establishing naval bases there, and moving south by land and sea to support a pro-ENA rebellion in the Bay Area and Central Valley. But I think it is already foreshadowed that in the region known OTL as Southern California, south of the Tehachapi Mountains, the ENA contingent is Carolinian-dominated and will presumably reinforce the New Spanish hold; however sweeping ENA victory may eventually be in the Central Valley and northward, they will never get Las Estrellas or anywhere southward of there.

And of course it is also forewarned that the ENA is not the only contender--the Russo-Lithuanians are a big factor and perhaps better placed to secure a rebellious northern California; there are plenty of them already in residence and the Company is already strong with many Pacific bases, holding as it does all of Yapon and with a strong influence on Hawaii, as well as the bases it has in the Pacific Northwest of North America. By sea they are much better posed to move on California than the ENA could be; the question is whether the ENA can make good its claims via the long and chancy overland route.

Or make a deal with the Russo-Lithuanians of course; with them, the USPA, and possibly the metropolitan Kingdom of France on one side working for an agreed-upon settlement, the formidable triple alliance of Carolina, Louisiana and Empire of Indies would be in for a nasty fight.

But while others have jumped to the conclusion that USPA would be in, I'm not so sure; I think France is a more likely ENA ally actually since Louisiana would be in rebellion, but I also doubt France will ever be able to subdue and hold its American territories once lost--either a conquering ENA holds the continental part and maybe the islands, maybe France gets and can hold just the islands, or perhaps the Empire of Indies takes possession of parts or the whole of either part. ENA will probably not support Paris taking more direct control of the continental part of Louisiana though.

And I don't have the feeling the ENA will win, not as sweepingly as the Union did OTL over the Confederacy anyway--holding Carolina, even just the continental part of it, might prove a poison pill impossible to digest. Perhaps by the radical method of freeing and mobilizing the former slaves it can be done, but if taken and held by that method the former slave nations will be radically different and quite differently governed than the northern Confederacies of the ENA. And while I think the ENA can anyway hold its own against Carolina, the balance of power is not as favorable to the North as it was OTL, even before factoring in the two Latin allies.

The only reason I have to doubt New Spain will hold on to all of California is the implication in canonical text that it doesn't, but it isn't clear that the ENA gets any of it--it might be a Russo-Lithuanian holding, or a nominally independent republic or duchy or what have you being alternately courted and manipulated by all three of these powers.

 

[OwenM]

It's the Kingdom of Mexico in the Empire of New Spain (originally the Empire of the Indies) if I'm remembering correctly.
I am firmly on the side of the northern Confederations at present (though I expect to quite like Superia when it comes along, and the UPSA is fine right now, I just know it won't last). I can understand the Virginian position though.

 

[Makemakean]

I would be remiss if I did not point out that a lot of the preceding post is derived from actual resolutions from the OTL US Civil War, especially the first Carolinian one which borrows sections from the Republic of Mississippi's Declaration of Secession. They fitted in too well to ignore.

Yeah, I noticed that with amusement. Those are documents that are always useful to have at hand whenever you come across a revisionist keen on making the case that the Civil War was really all about States' Rights.

I think I first came across it in Narnia as well...I sure hope CS Lewis didn't invent it or some editing is required!

Interestingly enough, the use of numerals in England seems to have been used first when people needed to differentiate between the three kings, all of them named Edward, who ruled between 1272 and 1377, in Plantagenet England. It is thus interesting to note that Edward I certainly was not the First of His Name, as that would be Edward the Elder, who ruled 874-877. In fact, Edward I would actually be the Fourth of His Name, since one must also take into account Edward the Martyr and Edward the Confessor.

 

[OwenM]

Yeah, I noticed that with amusement. Those are documents that are always useful to have at hand whenever you come across a revisionist keen on making the case that the Civil War was really all about States' Rights.

I always find that particularly absurd given that the main Republican platform arguably increased states' rights and the Confederate constitution arguably reduced them! (That will, of course, not be an issue TTL).
On kings; it's worth pointing out that Edward the Martyr would arguably be first of his name, since Edward the Elder was still really only King of Wessex and I don't think there were any prior Bretwaldas named Edward. (In Welsh history at least, the King of the Britons/King of the Welsh/Prince of Wales is usually given a separate numbering from the local princes, seeing as it changed hands so often, so Llywelyn ein Llyw Olaf is Llywelyn II of Wales and Llywelyn III of Gwynedd. I think this is all back-projection though.
When did the process start elsewhere? I would guess the Popes would be the ones it was originally used for........
EDIT: Also, didn't Henry III put his numeral on coins?

 

[Makemakean]

I always find that particularly absurd given that the main Republican platform arguably increased states' rights and the Confederate constitution arguably reduced them! (That will, of course, not be an issue TTL).

Well, I don't know if Lincoln's Republican platform actually can be said to have increased states' rights, but I do know that after skimming through the Confederate Constitution, I was amazed by how little it actually differed from the one of the Union. Only real difference seems to have been that the Southern one explicitly recognized the Christian God, and some minor revisions pertaining to term limits.

On kings; it's worth pointing out that Edward the Martyr would arguably be first of his name, since Edward the Elder was still really only King of Wessex and I don't think there were any prior Bretwaldas named Edward. (In Welsh history at least, the King of the Britons/King of the Welsh/Prince of Wales is usually given a separate numbering from the local princes, seeing as it changed hands so often, so Llywelyn ein Llyw Olaf is Llywelyn II of Wales and Llywelyn III of Gwynedd. I think this is all back-projection though.
When did the process start elsewhere? I would guess the Popes would be the ones it was originally used for........
EDIT: Also, didn't Henry III put his numeral on coins?

In Sweden it really started in the latter half of the 16th century. Prior to that, all kings and queens were just known as "X, Y's son/daughter". I have on many places elsewhere on the forum already explained in detail how the numerals used in Sweden comes from forged history, and that our present monarch Carl XVI Gustaf (or Charles XVI Gustaf) is actually only the tenth monarch of that name that we can attest to actually existed. So we have the reverse problem of the British...

 

[Thande]

Part #180: The Widening Gyre

“The only man in America among the boys.”

– Pablo Sanchez on Mo Quedling, 1849​

*

From “The Great American War” by Alexander Jenkins (1972)—

Though it would be inaccurate to claim that detailed plans were made for the eventuality, it was certainly not entirely unexpected among the political classes—as opposed to the public—that Carolina might one day reject the overarching federal government of the Empire of North America altogether. In earlier times some had assumed that Virginia might join her; then, after the Virginia Crisis and the increase in emphasis on Carolinian exceptionalism over southern solidarity, the assumption was that Virginia would remain unambiguously loyal. Governor Owens-Allen’s declaration of neutrality was a shock because it was a third option unforeseen by the speculators, and placed severe constraints on the government’s ability to maneouvre. A hostile Virginia could, at least, simply be treated the same way as Carolina, but a neutral Virginia was another matter. The Supremacists argued that Owens-Allen’s actions should be treated as an act of rebellion, and given the confirmation of his decision by the House of Burgesses, some of the more radical Supremacist elements advocated the immediate use of military force against Virginia to restore the government’s authority.

These views were never mainstream, however. Though the Burgesses had voted to support Owens-Allen, it had been a narrow and geographically polarised vote. The bill passed by a margin of only three out of the 253 votes cast by Burgesses (only 7 abstained) and the vast majority of the ayes were from the east, while the vast majority of nays were from the west. It was eastern Virginia that was culturally closest to Carolina, still had some people bitter about the end of slavery, and most importantly had suffered most during the Virginia Crisis. Support for neutrality tended to be more motivated by the latter factor than any particular sympathy with the Carolinian cause per se—Virginians feared that their confederation would become the de facto battleground between Carolinian and northern forces. On the other hand, western Virginia had a strong legacy of anti-slavery thinking from the Crisis, regarded a war as less potentially destructive and with the collapse of the Democrats had become a Supremacist stronghold.

The government judged that any attempt at military intervention, even limited, would result in Virginians rallying around their Governor against the ‘invasion’ and removing this sharply polarised opinion, perhaps even driving Virginia into Carolina’s arms as Owens-Allen had threatened. However, when tied to the issues that the Constitutional Convention had originally been conceived for, the very polarisation suggested a potential course of action: split Virginia into two confederations and then ask the more sympathetic western half to act as a conduit for Imperial troops to cross into Carolinian territory while isolating the eastern half. This idea, the brainchild of western Virginian Supremacist MCP Zechariah Boone, suffered from the problem that this would scarcely be tactically the best way of reaching into Carolinian territory, but the fact that separation enjoyed some support even from eastern Virginians (who, until Owens-Allen, had become very sick of often being outvoted by western interests) suggested it was viable.

This was only one of several plans simultaneously pursued by the government to overcome Virginian neutrality. A second was to attempt to remove Owens-Allen by Imperial authority (as Frederick II possessed the power to do so). This was rejected for a number of reasons—the expenditure of political capital required, once again the potential to unite Virginians around a figure who was otherwise divisive in the face of ‘persecution’ and the fact that Owens-Allen would just be succeeded by his like-minded deputy who would have to be removed in turn, all in the face of likely opposition from the House of Burgesses. The Emperor himself was leery of the idea and argued to the Cabinet that by the time Owens-Allen had been removed, the election would have come around and they could then act more openly—either Owens-Allen would try to cancel the election on the grounds of the current crisis, making him more unpopular and vulnerable to charges, or the election would go ahead and the government could help back a more compliant rival to win and reverse Virginian neutrality. This was favoured and the government commenced trying to undermine Owens-Allen in subtler ways.

A third plan consisted of attempting to instigate a casus belli between Carolina and Virginia to drive Virginia to the Imperial side (even though Owens-Allen had warned them against this). To that end, agents were sent by the government’s unofficial spymaster Quentin Calladine to infiltrate the Great Dismal Swamp region that crossed the border between the two Confederations. This had been a rather lawless area since the Virginia Crisis due to the difficulty policing it, and many Carolinian escaped slaves had made it to free Virginia by crossing the swamp and evading their pursuers.[1] Others continued to hide out in the Swamp and imitated Caesar Bell’s Wilderness men in the Crisis, raiding into Carolina, attacking slaveholders and freeing their slaves—while being careful never to attack Virginians lest the two Confederations surround the Swamp between them. Carolina had made several appeals in the Democratic Experiment era for just this to happen, but the Virginian authorities had still been sore over Carolina’s abortive invasion during the Crisis and had refused—something which likely increased Carolina’s sense of isolation. Calladine’s men often worked with the Bell-imitator groups, who became collectively known as the Black Army, but struggled to find a way they could potentially engineer a false-flag attack on Virginians due to the fact that any Carolinian military force would hardly cross the Dismal Swamp in any case.

In addition to these plans, Thomas Whipple argued that the best way to undermine Owens-Allen’s position was to force him to take difficult decisions that would clarify Virginia’s stance with respect to the Empire—if they could make him stand against other commands from the Continental Parliament and the Emperor, that would lend more support to the accusations of rebellion and make some of his more moderate support drop away. Fortunately such an issue presented itself: the matter of intervention in the Californias…

*

From “A History of California” by J. D. Peters-Vasquez (1989)—

In the immediate wake of the Fords of Salinas, Emperor Ferdinand VII of New Spain and King Antonio II of Mexico—the latter only three years on the throne vacated by his namesake father—took action to crack down on the ‘armed foreign groups’ operating in the provinces of Lower, Upper and Far California. This move, dubbed the Campaña de Represión, included sharply discriminatory measures against those subjects who had been living in defiance of the law on matters such as the confessional tax. Curfews and identity papers for non-native born and non-Catholic subjects were introduced. Meaningfully, the Carolinians—even the Protestant Carolinians—were excluded and indeed often recruited as supplementary enforcers by the regiments that Ferdinand deployed there. These included two from Peru, where King Francis recorded considerable misgivings about the whole project in his journal and was concerned—prophetically—that the troops would end up facing more than bandits.

Somewhat predictably the crackdown did at least as much harm as good for the New Spanish cause. The Californias had become complacent and used to their laissez-faire approach to the law and even those of ‘pure’ Spanish blood and unquestionably loyal to the Emperor were irked by the fact that their neighbours were no longer buying in their shops or eating in their restaurants out of fear of the curfew. The strains that the troops put on the provinces, with houses being confiscated and rumours of rough treatment of women, only exacerbated this resentment. This drove many Californians to support the ‘bandits’ over the authorities.

There were numerous groups among the former, from those criminal groups that would reasonably and objectively fit the term ‘bandit’ to true freedom fighters wanting a better form of government for California. Of course there was a lot of overlap as well. The rebel elements with more of an agenda than ‘your money or your life’ were of diverse origin and had very different ideas about what a new California should look like. The two largest contingents were the Russians and the Americans (not including the Carolinians, of course, but including many Virginians). The Russian group, which also took in Lithuanians and many of the minorities recruited by the RPLC from the Far East, were the most organised and led by the brothers Pyotr and Pavel Volkov. The Americans were a larger but less organised group, more of a collection of infighting factions in their own right. It seems fairly clear that the RPLC had been directly if subtly intervening for a while to unite the Russians under a single banner, while the Americans had more ‘organically’ developed without much interference from their government up till now. Beyond these two large groups were many smaller ones, a portion of whom aligned with the Russians and Americans. There were also groups of native fighters who sometimes worked with the rebels and bandits and sometimes with the authorities, depending on which they thought would result in them being left alone. It does not appear that the NFL had much contact with them prior to the Great American War, but contact was made in the course of it—though given the NFL’s fate in the course of the conflict, this might have done more harm than good for the Californian natives.

Broadly speaking the rebels controlled the interior of the provinces and most of Far California, or at least denied control of these areas to the authorities. The border between Far California and Drakesland was rather vague even after the clarifications made by the Hancock Commission in 1837.[2] Additional Americans came south from Drakesland to help the rebels even from the start. The rebels also attacked the new transport conduits that the New Spanish had painstakingly built in California, including attacks on railways for what is believed to be the first time in history. At least two trains were derailed by laying sleepers across the rails, which led the New Spanish to revert to more primitive means of establishing supply lines between their strongholds. Popular history of the war idolises the mighty convoys of trailers pulled by Meridian-built steam tractors, like landborne trains freed of the constraints of the rails, but in the cold light of day there were never more than ten recorded instances of this expensive method being used rather than convoys of conventional horse-drawn wagons. Reality is scarcely as filmish as one would like.

The crackdown against American-born Californians was already prompting condemnation from the Continental Parliament, but it was unclear whether this would lead to all-out war. New Spain had recently signed the Concordat with Carolina and Louisiana and Ferdinand wished to lend some degree of support to the Carolinians (as indeed they were in California) but hesitated over whether full-scale war was appropriate. On the back of reports that the crackdown was unpopular in California, he decided that a war would be a suitable way to force Californians to take sides and paint any objectors to the crackdown as traitors and sympathisers for ‘bandits’ that had now become enemy forces and cryptic reserves [fifth columns]. Ferdinand believed that any war with the ENA would remain low-level, underestimating the American government’s ability and will to deploy troops to California, assuming that an immediate conflict with Carolina would be their top priority (he did not fully grasp the role of Virginia’s neutrality at this point) and deciding that Carolina’s naval strength in the Gulf of Mexico and West Indies precluded the idea of an American fleet bombarding Veracruz. Rather than explicitly declaring war, on September 5th 1848—months after Carolina had actually declared independence and the Continental Parliament had warned against recognising the breakaway nation—he issued a statement that New Spain recognised the Kingdom of Carolina. This missive was brought to Fredericksburg by fast steamer, where it was recognised for what it was, a veiled declaration of war via calling the ENA’s bluff and forcing it to take the initiative.

Emperor Frederick accordingly declared war on New Spain, and following a plan made by Continental Secretary Thomas Whipple and Foreign Secretary Michael Webster, the American government used this opportunity to force Virginia to clarify its neutrality…

*

From “The Great American War” by Alexander Jenkins (1972)—

The Continental Parliament passed a bill calling on each Confederation to contribute three existing regiments of troops to the intervention ‘in support of our citizens and their fellow brave fighters for Californian freedom against Bourbon absolutist oppression’. The bill also called on the Confederations to begin recruiting training men for three additional regiments. The bill pointedly mentioned Carolina by name according to the Parliament’s “strategy” of acting as though Carolina was still a member Confederation of the ENA and simply ruled by a rogue government that could be brought back into line if a finger was wagged at it often enough. This approach has been roundly and accurately mocked by commentators then and now as Lisieux-style wishful thinking[3] but we must understand that it was not so much a deliberate “strategy” as a reflection of indecision and paralysis. The reduced Continental Parliament, deprived of the Whigs, was divided between a government composed of hawkish Supremacists and more moderate Liberals plus a Patriot opposition strongly opposed to any direct action against Carolina and insistent that all this was the fault of the Reformists. Patriot leader Simon Studholme described his party’s position as one of “Constitutionalism Without Conditions” (ironic given that fifty years before the Patriots had been the opposing party to the Constitutionalists) in which Carolina would be welcomed back into an Empire under the ‘old, perfect’ Constitution of 1788 with assurances that their institutions would not be touched. Matthew Clarke fierily replied that any Empire so constrained by a slavish adherence to outdated views and weakness of central government was no Empire fit for men to live in.

The declaration of war against New Spain helped unite the Parliament better, with this being supported by the Patriots and Liberals as well as the Supremacists (who had been calling for such intervention for years). As Whipple and Webster had hoped, the bill put Governor Owens-Allen on the spot. If he refused to supply troops, Virginia would unambiguously be in rebellion against the Emperor, public opinion would turn against him and the northern Confederations could get away with a military intervention. If he obeyed, the military forces he had talked of defending Virginia against any hypothetical intervention would be reduced and undermined, and there was nothing to stop the government later ordering the Virginian regiments to take part in an attack against Carolina.

In the end Owens-Allen decided to send two regiments recruited from western Virginia (the 243rd (Washington) Fusiliers and 222nd (North Transylvania) Light Infantry) and only one from eastern Virginia (the 129th (Richmondshire) Heavy Infantry) in order to try to keep the balance towards his supporters. Though Owens-Allen handled the move quite adeptly, it had nonetheless had the desired effect on Virginian public opinion: the people were riled up by tales of New Spanish bullyboys attacking Virginian-born settlers in California, and the government-supporting papers were keen to point out that many Carolinians were helping the New Spanish. The plan, masterminded by the Emperor himself, to ensure Owens-Allen would be voted out by the people was proceeding well.

But a problem would arise, a problem stemming from the fact that while the Continental Parliament’s vote on the war had helped reunite the parties, it had not been a unanimous vote. Not quite…

*

From: “A Biographical Dictionary of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries” by Jacques DeDerrault (1956, authorised English translation):

The man known to history as Mo Quedling cemented his status as a leading light in the anti-slavery campaign by the Quedling-Swinney Debates of 1845. These were held at Portsmouth College (now the University of Portsmouth) in Virginia, only recently founded (1840) as a new, more modern and radical alternative to William and Mary in Williamsburg, which had gained a reputation for stuffy old-fashioned academia. There were few places in America where an actual debate over the merits or otherwise of the slavery system could be held. In Carolina of course the very idea of questioning slavery had become unthinkable even in the relatively liberal environments such as the university town of Corte—recent events had hammered home the idea that supporting slavery was to be Carolinian. Similarly in many parts of the northern Confederations it would be unwise to publicly support slavery; or rather to support Carolinian interests, for it is fair to say that much of the northern public opinion often described as ‘anti-slavery’ could not care less about the plight of the Negro but supported abolition just as a means of attacking what they regarded as the cancer of rogue Carolinian policy within the Empire. Eastern Virginia, despite the still-healing scars of the Crisis of the 1830s, was ideal. Few there now would openly call for a return to slavery, but people were familiar enough with the practice not to consider it unutterably alien. Quedling was invited to debate for the anti-slavery cause by the Portsmouth Debating Society. His opponent, Gerald Swinney, was a Virginian small plantation owner who had sold his land and started again over the border in Carolina so he could take his slaves with him. He was naturally invested in the issue, but was not so prone to violent disagreement as a Carolinian-born spokesman might have been.

Befitting his nickname ‘Silent Mo’, Quedling allowed Swinney to do most of the talking, then would almost surgically swoop in at the last moment with a single sentence that undid all of Swinney’s pro-slavery arguments. The debates are still well-remembered in general, but one exchange (one of Quedling’s longer interjections) is particularly quoted today:

GS: When you come down to it, it’s in the Good Book. It’s in the Scriptures. The Book of Leviticus has regulations about it. St Paul talks about it in his Letters. Would you so casually throw away something the Lord has commanded us about?

MQ: The Lord has commanded us about it. He commanded the Israelites to set free their slaves every seven years. The Kingdom of Judah failed to do that, and what happened? The Lord destroyed it. “Therefore thus saith the LORD; Ye have not hearkened unto me, in proclaiming liberty, every one to his brother, and every man to his neighbour: behold, I proclaim a liberty for you, saith the LORD, to the sword, to the pestilence, and to the famine; and I will make you to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth.”[4] I wonder where the men of Carolina will find themselves a few decades hence.

GS: Come now, that only referred to Israelite slaves. Not those of other races, like the Negro.

MQ: Ah yes, the different races Mr Linnaeus and Mr Eveleigh have decided to invent. (interruption) The races, yes. Of course the Good Book seems to see no difficulty in enslaving those of your own race, I wonder if you would be happy to put some irons on me or one of the fellows in our audience and put us to work on your plantation. (interruption)

GS: That is offensive and I will not respond to it. You are simply trying to evade the question because in the same chapter it says “Thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel; I made a covenant with your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondmen, saying, at the end of seven years let ye go every man his brother an Hebrew, which hath been sold unto thee; and when he hath served thee six years, thou shalt let him go free from thee.”[5] That was the covenant the Israelites broke. To free slaves from their own race, not those of lesser races. You are wrong.

MQ: The house of bondmen. That’s what it calls Egypt. The land of slavery. A place where the Egyptians enslaved the Hebrew children and they cried out for freedom. But Pharoah hardened his heart and we all know what happened next.

GS: You’re using invalid comparisons—

MQ: Even now the children of Ham follow the same path that the children of Shem did then, but instead of the Red Sea, it is the Dismal Swamp they cross. And yet all the chariots of the Pharoah of Charleston seem to get stuck in it…Mr Swinney, I remind you that throughout all of history every man has been convinced that God is on his side and with his cause. I would ask you instead to consider whether you are on God’s side and with God’s cause. You may not like the answer.

*

“Three years ago in this place I duelled a gentleman in a battle of wits. It was not a fair fight, for I faced an unarmed opponent. (laughter)

I speak of duels and battles, but you all know me. I grew up in a time of terrible, miserable, pointless conflict across Germany and Poland, indeed most of Europe. I have long since come to the conclusion that the words ‘miserable’ and ‘pointless’ can be applied to every time one man lays his hand against another. Along with ‘tragic’. Upon us all comes all of the righteous blood ever shed upon this earth, from the blood of righteous Abel down to the blood of a man being slain in the streets of Fredericksburg for the sake of a few coins even as I speak.[6] Indeed, I would say the blood of even the meanest and most vile man is righteous. All human life is precious. All human life is sacred.

Why do I speak to you of these things now? So that you might understand what I am about to say. There will be those who say I am a turncoat, a traitor to a cause. They fail to understand that my cause has never changed. All human life is sacred. That is a reason to oppose slavery, that monstrous and vile so-called institution that reduces a human life to that of an animal. But it is also a reason to oppose war, war in all its horrible forms. War is never righteous, never justified. Now we hear rumours of a war to end slavery. As I just said, slavery is one of the worst sins practiced upon the face of this earth. But it is not the worst. That is war. And a civil war is the worst of all.

There are those who will be appalled by this. Surely, they will say, we can accomplish something great and wonderful by military force. We can invade Carolina, force its government to account, and free the Negroes held in their grievous and barbaric conditions. If we do it right, it will be almost bloodless. I say that almost bloodless is not good enough.

But imagine that it was truly possible to intervene in such a way, with no blood being spilt. Would it then be justified? I still say no, because of three words that should always be asked when one hears any kind of grand plan: “and then what?”

What shall come to pass after you have broken the yoke off the Carolinians’ Negroes? Do you suppose that the people of Carolina will collectively rub their eyes and proclaim “How extraordinary! Only now do I see how obscene the way we live our lives is! I sure am glad that those nice northerners forced me to see, even if my brother’s arm is now amputated and my sister’s children died in a fire when a shell hit their house!” Does that sound remotely plausible, I ask you?

Or does it seem more likely that they would swear vengeance against us under the seventh generation and never, ever consider themselves Americans again? That they would see themselves as an occupied people suffering under oppression, and, yes, with no sense of irony, enslaved by the ‘evil’ northern empire? That they would force us to use countless troops and enforcers to keep the peace there, paid for with northern taxes, while they take every opportunity to strike at free Negroes as an easy target and scapegoat? Would that truly be freedom for the Negroes, never knowing that they might come home from their free paid jobs to find their wives violated and hanged? (interruption) I know it is horrific! That is why I want you to see! Do not look aside so you can convince yourself that this will be oh so glorious!

And what about when those taxes become too heavy, the troops are being slain in kleinkrieger attacks, and northern public opinion becomes frustrated with the whole issue and votes in a government that will bring them home? Then the scarred old Carolinians will smile in triumph that they are back on top. They will not try to leave again in name, they will not try to reinstate slavery in name, for they know that that will lead to intervention—but they do everything they can to carry on as if they had, using clever euphemisms to disguise the fact that they have destroyed any freedom that their Negroes ever had while we were there, that they will ignore the Imperial government whenever it pleases them. And then they will be free to take out their decades of built-up resentment on the unprotected Negroes.

This would be a never-ending nightmare. War never solves any problems or stops any tragedies, it just creates new ones. So what is the alternative?

What if we simply let Carolina go? But that is rewarding treason and breaking away from their rightful rulers, I hear you cry! Poppycock, says I—if it is treason when they do it but honourable patriotism when the Meridians did it, then surely it only depends on your perspective. I say let them go, let them stew on their own. They will keep slavery, you say, and I agree it brings tears to my eyes to think of those poor children of Ham in bondage. But perhaps when they are no longer isolated within the Empire they will be able to debate the issue themselves, with abolitionists no longer seen as agents of what they consider to be a dangerous alien foe. Despite the misery of two decades past, Virginia has come to a conclusion about slavery, and is at peace. Because it decided for itself and didn’t have the decision forced on it.

So by all means let Carolina be free – both free from any government it rejects and free from the horrors of slavery. But it must be by its own hand, or none.

I do not expect many of my fellow MCPs to join me in this attitude. So we must resort to other means to avoid a war that would be both a wasteful, odious bloodbath and would lock this continent into an unending cycle of hatred and division. You all know that frankly I detest Governor Owens-Allen. It was men like him who broke Europe apart when I was young and led to the deaths of so many good men and women. Yet I begin to wonder if there is good even in him. His notion of a barrier to stand between those who would spill the blood of mankind appeals to me. But it is still a barrier constructed of men in uniform with weapons.

Therefore, I call upon the people of the Empire of North America and beyond, regardless of what their politicians say, to join me in a new Pacific Society. We will provide a different kind of barrier to separate those who seek to hate and destroy and force them to confront their own darkness rather than take it out on others. We will work to preserve peace and stop war throughout the world. And we will refuse in good conscience to serve those who seek the opposite. “Disobedience to tyrants is obedience to God”.[7]

I thank you all, and may peace reign for ever and ever, world without end.

– Maurice W. “Mo” Quedling, speech at Portsmouth University, Virginia, October 12th 1848​

*

“It is understood that MR. WHIPPLE has been writing a poem about the evils of slavery practiced by the Treacherous Southrons and in particular has been pondering for some time a suitable rhyme for a particular mechanism comprising a part of one type of COTTON-THRESHER, a METALLIC PROJECTION employed for weaving CLOTH COVERS out of UNNEEDED RESIDUE. On being informed of MR. QUEDLING’s speech, MR. WHIPPLE was seized with sudden inspiration and joyously cried out that at last he had found a rhyme for… “MAT-SHUCKING BRASS STUD”. All at Petrus wish him great success with his future literary endeavours.

– from Weinig Petrus, or, The American Ringleader, satirical magazine of New York, 34th issue, published October 16th 1848​

[1] Although Virginia and North Carolina were both slave states in OTL, this still happened to some extent and the Great Dismal Swamp’s role in the Underground Railroad is explored in Harriet Beecher Stowe’s second novel Dred: A Tale of the Great Dismal Swamp.

[2] See Part #170.

[3] This refers to Lisieux’s Orwellian-type belief that if the government insists something in defiance of the de facto situation for long enough and refuses to compromise, the people will eventually come to agree (or in extreme interpretations of his views, reality itself will shift), as mentioned in Part #40.

[4] Jeremiah 38:17

[5] Jeremiah 38:13-14

[6] Quedling is paraphrasing Matthew 23:35 here.

[7] In OTL of course the phrase is “Rebellion to tyrants is disobedience to God”, coined by Ben Franklin for the Great Seal of the United States. TTL Franklin came up with a similar but softer phrase used in a political treatise but it was not widely known until Quedling popularised it in this speech, and indeed many mistakenly think that Quedling coined the phrase.

 

[teg]

And so the war begins. One wonders exactly how long the Virginian stand is going to hold. Something has to got to snap sooner or later. How it snaps though is interesting; I'd personally bet on the Imperials doing something stupid and pissing the Virginians off, leading to an alliance between the Concordat and Virginia which allows the Concordat to survive...

One thing is certain, the world is going to look pretty different after all this.

teg

 

[Alex Richards]

Oh very interesting indeed. I suspect Quedling is going to be adopted by the Societists in future, an ironic situation indeed if the hints that they practice (at least de facto) slavery are true.

 

[OwenM]

Didn't Franklin say "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God"?

 

[Beedok]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Moe Quedling for president!

Excellent update.

 

[Finn]

Oh. Mo Quedling is Mowque! I need to pay more attention.

 

[Widukind]

Quedling's antipathy to war is something all sane people can surely relate to, but his absolute conviction that even a bloodless conquest would be worse than allowing countless people to toil in chains forever is a bit... jarring.

 

[OwenM]

I honestly didn't realise that till Finn pointed it out.
I'm not sure mowque ever went quite that far, but he was the staunchest pacifist I've ever encountered.

 

[Beedok]

Quedling's antipathy to war is something all sane people can surely relate to, but his absolute conviction that even a bloodless conquest would be worse than allowing countless people to toil in chains forever is a bit... jarring.

Only because he believes that either there be bloodshed down the line anyway and as soon as the occupiers leave slavery will effectively start up again. His stance is that you can't force people to change, they have to reform for themselves.

 

[Petike]

What a cool cameo for mowque.

 

[Lemon flavoured]

I honestly didn't realise that till Finn pointed it out.
I'm not sure mowque ever went quite that far, but he was the staunchest pacifist I've ever encountered.

IIRC he got pretty close a few times.

 

[Widukind]

Only because he believes that either there be bloodshed down the line anyway and as soon as the occupiers leave slavery will effectively start up again. His stance is that you can't force people to change, they have to reform for themselves.

I'm not judging him. I'm just giving my take on it, from a modern-day perspective. As far as I can tell, the Carolinians in LTTW won't just become reasonable about the matter anytime soon. And a war to end slavery can be followed by the solid Reconstruction we never got IOTL (I'm talking expropriation of the slavocrats, dividing up the big plantations into small freeholds for blacks and poor whites, and public education of those same blacks and poor whites... in desegregated classrooms.) Something like that, I firmly believe, would prevent the terrors Quedling anticipates ITTL (and would have prevented Jim Crow IOTL).

But for such a program to be introduced, you'd need to fight a war first. The slavers won't just become moral and give up the institution; they've interlaced it with their national identy. If you want those slaves free, you'll have to go there and free them. If not, you can be all pacifist and well-meaning... but there will still be millions toiling in chains just across the border.

I don't know how Thande's going to play it, but while Quedling comes across as a sympathetic and very honest guy, my full support goes to whoever is prepared to fight to free his fellow men.

 

[FDW]

Nice update Thande.

 

[danmac]

Great TL Thande. I'm curious as to how the Great American War will turn out.

 

[imperialaquila]

Mo Quedling seems to have very accurately predicted the outcome of the OTL Civil War.