Once oil is discovered Gran Colombia is going to be incredibly wealthy. Hopefully future leaders use the oil wealth wisely.
Miranda's Dream. ¡Por una Latino América fuerte!.- A Gran Colombia TL
- Thread starter Red_Galiray
- Start date
- Status
Yeah. Since Colombia is stable and, thanks to that sugar and early industrial development relatively wealthy, oil exploitation could start as early as the 1880's. Colombia may even become the world's premier oil producer and exporter. I also hope they will use that money wisely.
Huh... Well, the 28th is kinda Peruvian Independence day...At least there's some solace on the fact that Peru will get better ITTL. Yes, unfortunately, I don't think I can do much to help them now... By the way, it seems that something regarding Peru is being celebrated today on Ecuador. There were some roses arranged like the Peruvian flag. I don't remember any significant event taking place between our two countries today, so I thought of asking you... Do you know if we're celebrating a treaty or something?
Indeed...
That has an explanation. Miranda was a big fan of the US and its government in OTL, and ITTL he's an even bigger fan due to settling down there for a few years. So he based a lot of the Colombian constitution on the American one. Santander's and Cruz's constitutions conserved the main framework of Miranda's.
Yes, I can see that happening too. Still, due to the lack of an electoral college there instead being direct elections, I don't think it could get as bad as in the US.
I believe the oil quality in that region isn't the best, though. It'd be more expensive to refine and set up, I believe.
I see. I just thought it'd be something else because, you know, we in Ecuador barely celebrate our own independence and also it said, next to the roses, "Ecuador's Armed Forces". That made me think it was something commemorating peace between our nations or something along those lines. Happy independence by the way!
That's right. Venezuelan oil is said to be particularly heavy by international standards.
Just wanted to let you guys know that I'm writing the next chapter about the 1850 Revolutions. After the last update I didn't do anything for a week or so because I was busy scheduling an appointment to take out my wisdom teeth. Anyway, things are about to get complicated and messy. But, oh God, OTL's Revolutions were really complicated. I'm currently reading 1848: Year of Revolution by Mike Rapport for research. This means that completing the update will probably take another week or so. Anyone has any other good sources?
Chapter 36: The Winter of Discontent.
The 1850 Revolutions, the springtime of nations, are mostly a result of the rise of nationalism and liberalism. Far from what Metternich had hopped when he masterminded the Congress of Vienna, liberalism was still alive and looming over Europe. France, by now effectively the most powerful European power second only to the United Kingdom, secured through interventions and influence that Spain and Portugal remained Constitutional Monarchies, while several German nations, the Netherlands and Savoy all transitioned to constitutionalism through peaceful processes.
This Liberal Block of Constitutional Monarchies in Europe was built by France even in the face of opposition by France’s own king, Charles X. In an attempt to counter this, Metternich, the effective leader of Austria due to Emperor Ferdinand’s mental deficiency, created an absolutist block, dedicated to defending the divine right of kings and preventing another series of revolutions through the continent. This holy alliance consisted of Russia, Austria, and Prussia. However, the alliance fell apart in the early 1840’s, when Austria refused to side with Russia in the Oriental Crisis. Relations had already gone sour following the ascension of the reformist Constantin I to the throne of Russia, the Oriental Crisis only proving to be the final nail in its coffin.
As for Prussia, its own alliance with Austria was ended following Prussia’s creation of a German customs union that deliberately excluded Austria. German nationalism had been on the rise, and as a result the rivalry between the two premier German powers, Austria and Prussia, was bigger than ever. Even when King Frederick Willian IV of Prussia was just as absolutist as Metternich, yet he was also a staunch conservative who opposed German Unification. The rivalry between the two powers meant that German Nationalist, who often identified themselves as Revolutionary Liberals, conceived two possible ideas for German Unification: Little Germany or Kleindeutschland that excluded Austria; and Great Germany or Großdeutschland that included it, although generally only the parts already in the German Confederation.
Frederick Willian IV, king of Prussia.
The revolutionary movements of Europe were influenced by the apparition of a new ideology: Laborism. Laborism has its antecedents in the Christian “works of mercy”, that included aiding the poor, the hungry, teaching the ignorant and healing the sick. The other big current that influenced the apparition of laborism was socialism, a utopian idea that proposed a world built around the benefit of the society as a whole, as opposed to the benefit of just some individuals. Socialism however didn’t discuss how such a society would be achieved, and was generally "scientific" in nature, in other words, it lacked a religious background and was even sometimes hostile towards religions.
The Industrial Revolution and the rise of Nationalism through Europe, along with the old specter of Liberalism, gave way to new political movements that demanded further liberties and help to the workers, who were often exploited. All this shaped Laborism. The official apparition of Laborism as an ideology is generally set in 1847, when the Italian Antonio Crespi published “On the State and its mission towards the Laborers”, a manifesto calling for state aid for the poor, the sick, the unemployed, education for children, and for better conditions for the workers, in other words, calling for the formation of what we would nowadays understand as a welfare state. The term “laborism” was coined as meaning the “the laborers’ movement”.
Crespi’s manifesto was profoundly religious in nature, saying that helping the poor and oppressed was the duty of every Christian. Yet, Crespi recognized that in the great scheme of things few people could help, and those that could didn’t want to. Thus, he called for the governments to take the necessary steps towards this goal, and for the workers themselves to organize in political parties and unions that would help each other and pressure the government into enacting reforms.
Crespi argued that human societies had been evolving in a path focused in personal, individual gain, with early Christian communities being the exception due to their focus in shared wealth and helping everyone equally. He said that those early communities ultimately failed due to mankind not being ready yet, and that economic and social system were directed towards a new, more egalitarian society that could, however, only be achieved through union and cooperation.
Antonio Crespi.
In the second chapter of his manifesto Crespi explained his theory of the rise, fall, and transformation of human systems. For him, the first societies had to strive for general wellbeing of all its members out of a necessity to survive. Once they become prosperous, though, individuals decide to focus on themselves, leading to exploitation and decadence. Eventually, the system falls apart from some new development and humanity transitions to the next one, and the cycle starts again.
The first system was the primitive society, that became corrupted once private property appeared, paving the way for exploitation and slavery. Modern systems of law and the first attempts at democracy in Greece allowed people to have a voice and transitioned to a slavery system, which at first worked due to humane treatment (by the age's standards) and eventual liberation, leading to a good economy and the golden age of the Roman Empire. War and corruption would provoke its downfall, transitioning to feudalism, which at first strived for security and order. Feudalism would evolve into absolutism, which oppressed and didn’t hear the people, leading to its downfall in the French Revolutions, after which humanity went to the next system, Liberal Capitalism.
This system, the one in place in 1847 according to Crespi, at first worked to give people a voice, equal rights, wealth and liberty. But now the system was decaying, and wasn’t listening to the voice of the workers. Like before, capitalism would eventually fall and laborism would take its place, a society that would secure worker’s right and a welfare state that would leave no one behind. Laborism was envisioned by Crespi as the final and definitive system, where individualism would disappear.
Crespi, thus, saw mankind and its evolution as a path of continuous renewal that could continue only through union and cooperation, with each phase of this path decaying due to individualism. The first humans could only prosper due to their union. The Greek and Roman philosophers and generals united to make their countries civilized and prosperous. The feudal kings and nobles united to create order and laws. The French thinkers and revolutionaries united to bring democracy and liberty. And now the laborers had to unite to bring good working conditions and the welfare state. The Laborist state would strive for the wellbeing of every citizen, through the use of social programs, education and the control of the economy through a planned system.
"The Social Question".
Crespi believed that that change could take place through democratic institutions and the establishment of trade unions and syndicates. He, however, acknowledged that it could also take place through violent revolution, since the transition from feudalism to capitalism had been made possible by the violent French revolution. Crespi also argued that mankind not necessarily had to transition as a whole. For example, the French revolution had been the turning point only for France and some other states like Spain. The United Kingdom had already transitioned after its civil war. The United States transitioned in their own revolution, and Latin America did so in their Wars of Independence. Other societies, like China, had not transitioned yet.
This caused the first great divide between the laborist movements. Had Prussia and Austria transitioned yet? Was violence acceptable to make them transition? Laborists and Liberals found common ground in that they wanted to install democratic institution on those countries, but the divide started when the matter of “what next?” came up. Certain laborist factions favored keeping the democratic institutions and the monarchies in place, only with the creation of welfare states and tight control on companies to ensure workers’ rights would be respected. But wouldn’t this be just the transition to Capitalism and not to the next level, Laborism? Had they transitioned at all?
Another laborist wing was formed around the notion that violence and revolution was necessary to transition to the next phase, and that this phase would be a worker’s state. They preferred to organize in trade unions and syndicates instead of parliaments, and thus came to eventually be known as Syndicalists.
Laborist concepts of liberty, equality and rights to the laborers resonated with the peoples of Europe and even other continents. The misery of the working classes in the United States eventually caused the creation of a purely American laborist ideology. Social strife was common in the United States as a reaction to wage slavery, leading to the rise of Workingmen parties. In Latin America, the first laborist party was the Colombia Union Laboral and the Mexican Movimiento Laborista. The greater effect, of course, was in Europe and the upcoming revolutions.
Laborism considered the misery of the lower classes unacceptable.
The 1840’s were a decade of growth and development for Europe, especially France and Russia. After the abdication of Charles X, Loui-Phillippe of the House of Orleans ascended to the throne of France. Unlike Charles, he was happy being a figurehead and thus let the parliament run the government and affairs of the country. Industrialization was going strong for France, who was the second most industrialized country and the second biggest economy in the world, just behind the United Kingdom. French industry was mostly focused in Wallonia and the northeast. Mexico, Spain, Portugal, Savoy, the Netherlands and Egypt all bought their products primarily from France. The greater level of industrialization and quality of life eventually led to greater birth rates than those seen immediately after the Napoleonic Wars. Nonetheless, they still lagged behind the birth rates of other European countries, chiefly Prussia. The French government started some of the world’s first laborist programs through the establishment of National Workshops, where unemployed workers could look for work; and programs to help large families. France also continued its colonial expansion in Algeria during this decade.
However, and much to the dissatisfaction of both republicans and bonapartists, the “Citizen King” Louis Phillippe didn’t really want to undertake neither further liberal reforms or foreign adventures. It wanted stability in home and abroad, yet this didn’t please republicans (and later, laborists) who dreamed of a completely liberal France with universal suffrage nor bonapartists, who recalled with nostalgia the glory days of Napoleon. The ideal of a France that led Europe to a new age of liberalism and freedom was in the minds of a lot of people.
In Russia Tsar Constantin I introduced a first set of reforms. One of the first was the establishment of a central bank, The National Bank of Russia. His second great reform was the abolition of serfdom through the Russian Empire. Alexander I had already set up a committee to evaluate the conditions of the peasants. The Decembrist, the reformist liberal faction that had backed Constantin, also demanded steps be taken towards emancipation. Constantin revived Alexander’s committee and it worked on possible plans for the liberation through the 1830’s. In 1842 Constantin gave his “Statement on the serfs and their future” speech, in which he outlined the plan for the reform. A waiting period of three years would be set, during which the serfs would still work for their masters. The money gained through that work would be set in the National Bank. After the period ended, the National Bank would pay the price for the serf, his family and some land to live off. The serf would repay the bank through a 49 years period.
The Citizen King.
Constantin also tried to give Russia a constitution and organize a national parliament, but even with the Decembrists throwing their support behind him, many powerful people through Russia were still reactionaries and conservatives that completely opposed such a measure.
When it comes to foreign affairs, Russia consolidated its power in the Caucasus and the Baltics. The most important event concerning Russian exterior policy during the decade was the “Great Game”, a struggle with the British for the control of Central Asia, centered in Afghanistan.
In the United Kingdom, after Lord Byron lost a vote of no confidence, Robert Peel became Prime Minister. A proponent of free trade, he introduced a 3% income tax and created a modern banking system. Peel proceeded to regulate mines, railways, and factories. He also further organized the British Empire colonies. The old colonies of British Colombia and Vancouver were united with the land obtained with the Treaty of Bytown to form the crown colony of Cascadia. Land obtained in the war of 1814 was organized in the colony of Michigan. The rest of territory was organized into the Red River territory.
His greatest challenge as Prime Minister was the same that had provoked the fall of Byron: the Irish. Peel was known for being extremely anti-Irish, yet he considered that civil strife was a greater danger than helping them. The Irish famine of 1849, a direct result of the Corn Laws and the potato blight, caused the death of hundreds of thousands of Irishmen, and the displacement of millions. Peel managed to repeal the corn laws through a coalition between Byronite Whigs and his Conservative supporters. This really weakened both main parties. It was clear that the Whigs were divided, and Peel lost much of his support in his own party. Still, he remained as Prime Minister and in 1850 Parliament passed the Catholic Relief Act, which tried to control the famine through financial aid. He also cooperated with Colombian President Juan Diaz, whose government had recently passed the Irish Immigration Decree, popularly known as the Saint Patrick Decree, that subsided immigration from Irishmen on the condition of working in Colombian farms to pay that debt.
Colombia became the main destination for Irish immigrants, both through Colombian subsidies and through their own savings. Colombia economy was still booming thanks to the industrial boom during the presidency of Esteban Cruz, and laborers were needed in the Colombian farms. After the liberation of slaves during Santander’s great reforms, most of the former slaves immigrated to coastal states. The farms of the Colombian Sierra desperately needed new workers. As a result, Irish people could find work and security in Colombia, a fellow Catholic nation that was friendly to Irish people due to the influence of men like Daniel O’Leary. Colombia also still had abundant state-owned land, up to 60% of all Colombian land.
The Irish famine.
The United States were the second biggest destination, but the economy had just crashed and violence against Catholics was on the rise due to tensions with Mexico. Due to this many Irishmen who immigrated to the United States ended up poor and miserable. Signs saying, “Don’t go and starve in the USA!” were common. Immigration towards the USA halted almost completely once war with Mexico broke up, and it finally stopped when Catholic Immigration was banned. Mexico, La Plata and Chile were also popular destinations for the immigrants.
A total of six million Irish men left Ireland, of which 3 million left prior to the Catholic ban in the USA. Three million settled in Colombia, only a million of whom did so through government subsidies. Two million settled in the United States, though half a million would end up leaving and going to Canada or Mexico. The other million settled in other countries. This was over a period of approximately 15 years.
Even after this, the Irish famine was a complete disaster. A fifth of Ireland’s population died as a result and nobody was pleased. Peel lost his post as Prime Minister following a new attempt at aiding the Irish, and the Whigs were once again able to form a government under Lord Russell in mid-1850, just when the 1850 Revolutions spread from a focalized event in Italy into a revolutionary wave than engulfed the entire continent.
The first wave of revolutionary activity had place in Austrian dominated Italy. Divided between the provinces of Lombardy and Venetia, the region was, without doubt, one of the richest in the entire Hapsburg Empire. The region had abundant fertile land that produced wheat, wine and silk. It was, summarizing, the jewel in the Hapsburg crown. The richest and most educated of the provinces would meet in Milan, the capital of Austrian Italy. They could decide how to implement laws handled down from the government in Vienna, but couldn’t propose their own laws. Adding to the resentment naturally produced by this was the fact that all bureaucracy was dominated by the German speaking Austrians. The Czechs, the most educated people in the Empire besides the Austrians themselves, who lived in Bohemia, the most industrially advanced and important region, also resented that higher education and government post where closed to them unless they spoke German.
Ferdinand I was loved by his subjects, who referred to him as "Ferdy the Loony".
The Hungarians were, together with the Austrians, one of the dominating forces in the country. Unlike other nationalities within the Empire, the Magyars had their own legislative organ, The Hungarian parliament. Though Ferdinand had refused to call it between 1812 and 1825, laws concerning taxes could only be passed with their help. The Magyars dominated this parliament, and the bureaucracy of Hungary was dominated by them too. The Hungarians started to oppose the Hapsburg monarchy, even claiming to be able to reject legislation from Vienna. One of the leading figures in this Magyar defiance was the lawyer and member of the Hungarian Diet Lajos Kossuth, who preached ideas of reform. He was imprisoned for seven years, yet that didn’t stop him. Metternich gave his support to the Croatian intellectual Ljudevit Gaj to create his own newspaper, hoping this would divide his opponents. Yet when Gaj started to spread the idea of a united, southern Slavic republic, Metternich jailed him and closed the newspaper. This only ended up driving the Hungarians and the Slavs of the Empire closer together.
Metternich was the head of the state council, or Staatskonferenz in German. Under Metternich a secret police was established to deal with any dissent within Austria. At first Metternich’s system was not particularly oppressive, but as liberalism grew strong through the continent, so did his paranoia. After the ascension of Constantin to the throne of Russia, Metternich decided to massively expand his reactionary state apparatus. The secret police grew from some dozens of officers to hundreds. Any person who expressed liberal (and later laborist) thought was throw in prison. This, far from crushing dissent, ended up increasing it, especially in Lombardy-Venetia where events in the rest of Italy led to greater revolutionary activity.
Unlike the old French revolutionaries, these new ones often were “career revolutionaries” who actively plotted against the old conservative regimes. They saw the final demise of Napoleon as proof that without union no changes could be made. Had all the liberals of Europe risen up together with the French, a new constitutional order could have arisen from the ashes of the war thorn continent. Instead Metternich’s system arose.
The first revolutionary outbursts in Italy were done by the Carbonari in 1820. In the 1830’s other revolutionary activities took place, chiefly an attempt at revolution against the Dutch in Flanders and the Hambach Festival. The former was crushed by French forces, but it, together with the French liberals, forced the Netherlands to completely become a constitutional monarchy. The later was much more important. Originally a non-political fair, the Hambach Festival became the largest demonstration up to that date in Germany. It demanded German unity and democratic reforms. Some German states adopted constitutions as a result, and Metternich doubled down in his repression of liberal sentiments.
Giusseppe Mazzini.
One of the most prominent members of the Carbonari, and later the founder of the Young Italy movement, was Giuseppe Mazzini. A “career revolutionary” Mazzini envisioned a continental wide revolution that would bring unity, equality and liberty to all the peoples of Europe. He dreamed of a united, powerful, republican Italy that would fulfill its role in history for the benefit of civilization by leading the overthrowing of the old reactionary regimes. The Young Italy movement didn’t have that many members, only around one thousand by Metternich’s estimate, but it was influential with the intellectuals all over the Peninsula, and in the expatriate communities in La Plata and Colombia. One of its members, Giuseppe Garibaldi, had become legendary through Europe and the Americans due to his exploits and adventures in the Triple War. Young Italy was further strengthened when the new Pope, Gregory XVII, was selected. A known liberal and open to reform and progressivism, his selection was look upon with hope by many Italians who dreamed of an united Republic centered around faith and nation.
Mazzini started to work on forming a revolutionary network that would work together: Young Europe. Metternich did not know about them, but he, in his paranoia, already believed in the existence of a revolutionary network centered in Paris. He was not wrong about its existence, and he was not wrong about the involvement of the French. France, believing that destabilizing its rivals through revolutions and creating more liberal states that would naturally flock to its sphere was an ideal plan, started to help Mazzini’s young Europe, giving them funds and sheltering exiled revolutionaries. France, however, completely opposed the German wing of the network, since one of its goals was German unity, a goal that interfered greatly with French interests. Unbeknownst to France, it was feeding a fire that would end up engulfing it too.
Another factor contributing to the revolutions was the increase of the number of educated people. In France, 75% of the population could read. The percentage was of 55% for the Hapsburg Empire and 80% for Prussia. These intellectuals believed in a civil society, in which discussion could be held freely. Censorship was standing in the way of this ideal.
Gregory XVII.
Finally, there was the issue of overpopulation, and of economic woes. Farmers were often forced to live under the orders of their landlords, with barely enough food to live by. Workers in the cities lived in worse conditions than prison inmates, as some Czech intellectuals noted. Misery was widespread in the “Hungry Forties”. Many who could afford it immigrated to the Americas. The Spanish, Portuguese and Irish mostly to Colombia. The Italians to La Plata. The Germans, Dutch, Scandinavian and British to the US. Some other British and the French to Canada. Yet the great majority couldn’t immigrate, and as a result suffered in Europe. Most of them turned to laborism as a result. Others, especially intellectuals worried by this and its potential consequences, chose socialism instead. “Socialism”, word first used by the radical Pierre Leroux, initially meant the analysis of poverty and ways of solving the “social question”. After Crespi published his manifesto, the socialist became a laborist wing more focused on social issues, as opposed to “pure” laborist who also looked for political reform and the later syndicalists who envisioned a “dictatorship of the workers” where the upper classes would be terminated.
When the year 1850 started, several noted that “the old decade ends with misery and the new starts with desperation”. The disaster dominos had fallen into place. From movements demanding unity in Italy and Germany, to societies that dreamed of creating new nations, and revolutionaries who sought a new continental order, the revolutionaries of Europe were now ready to raise as one and bring their new future. It all started in Italy, where a march demanding aid to the poor of Milan ended up in rioting and confrontation with the Austrian Army. The Springtime of Nations started.
_________________________________
Alright, bear with me. Perhaps all that things about transitioning, levels of mankind and other stuff I made Crespi said made no sense at all, I really don't know. Still, I thought it would be interesting. The main difference between Laborism and OTL's Socialism is the religious background of Laborism (thank you Soverihn for the idea!) and the fact that, unlike Marx who conceived communism as inherently revolutionary with society being a history of struggle, Crespi conceived laborism as more flexible, meaning both democratic and revolutionary ways are acceptable to achieve it, and that laborism doesn't see society as a class war between different unreconcilable groups, but rather as a disunited whole that must come together for positive change to take place.
Now, what does this mean for the TL? Basically, Laborists are more willing to compromise and unite with Liberals to get reforms through democratic means. Of course, there are violent factions (syndicalists, name taken from the popular HOI2 and HOI4 mod Kaiserreich), but they're seen as just that, factions, instead of the main movement. Laborist ITTL is roughly equal to our Social-Democrats, while Syndicalist would be Communists. Socialism ITTL is similar to Laborism, but it ignores religion (at best). It's basically scientific socialism. The idea is developing it into something similar to American progressivism.
This Liberal Block of Constitutional Monarchies in Europe was built by France even in the face of opposition by France’s own king, Charles X. In an attempt to counter this, Metternich, the effective leader of Austria due to Emperor Ferdinand’s mental deficiency, created an absolutist block, dedicated to defending the divine right of kings and preventing another series of revolutions through the continent. This holy alliance consisted of Russia, Austria, and Prussia. However, the alliance fell apart in the early 1840’s, when Austria refused to side with Russia in the Oriental Crisis. Relations had already gone sour following the ascension of the reformist Constantin I to the throne of Russia, the Oriental Crisis only proving to be the final nail in its coffin.
As for Prussia, its own alliance with Austria was ended following Prussia’s creation of a German customs union that deliberately excluded Austria. German nationalism had been on the rise, and as a result the rivalry between the two premier German powers, Austria and Prussia, was bigger than ever. Even when King Frederick Willian IV of Prussia was just as absolutist as Metternich, yet he was also a staunch conservative who opposed German Unification. The rivalry between the two powers meant that German Nationalist, who often identified themselves as Revolutionary Liberals, conceived two possible ideas for German Unification: Little Germany or Kleindeutschland that excluded Austria; and Great Germany or Großdeutschland that included it, although generally only the parts already in the German Confederation.
Frederick Willian IV, king of Prussia.
The revolutionary movements of Europe were influenced by the apparition of a new ideology: Laborism. Laborism has its antecedents in the Christian “works of mercy”, that included aiding the poor, the hungry, teaching the ignorant and healing the sick. The other big current that influenced the apparition of laborism was socialism, a utopian idea that proposed a world built around the benefit of the society as a whole, as opposed to the benefit of just some individuals. Socialism however didn’t discuss how such a society would be achieved, and was generally "scientific" in nature, in other words, it lacked a religious background and was even sometimes hostile towards religions.
The Industrial Revolution and the rise of Nationalism through Europe, along with the old specter of Liberalism, gave way to new political movements that demanded further liberties and help to the workers, who were often exploited. All this shaped Laborism. The official apparition of Laborism as an ideology is generally set in 1847, when the Italian Antonio Crespi published “On the State and its mission towards the Laborers”, a manifesto calling for state aid for the poor, the sick, the unemployed, education for children, and for better conditions for the workers, in other words, calling for the formation of what we would nowadays understand as a welfare state. The term “laborism” was coined as meaning the “the laborers’ movement”.
Crespi’s manifesto was profoundly religious in nature, saying that helping the poor and oppressed was the duty of every Christian. Yet, Crespi recognized that in the great scheme of things few people could help, and those that could didn’t want to. Thus, he called for the governments to take the necessary steps towards this goal, and for the workers themselves to organize in political parties and unions that would help each other and pressure the government into enacting reforms.
Crespi argued that human societies had been evolving in a path focused in personal, individual gain, with early Christian communities being the exception due to their focus in shared wealth and helping everyone equally. He said that those early communities ultimately failed due to mankind not being ready yet, and that economic and social system were directed towards a new, more egalitarian society that could, however, only be achieved through union and cooperation.
Antonio Crespi.
The first system was the primitive society, that became corrupted once private property appeared, paving the way for exploitation and slavery. Modern systems of law and the first attempts at democracy in Greece allowed people to have a voice and transitioned to a slavery system, which at first worked due to humane treatment (by the age's standards) and eventual liberation, leading to a good economy and the golden age of the Roman Empire. War and corruption would provoke its downfall, transitioning to feudalism, which at first strived for security and order. Feudalism would evolve into absolutism, which oppressed and didn’t hear the people, leading to its downfall in the French Revolutions, after which humanity went to the next system, Liberal Capitalism.
This system, the one in place in 1847 according to Crespi, at first worked to give people a voice, equal rights, wealth and liberty. But now the system was decaying, and wasn’t listening to the voice of the workers. Like before, capitalism would eventually fall and laborism would take its place, a society that would secure worker’s right and a welfare state that would leave no one behind. Laborism was envisioned by Crespi as the final and definitive system, where individualism would disappear.
Crespi, thus, saw mankind and its evolution as a path of continuous renewal that could continue only through union and cooperation, with each phase of this path decaying due to individualism. The first humans could only prosper due to their union. The Greek and Roman philosophers and generals united to make their countries civilized and prosperous. The feudal kings and nobles united to create order and laws. The French thinkers and revolutionaries united to bring democracy and liberty. And now the laborers had to unite to bring good working conditions and the welfare state. The Laborist state would strive for the wellbeing of every citizen, through the use of social programs, education and the control of the economy through a planned system.
"The Social Question".
Crespi believed that that change could take place through democratic institutions and the establishment of trade unions and syndicates. He, however, acknowledged that it could also take place through violent revolution, since the transition from feudalism to capitalism had been made possible by the violent French revolution. Crespi also argued that mankind not necessarily had to transition as a whole. For example, the French revolution had been the turning point only for France and some other states like Spain. The United Kingdom had already transitioned after its civil war. The United States transitioned in their own revolution, and Latin America did so in their Wars of Independence. Other societies, like China, had not transitioned yet.
This caused the first great divide between the laborist movements. Had Prussia and Austria transitioned yet? Was violence acceptable to make them transition? Laborists and Liberals found common ground in that they wanted to install democratic institution on those countries, but the divide started when the matter of “what next?” came up. Certain laborist factions favored keeping the democratic institutions and the monarchies in place, only with the creation of welfare states and tight control on companies to ensure workers’ rights would be respected. But wouldn’t this be just the transition to Capitalism and not to the next level, Laborism? Had they transitioned at all?
Another laborist wing was formed around the notion that violence and revolution was necessary to transition to the next phase, and that this phase would be a worker’s state. They preferred to organize in trade unions and syndicates instead of parliaments, and thus came to eventually be known as Syndicalists.
Laborist concepts of liberty, equality and rights to the laborers resonated with the peoples of Europe and even other continents. The misery of the working classes in the United States eventually caused the creation of a purely American laborist ideology. Social strife was common in the United States as a reaction to wage slavery, leading to the rise of Workingmen parties. In Latin America, the first laborist party was the Colombia Union Laboral and the Mexican Movimiento Laborista. The greater effect, of course, was in Europe and the upcoming revolutions.
Laborism considered the misery of the lower classes unacceptable.
The 1840’s were a decade of growth and development for Europe, especially France and Russia. After the abdication of Charles X, Loui-Phillippe of the House of Orleans ascended to the throne of France. Unlike Charles, he was happy being a figurehead and thus let the parliament run the government and affairs of the country. Industrialization was going strong for France, who was the second most industrialized country and the second biggest economy in the world, just behind the United Kingdom. French industry was mostly focused in Wallonia and the northeast. Mexico, Spain, Portugal, Savoy, the Netherlands and Egypt all bought their products primarily from France. The greater level of industrialization and quality of life eventually led to greater birth rates than those seen immediately after the Napoleonic Wars. Nonetheless, they still lagged behind the birth rates of other European countries, chiefly Prussia. The French government started some of the world’s first laborist programs through the establishment of National Workshops, where unemployed workers could look for work; and programs to help large families. France also continued its colonial expansion in Algeria during this decade.
However, and much to the dissatisfaction of both republicans and bonapartists, the “Citizen King” Louis Phillippe didn’t really want to undertake neither further liberal reforms or foreign adventures. It wanted stability in home and abroad, yet this didn’t please republicans (and later, laborists) who dreamed of a completely liberal France with universal suffrage nor bonapartists, who recalled with nostalgia the glory days of Napoleon. The ideal of a France that led Europe to a new age of liberalism and freedom was in the minds of a lot of people.
In Russia Tsar Constantin I introduced a first set of reforms. One of the first was the establishment of a central bank, The National Bank of Russia. His second great reform was the abolition of serfdom through the Russian Empire. Alexander I had already set up a committee to evaluate the conditions of the peasants. The Decembrist, the reformist liberal faction that had backed Constantin, also demanded steps be taken towards emancipation. Constantin revived Alexander’s committee and it worked on possible plans for the liberation through the 1830’s. In 1842 Constantin gave his “Statement on the serfs and their future” speech, in which he outlined the plan for the reform. A waiting period of three years would be set, during which the serfs would still work for their masters. The money gained through that work would be set in the National Bank. After the period ended, the National Bank would pay the price for the serf, his family and some land to live off. The serf would repay the bank through a 49 years period.
The Citizen King.
Constantin also tried to give Russia a constitution and organize a national parliament, but even with the Decembrists throwing their support behind him, many powerful people through Russia were still reactionaries and conservatives that completely opposed such a measure.
When it comes to foreign affairs, Russia consolidated its power in the Caucasus and the Baltics. The most important event concerning Russian exterior policy during the decade was the “Great Game”, a struggle with the British for the control of Central Asia, centered in Afghanistan.
In the United Kingdom, after Lord Byron lost a vote of no confidence, Robert Peel became Prime Minister. A proponent of free trade, he introduced a 3% income tax and created a modern banking system. Peel proceeded to regulate mines, railways, and factories. He also further organized the British Empire colonies. The old colonies of British Colombia and Vancouver were united with the land obtained with the Treaty of Bytown to form the crown colony of Cascadia. Land obtained in the war of 1814 was organized in the colony of Michigan. The rest of territory was organized into the Red River territory.
His greatest challenge as Prime Minister was the same that had provoked the fall of Byron: the Irish. Peel was known for being extremely anti-Irish, yet he considered that civil strife was a greater danger than helping them. The Irish famine of 1849, a direct result of the Corn Laws and the potato blight, caused the death of hundreds of thousands of Irishmen, and the displacement of millions. Peel managed to repeal the corn laws through a coalition between Byronite Whigs and his Conservative supporters. This really weakened both main parties. It was clear that the Whigs were divided, and Peel lost much of his support in his own party. Still, he remained as Prime Minister and in 1850 Parliament passed the Catholic Relief Act, which tried to control the famine through financial aid. He also cooperated with Colombian President Juan Diaz, whose government had recently passed the Irish Immigration Decree, popularly known as the Saint Patrick Decree, that subsided immigration from Irishmen on the condition of working in Colombian farms to pay that debt.
Colombia became the main destination for Irish immigrants, both through Colombian subsidies and through their own savings. Colombia economy was still booming thanks to the industrial boom during the presidency of Esteban Cruz, and laborers were needed in the Colombian farms. After the liberation of slaves during Santander’s great reforms, most of the former slaves immigrated to coastal states. The farms of the Colombian Sierra desperately needed new workers. As a result, Irish people could find work and security in Colombia, a fellow Catholic nation that was friendly to Irish people due to the influence of men like Daniel O’Leary. Colombia also still had abundant state-owned land, up to 60% of all Colombian land.
The Irish famine.
The United States were the second biggest destination, but the economy had just crashed and violence against Catholics was on the rise due to tensions with Mexico. Due to this many Irishmen who immigrated to the United States ended up poor and miserable. Signs saying, “Don’t go and starve in the USA!” were common. Immigration towards the USA halted almost completely once war with Mexico broke up, and it finally stopped when Catholic Immigration was banned. Mexico, La Plata and Chile were also popular destinations for the immigrants.
A total of six million Irish men left Ireland, of which 3 million left prior to the Catholic ban in the USA. Three million settled in Colombia, only a million of whom did so through government subsidies. Two million settled in the United States, though half a million would end up leaving and going to Canada or Mexico. The other million settled in other countries. This was over a period of approximately 15 years.
Even after this, the Irish famine was a complete disaster. A fifth of Ireland’s population died as a result and nobody was pleased. Peel lost his post as Prime Minister following a new attempt at aiding the Irish, and the Whigs were once again able to form a government under Lord Russell in mid-1850, just when the 1850 Revolutions spread from a focalized event in Italy into a revolutionary wave than engulfed the entire continent.
The first wave of revolutionary activity had place in Austrian dominated Italy. Divided between the provinces of Lombardy and Venetia, the region was, without doubt, one of the richest in the entire Hapsburg Empire. The region had abundant fertile land that produced wheat, wine and silk. It was, summarizing, the jewel in the Hapsburg crown. The richest and most educated of the provinces would meet in Milan, the capital of Austrian Italy. They could decide how to implement laws handled down from the government in Vienna, but couldn’t propose their own laws. Adding to the resentment naturally produced by this was the fact that all bureaucracy was dominated by the German speaking Austrians. The Czechs, the most educated people in the Empire besides the Austrians themselves, who lived in Bohemia, the most industrially advanced and important region, also resented that higher education and government post where closed to them unless they spoke German.
Ferdinand I was loved by his subjects, who referred to him as "Ferdy the Loony".
The Hungarians were, together with the Austrians, one of the dominating forces in the country. Unlike other nationalities within the Empire, the Magyars had their own legislative organ, The Hungarian parliament. Though Ferdinand had refused to call it between 1812 and 1825, laws concerning taxes could only be passed with their help. The Magyars dominated this parliament, and the bureaucracy of Hungary was dominated by them too. The Hungarians started to oppose the Hapsburg monarchy, even claiming to be able to reject legislation from Vienna. One of the leading figures in this Magyar defiance was the lawyer and member of the Hungarian Diet Lajos Kossuth, who preached ideas of reform. He was imprisoned for seven years, yet that didn’t stop him. Metternich gave his support to the Croatian intellectual Ljudevit Gaj to create his own newspaper, hoping this would divide his opponents. Yet when Gaj started to spread the idea of a united, southern Slavic republic, Metternich jailed him and closed the newspaper. This only ended up driving the Hungarians and the Slavs of the Empire closer together.
Metternich was the head of the state council, or Staatskonferenz in German. Under Metternich a secret police was established to deal with any dissent within Austria. At first Metternich’s system was not particularly oppressive, but as liberalism grew strong through the continent, so did his paranoia. After the ascension of Constantin to the throne of Russia, Metternich decided to massively expand his reactionary state apparatus. The secret police grew from some dozens of officers to hundreds. Any person who expressed liberal (and later laborist) thought was throw in prison. This, far from crushing dissent, ended up increasing it, especially in Lombardy-Venetia where events in the rest of Italy led to greater revolutionary activity.
Unlike the old French revolutionaries, these new ones often were “career revolutionaries” who actively plotted against the old conservative regimes. They saw the final demise of Napoleon as proof that without union no changes could be made. Had all the liberals of Europe risen up together with the French, a new constitutional order could have arisen from the ashes of the war thorn continent. Instead Metternich’s system arose.
The first revolutionary outbursts in Italy were done by the Carbonari in 1820. In the 1830’s other revolutionary activities took place, chiefly an attempt at revolution against the Dutch in Flanders and the Hambach Festival. The former was crushed by French forces, but it, together with the French liberals, forced the Netherlands to completely become a constitutional monarchy. The later was much more important. Originally a non-political fair, the Hambach Festival became the largest demonstration up to that date in Germany. It demanded German unity and democratic reforms. Some German states adopted constitutions as a result, and Metternich doubled down in his repression of liberal sentiments.
Giusseppe Mazzini.
One of the most prominent members of the Carbonari, and later the founder of the Young Italy movement, was Giuseppe Mazzini. A “career revolutionary” Mazzini envisioned a continental wide revolution that would bring unity, equality and liberty to all the peoples of Europe. He dreamed of a united, powerful, republican Italy that would fulfill its role in history for the benefit of civilization by leading the overthrowing of the old reactionary regimes. The Young Italy movement didn’t have that many members, only around one thousand by Metternich’s estimate, but it was influential with the intellectuals all over the Peninsula, and in the expatriate communities in La Plata and Colombia. One of its members, Giuseppe Garibaldi, had become legendary through Europe and the Americans due to his exploits and adventures in the Triple War. Young Italy was further strengthened when the new Pope, Gregory XVII, was selected. A known liberal and open to reform and progressivism, his selection was look upon with hope by many Italians who dreamed of an united Republic centered around faith and nation.
Mazzini started to work on forming a revolutionary network that would work together: Young Europe. Metternich did not know about them, but he, in his paranoia, already believed in the existence of a revolutionary network centered in Paris. He was not wrong about its existence, and he was not wrong about the involvement of the French. France, believing that destabilizing its rivals through revolutions and creating more liberal states that would naturally flock to its sphere was an ideal plan, started to help Mazzini’s young Europe, giving them funds and sheltering exiled revolutionaries. France, however, completely opposed the German wing of the network, since one of its goals was German unity, a goal that interfered greatly with French interests. Unbeknownst to France, it was feeding a fire that would end up engulfing it too.
Another factor contributing to the revolutions was the increase of the number of educated people. In France, 75% of the population could read. The percentage was of 55% for the Hapsburg Empire and 80% for Prussia. These intellectuals believed in a civil society, in which discussion could be held freely. Censorship was standing in the way of this ideal.
Gregory XVII.
When the year 1850 started, several noted that “the old decade ends with misery and the new starts with desperation”. The disaster dominos had fallen into place. From movements demanding unity in Italy and Germany, to societies that dreamed of creating new nations, and revolutionaries who sought a new continental order, the revolutionaries of Europe were now ready to raise as one and bring their new future. It all started in Italy, where a march demanding aid to the poor of Milan ended up in rioting and confrontation with the Austrian Army. The Springtime of Nations started.
Alright, bear with me. Perhaps all that things about transitioning, levels of mankind and other stuff I made Crespi said made no sense at all, I really don't know. Still, I thought it would be interesting. The main difference between Laborism and OTL's Socialism is the religious background of Laborism (thank you Soverihn for the idea!) and the fact that, unlike Marx who conceived communism as inherently revolutionary with society being a history of struggle, Crespi conceived laborism as more flexible, meaning both democratic and revolutionary ways are acceptable to achieve it, and that laborism doesn't see society as a class war between different unreconcilable groups, but rather as a disunited whole that must come together for positive change to take place.
Now, what does this mean for the TL? Basically, Laborists are more willing to compromise and unite with Liberals to get reforms through democratic means. Of course, there are violent factions (syndicalists, name taken from the popular HOI2 and HOI4 mod Kaiserreich), but they're seen as just that, factions, instead of the main movement. Laborist ITTL is roughly equal to our Social-Democrats, while Syndicalist would be Communists. Socialism ITTL is similar to Laborism, but it ignores religion (at best). It's basically scientific socialism. The idea is developing it into something similar to American progressivism.
Last edited:
And so the Springtime of Nations fall upon the continent. 
What happens next, everyone wonders...
Okay, there's a lot to untangle here! Firstly, Laborism is one ideology that could make a huge impact. Pairing together Christianity with social works, communal-list thinking, egalitarian ideas, and government oversight? This could be a profoundly powerful creed, especially in states that hold religion as a central part of their being. In fact, I can already see one territory that could hold Laborism to heart: the Spanish Philippines.
Even today, the nation is very conservative in Church matters (divorces are against the law there) with some of their nationalists being religious clergymen. In fact, the Philippine clergy in of themselves supported liberal movements and resented foreign influence, especially against the entranced Franciscan and Dominican friars/orders. Many Filipinos and native priests hated the foreign orders as they hogged the best lands and influenced government policies to suit their needs. There was also the issue that said foreign friars tend to create a lot of penniless, landless peasants in their wake from said land hogging. Devout they are, happy they are not.
ITTL, Laborism could form a bridge between the nationalists, the native priesthood, and the locals. Once that happens... good luck, Spain.
Okay, back to Europe! we know that France shall end up with Nappy III, but it's interesting to note how the nation is implementing social reforms and funding revolutionary groups already. But with that comes the question of Algeria. How do the French see the colonization of the land? Or more precisely, how do the French Laborists and reformists see the colonization of the land? Do they see it as spreading the Rights of Man to the Arabs? Do they think their ideology could transform the locals into loyal Frenchmen? Or do they think such creeds only belong to those who worship Christ? The interplay between all the new movements and Algeria could be a giant crossroad in future colonizations. I'll laugh if there would rise a local Islamic Laborism from the Algerians, this time set against France!
The Italian peninsula is also another potential region for change, in the positive kind. With the Young Italy movement and the alt-Transleithania problem Austria is facing (less fear of a Viennese return), I wouldn't be surprised if we could see an Italian Confederation arising from it all, or at least in the north and center, with the pro-reform Pope as an important player amongst the nationalists. Too bad there isn't a Count Cavour analogue, unless the man exists ITTL. Given that Garibaldi also lives and is kicking around, an alt-Piedmontese Bismark under the service of any king or duke could drastically change the Peninsula's geopolitics vis-a-vis its neighbors.
Russia is also progressing, and with some sense too! Having the serf pay back his freedom and lands for so long (40 years!) leaves a lot of room for debt entrapment, but at least it's better than the OTL system where landowners hiked up the price for the best lands against emancipated serfs, hogging them all to themselves. Tsar Constantine could also invest in modern farming equipment and experiment with chemical fertilizers, to lessen the repayment time frame, unlike OTL where farming stagnated until the revolution. Aside from the agriculture, a Russian parliament this early!? Well, there will be fewer mass-parties that coalesce against Tsar, at the very least. I can also see Laborism being amended to fit a more Orthodox nature when industrialization hits.
In contrast with all the above, Austria-Hungary is headed for... interesting times. In the painful sense. Czechs, Hungarians, and Slavs, oh my! And with "Goodinand the Finished" at the helm, it's gonna be a rollercoaster. Plus, there's no Russia to help them out if things go south. In fact, there could be a chance that Russia may come to the aid of the Slavic peoples than anything else. Besides that, Hungarians and Slavs being closer together? I'm guessing the Magyarization of OTL did not happen? Will the good-feeling between the ethnicities last?
In all, a very thought-provoking update!
What happens next, everyone wonders...Okay, there's a lot to untangle here! Firstly, Laborism is one ideology that could make a huge impact. Pairing together Christianity with social works, communal-list thinking, egalitarian ideas, and government oversight? This could be a profoundly powerful creed, especially in states that hold religion as a central part of their being. In fact, I can already see one territory that could hold Laborism to heart: the Spanish Philippines.
Even today, the nation is very conservative in Church matters (divorces are against the law there) with some of their nationalists being religious clergymen. In fact, the Philippine clergy in of themselves supported liberal movements and resented foreign influence, especially against the entranced Franciscan and Dominican friars/orders. Many Filipinos and native priests hated the foreign orders as they hogged the best lands and influenced government policies to suit their needs. There was also the issue that said foreign friars tend to create a lot of penniless, landless peasants in their wake from said land hogging. Devout they are, happy they are not.
ITTL, Laborism could form a bridge between the nationalists, the native priesthood, and the locals. Once that happens... good luck, Spain.
Okay, back to Europe! we know that France shall end up with Nappy III, but it's interesting to note how the nation is implementing social reforms and funding revolutionary groups already. But with that comes the question of Algeria. How do the French see the colonization of the land? Or more precisely, how do the French Laborists and reformists see the colonization of the land? Do they see it as spreading the Rights of Man to the Arabs? Do they think their ideology could transform the locals into loyal Frenchmen? Or do they think such creeds only belong to those who worship Christ? The interplay between all the new movements and Algeria could be a giant crossroad in future colonizations. I'll laugh if there would rise a local Islamic Laborism from the Algerians, this time set against France!
The Italian peninsula is also another potential region for change, in the positive kind. With the Young Italy movement and the alt-Transleithania problem Austria is facing (less fear of a Viennese return), I wouldn't be surprised if we could see an Italian Confederation arising from it all, or at least in the north and center, with the pro-reform Pope as an important player amongst the nationalists. Too bad there isn't a Count Cavour analogue, unless the man exists ITTL. Given that Garibaldi also lives and is kicking around, an alt-Piedmontese Bismark under the service of any king or duke could drastically change the Peninsula's geopolitics vis-a-vis its neighbors.
Russia is also progressing, and with some sense too! Having the serf pay back his freedom and lands for so long (40 years!) leaves a lot of room for debt entrapment, but at least it's better than the OTL system where landowners hiked up the price for the best lands against emancipated serfs, hogging them all to themselves. Tsar Constantine could also invest in modern farming equipment and experiment with chemical fertilizers, to lessen the repayment time frame, unlike OTL where farming stagnated until the revolution. Aside from the agriculture, a Russian parliament this early!? Well, there will be fewer mass-parties that coalesce against Tsar, at the very least. I can also see Laborism being amended to fit a more Orthodox nature when industrialization hits.
In contrast with all the above, Austria-Hungary is headed for... interesting times. In the painful sense. Czechs, Hungarians, and Slavs, oh my! And with "Goodinand the Finished" at the helm, it's gonna be a rollercoaster. Plus, there's no Russia to help them out if things go south. In fact, there could be a chance that Russia may come to the aid of the Slavic peoples than anything else. Besides that, Hungarians and Slavs being closer together? I'm guessing the Magyarization of OTL did not happen? Will the good-feeling between the ethnicities last?
In all, a very thought-provoking update!
P.S: Some of the pictures are getting a bit large as of the last few updates. If you can resize them on future updates, it would be very appreciated.
And so the Springtime of Nations fall upon the continent.
Okay, there's a lot to untangle here! Firstly, Laborism is one ideology that could make a huge impact. Pairing together Christianity with social works, communal-list thinking, egalitarian ideas, and government oversight? This could be a profoundly powerful creed, especially in states that hold religion as a central part of their being. In fact, I can already see one territory that could hold Laborism to heart: the Spanish Philippines.
Even today, the nation is very conservative in Church matters (divorces are against the law there) with some of their nationalists being religious clergymen. In fact, the Philippine clergy in of themselves supported liberal movements and resented foreign influence, especially against the entranced Franciscan and Dominican friars/orders. Many Filipinos and native priests hated the foreign orders as they hogged the best lands and influenced government policies to suit their needs. There was also the issue that said foreign friars tend to create a lot of penniless, landless peasants in their wake from said land hogging. Devout they are, happy they are not.
ITTL, Laborism could form a bridge between the nationalists, the native priesthood, and the locals. Once that happens... good luck, Spain.
Indeed. Due to Laborism being willing to compromise and cooperate in order to get to the next "phase" (which would be defined as independence and modernization for the Philippines) the laborist and liberal movements could ally together as an independence front. Good luck Spain.
Okay, back to Europe! we know that France shall end up with Nappy III, but it's interesting to note how the nation is implementing social reforms and funding revolutionary groups already. But with that comes the question of Algeria. How do the French see the colonization of the land? Or more precisely, how do the French Laborists and reformists see the colonization of the land? Do they see it as spreading the Rights of Man to the Arabs? Do they think their ideology could transform the locals into loyal Frenchmen? Or do they think such creeds only belong to those who worship Christ? The interplay between all the new movements and Algeria could be a giant crossroad in future colonizations. I'll laugh if there would rise a local Islamic Laborism from the Algerians, this time set against France!
This is interesting because Laborism as an ideology doesn't have a position respected to imperialism yet. Most laborist only focus on the suffering at home for the moment. France doesn't consider Algeria a potential integral part of France, and as a result immigration is not widespread. Yet, Laborism is being influencedby Mazzini's ideas that nationalist shouldn't stand in the way of international cooperation. We may see a split between Laborists who oppose imperialism on the basis that they should focus on home, and those who favor it as long as Social and Political Liberties are extended to them as well. Since France wasn't really that big on scientific racism during the time period, it may end in the development of a system that wants to integrate Algeria as part of France not through settlement, but through assimilation. Laborism may also become divided between those who see the religious background as proof that the church has to take a role in its implementation and that only Christians should benefit from it; and those who believe it's only meant as a moral issue and that states should apply laborists concept regardless of religion.
Something I wanted to mention about France is that, while still not as big as Prussia's, France's birthrates are significantly higher than OTL. Why? Well, research didn't turn out an exact reason for why France's birthrates decreased. Several say it's due to a "social transition", but what provoked it? Some say it was the system of dividing the land to all your children, yet nations with the exact same system didn't have low birthrates as a result. In this case, the government helping the poor, bigger industrialization and a better economy means that people have more children. Another consequence is higher immigration.
The Italian peninsula is also another potential region for change, in the positive kind. With the Young Italy movement and the alt-Transleithania problem Austria is facing (less fear of a Viennese return), I wouldn't be surprised if we could see an Italian Confederation arising from it all, or at least in the north and center, with the pro-reform Pope as an important player amongst the nationalists. Too bad there isn't a Count Cavour analogue, unless the man exists ITTL. Given that Garibaldi also lives and is kicking around, an alt-Piedmontese Bismark under the service of any king or duke could drastically change the Peninsula's geopolitics vis-a-vis its neighbors.
Cavour does exist, since he was already born when the POD took place. Anyway, yes, Mazzini and the rest do se an Italian Confederation centered around Papal authority as a possibility.
Russia is also progressing, and with some sense too! Having the serf pay back his freedom and lands for so long (40 years!) leaves a lot of room for debt entrapment, but at least it's better than the OTL system where landowners hiked up the price for the best lands against emancipated serfs, hogging them all to themselves. Tsar Constantine could also invest in modern farming equipment and experiment with chemical fertilizers, to lessen the repayment time frame, unlike OTL where farming stagnated until the revolution. Aside from the agriculture, a Russian parliament this early!? Well, there will be fewer mass-parties that coalesce against Tsar, at the very least. I can also see Laborism being amended to fit a more Orthodox nature when industrialization hits.
I didn't mean to say that a Parliament was established, I'm sorry if it came out that way. Costantin established a kind of Imperial Council where high ranking military men, governors, Tsarists officers and the clergy talk with him. Several are Decembrists, but there's still a reactionary/conservative majority in that council that opposed giving Russia a parliament and constitution. With so many important men opposing the motion, Constantin finally decided against it. Laborism isn't big in Russia yet, but as you say, it will reach Russia and take a more Russian face in there.
In contrast with all the above, Austria-Hungary is headed for... interesting times. In the painful sense. Czechs, Hungarians, and Slavs, oh my! And with "Goodinand the Finished" at the helm, it's gonna be a rollercoaster. Plus, there's no Russia to help them out if things go south. In fact, there could be a chance that Russia may come to the aid of the Slavic peoples than anything else. Besides that, Hungarians and Slavs being closer together? I'm guessing the Magyarization of OTL did not happen? Will the good-feeling between the ethnicities last?
You're right, the Magyarization didn't happen. Metternich was far too paranoid, so he forbade the Magyars from using Hungarian in administration and education. Though it can't be said that the Magyars are friends with the Slavs, Metternich has managed to alienate them much more, so when Revolutions happens, the Slavs may see Hungary as the lesser of two evils. Russia will not come to aid Austria, especially when Austria collapsing would result in undisputed influence in the Balkans. Who knows, a proto-Yugoslavia may arise from the flames of revolution.
In all, a very thought-provoking update!
P.S: Some of the pictures are getting a bit large as of the last few updates. If you can resize them on future updates, it would be very appreciated.
Thank you very much! You're right, the pictures are far too big. I've already replaced them for others of more sensible sizes.
And it will be a hell of a storm for Chile. Right now Chile is divided between Colombian PCN-style "Modernists" who want to modernize education and create industrial growth and more Traditional Conservatives. Since the laborists now enter the picture, and taking into account that they are likely to side with the Church, the Liberals may decide to side with them instead. A Laborist-Liberal Party vs a Conservative one is a possible situation.
Last edited:
So, I have a few questions about Mexico: 1-Has the Empire honored the memory of Hidalgo, Allende and Morelos? IOTL, Iturbide was always very scornful of them. 2-Is there any chance of having an indian PM anytime soon, a certain Mixteca lawyer from Oaxaca, for instance? 3-Maximilian of Habsburg will never have anything to do with the Empire, right?
Sorry. I had my wisdom teeth pulled out and couldn't write for around 10 days. Then I went to a trip that took a week. And now I'm busy since vacation's are over. I'm trying to find some time to write the next update, but unfortunately I haven't been able to.
1.- While Iturbide didn't like any of them, he recognized that using them as nationalists symbols to unite a divided country could be useful. Of course, Iturbide painted himself as the saviour of Mexico who singlehandely defeated the Spanish. Hidalgo is remembered more as a precursor to the independence. Think of Miranda in OTL.
2.- Perhaps. Personally, I love the idea, but Mexico ITTL is somewhat more racist towards its indegenous peoples thanks to the problems the Maya have been giving them. Like Colombia, it is currently dominated by White Criollos. Maybe in the future.
3.- Absolutely no. Every single Emperor (or Empress) of Mexico will be completly Mexican. Perhaps royal marriages could happen (the current Crown prince is half-French), but every ruler of Mexico will be born and raised within the country. I may use Max's painting in the future though. There aren't many portraits that would fit a Mexican emperor after all.
I admire Juarez. He will appear in the future and will be quite important, but not yet. You're right about Max. I actually have kind of a soft spot for him... I don't know why, really. As for Napoleon II, he died as in OTL, around the same date.
Me too, I have a soft spot for Max. I think he wasn't a bad guy at all. In my opinion, like many other historical figures who went down badly, he was just at the wrong time at wrong place. About Napoleon II, I was thinking, with his old man dead in battle, and he still in Paris, it must have being rellay difficult, like quasi-french-civil-war-difficult to convince the bonapartist officers of accepting Charles X, I mean they must have offered them a lot of privileges ITTL, so they will be more influential during the restauration than IOTL, which would explain why Charles had to accept so many liberal policies. Anyway, just a few thoughts. I hope you are doing well and I'll patiently wait for more of your awesome TL!
Yeah, that's exactly what happened. Yes, I'm doing well, thank you very much. I hope you're doing well too, I hadn't seen you in a long time around here. By the way, I'm currently writing the next chapter of the Mexican-American War.
- Status