Deleted member 67076
Given the era, its a toss up between Cosmic Race ideas and Positivism asking for Blanquimiento. Probably the latter since thats how it was everywhere in Latin America.
Miranda's Dream. ¡Por una Latino América fuerte!.- A Gran Colombia TL
- Thread starter Red_Galiray
- Start date
- Status
Yeah! Cuba's time to shine is coming soon! I have to explain what's going on with the Gringos first, but then we'll get an update detailing the US-Mexico border post-war, and Colombo-Mexican diplomacy in the Caribbean as the led-up to the Cuban rebellion.
Of course, rich people will always try to find loopholes. Like, the "bonuses" of my company or the value of my land isn't technically a salary, so you can't tax it.
Many are wondering that, exactly. Whether Colombia should strive to be a white European country, or make a new mestizo identity out of the different peoples that make it. Some insist that the only true Colombians are White Colombians and the blacks, natives and others are different peoples who just happen to live in the same territory; others think that "Colombian" ought to be an identity not restrained by race, religion or class.
Of course, some already harbor the ideas of "mejorar la raza." Some even come up with absurd plans like paying for the immigration of white prostitutes and settling them in Pardo areas, so that mestizaje would eliminate blacks and indians as separate races. There's of course the underlying idea that a whiter, more European Colombia would be better too. It's disgusting, but realistic for the time period.
And thanks how you deal with it, make the TL feels so real and that was a massive political and cultural critic question , what make us colombian and what is the ideal going forward, waiting to see what will unfold next.
Hey @Red_Galiray, my earlier "Yesss" was an expression of my joy for reading a new update of your awesome TL, not just for learning that Cuba will get some action very soon!
I am really glad you find it realistic! I've always strived to make this world feel alive, like something that could have actually happened.
Ah, I see! Well, thank you very much for your support
Chapter 54: Mexico will poison us
The 1855 election would be a pivotal turning point in the history of the US. President James K Polk, hated vehemently by some, loved by others, refused to serve for a second term. Ostensibly he did so to fulfill his pledge to only serve one term; however, “Old Hickory”, as he was now being called, was also sick and tired. Almost his entire administration had been dedicated to the pursuit of a bloody and divisive war, and he had faced criticism and attacks from all sides besides the obvious weight on his shoulders. The chains of command had not been kind to him. His tendency to overwork himself didn’t help matters at all, and though some hailed him as the greatest president since Jefferson, at the moment his legacy was tarnished by the loss of the Oregon Territory, the enormous debt acquired, and of course, the hundreds of thousands of deaths that had resulted from the war.
Without Polk, the path towards the Democratic nomination was wide open. The Party had suffered during almost 16 years of Liberal administration. At first the heirs of Jeffersonian doctrine, they failed in their crusade against the banks and privilege, and Liberals became instead the party of political rights, nationalism and progress while the Democrats became increasingly associated with agrarianism, the South and slavery. The war had only increased the problem – since most powerful Democrats where from the South, the war was seen as a Democratic war for the spread of slavery. The dangerous flames of sectional conflict were alight.
In the Democracy, the Southern faction was the strongest, and they demanded support from the Northern Democrats. Southern domination of the party resulted odious to many. Gideon Welles, for example, felt that the Mexican War had been a “terrible wrong, fought on the basis of Southern caprice.” He believed that the 1855 Convention would give them a chance to right the “wrongs of 1851.” Even before the war many had reacted against the demands of the Slavocrats. A group of renegade New York Democrats had even opposed Cass because they thought he was servile towards the South in the name of political advancement – they were known as the “Barnburners”, after their leader Martin van Buren and the legend of the farmer that burns down his barn to get rid of rats.
When it comes to the Liberals, the main conflict was against Southern or “Leash” Liberals such as Alexander Stephens, and their conservative Northern allies who were derisively called “Loom Liberals”. Northern anti-slavery Liberals such as Seward were called “Wide Awakes” because they had “awaken” to the evils of slavery and the Slave Power that controlled the US. These northerners had formed the basis of the Peace faction that ultimately brought the administration to heel and achieved the end of the war – but this resulted in the rise of a “stab in the back” theory among Southerners, who believed that they could have won the war and taken more territory or perhaps even the entire Mexican Empire had these cowardly Yankees not betrayed them.
Adding fire to these suspicions was the fact that the premier general of the war was a Liberal. Though second only to Washington in fame and prominence, Winfield Scott had been a bitter rival of Polk, and their political conflict had many times had effects on the battlefield. In hindsight, the politization of both nations’ armies during the Mexican-American War is one of its darkest and most lamentable legacies. The effect in Mexico had been almost immediate, and resulted in Marshal Salazar’s coup against Parliament. But in the US the effect was slow, but ultimately more disastrous.
In any case, the political scene in the United States had been shocked, and almost crumbled. Internecine warfare between Liberal factions had already greatly weakened the party. Even the place of the convention was contested, and ultimately Philadelphia was selected. Southerners who already felt threatened by the North were not reassured by this election. The main candidate was General Scott, which only further emphasizes the point that the once apolitical US Army was being tainted by political considerations, especially in view of how many regiments and officers printed out endorsements or condemnations of Old Fuss and Feathers. Scott was an articulate military man from Virginia, seemingly a perfect choice for a party that sought to reconciliate its Southern and pro-war factions to the Northern mainstream. Yet he was also seen as pompous, and had a bad tendency to alienate political allies – Henry Clay reportedly could not put up with him, and William Henry Harrison was once a bitter opponent.
Neither was there any longer. Clay had passed away after a long sickness, having lived to see the end of the war. The canny Kentuckian recognized the problems that laid ahead, and regretted not living to solve them through a compromise, like he had solved the crisis of 1830 over Missouri. The only person who could oppose the Scott bandwagon was Zachary Taylor, not a specially committed general but a Southern slaveholder who projected a rough but trustworthy persona. However, Taylor had been vanquished by Ruiz during the Louisiana Campaign, and had spent most of the war in a prisoner’s camp south of the Rio Grande. His reputation was in taters when he returned to the US. At least his fate was better than that of the hapless Robert Patterson, who died of malaria while under Mexican custody.
Martin van Buren
With the way clear, Scott easily grasped the nomination of the Liberal Party, but Southerners quickly stormed to his office to demand some reassurances. Their main fear was the question of the territories. They believed their honor was at stake, for most recruits who fought and lost their lives for the war had been from the South, and their sister states of Louisiana was the one who suffered the most. To not get anything out of the conflict “would destroy the Liberal party in the Gulf states”, as one Louisiana congressman said. “The blood we have shed for the holy cause of the expansion of American and Southern institutions and civilizations can not be disregarded”, added another.
Scott was able to promise that he would deal with the situation fairly when the time came, but he also alienated them by making it clear that he wouldn’t go after Cuba as they wanted, and that the Northern wing also had to be considered. Still, for the moment it was enough. “We feel safe under General Scott”, said Stephens, who had been quickly emerging as the main Southern Liberal. Yet Northerners were unwilling to support a candidate that did not speak against slavery. Scott was no friend of the slavers, but as an ardent Unionist and Party man he wanted to “obscure and hide the harlot” in the words of the radical Charles Sumner. The radicals pushed the point forward, saying that they “could not and would not support anyone who does not recognize the evil influence and moral bankruptcy of slavery.” They were unable to force through a commitment to the Oliphant Proviso, which would make all the territories sans Texas free. After that, they bolted the party.
Democrats were having similar problems of party unity. Northern Democrats had lost power and influence due to their association with war and slavery, both of which were greatly unpopular north of the Mason-Dixon line. They were accused of being “white negroes” and not fighting for the rights of the North. “When the British invaded our glorious nation, when the French sunk our fleets, when petulant Colombia challenged us in the seas and petty Mexico in the land, they were quiet, they simply shrunk back and accepted the blows!” denounced an especially irate Northerners, who swore that the Democrats would never again receive one vote from him. Many made a similar pledge.
The Convention was a chaotic event. The election of Charleston was a poor one, for it only reinforced Northern fears. Believing that they were tying themselves to either “a sinking ship, or a slave ship”, many Northerners would fight tool and nail to make some commitment to Cass’ model of popular sovereignty, but Southerners would only accept further slave expansion. At a bare minimum, they wanted two states carved out of Texas, and perhaps access to the rest of the West. Some radical “Fire-Eaters” further demanded Cuba, or the acquisition of more territory from Mexico in the future. They were sobered by news from Mexico, where Marshal Salazar had just summarily executed a group of five filibusters, with Polk unable to do anything because punishing people who violated the Treaty of la Habana had been explicitly allowed.
When Southerners forced the slavery issue in their favor, Barnburners and other Northern Democrats bolted the party, and found themselves in company of the radical Liberal deserters. A third faction soon joined them – the nativist Know-it-alls, who were struggling to become a real political movement. Ironically enough, success in passing Federal immigration quotas after the Green Massacre and the desertion of the San Patricios had deflated their movement, but now they hoped to join with the bolters. Yet a fourth group arrived to be the final strange bedfellow, the Liberty men.
These were Radical abolitionists led by Salmon P. Chase, who had perfected a kind of “political abolitionism” that sought to eliminate slavery through constitutional action. They vowed to “fight on and fight forever for Free Soil, Free Labor and Free Men!”, but recognized that religious appeals were not working. However, economic and social arguments about the evils of slavery and the threat it represented towards Northern society were more successful. Now that the South had caused a war for the sole purpose of guarding and expanding slavery, most Northerners were ready to believe that the slave power was a threat that had to be stopped. Christening themselves the National Party, these men nominated Martin Van Buren.
Charles Sumner
The Party had many problems. The first was that despite their union against slavery’s expansion, they were divided by nativism, economic issues and abolitionism. In any case, they managed to be a political force because they represented enough of New England and the “Upper West” (the northernmost areas of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Iowa, settled by New Englanders who still resented the loss of the Great Lakes and blamed the South for it).
The weakened Democrats then became a thoroughly Southern party. Paradoxically enough, they nominated a Northern man, Stephen A. Douglas, a champion of popular sovereignty and manifest destiny who had been a staunch ally of the South during the war. Nicknamed the “Little Giant” due to his intense intellect and small height, Douglas believed that abolitionists such as the Nationalists were the greater risk to the Union, and he was willing to ally with the South to both protect his nation and to advance his political career.
The three-way race was set, and the campaign was vicious. A kind of anxious energy seemed to posses most Americans, who believed that the destiny of the US was at stake. “Is the blood shed in 1776, and in 1851 for naught?”, wondered a New Yorker. Some Southerners were floating the idea that a victory by the Nationalists would result in secession because “we can’t submit to a party founded on the ideal that our noble institution is a wrong.”
When the voting was counted, the results were alarming to conservatives – the Nationalists had carried Maryland, Delaware, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, and had put up a credible fight in the Upper West, Pennsylvania and New York. A political realignment was obvious, for the Liberals had been able to contest the South, being especially strong in Georgia and Louisiana, but in that election the Democrats carried the entire South by good margins, leading Stephens to declare that the Liberal Party was dead in the South. The strong Nationalist showing was enough to deny the election to Scott, who won the rest of the North. It was clear that the US was now divided along sectional lines.
For the second time in history, the House would have to decide the winner. The Liberals had been obliterated in most of the South, but they reigned supreme in most of the North. The balance was held by the Nationalist. The Liberal leaders now had to choices – ally with the South and uphold the “Crooked Deal” of accepting slavery’s expansion, or repudiate it and ally with the Nationalist. They chose the later, and that crippled the Party because what little support it still had in the South evaporated, and it chained them to a more radical vision for the future of the territories. But it meant that they won the Presidency, which was far more important for the moment. Winfield Scott would be the next President of the United States, but it seemed that increasingly the US was becoming a House Divided.
President of the United States, Winfield Scott
Without Polk, the path towards the Democratic nomination was wide open. The Party had suffered during almost 16 years of Liberal administration. At first the heirs of Jeffersonian doctrine, they failed in their crusade against the banks and privilege, and Liberals became instead the party of political rights, nationalism and progress while the Democrats became increasingly associated with agrarianism, the South and slavery. The war had only increased the problem – since most powerful Democrats where from the South, the war was seen as a Democratic war for the spread of slavery. The dangerous flames of sectional conflict were alight.
In the Democracy, the Southern faction was the strongest, and they demanded support from the Northern Democrats. Southern domination of the party resulted odious to many. Gideon Welles, for example, felt that the Mexican War had been a “terrible wrong, fought on the basis of Southern caprice.” He believed that the 1855 Convention would give them a chance to right the “wrongs of 1851.” Even before the war many had reacted against the demands of the Slavocrats. A group of renegade New York Democrats had even opposed Cass because they thought he was servile towards the South in the name of political advancement – they were known as the “Barnburners”, after their leader Martin van Buren and the legend of the farmer that burns down his barn to get rid of rats.
When it comes to the Liberals, the main conflict was against Southern or “Leash” Liberals such as Alexander Stephens, and their conservative Northern allies who were derisively called “Loom Liberals”. Northern anti-slavery Liberals such as Seward were called “Wide Awakes” because they had “awaken” to the evils of slavery and the Slave Power that controlled the US. These northerners had formed the basis of the Peace faction that ultimately brought the administration to heel and achieved the end of the war – but this resulted in the rise of a “stab in the back” theory among Southerners, who believed that they could have won the war and taken more territory or perhaps even the entire Mexican Empire had these cowardly Yankees not betrayed them.
Adding fire to these suspicions was the fact that the premier general of the war was a Liberal. Though second only to Washington in fame and prominence, Winfield Scott had been a bitter rival of Polk, and their political conflict had many times had effects on the battlefield. In hindsight, the politization of both nations’ armies during the Mexican-American War is one of its darkest and most lamentable legacies. The effect in Mexico had been almost immediate, and resulted in Marshal Salazar’s coup against Parliament. But in the US the effect was slow, but ultimately more disastrous.
In any case, the political scene in the United States had been shocked, and almost crumbled. Internecine warfare between Liberal factions had already greatly weakened the party. Even the place of the convention was contested, and ultimately Philadelphia was selected. Southerners who already felt threatened by the North were not reassured by this election. The main candidate was General Scott, which only further emphasizes the point that the once apolitical US Army was being tainted by political considerations, especially in view of how many regiments and officers printed out endorsements or condemnations of Old Fuss and Feathers. Scott was an articulate military man from Virginia, seemingly a perfect choice for a party that sought to reconciliate its Southern and pro-war factions to the Northern mainstream. Yet he was also seen as pompous, and had a bad tendency to alienate political allies – Henry Clay reportedly could not put up with him, and William Henry Harrison was once a bitter opponent.
Neither was there any longer. Clay had passed away after a long sickness, having lived to see the end of the war. The canny Kentuckian recognized the problems that laid ahead, and regretted not living to solve them through a compromise, like he had solved the crisis of 1830 over Missouri. The only person who could oppose the Scott bandwagon was Zachary Taylor, not a specially committed general but a Southern slaveholder who projected a rough but trustworthy persona. However, Taylor had been vanquished by Ruiz during the Louisiana Campaign, and had spent most of the war in a prisoner’s camp south of the Rio Grande. His reputation was in taters when he returned to the US. At least his fate was better than that of the hapless Robert Patterson, who died of malaria while under Mexican custody.
Martin van Buren
With the way clear, Scott easily grasped the nomination of the Liberal Party, but Southerners quickly stormed to his office to demand some reassurances. Their main fear was the question of the territories. They believed their honor was at stake, for most recruits who fought and lost their lives for the war had been from the South, and their sister states of Louisiana was the one who suffered the most. To not get anything out of the conflict “would destroy the Liberal party in the Gulf states”, as one Louisiana congressman said. “The blood we have shed for the holy cause of the expansion of American and Southern institutions and civilizations can not be disregarded”, added another.
Scott was able to promise that he would deal with the situation fairly when the time came, but he also alienated them by making it clear that he wouldn’t go after Cuba as they wanted, and that the Northern wing also had to be considered. Still, for the moment it was enough. “We feel safe under General Scott”, said Stephens, who had been quickly emerging as the main Southern Liberal. Yet Northerners were unwilling to support a candidate that did not speak against slavery. Scott was no friend of the slavers, but as an ardent Unionist and Party man he wanted to “obscure and hide the harlot” in the words of the radical Charles Sumner. The radicals pushed the point forward, saying that they “could not and would not support anyone who does not recognize the evil influence and moral bankruptcy of slavery.” They were unable to force through a commitment to the Oliphant Proviso, which would make all the territories sans Texas free. After that, they bolted the party.
Democrats were having similar problems of party unity. Northern Democrats had lost power and influence due to their association with war and slavery, both of which were greatly unpopular north of the Mason-Dixon line. They were accused of being “white negroes” and not fighting for the rights of the North. “When the British invaded our glorious nation, when the French sunk our fleets, when petulant Colombia challenged us in the seas and petty Mexico in the land, they were quiet, they simply shrunk back and accepted the blows!” denounced an especially irate Northerners, who swore that the Democrats would never again receive one vote from him. Many made a similar pledge.
The Convention was a chaotic event. The election of Charleston was a poor one, for it only reinforced Northern fears. Believing that they were tying themselves to either “a sinking ship, or a slave ship”, many Northerners would fight tool and nail to make some commitment to Cass’ model of popular sovereignty, but Southerners would only accept further slave expansion. At a bare minimum, they wanted two states carved out of Texas, and perhaps access to the rest of the West. Some radical “Fire-Eaters” further demanded Cuba, or the acquisition of more territory from Mexico in the future. They were sobered by news from Mexico, where Marshal Salazar had just summarily executed a group of five filibusters, with Polk unable to do anything because punishing people who violated the Treaty of la Habana had been explicitly allowed.
When Southerners forced the slavery issue in their favor, Barnburners and other Northern Democrats bolted the party, and found themselves in company of the radical Liberal deserters. A third faction soon joined them – the nativist Know-it-alls, who were struggling to become a real political movement. Ironically enough, success in passing Federal immigration quotas after the Green Massacre and the desertion of the San Patricios had deflated their movement, but now they hoped to join with the bolters. Yet a fourth group arrived to be the final strange bedfellow, the Liberty men.
These were Radical abolitionists led by Salmon P. Chase, who had perfected a kind of “political abolitionism” that sought to eliminate slavery through constitutional action. They vowed to “fight on and fight forever for Free Soil, Free Labor and Free Men!”, but recognized that religious appeals were not working. However, economic and social arguments about the evils of slavery and the threat it represented towards Northern society were more successful. Now that the South had caused a war for the sole purpose of guarding and expanding slavery, most Northerners were ready to believe that the slave power was a threat that had to be stopped. Christening themselves the National Party, these men nominated Martin Van Buren.
Charles Sumner
The Party had many problems. The first was that despite their union against slavery’s expansion, they were divided by nativism, economic issues and abolitionism. In any case, they managed to be a political force because they represented enough of New England and the “Upper West” (the northernmost areas of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Iowa, settled by New Englanders who still resented the loss of the Great Lakes and blamed the South for it).
The weakened Democrats then became a thoroughly Southern party. Paradoxically enough, they nominated a Northern man, Stephen A. Douglas, a champion of popular sovereignty and manifest destiny who had been a staunch ally of the South during the war. Nicknamed the “Little Giant” due to his intense intellect and small height, Douglas believed that abolitionists such as the Nationalists were the greater risk to the Union, and he was willing to ally with the South to both protect his nation and to advance his political career.
The three-way race was set, and the campaign was vicious. A kind of anxious energy seemed to posses most Americans, who believed that the destiny of the US was at stake. “Is the blood shed in 1776, and in 1851 for naught?”, wondered a New Yorker. Some Southerners were floating the idea that a victory by the Nationalists would result in secession because “we can’t submit to a party founded on the ideal that our noble institution is a wrong.”
When the voting was counted, the results were alarming to conservatives – the Nationalists had carried Maryland, Delaware, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, and had put up a credible fight in the Upper West, Pennsylvania and New York. A political realignment was obvious, for the Liberals had been able to contest the South, being especially strong in Georgia and Louisiana, but in that election the Democrats carried the entire South by good margins, leading Stephens to declare that the Liberal Party was dead in the South. The strong Nationalist showing was enough to deny the election to Scott, who won the rest of the North. It was clear that the US was now divided along sectional lines.
For the second time in history, the House would have to decide the winner. The Liberals had been obliterated in most of the South, but they reigned supreme in most of the North. The balance was held by the Nationalist. The Liberal leaders now had to choices – ally with the South and uphold the “Crooked Deal” of accepting slavery’s expansion, or repudiate it and ally with the Nationalist. They chose the later, and that crippled the Party because what little support it still had in the South evaporated, and it chained them to a more radical vision for the future of the territories. But it meant that they won the Presidency, which was far more important for the moment. Winfield Scott would be the next President of the United States, but it seemed that increasingly the US was becoming a House Divided.
President of the United States, Winfield Scott
Yikes. I wouldn't be surprised if the American Civil War happens earlier than OTL. The South has been pillaged by Mexico, but the North has less of California. Overall, probably not too different a power (im)balance from OTL.
With the butterflies it could be anything from a real civil war(keep slavery or abolitionism throught the force of arms) to another secession war to very bloody internal terrorism would make bloody kansas looks like a civil dialogue.
Unless they Start a war against mexico or an attack, Mexico would not care, happy their former enemy is self destructing.
^ This...
As a matter of fact, although Mexico wouldn't care, something tells me it would be in the Empire's best interest to support the North, if only to prohibit Southern revanchism targeting them.
I am inclined to sing the first verses of Evita at the US's election fustercluck. Oh what a circus, oh what a show~...
One must also take into account that the US lost Michigan, Wisconsin and Oregon. There is also the fact that they have lost a good deal of immigration and investment thanks to the more stable and prosperous Latin America. The Free States are overall much weaker than OTL, but still stronger than the South.
Unfortunately, such a kind of terrorism is likely at this point, especially in California and Texas...
Mexico does not want to get involved in another war, but you are right that Southernerns must take them into consideration. Salazar hates the Americans, Southern Americans more than anything. There's also another Latin American nation a little to the south...
They most likely believe the Mexicans are ready to jump at their throats the moment they secede.
Indeed. The South would be hungry for more territory, and Mexico is a natural choice in that regard. As mentioned, there are already many filibusterers threatening the peace.
I am inclined to sing the first verses of Evita at the US's election fustercluck. Oh what a circus, oh what a show~...
The US is going to pay dearly for the war after all. There are many more veterans, and experienced officers, including many, many Southern veterans.
In all fronts, because France, Mexico, the UK and Colombia are all watching these developments closely.
Excatly, but the other nation South Mostly will benefit of that distrupted trade and pledging supremacy in the carribean and from other side keep in check if they try something in the seas.
And Mexico will close their borders and overguard them, i doubt South would try something with two hostile neighboors if a secession happens.
That is very Normal, as say, we've Bloody Kansas as example, here will be 1000 greater.
I guess it's a bit unrealistic to hope for a northern secession? I was hoping you'd have the south win the election and try to force their agenda on the nation, perhaps triggering an alt-northern secession.
The thing is, a Colombian Cuba is seen as an existential threat to the US. Colombia is sure to exploit the opportunity if given, because if the US is in the middle of a Civil War they can't do much if Colombia decides to... ahem, liberate the island.
Northern secession? In my TL? It's more likely than you think.
The idea of northern secession, or of an acutal ideological Civil War instead of secession has always been intriguing to me. It's more lilely ITTL because the South is much more powerful thanks to the loss of Michigan and Wisconsin in the War od 1814. We'll see what happens.
It's detailed here, but basically, Marshal Marco Antonio Salazar coup'ed the govenment and installed an executive Council of Regency with himself as President. He did not suspend the Constitution, overthrow the monarchy or violate civil liberties, but he did dissolve parliament and ruled by decree for almost 3 years. After that, he called for elections and his party won triumphantly, allowing him to set out in an agenda of economic recovery and political reform. The Empire is doing well right now, but they certainly don't want war. More on them next update!
Well I'm very happy to hear that! As I am also very interested in an actual civil war scenario in the US. I myself am VERY slowly creating a TL about that very scenario that I hope to unveil some day. Anyway, yay!
- Status