President Andrew "Old Hickory" Jackson shot down 1835

[Hnau]

On January 30, 1835, President Andrew Jackson was crossing the Capitol Rotunda after the funeral of South Carolina Representative Warren R. Davis when house-painter Richard Lawrence approached Jackson. Lawrence aimed two pistols at the president, one misfiring with the other putting a bullet into the President's vital organs. While his assassin was immediately imprisoned and to be put on an infamous trial which captivated the nation, Andrew Jackson would die three days later, an old man who could not cope with another bullet wound.

On February 3, 1835, Vice-President Martin Van Buren was sworn in as the 8th President of the United States of America, to comfort a terror-stricken nation. The following Easter Sunday clergymen around the country would praise Old Hickory in their sermons. More than a million citizens came from across the country to attend the former president's funeral procession, with many more viewing his funeral train along its route.

--

Alright, the most important question is: would President van Buren still issue an executive order for the Specie Circular? There's a lot of knock-on effects with this POD, but this first one is important. Thoughts?

 

[Hnau]

Okay, I've discovered that Acting President van Buren refused to use government intervention in the economy during the Panic of 1837, perhaps when it needed it the most. Therefore, I find it unlikely that even with the rapid inflation of 'soft' paper money in the west as was occurring in 1835-36 that he would do something as heavy handed as the Specie Circular.

Also, as noted in this wikipedia article there is evidence that the credit bubble was not even a problem, as banks were reporting to be very stable in their reserve rates. It could be that the Specie Circular was a direct cause for the Panic of 1837 and the five years of depression following it.

But there was another cause for the 1837-42 depression: in OTL the British Central Bank was worrying about states defaulting on their loans and the money flow (for investment) into the US from Britain. So they increased their deposit rate. This made British investors turn to investing in UK, decreasing the money flow to the US and causing the credit bubble to burst.

What does this all mean? Well, there might be additional effects from whoever wins the election of 1836, I'm not promising van Buren, BUT, let's assume the 1837-42 depression was 50% the Specie Circular and 50% the British Central Bank's fault. There's no accurate way to determine how much each contributed to the Panic and subsequent depression, so half-and-half seems close enough to me. With no Specie Circular, the British Central Bank will probably not be alerted to the problem as early on, waiting perhaps a year longer to 1838. They do the same thing in 1838, the credit bubble bursts, but the depression is only half as bad for the next five years. I wish I could get some GDP statistics on the United States for these years, but a half-hour of googling unfortunately reveals nothing useful.

About the Second Seminole War: Van Buren was just like Jackson, the Seminoles were to be removed by force. This will continue mostly as OTL.

Wow, did anything of importance in US history happen in 1835 and 1836 other than the election and the Specie Circular? Geeze. Well, the election of 1836 is thrown even more in favor of Martin Van Buren than OTL, just slightly, due to the reverance of Jackson as a presidential martyr. From there Buren probably does his thing, other than the timing and intensity of the depression. This POD has very little immediate effects. His 'Independent Treasury' idea is probably established by 1839 due to earlier party cohesion, but the OTL one didn't have much of an impact. I wonder if the extra year will allow it to have one.

All in all, the US election of 1840 might have butterflies, but one direct effect is Van Buren will run for a second term with about half the blame as OTL, for half of a depression. I'll have to run some election simulations to see how this might skew the election. Aha! Just found something:

Had the [Whig National Convention] been held in the spring, [instead of December 1839] when the economic downturn had led to a string of Whig victories, [Henry Clay] would have had much greater support.

Do you understand? Of course you do. Winter 1839 in TTL is politically Spring 1839, due to the shift of the timing of the depression! Henry Clay is thus the Whig candidate for the US presidential election of 1840. Now to those election simulations.

 

[Hnau]

Its close but it certainly looks like Henry Clay will be the victor of the 1840 presidential election, and the 9th President of the United States. 172 electoral votes to 122. I'll need to make an electoral map. Tyler, of course, is his VP.

EDIT: And here it is. Two Virginia-born men earn Clay-Tyler Virginia, even though it was still hotly contested. Even if Van Buren had taken Virginia, the Whigs still would have won. Otherwise, it much like the OTL US presidential election of 1840, but Van Buren holds on to New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Maine. Not enough, though, poor bloke. He won't be known as "Martin Van Ruin" because he's also the man that picked up the U.S. after the Jackson assassination, which might help him out in later elections.

Any thoughts? By 1840 we have a nation under a Clay presidency, that is slightly more economically ahead, but with three years of recession to go. American-British relations haven't degraded as much as in OTL due to more states loans being able to be repaid. So far its heading towards a downright utopia, which makes me feel bad that have Lawrence assassinate Jackson would cause history to turn out this way.

 

[Atom]

Huh. Andrew Jackson will probably become more mythologized in ATL, so many of his worse actions will be glossed over. I think that if there is something like the OTL Civil War, which seems likely, and it happens about the time it did in OTL, then he will definately be a symbol for whatever side are the Federalists, because he was called by (what to them would be) proto-cessenionists.

I don't know enough about American History in this time period to really help you. perhaps without the as large a collapse, western expansion might be a little bit faster.

 

[DuQuense]

Can't tell the colors, Remembre Florida is not a state.

?Would Van Buren renew the Charter for the- 2nd Bank of the US-?
?Would Clay support a -3rd Bank of the US- if the 2nd bank went out.

This is when several of the southern states went Bankrupt over the Canal loans.
Without these bankruptcies the southern states would have had more money to pay for railroads in the late 40's~50's.
This would have a effect on any ACW.

President Clay means no Texas Annexation, So no Mex-American war of 1845.

 

[Hnau]

Can't tell the colors, Remembre Florida is not a state.

Really? I hope you don't mind me asking if you are color-blind? Yeah, Florida is not colored as a state, though.

Van Buren sided with Jackson against the Second Bank of the US. Furthermore, Jackson was so well-known for his dislike of the Bank of the US that to renew its charter would be political suicide.

However, I do believe that Clay would give support to a Third Bank of the US, sometime during his presidency. The Panic of 1837 in OTL hit the Southern states the hardest, so ITTL they will have more money and more railroads which could be useful, possibly five years ahead than OTL.

 

[1940LaSalle]

…More than a million citizens came from across the country to attend the former president's funeral procession, with many more viewing his funeral train along its route.…

You surely have knowledge of financial issues that I don't, but I can tell you one thing: in 1835, there would be no funeral train. There was a grand total of ~1100 miles of track in the US, most of which would have been in the northeastern US. Moreover, much of that consisted of lines that weren't interconnected, so sizable gaps existed. On top of that, standard gauging had yet to be adopted, so that railroads operated on gauges anywhere from perhaps 3' 0" up to 6' 0" (the Erie, I believe, was the prime example of a broad gauge line).

Chances are that if Jackson's body were to be remitted to Tennessee, it would have to have gone by an arduous route using several different modes of transportation.

 

[Hnau]

A Clay Presidency

1841
- March - Henry Clay is inaugurated as the 9th President of the United States.
- July - Directed against the ongoing recession, a bill is passed by President Clay to increase internal development, roads and railways throughout the Midwest and the South, to facilitate commerce through the Union and create jobs.
- November - The Third Bank of the United States is established though with a bit of controversy due to upset Jacksonians, in reaction to the banking slump.

1842
- August - Webster-Ashburton Treaty is signed, establishing the US-Canadian border east of the Rocky Mountains.
- September - President Clay manages to push through the 'Black Tariff', with rates climbing to 45 percent on dutiable goods. Imports are halved, exports decrease, northern protectionists are ecstatic, southern planters are furious.

And that's pretty much it until the presidential election of 1844. The recession ends in 1843, and it is said that Clay's American System is responsible for it. He is certainly up for re-election, against also for re-election, Martin Van Buren. It comes close once again, but there is another victory for Henry Clay.

A few pretty boring years, I have to say.

 

[DuQuense]

- November - The Third Bank of the United States is established though with a bit of controversy due to upset Jacksonians, in reaction to the banking slump.

This means that Bank Notes are issued by the 3rd bank, So no Dix Bank Notes, So no Dixies, or Dixieland.

 

[Hnau]

There is one change in the US presidential election of 1844: President Henry Clay tires of his VP John Tyler, who shows his true colors when throughout his term he fights as much as he can against the party's core platform. Thus, Clay disenfranchises him and has Theodore Frelinghuysen from New York replace him.

This means that in the US presidential election of 1848, Frelinghuysen will run as the Whig candidate. Who against? Hold on a second.

What happens 1845-48? Let's go to the Republic of Texas, where parts of the population in 1844 requested US annexation. Clay doesn't agree with this. Van Buren runs in 1844 with James K. Polk as his VP and also doesn't want total annexation, even though this is popular amongst the Democrats. In fact, this might just create a small third party of Democrats that desire Manifest Destiny... perhaps the American Expansionist Party or somesuch, putting forward a non-Polk Democrat as a candidate, that will make it easier for Clay to get elected.

This still alerts the British and the French, but not as much as in OTL. In 1846 European diplomats enter Mexico City and get the Mexicans to sign a peace treaty with the Republic of Texas, agreeing a border on the Rio Grande. The treaty passes in June. However, this alerts President Clay finally to the idea that Texas might become a British puppet. In order to pre-empt economic domination of Texas, Clay grants Texas a large loan to help them with their massive debt problem in 1847, putting Texas back into America's pocket.

Overall, Texas is doing better than in OTL. The U.S. Tariff of 1842 forces many British investors to turn to zero-tariff Texas. This leads to slightly higher colonization and more of an independent streak. The Loan of 1847 will push the Texan economy even more.

Let's talk about Oregon. Clay is going to have to push for Oregon annexation to win the election of 1844 from expansionary Democrats. But, he is that 'Great Compromiser'. I see him getting the same bargain as Polk: a border at the 49th parallel. And that's all I see happening in Clay's second term. The economy is perhaps 10 years ahead of OTL, and the same goes for railroad development. However, it is more skewed towards the north, considerably, though Clay might pass a tariff reduction for the 1846 mid-term elections, perhaps to 38 percent?

Right, with that out of the way, who runs with Theodore Frelinghuysen in 1848? I'd guess John McLean, an Ohio man to complement Frelinghuysen from New Jersey. It doesn't matter too much. Who runs against him? Well, I can't see any reason why Martin Van Buren wouldn't step up to the plate once more. See, in OTL, Cass as the champion of the Doctrine of Popular Sovereignty really made him appealing when the national topic was what to do with the Mexican Cession areas. It was felt a pro-slavery man was needed. Here, without any debate, slavery isn't much of an issue, and so the anti-slavery Van Buren, with all of his experience, is put into the limelight.

Who is the VP on the Democratic ticket? I say they would still go for William Orlando. They need a southern man to complement a northern man, just as in OTL.

Who wins? Well, Frelinghuysen was kind of regarded as a bit too religiously-focused to fill the presidential spot and I can see people viewing the Whigs as failures in not taking Texas or Oregon. Meanwhile, Martin Van Buren has never been regarded as a national pariah, and still has the reputation as 'Jackson's Heir'. And that's big in this timeline. I believe Van Buren will get a second run on things, becoming the tenth president of the U.S. in 1849.

 

[Hnau]

Before I go on a day trip today I wanted to get some ideas across.

1837 - Mormons in Kirtland don't defect because of banking crisis.

1838 - The Missouri Mormon War begins in Missouri, slightly less intense with less casualties because Joseph Smith isn't there in the beginning, still in Kirtland, and because Kirtland Loyalists haven't emigrated yet. All this said, the Kirtland Branch still begins to go under due to TTL's Crisis of 1838, but its only half as bad.

1839 - Joseph Smith moves the Mormon Church from Kirtland and Missouri to Nauvoo, Illinois.

1843 - April: Higher population from Kirtland and natural growth has the Illinois Mormon War start a year and a half earlier from OTL. Joseph Smith is martyred.

1845 - March: Brigham Young and the Vanguard Company leave for the Great Basin, to arrive in June. This is two years earlier than OTL.

1847 - Earlier influx of Mormons causes the Gold Rush a year early.

Van Buren's second presidency

His platform probably includes a new Homestead Act. To do this, he's going to half to concede to southern planters. This probably means a Fugitive Slave Law, keeping slavery in Washington D.C. and a monstrous tariff reduction to Walker Tariff levels. I bet there is also some response to events in Mexico and California. [1]

Van Buren will probably be seen as having a great presidency, pushing through a Homestead act, keeping the South passive, and his tariff reduction will probably yield as much revenue as the OTL Walker tariff under Polk, which means Van Buren will be successful. I doubt he'll run for another term, but his vice president William Orlando is going to have a good run at the next election.

[1] No Mexican-American War means different presidencies and no continued Santa Anna dictatorship, which means the Reform War hits earlier. The slide to civil war between Reformists and Conservatives will probably be pre-empted by a California revolution of some sort, and it'll be interesting to see how events are timed to see what that does to Mexico.

 

[Hnau]

To do this, he's going to half to concede to southern planters.

Did you guys see this? That's pretty funny. I was pretty tired then. I apologize. On with the show!

What Happens in Mexico?

No Mexican-American War is a huge deal in Mexican history, with lots of interesting butterflies. First of all, the Bear Flag Revolt in Sonoma, June 1846 will not occur: this was started by rumors from John C. Fremont, due to war being seen as an inevitability with the U.S. annexation of Texas. No Sonoma Revolt means Alta California stays peaceful for a while longer.

Jose Joaquin de Herrera remains the President of Mexico, as the presence of American ambassador Slidell does not upset the Conservadores faction and put him out of power. However, by July 1846 he is overthrown in a military coup by royalist-ultraconservative General Mariano Paredes.

1847
January: The Moderados, composed of fringe parts of both the Liberales and the Conservadores, are established.

April: Britain offers Mexico $35 million for the purchase of California. US President Clay warns Britain of the Monroe Doctrine, creating ire between the two governments, but the dictator Mariano Paredes considers the offer, neither agreeing to nor rejecting the proposal.

May: President Paredes founds the Monarquistas, as he believes that Mexico will only be made stable with a king. He contacts the brother-in-law of the Queen of Spain, Antoine Duke of Montpensier, eager to set up a monarchy in Mexico.

June: Juan Alvarez dafts the Plan de Ayutla. In Alta California, Governor Pio Pico is forced to resign after he is found to have contacted the British on the potential of making California a British protectorate. Juan Bautista Alvarado is made the new Governor of Alta California.

July: Anti-Paredes revolts break out throughout cities in Mexico, especially in Jalisco and Mexico City.

August-September: Rumors that the new Governor Alvarado is going to crack down on foreigners in Alta California leads to a revolt in Sonoma. They quickly succeed in taking the city and raising a hastily-made California Republic flag above the settlement. Within twenty days a 50-man army from Monterrey arrives and occupies the settlement, imprisoning the culprits. They will be later sent to Mexico City, but due to the chaos there, they will be acquitted and left to their own ends.

September: Near Fort Sutter, Northern California, Mormon sawmill-workers find gold in the American River. Jose Salas, a noted federalist general, deposes President Paredes in Mexico City following a successful rebellion. He reinstitutes federalism and calls for a constituent congress.

November: Liberal Juan Alvarez becomes the interim President of Mexico.

1848
January: Juan Alvarez hands the presidency over to Ignacio Comonfort.

July: By now some 6,000 gold-seekers have arrived in California, mostly by sea, nearly doubling the population of the province.

1849
February: A new Constitution following the Plan de Ayutla is adopted by a Constituent Congress.

July: 90,000 gold-seekers have poured into California, drastically changing demographics and infrastructure of the region. Mexican officials are at a loss of what to do in this population invasion. Rumors begin to spread that the Mexicans are preparing to send the bulk of their military into California to remove all foreigners...

 

[stevep]

.

April: Britain offers Mexico $35 million for the purchase of California. US President Clay warns Britain of the Monroe Doctrine, creating ire between the two governments, but the dictator Mariano Paredes considers the offer, neither agreeing to nor rejecting the proposal.

Hnau

Why? I don't see why Britain would do this. Especially having already conceded southern BC to the US it would be a fairly isolated possession that antagonises the US. Also, if they know of the gold strike by that time they will know it means a flood of new settlers which will mean a lot of expenditure needed on operating the place and keeping order, which is something the British govenrment of the time, heading strongly towards laisse faire would be strongly opposed to.

Steve

 

[Hnau]

I guess you're right. This was just based on rumors that the British wanted to make a protectorate out of the area. Fine, that event does not happen. Good argument!

 

[MasterCye]

1845 - March: Brigham Young and the Vanguard Company leave for the Great Basin, to arrive in June. This is two years earlier than OTL.

1847 - Earlier influx of Mormons causes the Gold Rush a year early.


September: Near Fort Sutter, Northern California, Mormon sawmill-workers find gold in the American River. Jose Salas, a noted federalist general, deposes President Paredes in Mexico City following a successful rebellion. He reinstitutes federalism and calls for a constituent congress.

I'm curious as to how there happens to be Mormons in California without a Mexican-American War. The only reason there were Mormons in Cali was because of the Mormon Battalion which was used to break a trail for another route to Cali (I don't remember which exact route it was, just that it was mostly through desert).

Without the Mexican-American War not only are there very few Mormons in Cali, but I suspect that a lot less other Americans as well. With less people, less chance for someone to stumble upon all that gold.

When the Mormons went west all they wanted was to be left alone to practice their religion in peace. They found the perfect spot in the Salt Lake area, nobody but Indians. Cali on the other hand was populated almost exclusively by Catholics, not the best group at getting along with a new and different religion.

 

[Hnau]

My reasoning is thus: first you've got Sam Brannan shipping a few hundred Mormons to Yerba Buena. Only, the timing is different, because an earlier death for Joseph Smith is an earlier departure of the New York LDS. So they arrive in Yerba Buena a year early.

Sam Brannan, who is more established and prominent by 1847 with an extra year under his belt, communicates to Brigham Young that California would be a good place to settle. Brigham Young, with a slightly larger membership, decides to send a few hundred Mormon pioneers to bolster the California branch.

Cali on the other hand was populated almost exclusively by Catholics, not the best group at getting along with a new and different religion.

Then again, only a few thousand Catholics. California was extremely huge, fertile, and empty. Also, by the way, there was no significant influx of Americans due to the success of the Mexican-American War. The only people who arrived were soldiers, and when they were done fighting, a huge majority of them left for home. It really wasn't until the Gold Rush that immigration started at all.

However, I agree with you that starting the Gold Rush six months early probably wouldn't happen. I think I rushed it. James Marshall and John Sutter began that mill in Coloma because farming had suffered due to the war, when the men had to leave for war and left their fields and ranches behind. Sutter wanted to begin a new venture. With the ranching and farming business remaining stable, I believe Sutter would maybe wait a year, especially with the events in Mexico. I believe I could delay the Gold Rush a year.

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

Van Buren's second presidency

His platform probably includes a new Homestead Act. To do this, he's going to half to concede to southern planters. This probably means a Fugitive Slave Law, keeping slavery in Washington D.C. and a monstrous tariff reduction to Walker Tariff levels. I bet there is also some response to events in Mexico and California. [1]

Van Buren will probably be seen as having a great presidency, pushing through a Homestead act, keeping the South passive, and his tariff reduction will probably yield as much revenue as the OTL Walker tariff under Polk, which means Van Buren will be successful. I doubt he'll run for another term, but his vice president William Orlando is going to have a good run at the next election.

Remember that it was the slave trade, not slavery itself, abolished in 1850 in D.C.; I think Van Buren would have to agree to that in what would be a somewhat different Compromise of 1850. He did, after all, run on a Free Soil ticket in OTL, and I'd assume want to keep slavery out of the territories here, too.

The thing is, you've got a similar problem to OTL's 1850 battle. OTL it was about California. But, here, it's *clear* that the new state has to be free. After Arkansas (1836) and Michigan (1837) were put in, Texas (slave) and Florida (slave) were admitted in 1845 in OTL. Then it was Iowa (free) in 1846 and Wisconcin (free) in 1848.

So, if in TTL there's no state of Texas, you've got Florida and Iowa, and the admission of Wisconsin and what to do about the balance of slave/free power might be the main issue in the 1848 election. Van Buren, in OTL, saw the problem of slavery getting stronger, and I suspect he will here, too. I can't see Indian Territory being admitted asa state, let alone a slave state.

So, you've probably got Wisconsin added as free as part of this compromise. What will happen next is anyone's guess, but I'm afriend Orlando (any reason why you don't call him by his full name of William Orlando Butler, which I found when searching for him?) will have problems. Perhaps an alaogue to the Kansas-Nebraska Act under his watch?

I suppose another possible compromise is to admit Texas as a slave state, but 2 problems: 1. Would they accept it? I don't know if they had slavery in the Republic of Texas or not; and, 2. By this time, does Texas even want to be part of the United States?

 

[Hnau]

Great points Baseballfan!

Hmmm... well, I knew that Van Buren ran under the Free Soil party, but I was thinking maybe that the Homestead Act part of that platform might be more popular enough to make concessions. But I believe I've changed my mind on who he was exactly: Van Buren is a man who believes in (from highest priority to lowest) diplomatic peace instead of war; a low tariff, free trade, and a treasury system; containing the expansion of slavery; and finally a homestead act.

About the balancing act between slave states and free states: you're absolutely right. The Compromise of 1850 was put together to solve a sectional dispute in which there would be 16 free states vs. 15 slave states. Without Texas, however, the clash will come in 1848 with the acceptance of Wisconsin as a free state.

This means that most certainly the presidential election of 1848 will be about how to solve the sectional crisis. When asked what he'll do about it, I can see Van Buren declaring honestly that he will not accept the expansion of slavery north of the 36° 30' line of latitude, following the Missouri Compromise. I need to re-evaluate this.

The Whigs would want someone like Zachary Taylor, with no firm stance on slavery. However, without his emergence as a war hero, I don't see him running. Daniel Webster is another choice, but he is getting old and has built up too many enemies. With Henry Clay giving him his blessing, Frelinghuysen will still become the Whig candidate. Unlike Taylor, he is openly anti-slavery, eager to contain it according to the Missouri Compromise. John McLean will be his VP.

The Democrats want a moderate on the slavery position, and so I bet they'll choose Lewis Cass, champion of Popular Sovereignty. He'll be thought of as pro-slavery, however... His VP will be William O. Butler.

This leads to anti-slavery Democrats joining the Free Soil Party, headed by Martin Van Buren, as in OTL. However, here they don't have the support of anti-slavery Whigs, who have an easy choice in Frelinghuysen. This also leads to Southern pro-slavery Whigs to create:

The Union Party, which nominates Daniel Webster and a Georgian politician. They advocate continued compromise.

Alright, I did a bit of number crunching and it looks like Frelinghuysen will carry Maine, Ohio and Indiana, losing Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Louisiana... but he'll come out 149 to 133 against Cass! Wow... another Whig victory. Could Frelinghuysen destroy the Union, a decade early? He even kind of looks like Abraham Lincoln.

 

[Fearless Leader]

It's a good timeline, but I do believe it hinges on one assumption that has yet to be dealt with, that being primarily, that Martin Van Buren chooses to, or is allowed to run for a term of his own right.

Remember that Van Buren in TTL will be the first Vice President to ascend to the position of POTUS. Now in OTL this occurance (John Tyler ascending to POTUS after the death of William Henry Harrison) was quite contraversial. He was constantly referred to as "His Ascendancy" and "Acting President" and wasn't taken particularly seriously. This of course was due in no small part to his ideological differences with the Whig Party to which he belonged and his extensive use of the Presidential Veto.

Now I'm not saying that Van Buren would run into all these problems. He was indeed an ideological successor to Jackson and had a considerable political machine behind him. However what I'm saying is that Van Buren's novel ascension coming mere weeks before the first Democratic National Convention (Something that might even be derailed) could open the floor in 1836 to other candidates. Van Buren might just be pressured to serve out the remainder of Jackson's term before retiring, leaving the Election of 1936 to another Democrat perhaps...or even a Whig...

Just some thoughts...

 

[Hnau]

In my opinion, Tyler got such a bad rap as "His Accidency" because of two things: A) he ascended to the presidency very shortly after the 1840 election, before Harrison could really do anything. As he was really an unknown before this point, people were angry because it seemed as if they elected a stranger, B) He didn't agree with any of the Whig Party's major parties and opposed them at nearly every turn.

ITTL, there are some major differences: Jackson has already the large majority of his term, everyone knows who Van Buren is and what he stands for, and Van Buren goes along with the Democratic Party and all of his predecessors policies, as he did in OTL when he became President.

In this situation, no one has any reason to criticize him. The Constitution is obeyed and everyone agrees that the rules of succession works. Van Buren even comes out ahead because of his success at handling the situation so efficiently and being the man that could be looked up to when Jackson is assassinated. The Democratic Convention comes out for Van Buren as they did in OTL.

I see no reason why this logic isn't plausible or accurate.