The Death Of The Sick Man: An Middle Eastern/Ottoman Timeline

To give Buchanan credit, he'd have probably been fine--or more exactly passable--if he'd simply been a caretaker president in more peaceful times. But he wasn't, which is why he always makes the worst list.

Pierce, on the other hand, was the living avatar of suck, and I strongly suspect that if he'd managed by some miracle to win the Democratic nomination again, he'd have figured out a way to screw things up worse than Buchanan did. Which is saying something.

Buchanan pressured the anti-slave judges to do Dred Scott.
He also shifted materiel SOUTH when the Confederacy was declared

Buchanan in this TL is the only ASB in an otherwise promising TL
 
Let me put it this way--Pierce basically spent his entire presidency making every problem worse, leading to Buchanan running around trying to do his disastrously inadequate best to put band-aids on the resulting gaping wounds. Buchanan may have been a doughface, but he still thought the whole secession idea was bad and illegal. Pierce came out in favor of the Confederacy. And was writing letters to Jeff Davis.

So--yeah. He'd have been worse.
 
Well, I am thinking of re-writing the civil war. I beleive someone suggested Douglas winning in '52 or '56. The impression I get is that he would have attempted abolotion if the prevailing opinion was for it. Am I correct in assuming that Northerners were generally in favour of abolition?
 
No. What Douglas would have attempted is to allow popular sovereignty while also trying to stop attempts by slavery supporters to railroad the process. Trust me, nobody--not even the Republicans--is going to try to abolish slavery at this point. The big idea is to stop it from spreading into the territories.
 
I hadn't considered Douglas in 1852, actually; Pierce being nominated was a bit of a surprise, as he was a dark horse going into the convention, and was nominated as a compromise pick.

Northerners weren't necessarily favorable of abolition. Though abolitionists obviously were, the most common view was free soil - no expansion of slavery beyond where it currently was.
 
Douglas would have dodged the issue of slavery to the extent that he could. "Popular sovereignty" effectively makes it a states' rights issue, and so low-level civil wars on the plains or in the West could be the norm under a President Douglas.
 
Intelligence mission to the Arab provinces of the Aghayid Sultanate
Gordon Harrison, UK Ambassador

1. We met with a number of local notables and Turkish governors in each of the areas we visited, though we have found most of them to be lazy, lethargic types with the exception of the Egyptians, who seem to have an energy and industriousness about them not often found with others. The Syrians and Mesopotamians seemed more content to keep things as they are, and this hampers the development of their respective areas. If the current trends continue the way they do, Egypt will extend its lead in development and importance over the other Arab areas.


2. The different lands of the Arabs in the empire all seem to have their own distinguishing features. We did not visit Libya, as the only 2 places of note were Tripoli and Benghazi, and they are only minor regional towns. Egypt had impressed us. There is genuine emphasis on reform and modernisation. Nearly the entire Nile valley is no more than a day away from railway access and the education of local children appears to be a priority for the government, and as a result, the literacy rate is rapidly increasing. A lot of the local economy is based on agriculture, including both grains and cash crops such as cotton, but there are a few sizable industrial establishments in some of the larger cities such as Cairo, Alexandria, Tanta and Zagazig. Cairo, the regional capital, is in itself an impressive city, the second largest in the empire after Constantinople, and in some ways, it feels more the centre of gravity in the Arab provinces then Constantinople. Despite owning a palace here and in Alexandria, the Sultan has only visited Egypt twice in his reign, which has created some dissatisfaction amongst elites here.


3.Syria and Mesopotamia were less impressive. We visited Jerusalem in Southern Syria, but it felt neglected and semi-forgotten, inhabited by a mix of Arab and Jewish artisans (mostly of Sephardic extraction). Damascus was a sizeable city, but was still mostly medieval in appearance and style. Lacking the numerous textile mills that Cairo has, its commerce is largely based on being a centre of export for the Agricultural produce of the area. Mesopotamia largely has the same feel as Syria, though it is depressing to compare the glorious histories of the regions in discussion with their modern backwardness. The population of the regions are mostly Arab and Muslim, though there are substantial amounts of Arab Christians in Syria and Chaldeans in Mesopotamia, though there are no separatist feelings amongst these.

4. We did not enter the Hedjaz in Arabia for a number of reasons. There are no railroads into the region, and the most important 2 cities there, Mecca and Medina, are blocked off to all non-Muslims. We tried to point out the unfairness of this to the Governor of Hedjaz in our meeting with him in Cairo, but we are told that it is not permissible in their religion to enter the holy cities. Our intelligence indicates that we did not miss much anyway. The Hedjaz lacks even the Agricultural base that Syria and Mesopotamia have, and its population of around 450,000 are mostly semi-nomadic peoples. There are some limited arable lands in the southern region of Yemen, but they would be easier to access from our colony in Aden.

5. Altogether, with the exception of Egypt, the Arab provinces do not appear to contribute much to the empire. The holding of the Holy cities of Mecca and Medina do help with the Sultans standing as Caliph, which we understand is weak due to his usurpation of the title from the old Ottoman Caliphs. Egypt on the other hand is quite an important land in the empire, and is one of the keys of any future success it might have.

__________________________________________________

Well, this is my first attempt at trying a new sort of approach on the timeline. The aim is to build up a much more detailed view of the empire, its politics, its military, and various other sections of its society. Let me know if this actually sounds good or not.

EDIT - I have also re-written the American section of chapter 4, to go into detail about an abolition plan that resembles the law of the free womb in Paraguay and have a presidential candidate more likely to actually try and abolish slavery. Comments on these changes are welcome too.
 
Last edited:
Nassirisimo

Good point that it sounds like Constantinople is still the capital and that is causing some resentment in a prosperous and developing Egypt as the sultan doesn't spend a lot of time there. Could be a problem later on.

Which raises the question of what's happening in Anatolia and the European provinces? Are they developing or not? Happy or discontented or probably a mixture.

Sounds like Egypt is definitely the centre of the Arab part of the empire, despite being on the south of the state. [Although thinking about it no mention of the conquests in the Sudan, which I think one of the maps showed had still occurred].

Steve
 
Very intriguing update; it's nice to see the situation in the individual regions of the Aghayid Sultanate. I liked it.
 
Nassirisimo

Good point that it sounds like Constantinople is still the capital and that is causing some resentment in a prosperous and developing Egypt as the sultan doesn't spend a lot of time there. Could be a problem later on.

Which raises the question of what's happening in Anatolia and the European provinces? Are they developing or not? Happy or discontented or probably a mixture.

Sounds like Egypt is definitely the centre of the Arab part of the empire, despite being on the south of the state. [Although thinking about it no mention of the conquests in the Sudan, which I think one of the maps showed had still occurred].

Steve
I am planning to get information down on the other regions of the empire fairly soon. Though you are right that I have missed out the Sudan in describing the regions, though it is broadly similar to Hedjaz and Northern Yemen, having some farming regions along the Nile but mostly being semi-nomadic.
Very intriguing update; it's nice to see the situation in the individual regions of the Aghayid Sultanate. I liked it.
Thanks. As I said to Steve, I plan to give the Balkans and Anatolia the same sort of treatment, as well as giving more detail into the "feel" of the empire with some travel writing style updates. Makes it seem more like a living organic thing.
 
Regarding the retconned US history--still doesn't work. What you have to understand Nassirisimo is that nobody--nobody--in the political mainstream was even remotely considering abolition. Even gradual abolition. Especially not Stephen Douglas.
 
Regarding the retconned US history--still doesn't work. What you have to understand Nassirisimo is that nobody--nobody--in the political mainstream was even remotely considering abolition. Even gradual abolition. Especially not Stephen Douglas.
It was really that out of the mainstream? I knew that Abraham Lincoln didn't exactly jump at the opportunity to free the slaves, but I didn't know that the cause of abolition actually had so little political power.
 
It was really that out of the mainstream? I knew that Abraham Lincoln didn't exactly jump at the opportunity to free the slaves, but I didn't know that the cause of abolition actually had so little political power.

It did. At the time, many Northern politicians just wanted to restrict the spread of slavery.
 
If I may wax blue for a moment--the political situation in the antebellum USA is all kinds of fucked up, with the nation largely split between those who want to keep the slaveowners happy, and those who want to avoid making them too mad, all while ignoring the fact that these attitudes are only making the problem worse.
 
Did they see free soil policies as a prelude to abolition in the South? Or did they expect that to come much later?

It really depends. Bleeding Kansas actually stands as a good example. During the fighting in Kansas, a majority of the settlers from the North were Free Soilers. They wanted to restrict the expansion of slavery because they felt that it was a direct threat to their livelyhood and way of life. Most Free Soilers were terrified that is slavery spread, it would be impossible for white laborers to be able to compete against slave labor. There are stories of Free Soilers encountering slaves during the fighting, and not trying to free them explaining that they were fighting for the freedom of white men not black men.
Abolitionism certainly had its proponents at the time and several of them had some political influence, but that shouldn't be taken to mean that many politicians of any real clout were in favor of the abolotion of slavery. Even if they might have been in public, the political realities of the time made it next to impossible. Even John Quincy Adams, and his son Charles Francis Adams, although very prominent in Free Soil circles (CFA would be the Free Soil Pary's candidate for Vice-President in the 1850s) stopped short of calling for abolition.
You have to remember the economic realities of the time. Northern, and especially New England, manufacturing was dependent on Southern cotton. If the government forced the end of the slavery upon the south, it would have disrupted the entire cotton industry, which would have brought down the Northern economy as well.
I think the most extreme attitude you would be able to find is that if Slavery was restricted, it would eventually wither and die in the South. But no prominent political voices were rallying for the end of slavery, simply its restriction.
 
Top