The Frankfurt Connection: The 1848 Revolutions

As some of you may, or may not be aware, my first timeline on this thread was "Almond Tree" and was about a more successful 1848 revolutions. Now while I don't think it was particularly bad, I feel that it requires a rewrite to really reach its potential.

So without further ado, here is The Frankfurt Connection
 
Last edited:
The Springtime of Nations: 1848-1849
Museo_Torre_di_San_Martino_della_Battaglia_-_affresco_05.jpg

A painting of Italian soldiers in Venice, during the Uprising of Saint Mark

The revolutionary spirit that would come to dominate the movements for popular sovereignty that developed in Italy, Germany and the Habsburg realms, began in a small southern European backwater: The Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. The Palermo Uprising, which forced the unpopular monarch Ferdinand II to grant a constitution, lit the spark that would see Europe riven by uprising and warfare for the next few years.

While Palermo might have heralded the unrest, it was the news of the February Days in Paris, which saw the abdication of Louis Philippe I and the end of the restored Orleans monarchy that revolutionary ferment began to spread across Europe. The proclamation of the (Second) French Republic provoked an increase in both liberal and republican sentiment across the continent with much European aristocracy fearing for their lives and property. It was in this climate that an influential book in political and economic theory, written by an industrialist and a German Jew journalist was published: The Communist Manifesto.

Signs that the revolutionary atmosphere was beginning to quicken could be found in Central Europe: while Germany began to sway to dreams of a united nation and liberal democracy, the Habsburg autocracy found itself riven by rebellion as the Hungarians, the largest ethnic minority within the empire, rose up in revolt, declaring the Habsburg authority no more. Rebellions in Milan and Venice saw Habsburg central authority challenged to its core, and seemingly on the brink of disaster.

Seeing an opportunity to expand territory and influence, the Sardinian king Charles Albert proclaimed a new liberal constitution and formed the Northern Alliance between Sardinia, and the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, with backing from Pope Pius IX, which was soon rescinded the first sign of the European’s elites reaction against any revolutionary ferment. And indeed the reaction began with a success, with Prague’s uprising in support of democracy, bombarded and crushed by the Austrian army. However this Habsburg success would be eroded by the Hungarian Diet’s decision in June 1848 to recall all Hungarian troops (who had begun to desert en masse) from service in the Habsburg realms armies hobbling Marshal Radetzky’s forces in Italy.

Carlo_Alberto_Museo_Risorgimento_Roma.jpg

Charles Albert of Sardinia

That this would prove disastrous for Radetzky was not immediately apparent: though he lost several thousand men, his troops were well trained and organised, and Radetzky himself was an able commander. And yet in late July after two days of extremely bloody fighting (casualties were estimated to be around six thousand for the Austrians and four thousand for the Northern Alliance), the Austrians were forced back from Custoza, and a twenty thousand strong Sardinian army, supported by some seven thousand Tuscans, rapidly occupied Lombardy and invaded Veneto, ostensibly in support of the Republic of Saint Mark. The Austrians found themselves hemmed in by the Northern Italian advance and the Hungarians to the east, and while they defeated the advancing Hungarians at the Battle of Schwechat pushing the rebels away from Vienna, the tide seemed to be far away from any sort of Habsburg victory. As a result the mentally feeble Ferdinand I abdicated as Austrian Emperor in early December placing his young, reactionary nephew Franz Joseph I upon the throne, with Franz Joseph immediately suppressing all liberal protests in the Austrian and Bohemian lands, and appealing to the non-Hungarian members of the Hungarian realms (Croats, Poles, Serbs and Ukrainians who had been ignored completely by the Hungarian revolutionaries) to side with the Habsburgs in exchange for an increase in rights and privileges.

In Germany meanwhile, the Frankfurt Parliament had become divided between different visions of how the new nation should be governed. Radicals in the Democrat faction, led by Robert Blum advocated full republican democracy, as established in France (who had returned a scion of the Bonaparte’s as President), others such as the Großdeutschland faction advocating union with German lands of the Austrian Empire, while the moderates led by Heinrich von Gagern supported a liberal constitutional monarchy based on Kleindeutschland led by Prussia. In the meantime, the new “state” had gone through several governments with von Gagern at the head of its third ministry since its declaration of nationhood. Aware that the radical republican ideology espoused by the Democrats would only alienate the moderates needed to secure the parliament’s authority, and that the suggestions involving Austria would be extremely unlikely with Franz Joseph on the throne, Gagern turned to Prussia and its twitchy king, Friedrich Wilhelm IV. And, thanks largely to external circumstance, and not the king’s inherent liberalism, he struck lucky.

Zeitgen%C3%B6ssige_Lithografie_der_Nationalversammlung_in_der_Paulskirche.jpg

The Frankfurt Parliament

The external circumstances that persuaded the Prussian establishment to accept the offer of the imperial crown, was the perilous position the Habsburgs found themselves in early 1849: while they had recaptured Buda from the Hungarian revolutionaries, their campaign in the east was stalling, while in the Italian peninsula it was coming undone, as Radetzky’s undermanned and undersupplied army struggled to combat the advancing Northern Italian forces, who after briefly being pushed back into Lombardy, they defeated the Austrians at the Battle of Verona, in one of the bloodiest engagements of the conflict (some seventeen thousand casualties), which left both armies unable to advance resulting in a stalemate between the two. As far the Prussians were concerned, the Habsburgs were on the precipice of ruin: they had everything to gain from the establishment of a unified Germany with Prussia at its head (through a Hohenzollern holding the position of hereditary emperor.) And it was this, not some sense of liberal nationalism as the Heidelberg School still espouse, that persuaded the otherwise extremely reactionary Friedrich Wilhelm to accept the imperial throne.

Reaction and its forces were not taking this lightly. Palermo, the site of the first uprising was bombarded and occupied by royalist troops who promptly arrested and executed the revolt’s leaders, who were largely of aristocratic background. Austria, desperate for help, appealed to the true “Gendarme of Europe” Tsar Nicholas I of Russia, who amassed an army of thirty thousand, and marched into the Austrians territory, with the express aim of eradicating the Hungarians as a viable force. In this, he was to succeed, with the Hungarians outflanked by his troops and the Austrians under Croat General Josip Jelačić crushed at the Battle of Temesvár. The Habsburgs had regained their authority, in the central realms of the empire, and to ensure they wouldn’t face such a situation again, they enacted an brutal period of repression which saw the majority of revolutionaries arrested and either imprisoned or arrested (excluding Lajos Kossuth who fled to Britain and János Damjanich who along with large numbers of his men escaped to France) and in some cases executed. Yet, the Habsburgs, had to agree to the new order of things through treaty: they recognised the Empire of Germany at the Treaty of Geneva (September 1849), and ceded Lombardy to the newly established United Provinces of Northern Italy (and by de facto recognised the annexation of Modena and Parma to the new state).

The revolutions can and should be seen as a relative success: they created a unified Germany, and sowed the seeds for the development of Italian nationhood. And while reaction triumphed in the Habsburg realms, with the Hungarians completely crushed and a conservative alliance between Habsburg and Romanov sealed by war, this state of affairs would not be the status quo for long.(Extract from The Rise of the New Europe in the Mid Nineteenth Century, by R.H.D. Thomson [5], Cambridge University Press, 1955 p.27)

BRIEF NOTES

Ferdinand II of Sicily was initially popular since he introduced some reforms and began much needed modernisation plans. His resistance to reinstituting the 1812 constitution and violent suppression of an 1837 protest calling for constitutional government saw his popularity plummet.

Marx and Engels work would be highly influential in the formation of the political left during the nineteenth century, and would continue to inspire revolutionaries long after its authors had died.

The formation of the Northern Alliance was an awkward situation for the Tuscan Grand Duke Leopold who was himself a Habsburg.

Though it should be noted that the Sardinians were planning to annex the Venetian territory and depose the republic’s leaders.

R.H.D. Thomson is my actual name, for those interested.
 
Last edited:
Humiliation on the Fields of Denmark and Early German Military Reform

Tropper_1849.jpg

Triumphant Danish soldiers return to Copenhagen
While the constitution itself and the rights it enshrined were remarkably liberal for a new nation whose constituent states had been dominated by autocracies for most of the Post-Napoleonic era, Germany’s unification would be chaotic for the first years of its existence. This was perhaps best exemplified by the disastrous war fought with Denmark over the Schleswig-Holstein question: initially fought by Prussia, the war would see a poorly organised, and highly factional federal army humiliated by a much smaller Danish force.

The reasons for this are not immediately apparent to the casual observer: the imperial army was headed by the capable Eduard von Bonin, and had large reserves of troops and supplies. The cause of their defeat in the field at the disastrous Battle of Fredericia [1], however was the woefully disorganised German army structure: each state that supplied troops to the army continued with their own leadership structure and none of their leaders (including some of the states’ sovereigns) deferred to von Bonin on matters of strategy, which resulted in a haphazard advance towards the Danish lines, and the inevitable collapse and retreat of the German’s main army.

Adalbert_von_Preu%C3%9Fen.jpg

Prince Adalbert of Germany and Prussia, the First Chief Admiral of the Imperial Fleet

The new Imperial Navy at least promised slightly more: headed by the emperor’s younger brother Prince Adalbert, the navy was a fully unified institution in the command sense, though it was small in size, given the lack of heavy naval development in the German states pre-unification. And while it acquitted itself much more honourably than the army against the Danes, its only engagement in the war, at the Battle of Heligoland, ended in a stalemate, thanks to British intervention [2]. While the war would continue to drag on until 1852, its major set piece battle had ended in German humiliation on the European stage.

Korvetten_Valkyrien_i_kamp_med_tyske_dampskibe.jpg

The Battle of Heligoland (1849)

This humiliation would see the complete overhaul of the German armed forces into a singular federal entity. A new command structure headed by the Chief of General Staff was instituted based on the Prussian system, with all separate command structures (including those of Bavaria, Hanover, Prussia, Saxony and Wurttemberg) abolished. The Prussian reserve system was expanded to cover all of Germany, rapidly increasing the available manpower for conscription, with army districts established to coordinate mobilisation. [3] While the Emperor was Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, actual military command lay with the Chief of General Staff. The armed forces were constrained in their powers by parliamentary checks, as the General Staff answered to the Minister of War, and its budget was voted on by parliament, in order to counteract fears of a coup by the military in favour of restoring absolutism.

The navy also underwent reform: the Reichsflotte [4] was reorganised under a separate command from the army, with Prince Adalbert of Prussia appointed its first Chief of the Admiralty. Following his recommendations, the navy was granted a separate General Staff from that of the army, and the Imperial Naval Academy was founded in 1850, initially at Danzig. [5] That same year, the Naval Engineering College, and the Naval Medical College were founded as subsidiary institutions to the Naval Academy. The navy was also granted funding for the ten year modernisation and expansion of its fleet. The government also created the Imperial Merchant Navy, which began operating from the cities of Hamburg and Bremen. Like the army, the navy was also held accountable to the House of Commons through the Naval Office to which the Admiralty was accountable, and like the army was funded by the House of Commons.

BRIEF NOTES

[1] The battle would have heavy casualties: some five thousand suffered by the Germans and around three thousand for the Danes.

[2] British vessel based near Heligoland fired warning shots at the German fleet, and the Germans unwilling to involve the Royal Navy in the conflict withdrew.

[3] Conscripts were expected to serve in the army for eighteen months and would remain in the army reserve for ten years.

[4] Imperial Fleet.

[5] Following the eventual conquest of Kiel, that city would become the headquarters of the German Navy.
 
Last edited:
Finding Our Feet: The Government of Heinrich von Gagern 1849-1852
HeinrichVonGagern1848.jpg

Heinrich von Gagern, the dominant figure of German politics

The complete military failure of Germany in the Schleswig War, had seen urgent military reforms begun by the Gagern government, which had suffered losses in both its popularity and credibility following the humiliation. While he had managed to get the new Germany internationally recognised, with only Austria not recognising the new state, and had begun policies of economic liberalisation and industrialisation, with the northern regions seeing a rapid expansion of the railway network, and Germany gaining a new single currency, the Mark which replaced the various currencies of the previously independent states.

Parliamentary politics had also seen change, with the various factions that had established the constitution coalescing into political parties, with the Liberal Party of Germany founded in Hamburg in 1849, making it the country’s first official political party, and the Liberals managed to win a majority of fifty in the first parliamentary elections held since unification. Gagern continued as Prime Minister, and continued his policies of compromise, with the planned abolition of capital punishment blocked to ensure some conservative support for the government. Gagern also enjoyed a reasonably good relationship with the notoriously prickly imperial family, enjoying a close relationship with Prince Friedrich, the third in line to the throne.

The government presided over a period of explosion in the popular press, with around seven national newspapers establishing themselves in Frankfurt (with regional offices in almost all major cities), which saw the beginnings of the notorious career of Kurier editor Otto von Bismarck, who accepted the post after failing to win election as an MP. Indeed the newspaper boom was just one facet of the new air of cultural freedom encouraged by the new liberalism, which attracted visitors from around the world: Mary Ann Evans lived in Bremen for a year before moving to Geneva, [1] and American writer and New York Tribune editor Edgar Allan Poe attended a parliamentary session in Frankfurt. [2]

Despite the optimism, Germany still faced problems: economic integration had been aided by the pre-existing Zollverein which was merely co-opted into federal control, and excluded Austria, but political integration was a long and arduous process, with the upper house frequently deadlocked between the reactionary appointees and the elected members, with Gagern often having to rely on the emperor’s legislative powers to get bills passed. In foreign affairs, he managed to normalise relations between Germany and Austria, with the Treaty of Olomouc re-establishing diplomatic and trade links between the two countries. Despite an state visit by Friedrich Wilhelm, relations between the two empires remained tense, though nationalistic calls for annexation of German Austria were wholly ignored.

The coup of French President Louis-Napoléon and the establishment of a militarist French Empire also posed problems for Gagern, as the French were not well disposed to view a unified Germany on their doorstep as anything other than a threat. Gagern, faced with hostility to the west and south began to cultivate positive relations with the British and the Italians as a counterweight. However while this proved popular in some quarters, the signing of the Treaty of London which officially ended the Schleswig War, proved deeply unpopular in Germany, as Schleswig-Holstein remaining tied to Denmark, but without any real resolution of their future: it was the anger over this that forced Gagern’s resignation, with many viewing his support of the treaty as treachery.

Nevertheless Gagern’s carefully moderate policies allowed a relatively stable coalition of interests to form: his full support for rapid industrialisation, and expansion of infrastructure brought the Liberals the support of the industrialists, while his government’s enactment of military reforms based on Prussian lines made him a respected figure within the military establishment, though his refusal to sanction continuation of the war with Denmark rankled with some of the more nationalistic elements. Perhaps most impressively, he was able to build a good working relationship with the emperor, who despite his acceptance of the crown viewed the parliamentarians and the new press with barely concealed scorn, which would cause problems for Prime Ministers less inclined to work with him. All that for now though was in the future, and Germany felt relaxed in a new era of democracy and cultural freedom.”

(Extract from The Democratic Empire: German History from 1848 by Reinhard Mayer, Berlin 1922, p.73) [3]

[1] Her time in Germany inspired her first collection of essays, “Discussions on the Docks” which chronicled her experiences in the country.

[2] Poe would return again in 1860 following his retirement, and lived for a brief time in Munich, which he later chronicled in his memoirs.

[3] This is one of the better examples of the triumphant historiography that flourished in Germany between the 1890s and 1920s. While Germany certainly should be viewed as a functioning democratic state, it was far more often on the brink during the initial decade of its existence than traditional German historiography would have us believe. Gagern’s major success was the successful alliance of conservative economic interests with his reform minded politics, which saw the Liberals dominate German politics for nearly thirty years.
 
Last edited:
Interesting...

So LEopold of Tuscany did not get deposed TTL and joined force with THE Savoyans - believable - I am not sure if thats enough for Austria losing in Italy (the other events except the German unification don't seem too different from OTL), but thats OK - after all in war much can happen.

THE "german defeat" in the Schleswig HOlstein war is also just a little more than OTL (Especially as the Austrians are NOT sending their part of the Bundesheer I assume) The naval-battle at Helgoland is transferred from OTL 1864 war?

So waht did we get

Austria loses Lombardy 10 years early? - but there was no French involvement (?)

Germany unifies more than decades early.

And Bismarck does NOT become Chancellor :eek:?

I wonder how this affects the "Crimean War".

You hint an alliance between (Northern) Italy, Germany and Britain? - OTL the British-French Intervention (including Savoy) was possible because of good Relations between France and BRitain - is this the same here?

Is France distracted by the new neighbour?

Austria got it worse here - does this lead to an more active role in TTLs Crimean War?

I think I will follow this...
 
Interesting...

So LEopold of Tuscany did not get deposed TTL and joined force with THE Savoyans - believable - I am not sure if thats enough for Austria losing in Italy (the other events except the German unification don't seem too different from OTL), but thats OK - after all in war much can happen.

THE "german defeat" in the Schleswig HOlstein war is also just a little more than OTL (Especially as the Austrians are NOT sending their part of the Bundesheer I assume) The naval-battle at Helgoland is transferred from OTL 1864 war?

So waht did we get

Austria loses Lombardy 10 years early? - but there was no French involvement (?)

Germany unifies more than decades early.

And Bismarck does NOT become Chancellor :eek:?

I wonder how this affects the "Crimean War".

You hint an alliance between (Northern) Italy, Germany and Britain? - OTL the British-French Intervention (including Savoy) was possible because of good Relations between France and BRitain - is this the same here?

Is France distracted by the new neighbour?

Austria got it worse here - does this lead to an more active role in TTLs Crimean War?

I think I will follow this...

1) The Italians fighting more competently against the Austrians, along with the Hungarians coming close to victory is the catalyst needed to persuade the Prussians that German unification might be their time to shine. Interestingly in OTL Prussia was one of the few German states that actually ratified the Frankfurt constitution, so an 1848 Germany isn't as implausible as is often assumed.
2) You are right about the Austrians not sending troops to the Schleswig War, for they at this point have none to spare. The Battle of Heligoland actually happened in 1849 as the only action of the Reichsflotte IOTL and is pretty much the same as that battle.
3) France is not involved in the Sardinian war of 1848-1849 because it has problems of its own. The Sardinians are smart enough to leave the Papal States alone and focus their energies on the Austrians. Whether the French will be involved in any future Italian adventure is to early to say.
4) Bismarck is going to be around cause he's too much of a magnificent bastard to leave out, except he's going to be the most notorious newspaper editor nineteenth century Germany has ever seen!
5) Not so much an alliance at this point, though Britain views a liberal Germany as a positive development in Central Europe. As for Italy, both they and Germany aren't very popular with the Austrians so forming some sort of positive relationship between themselves is entirely logical. As for Anglo-French relations, Napoleon III for all his flaws was pretty sensible in his policy to Britain, so Anglo-French relations should remain pretty similar for the moment. This may well change.
6) France isn't quite sure how to process having a unified Germnay to the east, and relations between the two are fairly neutral. French delegates did attend Friedrich Wilhelm's coronation as emperor, but then so did Prince Albert (who is delighted that the Frankfurt Parliament triumphed.)
7) Austria's going to have a turbulent decade.
 
The Death of Reaction in Austria and the Birth of Reform

The Habsburg monarchy had finally returned to stability following the two years of rebellion, and the loss of Lombardy and the end of its pre-eminence in Germany. This stability was primarily achieved through brutal repression and reprisal against the Hungarians who had rebelled, and the Liberals in Austria who had agitated for constitutional reform. While this state policy of repression maintained political stability and kept a lid on nationalist tensions, the Habsburg Empire was a seething mass of resentment and hatred. And this hatred was mostly aimed at the young emperor who had so nearly lost his throne.

Franz Joseph had cemented his position through the defeat of the Hungarian revolutionaries, most of whom had fled to Germany, Britain and America (the granting of asylum to Lajos Kossuth by the German government almost severed diplomatic relations between the two countries) and seemed fully secure in his position as emperor. His reign however was to be short lived, for only four years after the successful crushing of the Hungarian revolution, he was murdered in public by a Hungarian nationalist, János Libényi, who stabbed the emperor thirteen times in the neck and back on a city-bastion in Vienna. Franz Joseph, managed to live for two further days but eventually succumbed to his wounds, and died aged twenty-two, after only five years on the throne. Since he was unmarried, the throne passed to his younger brother Maximilian, who was more liberal and reform minded than his brother.

Following the burial and official mourning period for the deceased emperor, Maximilian was crowned Emperor of Austria in Vienna in September 1853, and in his first action as monarch, dismissed the reactionary ministers Bach and Buol and replaced them with a liberal ministry led by Anton von Schmerling [1], which under the direction of the emperor initiated a convention to discuss the reform of the autocracy and reversal of the reactionary policies introduced by the previous governments.

Maximiliano_1852.png

Maximilian of Austria, aged 20 (1852)

BRIEF NOTES
[1] Schmerling had briefly served as German Prime Minister during the birth of the Frankfurt Parliament.
 
Last edited:
Map of Europe 1852

map1848 a.jpg

Hopefully this gives a reasonable impression of the territorial changes. It's also the first map I've ever made so hopefully it's turned out alright.

map1848 a.jpg
 
Russo-Turkish War of 1853-1854

Tensions between the Ottomans and the Russians over the Black Sea, had been building since the start of the 1850s, with the Ottoman’s perceived weaknesses providing the Russian establishment with an excuse for war. However, in this, as they were to be in future conflicts with supposedly weaker adversaries the Russian Bear was to have his nose bloodied. The Turks, aware that the Western powers of Britain and France were keen for diplomacy to prevail, outmanoeuvred both of them, by simply declaring war on the Russians in response to their occupation of the “Danubian principalities.” [1]

Initially the Ottoman fightback proved successful; the Russians were forced onto the defensive in the Caucasus, while the Black Sea, became an Ottoman playground with the small Russian naval force unable to stop the supplying of Ottoman troops in Georgia, that were harrying the small Russian force tasked with holding the Caucasus. The Ottoman fleet based itself in the port of Sinope for the winter, and was large with several ships of the line, including the famous Mahudmiye.

The Russians, aware that the situations in the Caucasus was beginning to fall away from their control, responded by sending a fleet, which managed to wrest control of the sea lanes from the Ottomans, though bad weather forced them to retreat. The two fleets would finally engage each other at Sinope, and were reasonably matched though the Russian fleet was smaller than its Ottoman counterpart. The Ottomans however, aware that the Russians were planning to destroy their fleet while it lay in harbour, had devised a plan: leaving their slower ships in the harbour, the frigates, corvettes and two ships of the line had withdrawn from Sinope, and lay in wait for the Russian assault.

The plan worked well: the Russian vessels, finding themselves facing a much smaller force than anticipated overextended themselves in their desire to destroy the enemy. The second Ottoman force, attacked the Russians from the flank, and caused panic and confusion within the Russian vessels. In the end only one managed to escape fully intact, with the Russians suffering much heavier casualties than the Ottomans (roughly 2,000 to 300). The battle’s result surprised many international observers who had expected the Ottomans to wilt in the face of the better equipped Russians.

Battle_of_Sinop.jpg

The Battle of Sinope

With the Ottomans now in control of the Black Sea, Ottoman troops invaded Georgia, managing to capture the city of Tiflis by December 1853. However while their operations in the Caucasus were going well, helped by the long running insurgency of Imam Shamil, whose guerrilla tactics hampered Russian troops movements, the same could not be said for the European territories, which the Russians had occupied. The Ottomans, caught on the defensive were forced to retreat into Bulgaria, eventually stopping the Russian advance seven kilometres north of the Black Sea port of Varna. The Russians also ran into difficulty, having overextended their supply lines, and with winter fast approaching, withdrew into Dobruja, with the front settling around the city of Constanta.

Turkish_troops_storming_Fort_Shefketil_%28cropped%29.jpg

Turkish Troops in Battle

The war caused anxiety in other parts of Europe: Austria, just emerging from political turmoil of its own was deeply anxious over the prospect of violence in the Danubian region spilling over into Transylvania and reigniting the fragile peace that had existed since Maximilian had taken the throne. France and Britain, called for Russia to evacuate the principalities, which Austria supported, though Austria proclaimed full neutrality in the matter.

Most foreign observers expected Russia to reject the ultimatum, with France preparing to mobilise troops in the event of war. However as any good historian knows, events often take a turn, and the very sudden death of Tsar Nicholas I, [2] who was succeeded by his more reform minded son Alexander II, who agreed to a ceasefire to discuss terms with the Ottomans at the Congress of London. Aware that the defeats inflicted at Sinope and the Caucasus had made achieving Russia’s war aims unlikely, and that he was more likely to win concessions if he sued for peace, Alexander agreed to peace talks.

The congress made several resolutions:

  • The Romanian principalities were granted autonomy on the same terms as the Principality of Serbia, with Russia’s influence in both curtailed.

  • Russia gave up its claim to be the protector of the Christians within the Ottoman Empire.

  • The Ottomans ceded all Russian territory they had occupied in the Caucasus.

  • The Black Sea was opened to neutral shipping as well as the military vessels of Russia and the Ottomans.

  • Bessarabia was to remain in Russian hands.

The treaty was signed by Russia and the Ottomans, as well as the Austrians, British and the French, with the brief but violent war over. In Russia, it was viewed as a sign that reform of society, politics and the military was desperately needed, in the Ottoman Empire, it was a source of great pride that the country had stood firm against Russian aggression, and that the long sense of decline in the face of other powers hostilities might finally be about to change.

(Extract from “The Eastern War of 1853-1854 by M. J. Winter, 1956)

BRIEF NOTES
[1] Moldavia and Wallachia.
[2] Despite the rumours of his committing suicide, Nicholas I died of a heart attack.
 
Last edited:
Emerging into New Light: Germany and the 1850s

Having survived a costly war with Denmark, Germany found herself in surrounded on three sides by powers that could be described as hostile: Austria, while slowly liberalising, had not forgotten the events of 1848 and many in Frankfurt feared and expected war between the two countries. Russia to the east, viewed democracy with suspicion, though thanks to their humiliation against the Turks, they were in no real position to bully anyone. Finally France saw Germany as a potential rival, and relations between Napoleon III and Frankfurt remained cool.

Fortunately all was not lost. Germany cultivated warm relations with Britain, helped by Prince Albert’s German origins. While Gagern, was briefly out of office, following outcry over the London Treaty of 1852, he returned in 1853, and smoothed over the tensions that had been developing between Kaiser Friedrich Wilhelm and the government of Rudolf von Auerswald. [1] Gagern, continued his policies of moderation, and committed his government to free trade economics, with state intervention only really appearing in the railway industry, with the government funding the expansion of the railway network in the southern states. During his first year, he maintained neutrality over the Crimean crisis seeing it purely as a matter for the Russians and Ottomans, despite diplomatic pressure from Britain and France to condemn the Russian aggression.

0b8e46974197f390d5033a6eb3bee239.jpg

The Caricature of the Emperor suggested he was than committed to the empire he now ruled

The military reforms continued, with competitive examination introduced for entrance into both the Naval and Army academies, allowing those in the rank and file to win promotion based on merit. The prioritising of the military, was part of a careful strategy on the part of the Gagern government to secure reactionary support for the Frankfurt state, which while now established still faced hostility from those on the right. Gagern’s policies paid off, as he was able to secure a reduced majority, with the Liberals losing seats largely down to the continued unpopularity of the 1852 Treaty of London. [2]

The 1850s also saw many in aristocratic circles, begin to dream of expanding Germany’s influence overseas, primarily through the acquisition of colonies. This enthusiasm for colonialism extended to the cabinet, with the exception of Gagern who was ambivalent for fear of alienating the French and the British, and Finance Minister Ernst Merck, on grounds of cost. Following heated debate, the government agreed to part fund an expedition to the west coast of Africa, with Gagern agreeing to the formation of a Colonial Department within the Foreign Ministry, to supervise potential colonial expeditions.

In 1856, a small detachment of German traders, troops and clergy (both Protestant and Catholic) landed on the west coast of Cameroon, and established a trading post known as Freistadt, with the head of the expedition, Wilhelm Blandowski, establishing trade with the local tribes in the Duala (Douala) area. The trade, would see increased shipping between Freistadt and Hamburg and Bremen, and in 1857, several forts and trading posts were established in the Duala region, with the north of the region, falling firmly under German control.

The success of the Kamerun venture, encouraged other companies to petition the colonial office with other colonial ventures, with similar expeditions, establishing small settlements in the Ivory Coast, Togo and the Congo delta, establishing trade with the Bantu there. While this was encouraging for Germany, it caused alarm in France, who were also expanding their colonial ventures in West Africa, and further increased the tensions between the two.

Regardless, the colonial ventures proved very popular with the German public and the political establishment despite Gagern’s reservations, with many viewing it as an opportunity for Germany to emerge as a Great Power. However, a scandal over financial payments between the West Africa Company and the government would have dire consequences for the Liberals, with the 1858 election seeing them lose their majority for the first time, though they limped on as a minority government until early 1859, when the budget was defeated, with the Conservative and Catholic parties forming a coalition under Karl Rudolf Friedentahl, bringing an end to a decade of liberal rule. [3]

BRIEF NOTES

[1] This was largely over the freedom of the press, with the radical newspaper Die Welt causing outrage in the imperial family by publishing a satirical cartoon of the emperor. Gagern relied upon the emperor’s cool headed brother, Prince Wilhelm to smooth things over.

[2] Gagern’s moderate approach and stifling of the more radical elements of his government has led to the liberal character of his government being questioned in more recent historiography.

[3] It was found that the West Africa Company paid substantial amounts of money to government ministers and MPs in order to secure preferential treatment in the establishment of trading posts and shipping lanes between Africa and Hamburg. While Gagern was not directly implicated, the scandal hurt the Liberals.
 
Last edited:
The United Provinces of Northern Italy, 1850-1859

Camillo_Benso_Cavour_di_Ciseri.jpg

Count Cavour, the great architect of the Italian state

While German unification had, despite initial difficulties, emerged relatively complete in the aftermath of 1848, Italian unification was slower off the ground. The United Provinces (often referred to as the Confederation of Northern Italy) had developed into a reasonably democratic federal state, with a leading statesman in Cavour and a moderate monarch in the shape of Charles Albert of Sardinia (who had held the title of President of the United Provinces since its establishment.) [1]

However tensions between the Confederation and Austria remained high after the cessation of hostilities in 1849, and while tensions reduced slightly following Maximilian accession to the Austrian throne, the large numbers of Italian nationalists in Cavour’s respective governments meant the issue remained at the forefront of Italian foreign policy. Domestically, Cavour formed the moderate Constitutional Party (Partito Constituzionale, PC) with Urbano Rattazzi which united the moderates of the left and right in confederal politics, replacing Massimo D’Azeglio as Prime Minister in 1852.

Under Cavour, the military underwent large reforms with the independent forces of the constituent parts of the Confederation organised into a single Federal Army, with a unified command structure. Unlike Germany however, the Italians pursued a pro-French policy, in the hopes of securing backers for war with Austria. Economically following the bloody exhaustive war with Austria, the United Provinces were near bankrupt, and the pro-French policy was in part adopted to secure loans that would help kick start industrialisation.

Similarly to Germany, the general liberalised political system encouraged a newspaper boom, with several major newspapers emerging in the major cities: Corriere della Sera (Evening Courier, based in Milan), Il Araldo (The Herald, newspaper of the Catholic Church based in Milan), Il Tempo (The Times, based in Florence), Il Palo (The Post, based in Florence) and La Nazione (The Nation, based in Turin.) Cavour’s government adopted a laissez-faire economic approach, aligning itself with the merging industrialist class, encouraging foreign investment within Italy’s emerging industrial economy. The standardisation of currency enacted in 1851, saw the introduction of the lira as the new national currency, though it initially suffered from inflation.[2]

Cavour also pursued the establishment of several federal entities, including a national police system based on the French gendarme, a national army modelled on Germany and a naval system based on Britain (including petitioning the British government for naval advisers.) While these were undoubtedly positive steps, the Constitutional Party’s dominance of parliament saw numerous corruption scandals, the most notorious of which was the una mano attraversa l' altra (“one hand crosses the other”) where it was found that around a hundred members of the Constitutional Party (including former Prime Minister Gabrio Casati) had accepted bribes from various firms involved in railway contracts. While Cavour was never implicated he was forced to resign as Prime Minister in 1859, a year which saw tumultous change within the peninsula, as tensions between the Sardinian led federation, and the Sicilians and Papal States erupted into open warfare.

BRIEF NOTES
[1] The title was similar to that favoured by the German Confederation.
[2] The amount of debt accrued by the Italians is disputed, but the loans accounted for a vast percentage of the capital invested in the industrialisation programme.
 
Last edited:
A Short Victorious War: The Establishment of Italian Hegemony in the Neapolitan South
The casual observer, if he had turned his eye upon the United Provinces of Italy [1], he would have assumed that the country had no real interest in expansion. Indeed, the federation had remained conspicuously absent from the foreign policy manouverings of the great powers during the period, focused instead on the construction of a viable state. Based on this, the casual observer would have assumed that the peninsula had returned to the relative tranquility of the Congress Era.

He would have been wrong however.

While the federation's primary aim, in the aftermath of it's emergence from the Springtime of Nations, was very much to establish itself as a viable state, which following various internal manouverings saw the gradual expansion of the federal government's remit. This remit, was further reinforced by the removal of any counterweight to the House of Piedmont, through the sudden death of Leopold II of Tuscany, and the abolition of the Tuscan monarchy following a coup against his successor Ferdinand IV by radical Italian nationalists. [1]

Cavour, despite his subtle encouragement of Tuscan malcontents to push for greater integration between Tuscany and Sardininia, was well aware of the danger the radicals presented to his state building ambitions. It was this reason, which would see his government, with the agreement of the Sardinian army, arm and train volunteer revolutionaries, led by the radical veterans Mazzini and Garibaldi. [2]

The reason? The desire for full unification of the peninsula. Northern Italy (excluding Veneto), was united but the rest of the peninsula lay in the hands of the Papacy and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, regions not inclined to look upon Sardinian hegemony favourably.

Cavour, had "retired" following the una mano attraversa l' altra scandal, resigning from the premiership and seemingly leaving politics altogether. His retirement however, was entirely in name only, as he served as an independent senator (and as Foreign Minister) in the government of Ricasoli, a point not missed by the national press. [3] Ricasoli's govenrment continued the policy of recruiting and arming voluntary revolutionaries.

The government's plans were briefly put in hold with the death of Charles Albert, who was succeeded by his son Victor Emmanuel II of Sardinia, a strong ally of Cavour since his rise to the premiership in the early 1850s. The expedition launched in late 1859, with around 5,000 men (2,000 Sardinian troops and 3,000 volunteers) under the joint command of Mazzini and Garibaldi, with the express aim of defeating the Neapolitans and launching an advance into the Papal States.

The initial invasion of Sicily proved remarkably successful, with the small force capturing Marsala in the space of two days, with covert suppport from British and French ships in the area. [4] The Neapolitan forces were swiftly defeated, though the arrival of a force of well trained and equipped reinforcements on the island from Naples, prevented any premature celebrations. Cavour's government had also sent three vessels to Sicilian coast, on the pretext of "protecting Italian property and citizens within Palermo." These vessels, acted as a caution against any desire of the Neapolitans to bombard the city, possessing as they did, more firepower.

The Neapolitan forces, were driven eastwards retreating to the mainland. The island of Sicily was annexed to the Federation, despite the protests of Garibaldi who preferred to wait until the end of the conflict, viewing annexation as an unnecessarily provocative gesture. [5]

Napoli_Castel_Nuovo_museo_civico_-_ingresso_di_Garibaldi_a_Napoli_-_Wenzel_bis.jpg

Celebrations in Naples as Garibaldi enters Naples

Garibaldi took his revenge by disobeying a direct order to avoid crossing the straight, and landed in Calabria (with the tacit approval of the King) where his forces soon encircled Naples, having encountered little resistance. Ferdinand II, soon surrendered and went into exile with his family, leaving the Two Sicilies to the hands of the Sardinian led federation.

In the Papal States, the Federation had annexed around two-thirds of the Papal States, following tacit French approval, in order to send troops to the south, on condition that they not enter Rome. As a result the majority of Umbria and the Marche were now Italian territory, though the Papacy still maintained Rome and the Latium area surrounding the city's northwest.

Cavour, the great chessmaster had done it. Italy was free.

(An extract from The Brigand and the Diplomat: The Formation of Modern Italy, by Walter Antenioli, 1949)

BRIEF NOTES

[1] The federation between the Sardinians and the Tuscans had always been unequal and uneasy, and Leopold's assassination in 1856 only exacerbated matters.

[2] Garibaldi and Mazzini had both had long revolutionary careers by the time Cavour came calling, though the relationship between the two radicals and the more pragmatic Cavour was always fraught with tension.

[3] Ricasoli, was largely seen as merely keeping the seat warm for if and when the new king reappointed Cavour.

[4] The French had signed a treaty pledging support for the Italians in a war against the Austrians in exchange for Nice and Savoy. The British meanhile supported the Italian effort, as a counterbalance to the Neapolitan's support for the Russian attempts to gain access to the Mediterranean Sea.

[5] Sicily was officially annexed following Victor Emmauel's entrance into the city, which was largely greeted by popular crowds. Garibaldi's fears however would prove correct, as the sudden declaration provoked anger behind closed doors in London, Paris and Vienna. The Austrians viewed the annexation as the removal of a valuable counterweight to Italian expansionism, while the British and French were irritated at not having been informed beforehand. Nevertheless, diplomatic recognition, in the face of Ferdinand II's abdication was swift in coming.
 
Last edited:
Ripples and Puddles: Change Afoot in British Politics, 1848-1855
Sir_James_Graham_2nd_Bart_First_Lord_Admiralty.jpg

Sir James Graham, British Prime Minister

While the violent ripples of the Springtime of Nations failed to ignite a revolution in Great Britain, it's effects still washed upon the shore. While Chartism had threatened to overthrow the new order, before fizzling out in a cold, damp afternoon, London became home to various malcontent, radical political exiles who agitated for a new dawn and the end of the old order.

Outside of the fevered air of the radical bookshops and coffeehhouses frequented by the likes of Marx and Kossuth, the post-Congress world of the New Europe presented the British establishment with a challenge. The emergence of a newly unified Germany, under the auspices of a liberal constitutional model, was greeted in public with elation by the Prince Consort, while in private the government viewed the new state as a useful counterweight against possible French or Russian expanisionism. This goodwill was briefly hindered by the unpopular (in Germany), British brokered, Treaty of London (1852), but the two countries developed a reasonably cordial relationship, following the visit of the Emperor and Empress of Germany in 1854.

Domestically, the Great Exhibition and the rebuilt Palace of Westminster fully demonstrated Britain's imperial power, as did the 'gunboat diplomacy' of Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston, who came to typify the pragmatic free traders who dominated politics during the period. Indeed, as the Whigs enjoyed a prolonged period of political dominance, the Conservatives appeared to be collapsing into anarchy, as the Peelite wing split from the Tories to form the Free Trade Party. [1] The new coalition government [2] of Sir James Graham, granted self-government to several colonies [3] though this was overshadowed by the Russo-Turkish War which threatened Britain's sacred routes to India. While the war was eventually ended before British troops were deployed, Graham authorised a deployment of a naval squadron to the Dardanelles (alongside the French), before helping broker the Treaty of Paris which opened the Black Sea to neutral shipping. While these suggested strong foreign policy success, Graham's coalition government was always shaky and eventually collapsed over attempts to extend the franchise, a problem that would dog successive administrations. [4]

BRIEF NOTES

[1] The imaginatively named Free Trade Party, were essentially the Peelites of the Tories and some disaffected Whigs, who resented John Russell, and as a result was always an uncomfortable allliance between social reformers and social conservatives in the name of free trade.

[2] Sir James Graham, formed a coalition administration with the Whigs, following the collapse of the very shortlived Conservative administration of Edward Smith-Stanley. Much like the Free Trade Party, the coalition was fraught with tension.

[3] New Zealand, the Australian territories and Natal were successively granted independence between 1853 and 1855.

[4] The debate, between those who wished to progressively enfranchise the working classes to an eventual end goal of universal (male) suffrage, and those who viewed the 1832 Act as sufficient would continue to haunt British politics until the 1880s.
 
Last edited:
The New World and Old World Blues: The United States and the 1850s
The United States, found itself blessed with two presidents in the space of a year as the inexperienced Zachary Taylor died in office [1] and was succeeded by his uninspiring deputy Millard Fillmore who saw out the rest of Taylor's term. The states were divided by the issue of slavery, and the question of whether it would be expanded to the newly acquired western territories of California, New Mexico and Nevada [2], and while a compromise was steered through congress to secure a brief truce between the north and the south, the tensions which lay between the two would be the dominant feature of American political life during the period.

If politically the country was only a few inches away from war, the country was experiencing a prolonged economic and demographic boom. In the Pacific northwest, the city of Boston, Oregon [3] was incorporated and thanks to its access to the Pacific Ocean through the its location at the confluence of two rivers, it would quickly grow into a major trade centre in the American northwest. The increasing expansion of American territory witnessed a boom in communications as mail order and telegraph companies (in part funded by the federal government) began establishing themselves in the western frontier. The largest of these was American Express, which in the two years since it's founding in 1850 as merger between three New York mail order companies, had expanded into California. [4] The economic boom was reflected in the increased economic co-operation between British North America and the United States, while an 1850 treaty signed with the British allowed for a joint claim over the Nicaragua Canal. [5] Meanwhile, demographic changes were occuring in both the Canadian territories and the American West, as gold was discovered in British Columbia, California and Oregon at the start of the decade, fuelling a boom in immigration (both internal and external) to the region. American foreign policy during this period focused almost extensively on the Pacific, as the successive Whig and Democrat administrations concentrated on maintaining Hawaii within the American sphere, and opening Japan to American trade. [6]

In 1852, the U.S. elected the Democrats to office, with Pennsylvania's James Buchanan's becoming the fourteenth president of the republic, defeating the Whigs and the Constitutional Union. [7] Buchanan's victory ensured that the union would endure for a few more increasingly fraught years, as his government compromised on the slavery question time and time again in order to preserve the union. While this tactic succeeded, in as far as the union remained intact, the passing of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1853 [8] resulted in widespread violence between pro-slavery forces and abilitionists in the new territories, as they fought to determine whether the new territories would be slaveholding areas. Despite personal reservations, the act was passed, repealing the Missouri Compromise. [9]

James_Buchanan.jpg
James Buchanan, 14th President of the United States: "the man who let inaction become a byword for efficiency"

The violence was not merely confined to the issue of slavery. The rise of the anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant, nativist American Party (later led by former president Millard Fillmore) saw tensions between the local population and the recent immigrants from Germany and Ireland explode into riots in both Kentucky and Ohio. Electoral violence between Protestants and Catholics in Louisville, would result in thirty-two deaths and a complaint to the Buchanan administration from the German ambassador.

Buchanan, despite these problems would win re-election in 1856, despite a strong showing from the recently founded (and stridently anti-slavery) Republican Party. Nevertheless, despite his electoral victory, Buchanan's government continued it's "wait and see" approach, which led the satirist and journalist Samuel Clemens to dub him the man "who let inaction become a byword for efficiency." The tensions between both sides of the debate would continue to fester to the end of the decade, though they fell short of actual war, though the factionalism that was riven within the Democrats was exacerbated by the party losing control of Congress to the "Oppositional Coalition" of Whigs, Republicans and the Constitutional Unionists.

While the union was beset by problems, culturally it was undergoing something of a boom, with American authors enjoying widespread popularity in Europe, with Britain serving as the publishing centre for numerous authors such as Melville whose novel The Whale was published to great acclaim, as was abolitionist novel Life Among the Lonely by Harriet Beecher Stowe, though it should be pointed out that these authors first achieved success abroad before the Americans took notice of them. [10]

BRIEF NOTES

[1] Despite rumours that he had been poisoned Taylor died from cholera.
[2] California was quickly admitted as a state, but due to concerns over whether the new territories would become slaveholding areas, New Mexico (New Mexico and Arizona) and Nevada were maintained as federal territories.
[3] Boston, Oregon had it's name decided by a successful coin flip (OTL's Portland)
[4] The expansion into California, was at the insistence of John W. Butterfield limited in scope to post, rather than the establishment of railway network has had originally been envisaged.
[5] The treaty wouldn't resolve the lingering tensions that dogged Anglo-American relations, but ensured that Nicaragua wouldn't develop into a flashpoint between the two.
[6] The Americans did successfully, after numerous attempts open the Japanese ports to western trade, while an attempt by Napoleon III to annex Hawaii was stringently rebuffed.
[7] Buchanan defeated Winfield Scott of the Whigs and Sam Houston of the Constitutional Union.
[8] Same as IOTL
[9] Which ITTL, much like in ours, becomes a harbinger of the civil war brewing on the horion.
[10] Indeed many American writers were first published in Europe before becoming popular in their homeland, particularly in Britain, that the phrase "Yanks in Yorkshire" was coined to describe the writer's retreat built near the spa town of Harrogate, which became home to several American writers in it's early years.
 
Last edited:
The US Presidential Election of 1860
The tensions that had characterised the 1850s in the United States finally exploded into life in 1860, as the union which for so long had appeared to be creaking on rotten foundations collapsed. The Presidential election of 1860 would reshape the American landscape, and the first surprise of the campaign was the winner of the Constitutional Union nomination. Sam Houston was a radical from Texas who selected the more moderate John Bell as his running mate. The surprise in this nomination was that Houston was deeply unpopular with certain sections of the south who virulently opposed his strong unionism and anti-slavery stance. While the Constitutional Union was only a minor player in national politics, Houston’s nomination would set the tone for the rest of the political year.

The new major force in national politics, the Republican Party initially appeared to have the most fractured debate, with four clear frontrunners in Lincoln, Seward, Chase and Bates. However it was clear that Bates and Chase had deeply divided the voting the delegates, while Seward was viewed with suspicion by the Radical wing due to his shift to the moderate centre. Lincoln also had detractors who felt he was far too moderate to fully realise the party’s platform while in office. In the end, it came down to a straight fight between Seward and Lincoln, with Seward managing to carry it after coming extremely close to winning it on the second ballot with Lincoln instructing his supporters to shift their votes to Seward. This sudden change came thanks to the “Chicago Compromise” where Seward offered Lincoln the Vice-Presidency and his supporters’ cabinet positions. In the end the Seward/Lincoln ticket won the election comfortably, also thanks in part to the strong working relationship between Seward and Lincoln.

The Democrats meanwhile were thrown into turmoil with their northern and southern wings splitting, and the first convention having to end without having selected a Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate. The second convention comfortably resulted in a Douglas/Fitzpatrick win but the split between southern and northern Democrats was to have a big impact on the campaign. The election was one for the Republicans by oratorical skills of Seward and Lincoln, both of whom managed to draw huge audiences on their nationwide tour. Seward was prominently supported by northern media, with the New York Times and the New York Tribune running several months of pro-Republican coverage. The collapse of a unified Democratic front also enabled the Republicans to siphon votes from the moderates who might have supported them. The running of Houston for the Constitutional Union also failed to detract from the Republican bid, despite Democrat campaigners counting on it to draw votes away from the radical Seward ticket. Lincoln’s popularity and moderate stance was also a great boon to the Republican campaign. These multiple factors were responsible for the first Republican presidency and the surprisingly rapid ascension to the top of politics by a recently formed party.
 
This House is Divided: The American Civil War, 1861-1864
The tensions between the north and south over the issue of slavery which characterised the union for some three decades, finally exploded into conflict after being allowed to fester during the 1840s and 1850s. The Chicago Compromise, which had seen the moderate and radical wings of the Republicans unify behind the Seward/Lincoln ticket ensured that a Republican victory would result in conflict, due to the party's explicit abolitionist stance. The subsequent election of so radical a duo to the White House provided the southern states the excuse they needed to secede from the Union. This desire was only increased when the Vice-President, Abraham Lincoln made a speech in early January, 1861 condemning slavery within the Southern states as unlawful. The Southern states soon began seceding, and various Southern politicians including Jefferson Davis resigned from their various political positions within the Union structure. Out of this would form the Confederate States, who established themselves as the national representation of the American South.

200px-William_h_seward.jpg
William H. Seward, 15th President of the United States, first Republican President, leader of the Union in the Civil War and architect of the abolition of slavery.

The Civil War would begin almost immediately in the aftermath of the secession crisis and would have an effect on countries several thousand miles away. As a result of the war, an economic depression effecting cotton in Lancashire hit the United Kingdom, which led to Queen Victoria granting the Confederates belligerent rights (though the British had no desire to back either side, much to the disappointment of the French Emperor Napoleon III, who wished to expand France's influence in the Americas.)

The war would begin with several Confederate victories, but soon settled into a relative stalemate, as both sides struggled to organise their armies. At the beginning however, the Confederates severely routed Union forces at Bull Run, resulting in the appointment of Hiram U. Grant [1] as senior commander of the Union forces. It would not be until early 1862 that the Union would taste major success with W.T. Sherman defeating the Confederates in Tennessee. Indeed 1862 would begin to see the tide turn against the Confederacy, as they found themselves pushed out of Missouri following defeat at Pea Ridge. In the southwest, the war was most notable for the distinguished use of the US Camel Corps. [2] The naval aspect of the war was also interesting from a military history view, as the first naval battle between the two sides was between two ironclad warships, the USS Monitor and the CSS Virginia. While inconclusive, the battle would show the potential of ironclad warships, while the war would also see the development of the first ever submarine.

The turning tide in the conflict could be seen in 1862, following the crushing defeat inflicted upon the Confederates at Antietam [3] and subsequent pursuit of General Lee's Army of North Virginia, a victory which emboldened Seward's antislavery stance and persuaded the European powers not to recognise the Confederacy. [4] Grant's decision to besiege Richmond in November 1862, despite the reservations of George B. McClellan placed the Union in the ascendancy.

dead-soldier-antietam1.jpg

Dead Confederates in the aftermath of Antietam

In Washington meanwhile, the seemingly unstoppable march of Union forces, saw the Supreme Court which held an abolitionist majority [5] support the Seward Ultimatum which declared that unless the South ended its rebellion he would issue the emancipation proclamation which would legally free all three million slaves held in the south. Despite the military situtation, the ultimatum was rejected in the south as nothing but Yankee bluster. In actual fact, the ultimatum was a calculated piece of pragmatism, as Seward and Lincoln had agreed that those Southern slaveowners who agreed to cooperate with the union would be offered the fig leaf of compensated emancipation to both encourage surrender and placate the unpredictable border states. Thus for the duration of the war, Seward's government pursued the de facto abolition of slavery by enforcing almost every judicial action which could kill it off in all but name only, though this policy proved controversial within Seward's cabinet. [6]

Meanwhile, the Union's "March to the Sea" continued apace, as following an four month siege Richmond fell to the Union in March 1863, a blow which would severely cripple the Confederate war effort, despite the largely successful evacuation of troops from the city under the command of Lee, whose Army of North Virginia had proven to be a consistent thorn in the side of Union forces. The capture of the capital and major industrial centre of the CSA was a huge boon to the prestige of both Seward and the Republicans, who shrugged off accusations from the Democrats [7] that they "were shedding white blood for negroes." Despite the capture of Richmond, and the belief in Washington that his would quickly extinguish the South's will to fight, the Confederates pugnaciously soldiered on, launching numerous harying attacks against the larger Union force.

Grant, in conjunction with Sherman decided that a two-pronged assault on the remaining confederate territory would be required to finally force the south to surrender, since with the capture of Richmond the major southern industrial centre was now in Union hands. Sherman who had taken charge of the Army of Tennessee, led his forces to push into the southwest towards Mississippi, while Grant's troops pushed south to defeat Lee's army. The tactic worked, as Sherman and Grant gradually pushed the remaining confederate forces towards the south. The war officially came to an end in January 1864 with the surrender of Jefferson Davis and the Confederate Congress, though following the surrender of Lee in September 1863 and the death of Nathan Bedford Forest in October 1863, [8] the war despite the continued guerrilla actions of a few die-hard fire eaters, had petered out by November.

The successful conclusion of the conflict proved huge boon to Seward and the Republican's popularity, with the majority of the press predicting a Republican landslide in the 1864 elections. The Republican controlled Congress passed the proposed thirteenth amendment which would de jure abolish slavery throughout the United States in 1863, with the amendment coming into law a year later in 1864, following it's ratification by the states. [9] Seward would comfortably win re-election in 1864, with him and his Vice-President Daniel Dickinson [10] surviving an assassination attempt at their inauguration on March 4, 1865. Lincoln, who had been the most powerful Vice-President for decades, became Secretary of State following the formation of a Unionist [11] cabinet.

Abraham_Lincoln_O-77_matte_collodion_print.jpg

Abraham Lincoln, "The Illinois Lawyer" who transformed the office of Vice-President

BRIEF NOTES

[1] OTL Ulysses S. Grant
[2] The Camel Corps were founded in the 1850s for use in the difficult terrain of the southwest, but despite their suitability for the terrain the army declind to use them for military purposes. ITTL, they're use in the southwest by the US Army becomes more widespread as the army used them as pack animals and communication animals in the arid southwestern territories.
[3] The single bloodiest battle of the war, and one of the bloodiest in history, the Battle of Antietam saw the Union forces under the command of Grant break Confederate resistane after four days of intense, bloody fighting which saw around 25,000 casualties (the majority of which were wounded.)
[4] The British were split over the issue, as the war directly effected the British economy with Lancashire suffering a depression due to the lack of southern cotton. Nevertheless, strong abolitionist opinion in Britain and the heated opposition to the Confederacy by Prince Albert persuaded Palmerston to avoid recognising the Confederacy, a policy reluctanly followed by the French.
[5] As the majority of the previous Supreme Court had "Gone South", Seward was able to pack the court with abolitionist republicans who wholeheartedly supported his emancipation agenda.
[6] The policy of offering "compensated emancipation" to those slaveowners who had supported the Union war effort, proved unpalatable for many of the more Radical Republicans, and drew fierce criticism from Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase and Thaddeus Stevens, leader of the Radical faction within the Republicans.
[7] The sequence of Union victories which saw the successful capture of Richmond in early 1863, took the wind from the Democrats sails, as the high loss of life at Antietam was offset by the capture of the Confederacy's capital and industrial centre. The highly publicised bravery of black troops who fought in this theatre further dented the Democrats claims against Seward. The party began to split into factions, and this split was exacerbated in the 1864 election, which saw the Republicans win Congress, the Senate and the Presidency.
[8] The circumstances surrounding Bedford's death in battle in Mississippi have never been clearly established, though the popular legend that he was killed by an escaped slave sharpshooter is likely an apocryphal legend.
[9] The rapid ratification by the states, including those in the south under military occupation, has led to claims that the amendment was passed against the will of the people, though this has largely been the preserve of die-hard Confederate sympathisers.
[10] The decision of Seward (backed by Lincoln and other moderate Republicans) to form a coalition with the "War Democrats" saw the formation of the National Union Party, which was for all intents and purposes the Republican Party, coupled with those Democrats who supported Seward's war policies. The selection of Dickinson as Vice-President proved popular, while Lincoln's appointment as Secretary of State was viewed with relief by those in Washington who felt the "Illinois Lawyer" had become too powerful as VP.
[11] The "Unionists", while a coalition between the Moderate Republicans and the War Democrats, was essentially a continuation of Seward's policies from 1860-1864, and is usually viewed as a Republican administration by latter-day historians.

Extract from "This House Divided: A Brief History of the United States in the Nineteenth Century", by E.S. Young (Harvard University Press, 1948, pp.172-175)
 
Last edited:
The Conservative Coalition and the Prince Regent, Germany 1858-1861
The dominance of federal politics enjoyed by Heinrich von Gagern's Liberals came to an abrupt end in the 1858 federal elections as voter anger towards the widely publicised corruption scandal between prominent Liberal MPs involving the West Africa Company (Westafrika Gesellschaft abbreviated to WAG) in 1857 saw them shed votes heavily to the right, with the moderate Catholic Party [1] (whose heartlands comprised the southern states) and the more nationalist National Conservative Union [2], who won support from the junkers and other traditional sectors of Prussian society. The Liberals were further pressed by Robert Blum's Democrats [3] who had begun to ally themselves with the emerging radical and socialist workers movements in the rapdily growing German cities. [4] Despite these various problems, the Liberals managed to secure enough seats to remain the largest party and limped on under von Gagern as a minority government until their budget was defeated in February 1859. [5] Von Gagern resigned for a second time, leaving uncertainty behind him [6], uncertainty further exacerbated by the severe stroke suffered by Emperor Frederick William in 1858, shortly after the elections had resulted in a hung parliament. This left his brother William, the cool headed pragmatist in contrast to his prickly brother as regent. The news complicated matters for he imperial family, who in that same year had celebrated the marriage of Victoria, Princess Royal and William's son Frederick. [7]

The Liberals, now under the leadership of the former Minister of Justice Robert von Mohl, [8] were despite their failure to win a majoity the largest party. However, they were riven with factionalism as the conflicts between the radical and moderate wings which von Gagern had kept suppressed exploded into the open, gleefully reported on by Otto von Bismarck's Der Kurier newspaper. [9] This left the Catholic Party, led by Ludwig Windthorst [10] and the Conservatives of Karl Rudolf Friedenthal [11] to form an uneasy coalition with Friedenthal as Prime Minister and Windthorst as Minister of Justice. Differences in policy between the two parties would hamper government efforts for the majority of Friedenthal's term in office, though he an Windthorst personally enjoyed an amicable working relationship. [12]

Friedenthal_1874.jpg

Ludwig_Windthorst_1860_JS.jpg
Karl Rudolf Friedenthal and Ludwig Windthorst, the leaders of the first Conservative government in Germany

Economically the government abandoned the laissez-faire policies of the von Gagern period, with a shift to protectionist policy and statist involvement in the economy, with the state beginning to take on more interests in industry outside of the expansion of railways which had begun under the previous Liberal administration. This was particularly seen in the area of steel and coal production, with the federal government passing the "Coal-Iron Act" in 1859 which provided loans to iron and steelworks seeking to purchase mines to establish their own coking centres [13] creating a boom in the industry as numerous firms established themselves in the Ruhr Valley. This boom had an important demographic shift, as large numbers of economic migrants particularly from the Polish regions of Prussia began to arrive en masse, often finding themselves living in cramped and unsanitary conditions in the new industrial centres, an issue which would become a cause celebre for the rising trade union movement. [14]

Friedenthal's government, containing as it did large numbers of nationalist deputies, also increased funding to the military and colonial ventures. The funding increase to the military focused heavily on the army, while the more nationalist elements of his cabinet and the army began drawing up plans for a potential war with Denmark over the "unresolved" status of Schleswig-Holstein. [15] In colonial terms meanwhile, the government part funded several settler voyages to the Kamerun and actively recruited missionaries from the various Christian demoninations within the empire for work in Africa, though a proposal to actively recruit settlers among the rural and urban poor was dropped due to fierce cabinet opposition. Despite these successes, the government would eventually collapse over a dispute between its Protestant and Catholic wings over denominational education and it's provision under a proposed new education law, which would have introduced more centralised control over the German education system. [16]

Friedenthal resigned shortly after the coronation of Regent William as Emperor William I, following the resignation of the Catholic deputies from his government. Though shortlived, his ministry showed the viability of both the right as a political force and the relative health of the Frankfurt state, since it had survived an orderly transition of power, though such orderliness would often bely the rather fragile nature of it's party system.

William's first action as Emperor was one he would be called on to perform often in the years of his reign: the dissolution of parliament and the calling of fresh elections.

BRIEF NOTES

[1] The Catholic Party originated as a Catholic interest group in the northern German states formed to protect Catholic minority rights. Following the unification and establishment of the Empire, it began to emerge as the voice of the south, whose strongly Catholic identity provided it with a large voter base to draw upon. Indeed such was it's dominance in the region, that the state governments of Baden, Bavaria and Württemberg had and unbroken line of premiers from the party until the 1880s when the growth of the Socialists began to threaten it's dominance.
[2] The National Conservative Union, simply referred to as the Union by many within the press, formed from the numerous conservative factions which had attended the original Frankfurt parliament as delegates. Nationalists, anti-democratic and very much a bastion of the landowning classes it's heartlands were to be found in the vast estates of the Junkers in Prussia, though it won votes in other states as well.
[3] Robert Blum, one of the most famous orators in the German parliament, had formed the radical Democratic Party in 1850 from the various radical and revolutionary elements which had coalesced in the café culture of Frankfurt around the time of the parliament's formation. The party had begun to fragment by the time of Friedenthal's government, with Blum developing an interest in the burgeoning socialist and trade union movements.
[4] The rapid growth of the industrial workforce and the cities which swelled to accommodate them, had seen living conditions deterioate in Germany's urban centres. The first trade unions emerged from this environment in the 1850s and their membership began to expand rapidly, with many affiliating themselves to a particular political ideology. The unions would later form the basis for the first socialist inspired political parties within the country.
[5] Despite their problems, the Liberals had built an electoral base which was remarkably hard for the other parties to shift, with the cities comfortably returing Liberal deputies to the House of Commons. Nevertheless, their failure to secure a majority meant that they could only survive on limited time as a minority government, one which faced hostility from both the left and right. Merck's budget aimed to pacify both sides, as well as the factions developing within the party by appealing to both sides, but in the end failed to satisfy anyone.
[6] Von Gagern's resignation caused uncertainty, simply because for many he was the office of Prime Minister, and his vacation of the office felt to many like the end of an era.
[7] The marriage had been in the making since the Great Exhibition, and was met with happiness in both Britain and Germany, with the ceremony attended by membrs of both families (including the Queen's uncle Leopold I of Belgium.) It was also the last public appearance of Frederick William before his stroke.
[8] Robert von Mohl had served as the Justice Minister since the government of Auerswald, and given the unpopularity of Merck, he emerged as the leading senior candidate to replace Gagern.
[9] Indeed the factionalism between the radical wing and the moderates threatened to split the party. The rightist press, particularly Bismarcks newspaper watched this with joy, for they strongly disliked both von Gagern and the Liberals. Von Mohl's leadership was frequently depicted as merely keeping the seat warm for von Gagen's eventual return to power, with the former prime minister's refusal to retire reported on deliberately by Der Kurier to undermine von Mohl's position.
[10] Windthorst was something of a rarity, as both a Hanoverian Catholic, and as a committed parliamentarian famed for his oratory and dedication to the democratic constitutionalism of the Frankfurt state, and a explicit anti-liberal. This made him something of an uneasy ally for the Union, who shared his antipathy towards the liberals but shared none of his democratic convictions.
[11] Friedethal (a Jewish convert to Protestantism) had emerged as the dominant figure in the various conservative groupings which made up the political right in the first years of the Empire, and had been the energetic force behind the formation (with the full support of conservatives such as Bismarck) of a national conservative party in 1852, which promoted both the interests of the traditional classes and German nationalism.
[12] The coalition between the Catholic and Protestant parties was always fraught with mistrust, though their strong mutual antipathy towards the Liberals and laisse faire ensured that they could swallow their pride and just about work together. Windthorst and Friedenthal formed a close relationship being as they were both in their own way outsiders: a northern Catholic, and a Jewish convert to Protestantism.
[13] The law saw a rapid increase in the number of integrated companies within the region, with a resulting boom in coal production which would last throughout the latter half of the century.
[14] The slum conditions were notoriously bad inspiring several commentaries as a result, including one by Engels and Marx the authors of The Communist Manifesto. The rapid growth of the cities, and the lack of building created numerous shanty towns, which became known as Arme Häuser (Alms Houses), many of which became infamous for widespread poverty, disease and early death. The shocking conditions would prove a catalyst for the burgeonining trade unions, as the majority of people living there were workers in the newly built factories. The widespread influx of Poles into the Ruhr area also caused friction, as the new arrivals and the local Rhinelanders clashed over housing and work.
[15] The desire to "reclaim" the region from the Danes was vocally expressed on the right, though it was an issue popular across the political spectrum. The humiliation of Fredericia was still keenly felt.
[16] The dispute was essentially over whether religious education would be provided by the dominant church in the area, or the official state church of the Empire (which was the Lutherans) and whether the churches had the right to run schools within the proposed state system. The issue would continue to vex successive governments of both sides of the political spectrum for the next decade.
 
Last edited:
Top