Union and Liberty: An American TL

[jycee]

Wilcox, I actually have one more question regarding the previous update.

You mentioned the temperance movement. Are you planning to have prohibition in TTL? I would have expected that the higher Catholic population, would butterfly this away. Perhaps, not having prohibition ocurr at federal level but still some states would be more logica. And it would create a very interesting scenario as some states would benefit greatly from not prohibiting it. It could also seriously upset the relationship between individual states as well since organized crime would work quite diffrently.

 

[wilcoxchar]

An update, wonderful! About Gaugin; how did he import his European goods? Normal methods of importation, with tax and duties, would have made his goods prohibitively expensive for most people. How'd he manage to make his business affordable?

The update was great; how has the spread of railroads and refrigeration affected Chicago? OTL, this is about the time when the huge stockyards came to exist because of those two things. With the Southwest out of US control, there's not quite as much area for cattle growth, but the rich plains of Texas are still probably growing plenty of cattle to be shipped up north to Chicago.

Lastly, why did you choose to keep Coke named the same; what were your other options.

As always, loved it and keep up the great work?

I'm not sure how Gauguin imported his goods, but the fancier European goods are likely more luxury items. During my research I found that the Marble Palace offered European goods, so I would assume it's the same way that they did in OTL.

Chicago is still growing due to the railroads carrying goods in from the northern Great Plains, but its growth due to cattle is shared with Saint Louis, which gets a lot of the Texas area cattle traffic. A source I'm using has cattle production at the time being mostly in the Nebraska/Iowa area even though the highest cattle-producing state was Texas.

I mostly chose to keep Coca-Cola because it's such a simple and obvious name for the drink that IMO naming it something else would have been getting near butterflies for the sake of butterflies. The other options would have involved another ____ Cola or something similar to the French Wine Coca or Vin Mariani names that were sort of precursors to Coke.

Where's my Royal Crown

What about the other cola companies? I know they were around later, but it would give Coca-Cola some major competition.

Hehe. There are other cola companies who will arise around the same time or a bit later, but even in OTL history books when it gets mentioned they only mention Coke. I'll probably do something on the other major soda brands ITTL in a future update.

As always this was a neat update Wilcox. The world of Union & Liberty continues to thrive in detail and richness.

The use of Gaugin as a magnate is genious. And the name sounds quite apropiate for a department store as well. With this US being more urbanized than OTL's due to the higher population density, it might be likely that dept stores remain much more popular through time and the switch to superstores ala Wal-Mart doest quite take off (though they will likely still exist due to their practicallity).

I agree with Ganesha that an alternative name to Coca-Cola would have been interesting. Although the name is so obvious that it might be impossible. Perhaps its advertising colors would change (I vote green. You changed the dollar bills from green to red, green coke then seems like the logical path). The other change would be for the name Coca-Cola to remain the comonly used name in the US rather than aglicized Coke.

It is also a neat detail that you changed the plant's location from Atlanta to Birmingham.

That's a good idea about department stores remaining popular with a more urbanized US. I hadn't really thought about that.

I also like the idea of changing the advertising colors. I'm thinking to a clearish green similar to the color of early Coca-Cola bottles. Another change I could think about is the logo, since the font they used (Spencerian Script) was specially chosen for the logo.

Perhaps something like Cola-Coca, which would encourage the use of "cola" as a name for all sugary drinks, instead of "soda" or "pop". Or maybe Candler-Cola, or Dr. Candler. Just ideas.

Hmmmm, Dr. Candler sounds like a good idea for another drink that the Coca Cola Company would produce.

Wilcox, I actually have one more question regarding the previous update.

You mentioned the temperance movement. Are you planning to have prohibition in TTL? I would have expected that the higher Catholic population, would butterfly this away. Perhaps, not having prohibition ocurr at federal level but still some states would be more logica. And it would create a very interesting scenario as some states would benefit greatly from not prohibiting it. It could also seriously upset the relationship between individual states as well since organized crime would work quite diffrently.

The temperance movement will start getting bigger as women get more involved in politics as in OTL, but it won't get big enough to have national Prohibition though some politicians might press for it. I can see several states passing Prohibition laws, but likely it will remain primarily a county-level decision to be wet or dry, with dry laws being most popular in the South and West.

 

[jycee]

I mostly chose to keep Coca-Cola because it's such a simple and obvious name for the drink that IMO naming it something else would have been getting near butterflies for the sake of butterflies. The other options would have involved another ____ Cola or something similar to the French Wine Coca or Vin Mariani names that were sort of precursors to Coke.

You could keep this style of naming popular for the other cola drinks.

That's a good idea about department stores remaining popular with a more urbanized US. I hadn't really thought about that.

I was thinking of something along the lines of El Corte Ingles in Spain. A large dept store chain of an incredible variety of goods (of medium-high quality over all), but each store offering slight changes in their variety.

If Gaugin made it into history books for creating a store, I would reason he would leave a lasting impression in American culture and their urban landscapes. Hence my assumption that they will remain quite popular. In smaller cities the local Gaugin's might literally be a point of reference.

I also like the idea of changing the advertising colors. I'm thinking to a clearish green similar to the color of early Coca-Cola bottles. Another change I could think about is the logo, since the font they used (Spencerian Script) was specially chosen for the logo.

I'd keep the script. It is too iconic. Plus it seems that it was already a popular style before Coca Cola started using it. Unless ITTL Coca-Cola chooses to modernize at some point (like Pepsi in OTL does constantly). But it would be as iconic I think.

The temperance movement will start getting bigger as women get more involved in politics as in OTL, but it won't get big enough to have national Prohibition though some politicians might press for it. I can see several states passing Prohibition laws, but likely it will remain primarily a county-level decision to be wet or dry, with dry laws being most popular in the South and West.

At county level? This could have very very interesting butterflies; since alcohol might be available one county-over in most places. In terms of organized crime, the creation of the FBI, the appearance of muscle cars, and how long local prohibition remains lawful.

 

[wilcoxchar]

Update time before I head off to my last class of the day! I'll add footnotes later today. I'm also not sure if I'm making things in Britain too repressive to be plausible, but part of it is that the US history textbooks are somewhat demonizing Victorian British politics.

Culture #4: Victorian Britain

The 1890 Olympics:
With the success of the Athens and London games, the Olympics were becomimng not only a well known international sporting event but a desirable cultural event for the host city. In the 1888 meeting of the International Olympic Committee in London, several European cities sought the rights to host the 1890 Olympics. The members of the committee organized the first organizing and bidding process to decide which city would host the Olympics at this meeting. The three cities that submitted bids for the 1890 Olympics were Paris, Berlin, and Vienna. After the first round of voting, a majority of the committee selected Berlin to be the host of the 1890 Olympics.

The spectacular opening ceremony was presided over by Emperor Frederick III and Otto von Bismarck, and showed Berlin and Germany off as an industrial powerhouse. Much of the city had been electrified and a new electric tram system was unveiled. The 1890 games saw the first appearance for several nations surrounding Germany including Denmark, Austria, and Moravia. The Ottoman Empire also competed in its first Olympic Games in 1890, after the Sultanate permitted athletes to attend the games in 1889. The two Turkish athletes competed in the 1500 m dash and the discus throw, but did not get any medals.

Some of the highlights of the 1890 Olympics were in tennis and the marathon. In singles tennis, the gold medal match was between German native Frederick Stolberg and British Wimbledon champion William Renshaw. Renshaw beat Stolberg after a difficult match. However, in doubles, William and his twin brother Ernest Renshaw were knocked out by Americans Basil de Garmendia and Beals Wight. The 1890 Olympics also saw the debut of women's tennis as an Olympic event. Hedwiga Nedved, a German tennis player from Bohemia won the gold in the women's singles tournament, defeating Charlotte Anderson of Great Britain. In the marathon, Greek runner Evangelos Veloulis won the gold medal at age 17, beating out Hungarian Gyula Kellner and American Francis Duquesne, who had won the first running of the marathon in 1882.


Art of Great Britain:
During the 19th century, British art and literature developed somewhat in isolation to the rest of the continent. This is especially evident in the major works of British literature of the late 19th century. During this period, the British Isles underwent a revival of the Gothic novel as a reaction to the more lighthearted romantic literature of the early 19th century. These Victorian Gothic novels were darker than other contemporary works such as Tennyson's. The greatest author of this era has to be Bram Stoker, the author of Dracula and The Snake's Pass. Stoker is also notable for being one of the only Irish writers of the period who was successful in Britain.

Along with the writings of the great Gothic authors, Britain also had a large upswing of social literature. Many liberalist writers decried the treatment of the Highland Scottish and the Irish by the Conservative governments of Great Britain during the 1800s. However, they were often ostracized by the higher segments of society for a desire for mob rule should the working classes be allowed to vote. With such stagnation among the Parliament during the 19th century, many writers took to underground publications to encourage the middle and working classes to push for an expansion of the franchise and the granting of more rights to Catholics within Great Britain. The response by the Conservative governments was to seek out these papers and have them shut down for libel or unlicensed publishing after the passage of the Newspaper Licensing Act of 1867. The most famous case of this is the 1875 raid on the D & D Publishing Company in Oxford which killed three workers including Charles Dickens, one of the owners. The other owner, Charles Dodgson, went on to operate the Wonderland Press, another underground newspaper.

 

[wilcoxchar]

And here's a newspaper article I made for the Oxford Raid a while ago. I posted it before, but it didn't look like it got much interest. Since it's relevant now I'll repost it.

 

[jycee]

You killed Charles Dickens!!!!!!

 

[Utgard96]

Oh my God! They killed Dickens!

YOU BASTARDS!

 

[Archangel]

Dickens death is a bad omen for Britain's social peace.

 

[jycee]

The interesting part, though is that as bad as Britain might be getting, it should still be less authoritarian than say Germany, although it has things like class struggles and the Irish to deal with.

Unless Britian looses WWI badly, and Ireland gets full independence (including the north) as part of it, and it's aristocratic society refuses to give up on the whole Empire thing, then a "facist"-like Britain (or a very Commie version of it) still seems unlikely. Regardless it is still an interesting path were this is headed. And the Great War should not be far away as we have reached the 1890s by now.

 

[pike]

Great TL i feel like voting for Ron Pual after i had finished reading for some odd reason.

 

[Ganesha]

Dickens' death is sad, yes, but as jycee rightly points out, the more important issue is authoritarianism in Britain. If Britain loses another war, or perhaps faces a nasty war in one of it's colonies that is opposed by populace at home, than I can easily see Britain becoming a sort of "authoritarian democracy", where free speech can only be exercised at the ballot box, and not at the soapbox or the jury box. Hopefully things won't get so bad that citizens will reach for the ammo box!

 

[wilcoxchar]

Oh my God! They killed Dickens!

YOU BASTARDS!

I love this post.


Also, I just looked Dickens up and I actually have him living past when he died in OTL. I'd guess that he would have gotten through maybe at least the Christmas stories and maybe David Copperfield and Bleak House before major butterflies set his writings in a different direction, though likely with similar subject matter. So a few of his famous works still get written ITTL, but A Tale of Two Cities and Great Expectations are unlikely.


jycee and Ganesha are correct; Britain isn't quite going down a path to authoritarianism as much as they are stopping while everyone else moves toward democracy. Any future reaction to this or where Britain will head from here depend a lot on the Great War.

 

[Utgard96]

As for the Great War, I'm hoping for France-Germany-US-Korea against Britain-Russia-Hungary-Austria-Illyria-Japan. This is pretty much what TTL has pointed to so far (except the arrangements in former Austria), and we can have the war starting in the East.

 

[jycee]

As for the Great War, I'm hoping for France-Germany-US-Korea against Britain-Russia-Hungary-Austria-Illyria-Japan. This is pretty much what TTL has pointed to so far (except the arrangements in former Austria), and we can have the war starting in the East.

Well Austria itself is gone now. It is all Germany now. And you are also missing Italy.

But certainly the TL has pointed towards a Franco-German alliance (which I have never seen in any TL). The US seems to be leaning towards France, do to their particular anglophobia in TTL. The reformed Korea seems to be certainly within the French camp.

Britain is then isolated and in need of allies. Belgium is a certain ally but very week. Spain is also likely. Russia is definitively their best bet. But, if things are as in OTL, Russia will have a greater economic ties with France/Germany and a certain animosity (that can easily be fixed) towards Britain due to the great game. Yet, I will say Russia is a wild card here.

Another ally is the Ottoman Empire, depending on how well they are doing they can be quite valuable. However, I cannot see them and Russia on the same team. Regardless the best option for them would be neutrality.

Illyria, Hungary, and Italy, depending on their relationship with each other and France/Germany are also up in the air. My guess is Illyria and Hungary will ally against Italy, but who ends up where is up for grabs.

Wilcox has also mentioned California will be placed against the US, which is interesting. It certainly has a close relationship with both Briatin and Japan so it seems natural. But I see it as a front with very little happening on there. A few skirmishes on the Rockies, a rebellion in Espejo (Utah), and a few naval battles along the Pacific Coast. (Hawaii might be the big prize here).

Then there is also the matter of China as a wild card on the Korea-Japan front. China might ally with Japan against Korea. In, which case no matter how prepared Korea is they do not stand a chance there.

And lets remember Denmark is also in the scramble for Africa here. They have kept their colonies and they might suffer some empire fever due to it.

So, France-Germany-Korea-US as a team is set.

Britain-Belgium-California-Japan is very likely.

To be shuffled are Hungary, Illyria, Italy, Ottomans, Russia, China, and maybe Denmark & Spain?

We are also forgetting the enlarged Serbia, but without Austria I'm not sure what is their deal.

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

Denmark has colonies? I think I missed that update...

 

[jycee]

Denmark has colonies? I think I missed that update...

Yeah, I think it is Togo. And by African fever I did not mean they'll get more colonies, but that they will try to and make a lot of enemies along the way.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I just finished reading your timeline, and I have some questions.

1. The POD: First, why does Jackson include lowering tariffs as part of his platform? For the election of 1828, Jackson, although in favor of lowering tariffs, remained vague on that issue, like all others. He would just give statements that made it seem he could go either way, that way he would earn more votes; he did that for every issue. Second, Jackson and Calhoun didn't like each other at all; they were never friends. Calhoun didn't like Jackson, and only agreed to be his VP because he assumed that Jackson was so old, he'd either die or serve one term, thus propelling Calhoun into the White House; he did it purely for political reasons. Jackson didn't like Calhoun because he knew he couldn't trust him, and Jackson would die to preserve the union, and Calhoun had already begun to associate himself with the would be secessionists. This mutual hatred was expanded ten fold after the Petticoat Affair, which still happens in your timeline. I don't think Jackson would keep Calhoun as his VP for a second term under any circumstances.

2. Robert E. Lee: I have several questions with Lee. First, why does he decide to betray his state? Lee was willing to die for Virginia, and what would make him decide to fight against it in TTL? And Lee was strictly apolitical in OTL. Why would this change as well in TTL? And if only the one in a million chance he did decide to run for President, he would not be a Republican under ANY circumstances.

3. Ulysses S. Grant: I think you need to fill Grant's life in A LOT. After he signed up for the military once again and trained troops for a few months, he was promoted to colonel in OTL. It would seem that in TTL, he'd either be a colonel or something close to it. But it seems that once the war starts in TTL, he is immediately in command of an enormous field army. How did that happen?

4. War of Secession: Why? The way the war starts in TTL, its just so sudden and seemingly unprovoked. Our war started after over a decade of increasing tension and insults to both sides. Maybe, during the crisis after Houston's death, South Carolina secedes in a panic, but it seems like having the whole deep south secede and the coastal states, it just seems kind of ASB. Secession in OTL was an organized affair, not a spur of the moment event.

5. John C. Fremont: Why is he so moderate in TTL? John C. Fremont in OTL was just nuts. And if somehow he becomes President, there might as well not even be a south. Fremont would make reconstruction so bad, the south would be crushed into dust. The Democrats probably wouldn't be able to elect someone for decades and decades. Why would he be any less radical in TTL?

6. Nathan Bedford Forrest: Why is Forrest in the war? Tennessee was on the union's side, why would he join the Confederate cause? And its the same thing with him as with Grant. In the beginning of the war, you have him commanding one of the main Confederate armies. Forrest entered into service as a private, and it took 4 years for him to be a Lieutenant General. He was a military mastermind, but it would take him quite a while to reach the top.

7. Thomas Jackson: I'm just curious why it took so long for him to make an appearance, especially after Grant and Forrest came in so early.

8. Don Carlos Buell: How does he become a good general? He was a great organizer, and planner, but when it came to battle he was just terrible. Hell, he barely beat Braxton Bragg in OTL, one of the worst generals of the war. How can he compete with Forrest and Longstreet?

9. George B. McClellan: Same as Buell, how does he compete with Longstreet and such.

10. James Longstreet: As a lot of people have already mentioned, the whole town burning thing.

11. I have a feeling that your going to explain a lot of the differences with the people as just butterflies. But if they're historical people, then they have the same parents, and odds are they'll pretty much the same childhoods and experiences as before; their personalities and such should be if not similar the same; especially since its only 30 years or so since the POD, so things are really diluted enough for people to be polar opposites or anything like that. Technically you could put it up to butterflies, but I don't think that's really explaining anything.

On a lighter note, I think you've done a really good job on the 1880s and 1890s, and I absolutely LOVE what you've done with Europe. I'm definitely subscribing to the timeline

 

[jycee]

11. I have a feeling that your going to explain a lot of the differences with the people as just butterflies. But if they're historical people, then they have the same parents, and odds are they'll pretty much the same childhoods and experiences as before; their personalities and such should be if not similar the same; especially since its only 30 years or so since the POD, so things are really diluted enough for people to be polar opposites or anything like that. Technically you could put it up to butterflies, but I don't think that's really explaining anything.

On a lighter note, I think you've done a really good job on the 1880s and 1890s, and I absolutely LOVE what you've done with Europe. I'm definitely subscribing to the timeline

In some cases, such as Lee, Wilcox did mention the differences in their career and lives. With the Mexican-American War occurring earlier (10 years) people like Lee and Grant didn't start their careers until the Oregon War. This was was fought in the North, afterwards Lee worked as an engineer in the transcontinental railroad (a much Northern project in TTL). Over all in the years between 1846 and 1860. It is likely Lee barely lived within Virginia.

And when it does rebel, he saw Vandalia (West Virginia) as the true Virgina. With a shorter military career prior to the war, and a more political post during the war, it is easily understood why he became political.

My guess is many other suffered similar career changes from the 1840s onwards that affected them in the same way.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

In some cases, such as Lee, Wilcox did mention the differences in their career and lives. With the Mexican-American War occurring earlier (10 years) people like Lee and Grant didn't start their careers until the Oregon War. This was was fought in the North, afterwards Lee worked as an engineer in the transcontinental railroad (a much Northern project in TTL). Over all in the years between 1846 and 1860. It is likely Lee barely lived within Virginia.

And when it does rebel, he saw Vandalia (West Virginia) as the true Virgina. With a shorter military career prior to the war, and a more political post during the war, it is easily understood why he became political.

My guess is many other suffered similar career changes from the 1840s onwards that affected them in the same way.

Lee barely lived in Virginia in OTL; between fighting in Mexico, serving as superintendent at West Point, and serving on the Texan frontier, his only extended stay in Virginia after the early 1840s was the three years before the war, and even then he repeatedly left because he never left the military. Lee was 21 when this POD happened, and it would take several years for it to have any effect. Most of Lee's opinions are formed by now. And I looked back, and a reason that Lee decided to betray Virginia was that Fort Monroe was in U.S. hands, and because he helped construct it in TTL, it helped convince him to stay. He helped build it in OTL too during the 1830s, and it was also taken early in the war in OTL as well. Why would it suddenly mean so much to him in TTL? And Vandalia didn't come into being until 1864 until 1864 in TTL, well after Lee made his decision. It just doesn't make sense to me that Lee would be a completely different person.

 

[wilcoxchar]

I just finished reading your timeline, and I have some questions.

Thanks for the interest in my timeline Rooster. I'll try to address your points. A lot of it though is mostly a case of either me overlooking something or me not putting much thought into the specific person chosen for the role.

1. Jackson is more outwardly for lower tariffs ITTL because he realizes that he doesn't actually need to be as vague on the tariff issue in order to win the election. New England and the Mid-Atlantic are pretty much going to Adams in 1828 anyway, and Jackson pretty much has the solid support of the South and Old Northwest. And my main POD was to avoid the Nullification Crisis escalating as much as it did, so having Jackson be more openly supportive of lower tariffs was mostly a means to an end. I had forgotten about the Petticoat Affair though. However, IMO with the Nullification Crisis being less heated, I think that Jackson would have kept Calhoun on the ticket. And Calhoun would have stayed because he would be the Democratic frontrunner after Jackson or, as ended up happening and as you said, become president if Jackson were killed.

2. Lee stays an engineer for longer instead of becoming a general, and has more of an off-screen military career including becoming Chief of the Army Corps of Engineers. When I talked about Lee betraying Virginia, it was also partially because his birthplace of Stratford Hall was kept in Union hands. And with secession being over a constitutional crisis, I think Lee would be less willing to jump the gun and join the Confederacy.

3. I am less familiar with Grant's personal history here so my argument might be a bit off, and this was mostly a case of just picking a general without much thought. However, Grant was only 6 years old at the time of the POD and, with him likely fighting in the Oregon War instead of the Mexican-American War, his life is going to be pretty different. Perhaps it's as simple as he doesn't resign from the army in 1854, or maybe it's something more complicated. I'm actually not really sure how Grant got to where he did ITTL, but I can't go into detail about the history of everyone I mention in the timeline or I wouldn't get anywhere.

4. I probably should have discussed the tensions between the North and the South over slavery during the 1850s more, but I couldn't thing of any good specifics about it to add to the TL that wouldn't just be parallels of OTL. The National War was a result of growing tensions between the North and the South, but Houston's death provided a much larger trigger than the election of Lincoln did in OTL. When it looked like Seward was going to win the election and Republicans had control of Congress, a lot of Southern aristocrats knew that time was only favoring the abolitionists. So in a sense the secession was out of panic, and as some of the other readers mentioned a while back it is seen nowadays as more of a power grab than an attempt to preserve their ideology.

5. Fremont was a radical, but when you get elected President you tend to moderate your views somewhat now that you're seen as the representative of all the poeple in the United States and are suddenly accountable to the entire country. Also, Fremont would have understood that he needed to tone his plans down in order to work with Congress and get some reform passed.

6. Just because Forrest is from a country that stayed in the Union doesn't mean he's automatically going to be loyal to them. Looking at his Wiki article, in 1841 he went to work with his uncle in Mississippi. Maybe he stays there. Another possibility is that like Simon Bolivar Buckner in OTL, he joins the Confederacy despite his state remaining with the Union. And I don't have him commanding one of the major Confederate armies at first; he first appears only commanding a corps in the Army of Northern Virginia.

7, 8, 9, and 10 are mostly because of butterflies. I didn't really do much research on their success and personalities as the POD is IMO far back enough to have sufficient effect. If the point of divergence can make Walt Whitman go into politics, is it really that implausible to have military leaders' skills adjusted somewhat? For these it was also mostly a case of sipmly needing someone to fill the role and not really wanting to have a fictional person.

I just finished reading your timeline, On a lighter note, I think you've done a really good job on the 1880s and 1890s, and I absolutely LOVE what you've done with Europe. I'm definitely subscribing to the timeline

Thanks! Great to have you on board.