Washington Burns: A Story of Alternate America


For Geneviere thats quite bad but from standard history and even compared to the modern world now that isn't so surprising. I can see how that fits.

For the monarchies I think I'm mixing up timeline details(my fault for reading nearly a dozen at once) I was thinking Italy and a larger portion of the Balkans went republican. My bad, going to give it a re-read now

Though I thought of Prussia and Russia as the 'odd ones out' mainly in the way that they are finding themselves to be the major conservative states with Communalist France/South Germany and Liberal and Aloof Britain being more leftwards then OTL
 
For Geneviere thats quite bad but from standard history and even compared to the modern world now that isn't so surprising. I can see how that fits.

For the monarchies I think I'm mixing up timeline details(my fault for reading nearly a dozen at once) I was thinking Italy and a larger portion of the Balkans went republican. My bad, going to give it a re-read now

Though I thought of Prussia and Russia as the 'odd ones out' mainly in the way that they are finding themselves to be the major conservative states with Communalist France/South Germany and Liberal and Aloof Britain being more leftwards then OTL

Is it really that different from OTL, Prussia and Imperial Russia being the major conservative states?
I’ll grant you that Britain is leaning farther left than OTL, but Prussia was always more conservative.
 
Working on the next few updates. Trying to map things farther out. I have a rough outline extending nearly to the 1960s, with lots of gaps to still fill in of course. Had some questions:

- In regards to developments in South America, I was considering finding away to save Grand Colombia. From a cursory reading, it looks like one of the biggest setbacks was two "larger than life" competing figures who couldn't agree in the end and the whole thing fell apart. If one of them dies (I was thinking Simon Bolivar), maybe Colombia could survive? As of right now I was seeing Brazil as becoming and remaining an Empire, but I'm not holding fast to that, so open to input and also more research on my own.

- Looking at a financial crisis comparable to the 1929 crash happening under the Hannah administration. The thoughts here are that European markets crash first (delayed reaction after the tumult of the Great European War and war-related loans coming due with people/governments unable to pay). This cascades and hits the US. With increased spending due to social programs and things like the Federal Bureau of Improvements and the road and rail networks, the government takes a beating as does the economy. This will ultimately lead to a Nationalist win in 1918, with calls for shrinking the government and all-around austerity...which will stabilize some things but not unemployment. ALL that to say...does that sound plausible? My knowledge there isn't the strongest so I wanted to put that out there before I start writing in detail in case it needs to be fixed/overhauled/chunked, etc.

- Further down the road, what would happen with the zionist movement and Israel? There will be no Holocaust ITTL, and while I could see increased Jewish settlement in the region, I'm not sure of an independent state as in OTL.

- Also further down the road...this TL has had an earlier starting point for equality movements in the United States and elsewhere (and in my mind is becoming one of the hallmarks of the story). That said, what do you all think would be the earliest realistic time for the expanded rights for women (I'm thinking something along the lines of the still-unpassed Equal Rights Amendment in the US, maybe a female President or at least VP), along with LGBT rights as well? For some context about the outline as it stands now, there WILL be a global war in the 1930s that will involve America and Europe and possibly Asia (still too early to tell), and it will end with a renewed call for internationalism and peace in the 1940s. I was contemplating at least a female American VP in the 1960s (and maybe a female PM in the UK in the late 1950s as well...for that matter Britain will not have a King on the throne until the 1940s). As for LGBT rights, I was thinking of some equivalent of Stonewall in the 1950s or early 60s as well. Also, we might see a liberalization of such issues coming from the Union of European Republics and the communalist movement worldwide, and that could also have an effect around the world. And if something like that did occur, maybe the state of LGBT rights ITTL would arrive at approximately what we have now in the West in the 1980s or 1990s?
 
What is going on with Texas and Mexico during the late 19th Century?

Good question, and one I’m hoping to flesh out for one of the next updates. At this point, I have some notions about Texas, but California and Mexico really need to be fleshed out more. Open to suggestions of course.

If Grand Colombia survives ITTL, then that will likely factor into Mexico’s progress I think. They weren’t in the best condition when I last took a look at them in the 1840s.

Texas will have benefited from the German immigration since the 1840s, with various big bumps helping that out. That and trade with the United States, especially once oil is discovered.

California....really not sure yet. Same with Hawaii if we are being honest. I think the discovery of gold will help bolster California’s claims to independence, and they may play the US and Britain/Borealia against one another for favorable treatment.
In my head, the Western mountainous region of North America, OTL Nevada, Western Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona remain even more sparsely populated and underdeveloped than OTL.
 
Yeah it might be. I'm looking into it. Gotta determine what will happen with Mexico first and work South :)

They could even take advantage of Mexican weakness and absorb Los Altos into the country. Gran Columbia is a big enough boogeyman to justify sticking in one piece.

If you want to go full Mexi-screw you could say that a filibuster had actually managed to succeed in carving off a piece of Mexican territory. Or that the Republic of the Rio Grande had succeeded in gaining independence.

There are lots of things you could potentially have happen to Mexico.
 
Last edited:
Brazil was a major holdout for slavery ITTL. Maybe the die-hard Dixians could move there to keep it their kind of country. Heck, maybe they could land in the Southern Region, then later declare independence once Brazil tries to modernise. Then, if the US takes up arms against their own, it could be a big step away from isolationism.
 
Also, depending on just how progressive they really are, the Communalists might set up a Jewish Republic in some undermanned spot in the country. Perhaps in an effort to beef up their German border.
 
They could even take advantage of Mexican weakness and absorb Los Altos into the country. Gran Columbia is a big enough boogeyman to justify sticking in one piece.

If you want to go full Mexi-screw you could say that a filibuster had actually managed to succeed in carving off a piece of Mexican territory. Or that the Republic of the Rio Grande had succeeded in gaining independence.

There are lots of things you could potentially have happen to Mexico.

Well when we left Mexico off in the 1840s, it was still an empire, forced to adopt a new constitution in 1850. My prediction is that by 1860 the Empire collapses and a new republic is established.

I’m thinking California may remain a little closer to Mexico, where as Texas is firmly in America’s orbit

I do think that between a belligerent Mexico in the 1830s and 1840s and the continued existence of a United Colombia, the idea that the Federal republic of Central America surviving is much more plausible.

Brazil was a major holdout for slavery ITTL. Maybe the die-hard Dixians could move there to keep it their kind of country. Heck, maybe they could land in the Southern Region, then later declare independence once Brazil tries to modernise. Then, if the US takes up arms against their own, it could be a big step away from isolationism.

Yeah Brazil is definitely going to be a holdout on the slavery issue. By 1908, when the Dixians arrive, it will have been abolished, but only a decade or so prior. The Dixians likely will fit in well with some of the elite, and will definitely be a factor that will make things interesting. That’s a neat idea about US assistance/intervention in Brazil like that. I’ll keep that in mind.

Also, depending on just how progressive they really are, the Communalists might set up a Jewish Republic in some undermanned spot in the country. Perhaps in an effort to beef up their German border.

Hmm. Possibly.
My idea for the earlier years of the UER is that the communalists will be obsessed with cultural harmony and assimilation, seeking to obliterate separate French and German identities (hence their attempts at establishing a “universal language”). This is going to flop, and be repudiated by the 1930s or 1940s.

If anything, this policy could see a wave of Jewish emigration from the UER.
 
Chapter 21: Wider World Gazette, Edition 4: 1820-1915 Spain, Mexico, Central America, and South America
Wider World Gazette

Edition 4: 1820-1915, Spain, Mexico, Central America, and South America

Spain -
History more or less followed its normal course in Spain, and in former Spanish America, until the mid 1820s, early 1830s. In 1829, King Ferdinand VII’s brother is killed in an accident. When Ferdinand VII dies in 1837 with no male children, he has his 7 year old daughter, Isabella, declared his heir. Her mother, Maria, reigns as Queen Regent until 1848. Maria and then Isabella II will bring about slow, incremental reforms to help liberalize and stabilize the country. By the time Isabella dies in 1901 and her son takes the throne as King Ferdinand VIII, Spain has become a strongly constitutional monarchy. While the monarch does still rule, not just reign, the powers of the parliament have grown rapidly as the 20th century begins. While sympathetic to the French, King Ferdinand VIII is blocked by parliament from actually intervening in the Great European War, and then looks on in alarm as the French monarchy flees to Corsica and France itself is consumed by Communalism. A red scare sweeps across Spain in the 1910s, making the monarchy very unpopular with more liberal and left-leaning citizens.

Mexico - Forced to adopt a more liberal constitution in 1850, the Empire of Mexico was in a tough spot. Emperor Raul II, who had taken the throne in 1842 after the death of his father, refused to abide by the Constitution, but could not stop it, so he abdicated in favor of his eldest son, Jorge, who became Emperor Jorge I. Just 22, he had a bright future, but was cut down by illness. His brother, Raul, became Raul III, and would reign from 1851 until 1898. In the 1870s, Raul III normalized relations with both Texas and California, and helped foster private investment from abroad and at home. His son took the throne in 1898 as Jorge II, and would continue his father’s policies of good relations with Mexico’s northern neighbors (things to the south were much more tense). Jorge II’s first born child was Princess Gabriella, born in 1871. His only son came along in 1873, Prince Raul. The prince was originally raised to be the heir, but by 1905 Jorge had a falling out with his son, who he felt was too reckless and fond of the military, and so changed the succession. Publically, Raul accepted the change, but in reality, he plotted against his father and sister. When Jorge II died in 1913 and Gabriella was declared Empress, Raul declared himself Emperor Raul IV. His rebellion would last until 1921, and Mexico would be forever weakened after it.

Central America - The Federal Republic of Central America was established along OTL lines, with Francisco Morazan elected President in 1830. He tempers his reforms and compromises more, placing unity of the Federal Republic as his first priority since the nation was sandwiched between Mexico and Colombia. Mexico, in particular, was belligerent, and there were constantly rumors along the border that Imperial forces had plans for expanding southwards. As a result, Morazan keeps the peace better with conservatives and is slower to enact more liberal reforms. The OTL cholera outbreak of 1837 does not occur, also alleviating pressure on the federal system. A conservative, pro-Church candidate won the election of 1838, further helping to stabilize the country, even if more liberal voices were being pushed to the side. In 1842, Liberals once again captured the presidency, in large part due to fear of Imperial Mexico, which many believed the conservatives had a soft spot for. Things were tense until the 1850s, when Mexico reformed and the liberal ideas first espoused by President Morazan in the 1830s were realized. By the late 1880s, the FRCA had become an important regional trade partner. In 1891, The US and Borealia teamed up with the FRCA to help finance the Central American Canal, to be built in the southernmost state of Nicaragua. Construction begain in 1899, and would be completed in 1915, after many delays due to wider world events.
The building of the canal would spur the Colombians to finally realize their own dream of building a canal across Panama, which would be started in 1904, and expected to be finished in 1917, financed initially by European powers and then by Mexico and Brazil as Europe dealt with their financial woes after the Great European War.

Colombia - What we would refer to OTL as Gran Colombia, established in 1821, survives into the present. In 1823, President Simon Bolivar dies in a tragic accident. His Vice President (and later OTL rival) Francisco de Paula Santander becomes President. He oversees a regionalist constitutional overhaul in 1825, a compromise document between his federalists and the old Bolivarian centralists. It redefined the presidency as a single, 7 year term (modeled after the American system). Santander was elected, and served until 1833. With Brazil gaining independence to the south, and Mexico flexing its muscle to the north, there was enough common ground to keep the divisions between the regionalists and the centralists to a minimum. Where as Mexico and the FRCA became more conservative, the Republic of Colombia became a haven for Latin American leftism. The first communalist organization in South America was established in Colombia in 1870, and the political ideology became quite popular. Following the success of the revolutions in Europe during the Great European War, the Colombian Communalist Party has been on the ascent, and most expect it to capture the presidency in the 1916 election.

Brazil - Things in Brazil follow OTL history until the late 1820s. Portuguese King John IV does not die in 1826, but instead manages to live until 1831. By this time, his eldest son Dom Pedro I of Brazil has dropped all claim to the Portuguese throne, so his brother Miguel takes the throne instead. Miguel becomes King Miguel I, and will reign in Portugal until his death in 1868. Pedro I will rule in Brazil until his death in 1857. He is succeeded by his daughter, Maria, who will reign in Brazil until 1900, when she dies at the age of 71. Pedro and the Brazilian parliament went back and forth for years about the powers of the monarchy and the legislature, but he eventually gave way to a more liberal constitution in 1842 which granted the legislature the right to appoint the government ministry in the name of the Emperor, but Pedro retained the right to dismiss a cabinet after a year if he felt they proved to be inadequate. The biggest cause Pedro championed, yet failed to bring about, was abolition of slavery. Pedro I was able to end the trans-Atlantic slave trade in 1851, But abolition was still quite a ways off. Manumission laws were reformed and liberalized in 1861 and then again in 1869, so that by 1890, only an approximate 10% of the population was enslaved. Under tremendous pressure, the Brazilian parliament voted in 1892 to abolish slavery and free any remaining slaves by the end of 1895.
Emancipation did not mean liberty, however. With several influxes of Dixians from America (known locally as Dixianados), there remained a strong political resistance to equality and legal representation for the freemen of color in Brazil. Universal citizenship wasn’t guaranteed until 1904, during the short, 5 year rule of Maria I’s son, Pedro II. The next Emperor of Brazil, Alexander I, maintained a more conservative line, trying to placate the old planter class, the Dixianados, and other white minorities. It would not be until the reign of Alexander’s daughter, Maria II, that true equality would begin to emerge in Brazil, and then only as an act of survival.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not perfect by any means, but I figured this would be a good starting points. Definitely open to edits, especially where things aren't realistic enough if anyone notices anything. About to be on Christmas Break, and will hopefully hammer out the next regular update during that time if all goes according to plan.
 
Last edited:
*bump*

Any thoughts on Latin and South America?
My experience with Latin/South America, historical or otherwise:
  • They speak Spanish and Portugese down there.
  • They really aren't fans of the US.
  • They've had more then a few dictators and wars.
So I can't really speak to the matter.
 
A few thoughts: :)
Central america has the possibility to develop much better than OTL.
Mexico even if weakened by the revolt, will be better off.
Miguel I ruling in Portugal until 1868, means an absolutist regime until then, and a risk of great internal polarization*, since OTL, liberal ideas penetrated easily among a good portion of the population.
Regarding the Dixians in Brazil, I feel that "Dixianos" is a better adaptation, but I defer to a Brazilian member that thinks otherwise.

*Although I don't think the Communalists would have much success given the small landholding nature of much of Portugal.
 
My experience with Latin/South America, historical or otherwise:
  • They speak Spanish and Portugese down there.
  • They really aren't fans of the US.
  • They've had more then a few dictators and wars.
So I can't really speak to the matter.

I'm not much better off myself, which is why I asked :)

A few thoughts: :)
Central america has the possibility to develop much better than OTL.
Mexico even if weakened by the revolt, will be better off.
Miguel I ruling in Portugal until 1868, means an absolutist regime until then, and a risk of great internal polarization*, since OTL, liberal ideas penetrated easily among a good portion of the population.
Regarding the Dixians in Brazil, I feel that "Dixianos" is a better adaptation, but I defer to a Brazilian member that thinks otherwise.

*Although I don't think the Communalists would have much success given the small landholding nature of much of Portugal.

Agreed about Central America, along with Mexico.

Yes, Portugal will be in an interesting position in the modern era. I will need to spend a little time working up how Miguel I and his reign will affect the peninsula.
Dixianos.....yeah I think you might be right. I'll mull on it unless we hear something more definitive. I came up with that based on the OTL "Confederados" that moved to Brazil after the Confederacy lost.
 
So I've been working on the next regular update, which will cover events from 1913-1919. This update will mark 100 years since the PoD in August of 1814 with the destruction of Washington, D.C., and I was wondering whether or not this event's anniversary would be marked in-timeline. The site of old Washington City has been a state park since 1889 (well, the ruins of the Capitol, anyway....the White House will remain private property until the 1920s).

I considered the possibility of the federal government taking over the site from the state of Maryland (there has been a National Historical Institute in place since 1895). Maybe this kicks off the creation of some sort of analogue to the National Register of Historic Places OTL?
And if there is some sort of official ceremony, how big should it be? Would the President attend? The British Ambassador (or maybe the Prime Minister or Crown Princess -- who will be Queen in a few years)?

Or would this be an anniversary that people would rather ignore? Since the 1860s Britain and the US have had good, friendly relations. A sitting US President has travelled to London, and Queen Victoria II visited the United States in 1901 and actually visited old Washington, so maybe a ceremony in 1914 wouldn't be necessary?

Thoughts?
 
Top