The Bay's larger size makes it trickier to figure out exactly where the capital would be located. It'd still be a good compromise location, other than OTL Toronto, for the capital. It'd certainly be one of the better locations for building an entirely fresh city for the capital, ironically giving Canada its own Washington. It'd open up Toronto to still be named Toronto.
Washington Burns: A Story of Alternate America
- Thread starter Eckener
- Start date
The Bay's larger size makes it trickier to figure out exactly where the capital would be located. It'd still be a good compromise location, other than OTL Toronto, for the capital. It'd certainly be one of the better locations for building an entirely fresh city for the capital, ironically giving Canada its own Washington. It'd open up Toronto to still be named Toronto.
Pfft we don't need Toronto
Torontonians sounds ridiculous in the time line they would be Victorians which sounds way better.
You could have the Yukon take to North eastern portions of modern BC perhaps that could boost their population enough to become a province and then have the rest of BC become Cascadia
The idea of the *Canadians building their own "Washington" appeals to me, but York/Toronto/Victoria is a good candidate too. It would be more centrally located that Montreal or Ottawa.
Well, I'm thinking that Cascadia would be OTL eastern Washington plus part of southern OTL BC. not exactly sure of the boundaries yet.
Personally I would try to make the boundaries as close to the Cascadian Bioregion as possible and then have a lot of the Cultural imagery center around the awesomeness that is temperate rainforests but I also would have gone for including more of the Bioregion into British territory and just denied the Amercans a West coast all together.
Chapter 6: The War Between the States, 1860-1862
The early 1860s (1860-1862)
1860:
1861:
1862:
What the future holds.....that is still up for debate. The short version: it is likely to be messy and complicated and the Philadelphia Conference probably won't please everyone (or maybe anyone), and we may need revisions and new compromises down the road. But no more civil war.
EDIT: Once I get the post war settlement taken care of and get us to about 1870, I want to take some time to deal with events in the wider world. I've already hinted that Victoria, while still being Queen by this point, is a different person basically, having had her father in there life until she is 20 and not having to deal with all the drama of her mother's overbearingness. She also won't be marrying Albert ITTL. But that is just one change, and there are bound to be many more, and I am more than open to suggestions.
I don't think I will go into AS much detail with the international side of the TL for now, and probably just write up brief summaries and highlights of the most important events going on, but as we get closer and closer to the end of the 19th century, we will need to start bringing in other countries and how they are interacting with the United States.
1860:
- January 17: The Union government announces that the 1860 census will still be conducted, but that states in rebellion will not be counted. The Confederation, for its part, plans to wait until after the war to conduct a census.
- February 9: Draft riots grip Philadelphia. The state militia is called up to help maintain order, but with strict orders not to fire on the protestors unless they cause damage or harm. Things devolve for several hours before order is restored. Several small fires break out, and 12 people are killed.
- February 12: Governor Jonathan Kent of Pennsylvania announces that his state will not be sending their volunteers to fight, and tells those that had signed up that they were free to return home if they wished. Many do, but about ⅓ of the volunteers stay, believing Pennsylvania may need defending.
- March 10: Newly trained recruits in Kentucky are put on trains near Franklin, with orders to head east and reinforce New York. General Gains is planning on a new Spring offensive to drive at Albany, at the same time the Navy has been regrouping in Virginia and there is talk of a second assault on Boston.
- March 13: Pennsylvania State Militia block the Union troop trains at the state border, on orders from Governor Kent. After a 12 hour standoff, President Hawthorne sends orders for the Militia to stand down or be fired upon. They refuse, and the Union troops open fire, and the militia retaliate. After the exchange, 129 men lay dead, another 87 wounded. Pennsylvania and the wider nation are shocked.
- March 15: Governor Kent sends a message to the Pennsylvania congressional delegation that they should flee Franklin with all do haste.
- March 16: Pennsylvania votes to “no longer acknowledge the legitimacy of President Hawthorne as leader of the United States, as he and his administration have turned from democracy to tyranny.”
- March 18: Ohio, following the example of Pennsylvania, announces that it does not recognize Hawthorne as President. Many expect that both states will join the Confederation, but no such moves have yet been taken.
- March 19: President Hawthorne orders any delegate from either state still in Franklin to be arrested. Most have already fled, and only three men, 2 congressmen from Pennsylvania are detained, and one of Ohio’s senators. By the end of the month, Indiana and Illinois will follow suit by the end of the month.
- March 27: President Hawthorne orders extra recruits to be added to the Presidential Guard, to secure the city of Franklin. There is now a growing fear that Ohio will try to strike the District of Washington, or that they will invite troops from the CAS to attack the Union capital.
- April 2: Ohio Governor Benjamin Allen suggests that the newly rebelling states assemble their congressional delegations together and “reconstitute the government of the United States, as we are not breaking away from the Union, but trying to preserve it from tyranny.” Pennsylvania agrees and offers to host this “congress in exile” in Philadelphia.
- April 9: Iowa breaks with Hawthorne and the Union.
- April 27: Congressmen and Senators from newly rebelling states gather in Philadelphia and call to order the “Philadelphia Conference,” to nail out what their states are going to do. It is quickly decided that these 5 states would not join the Confederation, but instead fight Hawthorne and attempt to break the Slaver yoke on the nation. They eventually agree to establish what amounts to a rival Union government, following the US Constitution.
- May 3: The members of the House vote to make Hugo Brandt Speaker of the House and First Secretary.
- May 4: Declaring, according to the Presidential Succession Act of 1792, that the Presidency, Vice Presidency, and President of the Senate having been vacated, the “Philadelphia Congress” names newly elected First Secretary Hugo Brandt as “Acting President of the United States.” In his address to the Congress, Acting President Brandt coins the unofficial name of the 5 rebel states, saying, “The Free States of America shall prevail against the tyranny of the Slavers and the radicalism of the Federalist Confederacy.”
- May 10: President Hawthorne orders troops to march from Franklin to Columbus to capture the Ohio state government.
- May 16: Battle of Wilmington: Ohio militia clash with Union troops marching on Columbus. The militia suffers heavy losses, but so do the Union troops, who stop their advance on Columbus.
- May 19: A bomb explodes at the entrance of Washington House. The building only suffered superficial damage, and the President is unharmed, but 6 Guardsmen are killed.
- May 22: President Hawthorne announces that, until the current crisis passed, that he and the cabinet would be relocating to Atlanta. Half of the 4,000 strong Presidential Guard will remain in the capital, the rest will stay with the President in Atlanta. General Gains only learns of this decision after the fact, and is very vocally opposed, saying in a letter that “the symbolism of the rightful President of these United States evacuating the capital sends the wrong message both to the rebels and to our own loyal citizens.”
- May 29: The Union Congress votes to relocate with the President to Atlanta until the war with the rebels ends.
- June 8: Francis Portman, the brother of the Confederal President, is appointed as a liaison between the Confederal government in Concord and the Philadelphia Congress.
- June 19: Battle of Albany: General Gains attempts for a second time to take the capital of New York, hoping that capturing that city would bring New York out of the Confederation and maybe put enough fear in the New England states to bring an end to the rebellion. However, Confederal forces throw everything they have at the advancing Union Army, and are able to prevent Gains from taking the city, though there is fighting in the outskirts and several fires break out that do great harm to the city.
- June 27: Counties in western Virginia revolt against the Republican majority state government, refusing to allow army officers to come in and recruit or draft men to the service. Several of the county leaders have started discussing declaring for either the Confederation or the Free States (mostly the Free States, which are Democrat-dominated).
- July 3: George Hawkins returns to the Confederation from Great Britain with a mixed message: They find slavery abhorrent and wish to see it end in America. But they aren’t convinced that full military involvement would be wise. For now, they promise to allow New England merchants to have unrestricted access to British markets to purchase whatever goods they want, including war materials.
- July 4: Under orders from President Hawthorne, the main fleet of the US Navy is to re blockade Boston, having been back in New York helping maintain order there. Unfortunately for Hawthorne, a good third of the men in the fleet are New Englanders, and they launch a mutiny once the fleet is out of New York, in what becomes known as the Battle of Long Island. In the end, some ten ships are sunk (some rebel, some not), but 23 ships are able to break off and sail for Rhode Island to declare loyalty to the Confederation. The remainder of the ships sail back to New York.
- July 20: President Hawthorne sacks General Gains, due in large part to the failures to take Albany, and recent reports of unrest and sniping going on in New York City. In his place, Hawthorne appoints Peter Matthews of Alabama to take up the head of the Union Armies. Matthews takes over in New York.
- July 27: An explosion rocks New York, as rebels had infiltrated the city and planted charges at the new Union munitions depot. In retaliation for the attack, General Matthews orders the destruction of the whole of Manhattan and Brooklyn. Private citizens are driven from their homes, and the city is set ablaze in what is known as the New York Massacre. The nation is shocked by the brutality. Hawthorne is tempted to recall Matthews, but doesn’t want to send a message that the leadership of the Union Army is out of control.
- August 10: In reaction to the destruction of New York City, the western counties of Virginia declare independence from the state, drafting a constitution for “Appalachia” and send delegates to Philadelphia requesting that the state be allowed to join the Free States.
- August 19: Preempting a vote in Kentucky to join the Free State Alliance in the wake of the New York Massacre, the Union Third Army is used to occupy the state capital at Frankfort, and also the larger cities of Lexington and Louisville.
- August 27: In a narrow vote, Missouri votes to join the Free State Alliance.
- September 1: Acting President Brandt signs legislation formally establishing the Army of the Alliance, combining the state militias with troops that have fled the Union plus volunteers. At the head of this Army is newly minted General Nathaniel Wilburn of Indiana. Plans are in the works to liberate Kentucky and “take back” the city of Franklin.
- September 29: President Portman arrives secretly in Philadelphia to meet with acting President Brandt. After several days of negotiations, they announce the so-called “Brandt-Portman Accords,” stating that the CAS and the FSA would work together to see the defeat of Hawthorne’s government, and that once the war was over a more permanent agreement about the future of the nation would be decided upon, but for now, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
- October 19: Clash between the Union and Confederal Navy off the coast of Connecticut ends in a draw. Boston remains open to trade. British goods are pouring in, also coming down from Michigan into the Free States, and the cities of Detroit in West Michigan and Milwaukee in East Michigan boom with business and trade, as does the Free State city of Chicago, which sits just on the American side of the US-British border.
- November 8: President Portman, upon hearing rumors that there wa a lot of discontent among the native people living in both the Native Nations District and also in Kanasaw territory, proposes a plan to get the inhabitants of both territories to rise up in rebellion. Under the Confederal constitution, no discrimination or legal distinction could be made based on race, and Portman felt this might cause the natives to rise up on the side of the Confederation, since such policies were still to radical for the Democrat-dominated Alliance. However, with such distance between these territories and the Confederation, Portman is convinced by his cabinet that the Free States should be consulted. At the same time, there are several members of the Confederal Congress that believe that the best way to bring down Hawthorne’s Union would be to create a slave uprising across the South, something that would force the Hawthorn to pull troops away from the war in the North to try and take care of.
1861:
- February 9: Acting President Brandt is given the proposal from Portman and the Confederation to help create a native uprising in the West. Brandt is reportedly supportive, but unsure how practical the idea is.
- March 1: FSA army launches an attack on Franklin.
- March 10: Presidential Guard flees south to regroup with soldiers in Frankfort, 80 miles south. Much of the fighting in the so-called “Battle of Franklin” took place outside the city itself, and there is only minor damage to the city proper. This is considered a major victory for the combined rebel forces of the FSA and the CAS. There is discussion about moving the FSA capital to Franklin, but the government holds off
- March 31: Battle of Frankfort: Nearly 7,000 FSA soldiers clash with 6,000 Union soldiers. After two days of fighting, the Union retreats, but both sides suffer heavy losses. The Union troops regroup in Lexington, but there is an unforeseen consequence of the FSA invasion: Kentuckians across the state rise up in rebellion against the Union.
- April 7: Lexington Uprising begins: Locals begin a coordinated attack on Union forces in the city. In the first three days, the Union has the upper hand, but then the FSA sends troops, and it turns into an all out battle. In the end, the soldiers in Lexington surrender, a huge blow to the Union.
- April 17: Acting President Brandt dispatches agents to visit the Native Nations District and find out how plausible it would be to get them to rebel against the Union.
- April 20: Union Fleet once again sets sail to blockade Boston. With the Confederal Navy still repairing after the last major clash, the Union is successful this time in setting up a tight net around Boston, closing the city off from trade.
- May 1st: Second Battle of Albany. General Matthews is successful, where his predecessor had not been. Albany falls, and several members of the New York government are captured, including the Lt. Governor and the Speaker of the Assembly. The remainder of the government flees west to Utica, but they are now mostly cut off from the rest of the Confederation.
- May 20: Troops from Louisville are ordered to march east and retake Frankfort and Lexington.
- May 25: FSA troops stop the Union advance from Louisville at the battle of Shelbyville. The battle itself is more of a stalemate, but while the troops were out of Louisville, the city rose up in rebellion and cast off the small guard that had remained in the city. With nowhere left to go back to, the Union troops try to fight on to victory.
- May 29: The so-called Army of Kentucky surrenders to the Alliance Army.
- July 4: Acting President Brandt makes a surprise visit to Franklin, where he announces his intention to move the FSA capital to the District of Washington as soon as possible now that Kentucky had been more or less liberated.
- July 15: Sinking of the S.S. Bombay, a British merchant ship that had been attempting to run the Union blockade of Boston to deliver military supplies. Britain is outraged.
- August 8: Britain announces that it is sending ships to “protect trade in the Americas.” It is widely expected that they intend to open the Port of Boston.
- August 10: The FSA Congress votes to move the capital from Philadelphia to Franklin.
- September 2: The special agents sent out by Brandt return with envoys from the Native Nations District. The Native tribes are willing to rise up against the Union, provided the FSA promises to grant the District more territory, and to make it a full state in the new, post-war nation, with the ability to organize its territory internally along Tribal lines, but be granted senators and representatives in Congress just like every other state. Brandt personally agrees, and drafts a proposal to send to Congress. The agents report that they had heard from tribes in Kanasaw, but had yet to get any concrete answers. The natives there wanted to wait and see what happened to the Native Nations District.
- September 9: British warships arrive off the coast of Massachusetts, protecting a convoy of merchant vessels bound for Boston. Three days of a tense stand off occurs between the Royal and Union navies.
- September 12: Union ships open fire on British ships as they attempt to pass into Boston. The British flotilla responds on orders to sink any Union ship in their sights. The Battle of Boston Harbor commences. The Blockade is broken, and dozens of Union vessels are sunk.
- September 19: In response to the attack on Boston Harbor, President Hawthorne delivers an ultimatum to the British: Pay damages, surrender the commander of the British flotilla, and stop all trade with the CAS and FSA, or face war.
- October 10: The Native Nations Statehood Act is presented to the FSA Congress, in the first meeting since the move to Franklin. It is considered a placeholder bill. It states that, following the war, the NND would be granted unique statehood if the district joined the rebellion against Hawthorne.
- November 9: Britain’s answer reaches Atlanta: No deal.
- November 10: the NNSA is passed by the FSA Congress and signed by Brandt. This had all been done in near secret.
- November 12: President Hawthorne addresses Congress, asking for a declaration of War against Great Britain. Britain has not been idle since September. Troops have been sent to Upper and Lower Canada, and also to Michigan, and more ships have joined those of the initial, so-called “Boston Flotilla.”
- November 19: British officials meet with counterparts from the CAS to discuss strategy. Plans are put in place to liberate New York in the Spring. In the meantime, the British launch a blockade of New York Harbor, cutting off General Matthews from aide by sea.
- December 2: The British government announces that they are officially recognizing the government of the Confederation, and also announce that they are recognizing the Alliance government now occupying Franklin as the legitimate government of the United States, and that the Union ambassador is to be expelled from the country.
- December 10: The Native Uprising begins, and aide quickly comes in from the FSA along the Mississippi River.
1862:
- January 3: The Kanasaw Territorial Legislature votes to declare for the FSA, and sends militiamen to assist in the Native Uprising.
- January 28: A slave by the name of Joshua Black, working as a “house slave” in Mississippi, starts a rebellion on his plantation near the Native Nations District, having received guns and munitions from the Natives. Quickly, much of his county is under slave control, and whites in central Mississippi began to panic, and call for Union aide.
- February 23: General Matthews orders half of his soldiers to be sent south and west to deal with the dual uprisings in Mississippi. By this point, the slave rebellion is spreading into neighboring states, as more slaves learn of the successes in Mississippi. Panic is starting to spread.
- March 2: British troops cross south from Upper New York, heading to liberate Albany. At the same time, a British and Confederal joint fleet sail from Boston heading towards New York City.
- March 9: Third Battle of Albany: British and joining Confederal troops converge on the city. After three days of fighting, the Union retreats south towards New York. It is a fighting retreat, as the combined British-Confederal Army follow them down the Hudson.
- March 17: Second Battle of New York: The British-Confederal Fleet arrives in New York Harbor, just two days after the bulk of the retreating troops from Albany arrive in the ruins of the city, with the advancing British-Confederal army coming from the North.
- March 21: Union forces in New York City surrender. General Matthews was able to escape to New Jersey, and is now enroute to Atlanta. Despite receiving a reprimand for losing New York, Matthews will now take command of troops in the west that are fighting the “Double Uprisings.”
- April 4: Joshua Black, himself a fairly well-educated man, and several other educated rebel slaves (plus Freedmen coming South from the Free States coming to help), declares the foundation of the Republic of New Africa, setting up his headquarters in Columbus, Mississippi. There are slave revolts in Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee. There are rumors circulating of massacres occurring on plantations in slave-controlled territory across the South. At the same time, there are mounting reports of slaves being killed when they are found alone off their plantation.
- April 20: An “ambassador” from the slave republic arrives in Franklin with an offer: If the FSA will pass laws ending slavery and granting citizenship to formerly enslaved persons, “New Africa” will fall in line and join the Federation and accept post-war dissolution of the their republic. If not, New Africa will seek to establish permanent independence. This leads to a long and divisive debate in the Alliance Congress in Franklin. Some members have no problem with this request. Others are afraid this could push Missouri out of the Federation. Still others are opposed to “negro equality.”
- May 3: The Alliance Congress passes the controversial Negro Emancipation Act, setting out a road map for the end of slavery. It said that all children born to slaves after May 1, 1862, were free, that slavery was banned in the territories and that no new states would be admitted as a slave state. It required existing states to ban slavery totally by 1867. The New Africa representatives, while not thrilled at the law, believe it is the right first step, and promise to recommend to “Commander Black” that the republic join the FSA fight.
- May 20: The NAR declares it’s loyalty to the FSA. However, there is a falling out, with several prominent leaders saying that the Negro Emancipation Act did not go far enough. They split with Black’s leadership, and we see separate factions break off vowing to fight for a “Negro Free State.”
- June 9: Combined British and Confederal forces launch a surprise attack by sea on Georgia, landing near Savannah.
- June 13: Battle of Savannah: Several days of intense fighting. The Union holds the city, but the battle is a draw. The east is poorly defended, as many soldiers are out west fighting the slave rebellion.
- June 20: Battle of Nashville: FSA army invades from Kentucky, and captures the city after two days of fighting.
- July 8: Slave Revolt in Macon, GA. The revolt is smaller and put down, but major panic begins to spread throughout the South. There are rumors of masters killing any slave that even looks vaguely suspicious.
- July 21: General Matthews is killed in battle against NAR forces in Alabama.
- August 3: The Virginia legislature voted to join the FSA, shocking the whole nation, North and South. The Governor states simply: The Union is losing, and we cannot risk the radicalization of our slave population. It is better to choose gradual emancipation and peace than risk total ruin.
- August 18: New Jersey revolts against remaining occupying forces and declares for the Confederation.
- August 20: Maryland follows Virginia’s example and joins the FSA.
- September 9: Delaware joins the FSA.
- September 12: Confederal and British troops take Savannah, that has now been mostly abandoned by Union troops.
- September 30: Confederal and British troops take Augusta.
- October 10: Battle of New Orleans: Slave armies encircle the city, and slaves within the city are mostly killed by fearful whites (massacres on both sides are being committed by people driven by fear). By the end of 3 days of fighting, the city surrenders. NAR leadership arrests many of the male leaders and later executes them, but spares what is left of the city, but the atmosphere is tense, with blacks controlling the city and the local whites mostly hiding in their homes.
- October 27: Battle of Chattanooga: FSA armies are marching on Georgia and the Union tries to stop the advance.
- November 2: Chattanooga falls.
- November 11: Vice President Blankenship is assassinated by a radicalized slave in his own home in Atlanta.
- November 17: Confederal and British troops make camp to the east of Atlanta, starting to encircle the city.
- November 29: FSA troops arrive to the west of Atlanta, and begin to encircle the city as well.
- December 10: President Hawthorne announces that he is surrendering himself to the officers of the Alliance Army at noon. Within hours, troops from both armies have moved into the city and occupied it. All remaining legislators, cabinet members, and other senior officials are put under house arrest.
- December 11: In the presence of senior officers from the FSA, the CAS, the British Empire, and a single representative from the NAR, President Hawthorne formally surrenders the Armies of the Union to the “Combined Allied forces of North America,” and then tenders his resignation as President of the United States. All remaining Union officials are similarly forced to resign their offices. The war might be officially over, but the peace is far from won. All throughout the South, racially motivated murders and massacres are occurring, committed by both whites and blacks. And as of yet there has been no official reconciliation between the FSA government and the Confederation. And what will the British want in return for their aide?
- December 15: It is announced that starting on January 7, a conference would take place in Philadelphia to determine the future of the nation. Majority of the delegates to be invited will be from the FSA and the CAS, but there will be representatives from the Native Tribal Coalition (representing tribes from the Native Nations District and from Kanasaw), the New African Republic, and less radical members of the Republican Party representing the white South (mostly from the three states that jumped ship to the FSA in the summer). Britain will also be allowed to have diplomatic envoys present to discuss the peace.
- December 19: Hawthorne is transported to a federal prison in Ohio. He is not being treated badly, but he is in protective custody, as is his family.
- December 22: After intense pressure, the NAR leadership announces strict punishment for any former slave that attempts to harm or seek revenge on a white person, former master or otherwise. On the same day, President Brandt announces that martial law is being declared in: Tennessee, Jefferson, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, and North Carolina, in order to try to put an end to “vigilante-ism.”
What the future holds.....that is still up for debate. The short version: it is likely to be messy and complicated and the Philadelphia Conference probably won't please everyone (or maybe anyone), and we may need revisions and new compromises down the road. But no more civil war.
EDIT: Once I get the post war settlement taken care of and get us to about 1870, I want to take some time to deal with events in the wider world. I've already hinted that Victoria, while still being Queen by this point, is a different person basically, having had her father in there life until she is 20 and not having to deal with all the drama of her mother's overbearingness. She also won't be marrying Albert ITTL. But that is just one change, and there are bound to be many more, and I am more than open to suggestions.
I don't think I will go into AS much detail with the international side of the TL for now, and probably just write up brief summaries and highlights of the most important events going on, but as we get closer and closer to the end of the 19th century, we will need to start bringing in other countries and how they are interacting with the United States.
Vesperia sounds more like a regional/State name, to be honest, rather than a country name.
Laurentia or Laurentian works just as well, especially considering that this *Canada covers more of the Laurentian River Basin area now, including the Great Lakes and what not....
Sweet merciful what?????
Hawthorne's legacy will not be a good one after this. AT all.
Jee man, even Seward was smarter than this OTL.
That's different. Don't think I have ever actually seen this before were Black Leaders think Emancipation did not go far enough....
Last edited:
Quite right. Hawthorne goes down in history as a pseudo-tyrant. Haven't decided his ultimate fate yet.
Many southerners will later blame his response to British intervention in New England as having doomed slavery. Had the Union simply stood down, they could have lost New England but saved the institution of slavery.
Thanks! My goal with this alt-Civil War was to try something pretty new and uncommon if not downright unheard of, and I felt that whole saga of slave uprising fit in well with everything else. Granted, it's going to make things much trickier at the post war conference in Philadelphia.
You've asked for opinions about Victoria--I wonder if you hate her, depriving her of Albert.
It's just my understanding Albert made her very very happy OTL. Maybe he wouldn't have the same effect on your ATL differently raised Victoria, and maybe you have some other consort in mind who will make the ATL woman just as happy.
But--I think Victoria's legendary satisfaction with her husband was lottery lucky, despite her considerable agency in the matter of who to pick, because I think Albert's willingness to please was a rarity in his class. (And that may mean that in the ATL his own character is butterflied and he does not develop this noteworthy character nor focuses on Victoria himself).
I have to admit, a small amount of butterflying does seem likely to mess up the OTL good thing they had going. Perhaps it should be an ATL principle, that whatever was superlatively good in OTL should become flawed in ATLs and a few other random things that were mediocre in OTL should become excellent in the ATL. So--the chemistry between Victoria and Albert is a combination of her own character (changed), his own (changed, and likely for the worse because he was good beyond reasonable expectations OTL) and circumstances and opportunities (scrambled).
So, is Victoria herself better off? Probably she is less happy at her personal outcomes. But maybe her ATL childhood was more conventional for her class? Perhaps therefore more enjoyable? Maybe she pays for a happy, easy childhood by being stuck with more conventional women's burdens, an indifferent husband, a lack of respect as a person in her own right? And from there I could see it going two ways--one, she discovers her inner OTL Victoria in belated adversity and one way or another fights her circumstances and wins, for a certain value of win. For instance--I doubt it could go so far as she divorcing a husband who displeases her and taking another. But, what if it does? She'd be asserting the primacy of the British monarch regardless of sex-succession rules load the dice against women becoming the sovereign, but when they do so under the rules, the Queen remains Queen, her husband is mere consort--and per the precedent of Henry VIII, they are expendable! And for no more weighty reason than the Queen's displeasure he can be set aside--I presume if Victoria had a son with this husband British politics handpicked for her for reasons of state and dynasty, she will claim the son for her own and as the heir to the throne, but reject the father. The children of her body are hers.
So if she is more of a conventional woman discovering unconventional strengths in adversity, perhaps she is more doting and attentive of her own children? Possibly, having borne a sufficient number to ensure succession, she foregoes marriage after putting her husband aside? That would certainly be less scandalous than taking another mate more of her choosing--but that in turn would be less scandalous than turning up pregnant without having taken another husband first!
So it boils down to me wondering--are you messing with a life that on the whole and in its middle especially was a happy one, and that bears great dignity to this day, just for the sake of rolling random dice because you have to? I'd say no you don't have to, you could just as easily, despite say a different War of 1812 having butterflying effects all over Europe, argue these were minor and damped out in British and German royal/noble circles, and Victoria and Albert are essentially the same people with the same interests, and likely enough to meet. You could simply butterfly Albert, or just kill him off, and indulge the game of "who would Victoria pick if she didn't have Albert to choose?" If instead you want Victoria herself to be different--is that good or bad for the United Kingdom? My impression, which may easily be mistaken since I've never studied her in an careful and balance biography or history, is that as a person and a monarch Victoria did on the whole a lot of good and exhibited strengths of character that put her above the common run of monarchs of her era. She could be and was from time to time selfish, but not inconsiderate.
Conventionalizing her early girlhood might result in her being more conventionally happy as a child, but deprive her of that character and the true basis of her power as a historical figure--even if constitutionally speaking as heiress she is Queen and no consort could steal that, it would perhaps be a matter of running roughshod over her as a woman and making sure she is not in a position to make waves about it that might first of all condemn her to a lifetime of worse misery than anything she suffered OTL (save perhaps the loss of Albert--a misery she might be spared if none of her children pre-decease her--she might actually care a lot about them in the ATL) and consign her to footnotes in history reserved for consort queens and US Presidential First Ladies. We think of the Victorian Era as patriarchal now--but imagine if Victoria's influence were removed, would it not become even more so? Perhaps close study of Victoria would lead me to the impression she made those things worse in OTL and we'd be better off with someone less remarkable than her, but the way I'd bet is, a strong woman generally leads to better balance in the gender wars. There can at any rate be no doubt OTL Victoria was strong; it seems you are setting her up in the ATL to be weaker.
Or perhaps as I was suggesting, a late bloomer--she goes into the wringer presumed to be a malleable and obedient little girl who will do what the powers that be tell her to, but as events unfold and the true terms of her compliance become clearer to her, she finds that vixen force that Elizabeth 1 exemplifed and that her OTL self shows, and starts to fight back. And perhaps, by the time the dust settles had won many a feminist battle, or at lest one or two crucial ones.
I myself would not have chosen to mess with her life or character much, and thus would assume a life closely parallel to OTL. Since it is your choice to do that for your own reasons, only you can judge which sort of course you'd think the ATL woman would take--turn out with a similar disposition despite ATL training, and behave essentially the same way because character shines through, but perhaps she just misses her chance with Albert? Albert gets taken up with some other woman first? Or does different upbringing make for a different person, who chooses everything differently? Does this leave Britain in general, and British women in particular, better off or worse off? Or would you say Victoria was completely irrelevant to the deep trends of European and British society? (I doubt you would, but I might be surprised!) Are you angling for a certain effect, or just shuffling the deck and playing the cards you are dealt?
For instance, would you want to see British society shaken up over gender roles--or would you believe that any attempt to do that would inevitably call forth unstoppable reaction, so any evolutions have to happen but slowly and subtly. Would you want subtle trends to drift in different directions than OTL, resulting in a subtly yet distinctly different set of mores by 1900? Or were you looking at the romantic life of Victoria through the lens of dynastic politics, unconcerned about her personal feelings but with an agenda for dynastic connections for Britain? Do you feel that perhaps if Victoria were a different person, her own children would be happier and more responsible in their actions, and later generations of Britons would reap benefits sowed nearly 100 years before?
It's just my understanding Albert made her very very happy OTL. Maybe he wouldn't have the same effect on your ATL differently raised Victoria, and maybe you have some other consort in mind who will make the ATL woman just as happy.
But--I think Victoria's legendary satisfaction with her husband was lottery lucky, despite her considerable agency in the matter of who to pick, because I think Albert's willingness to please was a rarity in his class. (And that may mean that in the ATL his own character is butterflied and he does not develop this noteworthy character nor focuses on Victoria himself).
I have to admit, a small amount of butterflying does seem likely to mess up the OTL good thing they had going. Perhaps it should be an ATL principle, that whatever was superlatively good in OTL should become flawed in ATLs and a few other random things that were mediocre in OTL should become excellent in the ATL. So--the chemistry between Victoria and Albert is a combination of her own character (changed), his own (changed, and likely for the worse because he was good beyond reasonable expectations OTL) and circumstances and opportunities (scrambled).
So, is Victoria herself better off? Probably she is less happy at her personal outcomes. But maybe her ATL childhood was more conventional for her class? Perhaps therefore more enjoyable? Maybe she pays for a happy, easy childhood by being stuck with more conventional women's burdens, an indifferent husband, a lack of respect as a person in her own right? And from there I could see it going two ways--one, she discovers her inner OTL Victoria in belated adversity and one way or another fights her circumstances and wins, for a certain value of win. For instance--I doubt it could go so far as she divorcing a husband who displeases her and taking another. But, what if it does? She'd be asserting the primacy of the British monarch regardless of sex-succession rules load the dice against women becoming the sovereign, but when they do so under the rules, the Queen remains Queen, her husband is mere consort--and per the precedent of Henry VIII, they are expendable! And for no more weighty reason than the Queen's displeasure he can be set aside--I presume if Victoria had a son with this husband British politics handpicked for her for reasons of state and dynasty, she will claim the son for her own and as the heir to the throne, but reject the father. The children of her body are hers.
So if she is more of a conventional woman discovering unconventional strengths in adversity, perhaps she is more doting and attentive of her own children? Possibly, having borne a sufficient number to ensure succession, she foregoes marriage after putting her husband aside? That would certainly be less scandalous than taking another mate more of her choosing--but that in turn would be less scandalous than turning up pregnant without having taken another husband first!
So it boils down to me wondering--are you messing with a life that on the whole and in its middle especially was a happy one, and that bears great dignity to this day, just for the sake of rolling random dice because you have to? I'd say no you don't have to, you could just as easily, despite say a different War of 1812 having butterflying effects all over Europe, argue these were minor and damped out in British and German royal/noble circles, and Victoria and Albert are essentially the same people with the same interests, and likely enough to meet. You could simply butterfly Albert, or just kill him off, and indulge the game of "who would Victoria pick if she didn't have Albert to choose?" If instead you want Victoria herself to be different--is that good or bad for the United Kingdom? My impression, which may easily be mistaken since I've never studied her in an careful and balance biography or history, is that as a person and a monarch Victoria did on the whole a lot of good and exhibited strengths of character that put her above the common run of monarchs of her era. She could be and was from time to time selfish, but not inconsiderate.
Conventionalizing her early girlhood might result in her being more conventionally happy as a child, but deprive her of that character and the true basis of her power as a historical figure--even if constitutionally speaking as heiress she is Queen and no consort could steal that, it would perhaps be a matter of running roughshod over her as a woman and making sure she is not in a position to make waves about it that might first of all condemn her to a lifetime of worse misery than anything she suffered OTL (save perhaps the loss of Albert--a misery she might be spared if none of her children pre-decease her--she might actually care a lot about them in the ATL) and consign her to footnotes in history reserved for consort queens and US Presidential First Ladies. We think of the Victorian Era as patriarchal now--but imagine if Victoria's influence were removed, would it not become even more so? Perhaps close study of Victoria would lead me to the impression she made those things worse in OTL and we'd be better off with someone less remarkable than her, but the way I'd bet is, a strong woman generally leads to better balance in the gender wars. There can at any rate be no doubt OTL Victoria was strong; it seems you are setting her up in the ATL to be weaker.
Or perhaps as I was suggesting, a late bloomer--she goes into the wringer presumed to be a malleable and obedient little girl who will do what the powers that be tell her to, but as events unfold and the true terms of her compliance become clearer to her, she finds that vixen force that Elizabeth 1 exemplifed and that her OTL self shows, and starts to fight back. And perhaps, by the time the dust settles had won many a feminist battle, or at lest one or two crucial ones.
I myself would not have chosen to mess with her life or character much, and thus would assume a life closely parallel to OTL. Since it is your choice to do that for your own reasons, only you can judge which sort of course you'd think the ATL woman would take--turn out with a similar disposition despite ATL training, and behave essentially the same way because character shines through, but perhaps she just misses her chance with Albert? Albert gets taken up with some other woman first? Or does different upbringing make for a different person, who chooses everything differently? Does this leave Britain in general, and British women in particular, better off or worse off? Or would you say Victoria was completely irrelevant to the deep trends of European and British society? (I doubt you would, but I might be surprised!) Are you angling for a certain effect, or just shuffling the deck and playing the cards you are dealt?
For instance, would you want to see British society shaken up over gender roles--or would you believe that any attempt to do that would inevitably call forth unstoppable reaction, so any evolutions have to happen but slowly and subtly. Would you want subtle trends to drift in different directions than OTL, resulting in a subtly yet distinctly different set of mores by 1900? Or were you looking at the romantic life of Victoria through the lens of dynastic politics, unconcerned about her personal feelings but with an agenda for dynastic connections for Britain? Do you feel that perhaps if Victoria were a different person, her own children would be happier and more responsible in their actions, and later generations of Britons would reap benefits sowed nearly 100 years before?
Impression I got was that she was going to be more assertive as a monarch, leading to the British monarch having a larger role in government.
Those are American names. Cascadia is a 20th century invention, and the British didn't really use Oregon as a name of the territory in question. New Caledonia was what the HBC called mainland BC prior to the Oregon treaty. BC came about because the US got the "Columbia", and Britain got the northern part. ITTL i could easily see BC staying as a name, because Britain got more, but not all of the Columbia. What easily could happen given BNA's stronger position and the more settlers they have is OTL washington plus southern BC become TTL's BC, and the northern half stay as New Caledonia. Possibly Vancouver Island stays as it's own colony as well.
Essentially what I was going with. Victoria being different doesn't necessarily mean worse (in fact far from it).
OTL she had been sheltered and wasn't really prepared to rule and had to rely on others for guidance in their early years (no doubt the intention of her mother and her lover to try and rule from the shadows, which backfired). ITTL, her father has prepared her for rule, and she got to spend several years at the Royal Court once her father became King.
She's stronger than OTL.
As for Albert, I'd read that OTL William IV had opposed the match but relented. Here, I was figuring that with her father still alive he'd be more inclined to agree with and follow his father's wishes on who Victoria married.
I'm going to weigh into the Canada debate.
There's an extremely high chance that Canada gets named Canada rather than anything else for two simple reasons. The Canadas are far and away the most populous and powerful of the British colonies, even more so with the addition of both banks of St. Lawrence and the explosion of trade and population that ensues. And Michigan and the west will be largely settled by Canadians (both Anglo and Franco). There's an off chance that there's a name change but I'd highly doubt it.
The capital will wind up in Kingston, Ottawa, or Montreal. Anything else will be unpalatable to either Upper or Lower Canada. Kingston is far more defended with the addition of northern New York and has the added inertia of already being the capital. Ottawa splits the difference between Upper and Lower Canada and is the consensus candidate. Montreal will be the population, cultural and financial hub of Canada and pushed hard historically for the capital. There's a good chance that the Anglos are firmly cemented as a majority there in TTL and Upper Canada will be more amenable to the capital there than historically will French on it way out in the region. Any other location is out of the question.
There's an extremely high chance that Canada gets named Canada rather than anything else for two simple reasons. The Canadas are far and away the most populous and powerful of the British colonies, even more so with the addition of both banks of St. Lawrence and the explosion of trade and population that ensues. And Michigan and the west will be largely settled by Canadians (both Anglo and Franco). There's an off chance that there's a name change but I'd highly doubt it.
The capital will wind up in Kingston, Ottawa, or Montreal. Anything else will be unpalatable to either Upper or Lower Canada. Kingston is far more defended with the addition of northern New York and has the added inertia of already being the capital. Ottawa splits the difference between Upper and Lower Canada and is the consensus candidate. Montreal will be the population, cultural and financial hub of Canada and pushed hard historically for the capital. There's a good chance that the Anglos are firmly cemented as a majority there in TTL and Upper Canada will be more amenable to the capital there than historically will French on it way out in the region. Any other location is out of the question.
Rebels can be a bit more radical than established governments. Though the FSA claims to be the Established government, so maybe not.
Maybe. There is going to be a lot of wrangling between the different factions in Philadelphia. I think there will be more attempts at equality protections that OTL after the Civil War, mainly because to not do so might set off the armed black rebels in the South, something that terrifies Northern leaders as well as Southern ones. That said, I think how well these protections are actually enforced will vary, and vary a lot. Some states in the Deep South will actually be controlled by former slaves fairly quickly, but in other areas there will still be discrimination. And outside the South, we will likely see far more resistance to blacks moving in (except parts of New England, which during the war fully embraced racial equality).
So, any thoughts on the post war settlement?
One of my biggest questions is what will the British want in return for their assistance. I was considering territorial concessions in the west, or possibly a lease for a naval base somewhere....maybe in Florida? IDK. Wide open for suggestions on this one.
The other big issue is how far the Democrats will be willing to extend racial equality. Federalist New England has embraced it, but the FSA, not so much.
One of my biggest questions is what will the British want in return for their assistance. I was considering territorial concessions in the west, or possibly a lease for a naval base somewhere....maybe in Florida? IDK. Wide open for suggestions on this one.
The other big issue is how far the Democrats will be willing to extend racial equality. Federalist New England has embraced it, but the FSA, not so much.
Slwowly working on post war stuff. Some things to think about:
-The Post-War south will not have the symbolism that the OTL South did after the war, as both sides claimed to be the legitimate US govt (excluding New England, of course). There is no battle flag for southern sympathizers to use going forward.
-I'm likely looking at having a large number of southerners go Northwest into the soon to be organized territories between the Mississippi and Oregon, and at the same time, we won't see as much of a black exodus going north as we did OTL.
Also, stylistic note: I'm considering switching from a date:event format to either a textbook format, or a mix of that and in-TL primary sources like newspapers and such. Thoughts or preferences?
-The Post-War south will not have the symbolism that the OTL South did after the war, as both sides claimed to be the legitimate US govt (excluding New England, of course). There is no battle flag for southern sympathizers to use going forward.
-I'm likely looking at having a large number of southerners go Northwest into the soon to be organized territories between the Mississippi and Oregon, and at the same time, we won't see as much of a black exodus going north as we did OTL.
Also, stylistic note: I'm considering switching from a date:event format to either a textbook format, or a mix of that and in-TL primary sources like newspapers and such. Thoughts or preferences?
