What Hath a Warm Overcoat Wrought, Version 3.0

[robertp6165]

Robert

Just come across and some interesting developments. However a couple of questions:

a) I can't see the partition of China as you mentioned. A colonial war that costs the colonising powers nearly half a million troops sounds way too costly for such a coalition. Not to mention the chances of in-fighting between them.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree there. China was a rich prize, and the Taipings have made it clear that only by removing both the Taipings and the Qings will western interests there be made safe. And the half-million casualties are spread among five powers (or mostly four, since the USA didn't participate that much in the land war). So while that's still a lot of casualties (Between 100,000 and 125,000 a piece, average, for each of the powers involved), it's not like any one power took the full half-million. And a war that only costs a nation 100,000 to 125,000 in casualties over a ten year period of fighting (meaning about 10,000 to 12,000 a year) would not, in the 19th century, be considered a major affair by first-tier European states.

b) Was there a Crimean war in TTL?

Yes. Nothing from the TL would have derailed that.

If so or possibly later by purchase at a time of relatively good relations might Britain/Canada have bought Alaska. With American divided and distracted by internal matters I could see either component being less interested, especially with the more southern border for the FSA.

I don't see Russia being willing to sell to Britain, it's recent enemy in war and now it's biggest colonial rival.

Also has Canada developed similar to OTL - or possibly a bit faster with probably more immigration and is it a dominion or possibly even a kingdom?

I'm assuming political development in Canada has gone close to that of OTL.

On a side issue where else did the immigrants diverted from OTL US go to as that could have some effects.

Some of the immigration the Know Nothings in the FSA have stopped has gone to Canada, others to the USA, some to Australia and other points, I would imagine. And yes, that could well have important impacts that I will probably examine in a later update.

c) At one point you mentioned various European powers including Britain I think raising tariffs in response to very large rises by one of the American states. Does this mean Britain has been turned from a free-trade path? Could have some interesting butterflies there.

Well, not totally abandoning the free trade policy. Basically a temporary measure aimed at one country to express displeasure over the protectionist policy being adopted by that country.

d) Didn't you also have a mention of an agreement between Britain and the USA [or possibly FSA] about non-interference in Central America? How does that fit in with the blind eye turned towards Walker's filibuster?

The Clayton Bulwer Treaty...by which Britain and the USA agreed to not establish colonies in Central America...actually existed in OTL.

However, Walker's filibuster was not a case of the USA trying to establish a colony in central America. It was a private venture which was not strictly within the scope of the treaty. And Walker was invited in by the Nicaraguans themselves, or at least one faction in their civil war. So once again, not really an act of US colonization.

Neither Britain nor the US intervened against Walker in OTL. Indeed his effort was brought to ruins only because Walker got involved in a dispute between Cornelius Vanderbilt and some other people who wanted to control the New York to San Francisco trade route which ran across Nicaragua. Walker took it away from Vanderbilt and gave it to two other men (former employees of Vanderbilt who formed their own company) and Vanderbilt retaliated by using his resources and influence to cut off the flow of men and supplies to Walker, as well as persuading the US government to withdraw its recognition of Walker's regime. In the ATL, Vanderbilt was never given the route in the first place due to the separation of the FSA from the USA. Walker never gets into a dispute with him, and both the US recognition and the flow of men and supplies continue, allowing him to win.

e) Not sure how likely the suggested end to the 1868-72 war would have been. Did Austria try/succeed in getting Silesia back?

They may have tried, but if so, were not successful. Actually, 130 years after the War of the Austrian Succession, I'm not sure how much Silesia was on Austria's agenda anymore.

Also how does Prussia compare in those different circumstances to OTL Germany's industrial development. The vast majority of that OTL came after 1871. This time line a long and costly war, no French indemity and probably the need to maintain proportionally larger forces could be significant drags on German development. Similarly with them being the main Russian ally their unlikely to have the spare cash to invest in Russia that France had OTL so could be slower development there.

I agree that Prussia in the ATL is probably not as fast to develop as OTL Germany. But a lot of her industrial development (the Krupp works, for example) predated 1871. So she still is on track to become a very strong power. Russia probably doesn't get as much cash for it's development in the ATL.

f) Do you have any idea of the populations of the two American nations? Know the US TL by ~1900 was about 76 million but be interested to see how they compare demographically and economically with the other powers of TTL.

I haven't really figured that so far, but I will probably work something out for a future update.

g) With the American colonies for freed blacks in W Africa. One big problem, especially for the white military and governors in the early part of it would be a high death rate from disease. Not going to be apopular posting.

Very true. One reason why they have been gradually shifting to "home rule" in those areas.

Anyway, many thanks and very interesting. Feel another subscription coming on.

Steve

I'm glad you are enjoying it.

 

[DAv]

A very good timeline with some great detail but just a few things are bothering me about China. Who is supplying the nationalist movement exactly? In order to take on every colonial power to the extent of forcing them away from core China, they're going to need a lot of help, especially if they have no real Navy to speak of or the process of Indutrialisation has been hampered even more than OTL, then the Chinese forces are going to face an absolute blood letting after the initial uprising. And how large is this new Chinese Republic? I can easily imagine that Mongolia, Tibet and Korea are made into the client states of various powers and China letting that pass for now.

Other than that though, great TL like I said.

 

[stevep]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree there. China was a rich prize, and the Taipings have made it clear that only by removing both the Taipings and the Qings will western interests there be made safe. And the half-million casualties are spread among five powers (or mostly four, since the USA didn't participate that much in the land war). So while that's still a lot of casualties (Between 100,000 and 125,000 a piece, average, for each of the powers involved), it's not like any one power took the full half-million. And a war that only costs a nation 100,000 to 125,000 in casualties over a ten year period of fighting (meaning about 10,000 to 12,000 a year) would not, in the 19th century, be considered a major affair by first-tier European states.

I don't know. If ravaged by a decade or so of conquest, after the 1st part of the Taiping revolt its going to be in a pretty battered state. A resentful population, using civil disobedience coupled with the huge garriosions that would be needed to maintain control in the regions could easily see it staying a losing proposition. Not to mention, half a million casalities suggests probably at least a million men during the original conquestion, That a huge force, especially split amongst 4 powers, two of which traditionally have small armies except in periods of crisis. It also means those powers putting a lot of their military strength thousands of miles away in China which could be very risky if a rival tries something.

I could see a combined force, something like during OTL Boxer rebellion, seeking to impose its will on the Chinese government, obtain reparations and get trading gains. Probably a few more Hong Kong type enclaves and areas such as Tibet, Manchuria etc being detached. If the Manchu regime totally imploded and no clear successor then possibly play a part in establishing a new regime under their control, or a number of regional warlords to maintain their interests in various areas. However I can't see direct rule over the entirity of China. Apart from anything else its directly opposed to Britain's view of minimal government and American isolationist opinion so I can't see such a massive commitment from them.

I don't see Russia being willing to sell to Britain, it's recent enemy in war and now it's biggest colonial rival.

It doesn't need to be that happy about it. Could be a war losses during the Crimean, or Russia needs the funds and wants to get rid of the burden [which was the case historically]. If neither American state is interested in buying Britain/Canada is the only one likely to be in the market and Russia could bite its tongue and put up with it. Not saying it will happen but might.

Some of the immigration the Know Nothings in the FSA have stopped has gone to Canada, others to the USA, some to Australia and other points, I would imagine. And yes, that could well have important impacts that I will probably examine in a later update.

Look forward to it.

Well, not totally abandoning the free trade policy. Basically a temporary measure aimed at one country to express displeasure over the protectionist policy being adopted by that country.

That could set an interesting precedent when other powers get highly protectionist.

They may have tried, but if so, were not successful. Actually, 130 years after the War of the Austrian Succession, I'm not sure how much Silesia was on Austria's agenda anymore.

It was an important economic area and had historically been a part of the Bohemian kingdom. As such both valuable and would strengthen the Hapsburg control of Bohemia, both by diluting the Czech population and more totally encircling them with German lands under the empire. Also matters of emotion can often have a much greater influence than logic says they should. Again, not saying it will happen but its a possibility and the permanent gain Austria could probably most easily make permanently from Prussia.

I haven't really figured that so far, but I will probably work something out for a future update.

Would be interesting.

I'm glad you are enjoying it.

Looking forward to it, as long as it doesn't take your attention off the further adventures of Admiral Nelson.

Steve

 

[Historico]

The Roosevelts had been in New York since the mid-17th century. Roosevelt was born into a wealthy family of Dutch origin; by the 19th century, the family had grown in wealth, power and influence from the profits of several businesses including hardware and plate-glass importing. The family was strongly Democratic in its political affiliation until the mid-1850s, then joined the new Republican Party. Theodore's father, known in the family as "Thee", was a New York City philanthropist, merchant, and partner in the family glass-importing firm Roosevelt and Son. He was a prominent supporter of Abraham Lincoln and the Union effort during the American Civil War. His mother Mittie Bulloch was a Southern belle from a slave-owning family in Roswell, Georgia and had quiet Confederate sympathies. Mittie's brother, Theodore's uncle, James Dunwoody Bulloch, was a United States Navy officer who became a Confederate admiral and naval procurement agent in Britain. Another uncle, Irvine Bulloch, was a midshipman on the Confederate raider CSS Alabama; both remained in England after the war.[7] From his grandparents' home, the young Roosevelt witnessed Abraham Lincoln's funeral procession when it came through New York.

Yes, before the calls of thread Necromancy start up...I wanted to ask your opinon on the matter of what might have happened to the Roosevelts ITTL. As you know, that Teddy Roosevelt's father and the family had been typically aligned with the Democrats before the 1850's and then turned around to be a major supporter of Abe Lincoln candidacy in 1860. So with the Republican Party ITTL, being dominated by hardline Nativists, might Thee Roosevelt still support their cause or stay with the family line and remain a Democrat? Another interesting possibility could be that TR's mother might convince her husband to move to her home state of Georgia, where he could potentially have more influence? Where would a Southern Theodore Roosevelt lie in this Alternate US' Political system? Also is it possible that we could see an update on TTL(My favorite out of all of them) pretty soon?