World War 1845

Sam Houston

Thanks to Nicomacheus to making me focus again on whom one of his OTL Texan detractors termed a "drunken old Cherokee"

I can certainly see Houston continuing to have importance after his presidential election defeat to Zachary Taylor. Indeed with the formation of the American Party and the election of Kearny and Worth, Houston's "Third Way" can be said to have been resurrected. Taylor's administration could in many ways be retrospectively cast as something of an unfortunate blip, and the suppression of the Southern industrial risings cast, somewhat unfairly, as a Whig act that the American Party stands above and apart from

I see Houston as taking something of a dual role - on the one hand, I see him returning to the Cherokee Nation to take up a leading role there, but on the other I see him as an advisor on and promoter of Indian rights within the USA. Both Kearny (whom I have great admiration for in OTL) and Worth (of whom I know less) in this timeline have fought alongside and had command over Indian Volunteer regiments, and both have seen them turn battles their way. The Ten Civilised Tribes have their homelands long secured by federal writ, and the idea of undoing this would seem insane by this time in the ATL - as insane probably as the idea of moving the federal capital, or of getting rid of Rhode Island because it was too small.

As a note to new readers, and to those older ones, like myself indeed, who can't fully remember, the Ten Civilised Tribes are the Five of OTL *(Choctaw, Creek, Chickasaw, Cherokee and Seminole) plus five from the North West (including Winnebago and Osage, but I'd need to look the rest up - please forgive me, its 6am and I've been up 2 1/2 hours due to noisy neighbours)

I could see President Kearny appointing Houston as Secretary of State for Indian Affairs, or something like that, a post which would not require him to abandon his political career within the Cherokee Nation but which would work alongside it. The obvious focus would be on bringing additional Indian Nations into the fold - the Nez Perce and Shoshoni would be the immediate focus, the various political treaties with them (which the USA inherited from Russia and made great play of) almost REQUIRING their placing on an equal footing with the Ten within the US federal structure

It is far more complicated in the South-West - a Nation such as the Navajo probably would be someone that the US federal government could work with, but the Apache are not going to remain lying down, and are not going to easily submit to federal writ. In the past where this has been the case, with the Shawnee and Delaware for instance, the USA has pursued a two-fold policy - on the one hand deal with amenable chiefs (usually those who can be bought out) to buy up their lands, and on the other hand defeat militarily the rest and drive them from the body of the USA

Now, of course, this latter aspect is increasingly difficult because the US has expanded, Fredonia has expanded, Spain has diminished etc. It will increasingly become a conflict between whether an Indian Nation is fit for, and will accept, Civilised status (the federal guarantee of its homelands in return for integration within the agreed structure of relations) and whether it needs to be forcibly subjugated.

Sam Houston would be seen as being in an ideal position to work through this.

- - -

Thus, Kearny's administration is taking on some shape here :-

President Stephen Kearny
Vice President (and President of the Senate) William Worth
Secretary of State Franklin Pierce
Secretary of War Robert E Lee
Secretary of Indian Affairs Sam Houston


Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
A Dream of Freedom

Fredonia survived, it prospered, it expanded, and yet...yet, it was never secure. President Albert Sidney Johnston was very much aware of this, even as he gave his blessing to a large setler wagon train heading across the Southern Plains to the Great Salt Lake, a destination which lay some scarcely imaginable distance away within the mountains.

Yes the Comanche has been beaten, but...well, to put it simply the devils never knew when they were beaten ! They might slink away, move their camps, but they would be back. Unless exterminated enmasse, they would be back. Perhaps not in 1853, but by 1854 it was certain, and only another campaign, another series of battles would serve to show these excellent horsemen, but dastardly cannibals, that Fredonia was here to stay

But was it? As President Johnston saw out his final term, the two term limit being something of a Fredonian quirk, he could not help but to ponder on this question. The Treaty of Amsterdam had guaranteed to his nation its independence, and its new borders, stretching far to the West, making Fredonia less of a stain upon the map and more of a smear. This wagon train marked its first attempt to properly claim the land that its armies had spoken for in the recent war, and high hopes were had by all. It was no mere civilian convoy - indeed, Fredonia had never known such an institution and it was almost unimaginable. Going with the wagons were two companies of dragoons, the best that the president had been able to rustle up, considering that the republic was not at war, and that even its regular military had an element of the amateur and volunteer amongst it. Sure, they would fight off an invasion, but escorting several hundred settlers ? That was an issue of choice, not of instruction. In a perverse way, Albert Sidney Johnston would not have had it different

It was one of the things that made his country great. But this greatness, as he well knew - now, at any right - lay upon a foundation of shifting sands. The debts from the war were one thing, high, even scarily so, but nobody expected immediate payment and most countries could cope with debt, even over the very long-term. What was most worrying was the hole in the economy, a hole that did not exist upon the surface for nobody saw it, but was plain and stark when your Finance Minister explained it to you. To put it simply, Fredonia did not control her own economy, did not perhaps even HAVE an economy of her own. She was simply an offshoot of the United States, and perhaps thankfully, also of the great investment that the Republic of France had made in US industry, most especially in the area of the railroads

Economic dependency did not immediately denote political subjugation, President Johnston knew that. The recently returned ambassador to France, David Burnett, had explained how French economic dominance had made economic satellites of the so-called barrier republics, but how both the Batavian and Helvetic Republics had refrained from following her political lead in the World War, and how both had been free and able to pursue their own policies. Johnston was not sure how far the comparison made sense in Fredonia's case, but he was certainly willing to give it a try

In this, he knew, he was aided by the recent election of Kearny and Worth to the highest offices within the United States. Not only were both men military veterans who had a full understanding of realities in the West, but they were also the political heirs of Sam Houston, representing the culmination of his Third Way, its development into a party of its own. They would give Fredonia time, the chance to develop its own identity, though Johnston knew there would be no kindness about this, merely logic

And when it came down to it, Johnston knew as instinctively as the meanest labourer in Topeka, that there was only one way for Fredonia to survive in the long term - it had to acquire a coast of its own, become less a smear across the map and more a solid and colourful block. And the only way to do this was to take on California, but with the Spanish vice-royalty constantly reinforced from Manila, how he was supposed to achieve this he had no idea

A golden Fate would soon intervene to give him that idea...

But that is part of the story of the Time of Eagles

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Yes, I like my Eagles...
 
Canada

The defeat of the rebellions of Upper and Lower and Canada, and most especially the decision after the defeat of the former to create a unified rebel state in the North, saw a move towards unification under British auspices. British military victory, and the installation of the royal Duke of Cambridge as Viceroy began the establishment of this new colonial state, which was to have its capital at the Duke's military headquarters of Ottawa.

When war with the USA came but five years after these events, the Duke of Cambridge had to be mindful of the simmering resentment in his rear as much as the enemy across the Lakes, or forcing the peninsular. As things developed, the unitary Canadian authority proved eager to show their loyalty, and the proto-parliament at Ottawa was allowed to assume civil powers as the Duke focused his attentions on the military side of things

The Royal Naval descent on New England, coupled with Royal Marines and Redcoats carried aboard the warships, should have been the start of the victorious march for the duke, but events back in Britain had derailed things, and he was obliged to withdraw his forces to Halifax, and to await events, orders and the formation of his own opinions

As it was, he decided to respond to his niece, Queen Charlotte I's desperate appeals, and took ship in person with the bulk of his veteran army, in a large part Britons who had by then been in Canada close to a decade, but also including a fair number of Canadians recruited in the last couple of years, generally young but loyal men who had proved their worth in battle

Back in Ottawa, James Bruce, the 8th Earl of Elgin, one of Cambridge's deputies, took up the mantle of Viceroy, initially on a temporary basis, but confirmed as permament after the duke's death from pneumonia over the Winter of 1851. His period of office saw the development of the temporary measures of the previous decade into a permanent constitution that created a United Province of Canada which was to have a large degree of self-government and its own representative parliament.

With revolution and social unrest consuming Europe, and even presenting itself in the Southern industrial cities of the United States, Elgin was very much aware that his responsibility was to the people of Canada. He approved measures that would in any previous age been seen as anathema by a British overseer, and Ottawa was able to assume powers creating the UPC as a self-governing dominion with control of its own armed forces, except in time of war

At the same time there were growing tensions between this new Canada and the Hudson Bay Company which ruled all of the lands West of Upper and Lower Canada. The HBC had a plethora of its own problems - driven from Oregon, it had had to accept Puget Sound as the boundary between its writ and that of the USA in Oregon; the exact border between HBC territory and US N Louisiana was now up for grabs in a US-British Border Commission agreed at Amsterdam, and it was having its own troubles with the Metis, the Sioux, and with US fillibusterers into the Red River basin

Ottawa increasingly pressed the Hudson Bay Company to agree a merger of their realms, claiming that a commercial company operating such a vast tract of land as its own private domain was an anachronism, and appealing to London to pressurise the HBC on this issue. In London, Foreign Minister Disraeli was unwilling to do this, believing that any weakening of the HBC would be to indicate weakness to the Border Commission, and especially to those leaders of the Mandan, Hidatsa and Assinboin Nations who would have a say in deciding whether they preferred British or American rule.

By Summer 1853 none of this has been sorted out, but the Boundary Commission is meeting, and its representatives are moving amongst the Nations within the disputed area

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
The point of these later posts in this thread is to clear up anything that remains outstanding. I intend to make the third part of the overall timeline a new post called "The Time of Eagles" (I dunno, I like Eagles in my titles, lol) but I want to clear up any outstanding issues here first

Obviously, this also includes any answers to and discussions of issues raised by readers of this thread

- - -

Britain

The defeat of Richard Cobden and his Radical government has not relegated the latter to obscurity, but created of him the position of Leader of the Opposition

Cobden could count on his watch both the avoidance of outright revolution and the extension of the franchise. His Radical supporters also see the peace of 1853 as being something that Cobden, a life-long anti-war activist, was instrumental in. Sure, it may have been signed by the Social Democrat and Reformist government, but it owes much to Cobden's governance - or so they claim

The six-fold nature of British politics is undergoing an evolution into coalitions and blocs of interests. It is so obviously useless to stand apart as a 1/6 party claiming one's own interests, that everyone allies themselves with someone, even if only temporarily over certain issues

The remnant Tory Party under David Urquhart can claim to be the closest thing to a Third Party of any strength within Britain. Its popular vote is lower than it believes it should be (too many working men given the vote) but its presence in the Lords remains strong. Its Russophobia they state was vindicated by events in the later part of the war, and does not Russia now hold Constantinople and is not the Ottoman Empire now dead ?

The Social Democrats with the Reformists and Whigs face off against the Radicals, the occasional pro and anti vote of the Irish, and the constant opposition of the Tories


Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
India

I have to admit that, these days, I am ignorant on India and have forgetten much of what I learnt back in the days of 'Plethora of Princes' - well, I forgot virtually everything about anything in the aftermath of that, but have slowly rebuilt my memory. India, tho, I have scarcely studied since, and so my vague ideas below may be based upon nothing but false impressions. If so, please enlighten me !

- - -

I am thinking on the following basis

-1- France was never eclipsed as a poltical power in the sub-continent. Yes, the Anglo-Mysore war which broke Mysore still happens since it pre-dates the POD, but afterwards France remains in a position to challenge increased British dominance

-2- Britain acquires a dominant, but never a pre-eminent position, and the idea of vacant possession never gets anywhere - the cultural tradition of adopting an heir if heirless is able to continue, rather than Britain declaring that such states have no rulers and become British by default as per OTL. This is probably the largest outcome of always having France there to challenge British assertions in the royal and princely courts

-3- Britain nevertheless expands and defends its possessions

-4- And in the North a Sikh Empire rises unchallenged and has the time to consolidate and expand. By the early 1850s it is probably fighting wars against the Mughals in Delhi and the Qing in Peking, wars which Britain has no reach into and cannot influence

-5- The world war saw French defeat of the British naval position in India-China but this as a temporary setback as the sending out of a new force returned things to a pre-war balance

- - -

I would certainly appreciate people's views on how this affects the map of India !

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Montevideo

This issue was deliberately excluded from the peace congress at Amsterdam

Thus, whilst Spain and Portugal agreed a cessation of hostilities within Iberia as part of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the issue down in South America remains tense

Whilst peace negotiations were ongoing, Portuguese and Spanish armies generally, if not always, observed the ceasefire line, but neither side is willing to surrender its interests

As another war appears imminent, the forces on the ground see their political leaders attempt to forge a solution. Justo de Urquiza has been appointed Spanish Viceroy in Buenos Aires in the wake of the peace, and sees his administration as immediately threatened by a resumption of the war against Portugal. He is especially concerned that such a resumption would bring with it not only Portuguese advances on other fronts, but Spanish defeats in other theatres to other opportunistic powers.

Jose Rivera, currently claiming the command of Montevideo's partisans, accepts the approach from Urquiza from his refuge in Portuguese Rio Grande do Sul. As negotiations begin, the various Portiguese Viceroys in the colonies of the Brazils give a generally warm welcome to the idea. If an independent Montevideo could be resurected it would be the second best option, the first being Portuguese assumption of rule over the Banda Orientale

One could see this coming to Europe as something of a shock for both Lisbon and Madrid, a locally agreed solution that meets neither of their aims, and which returns things to the seemingly untenable. But within S America, the only alternative is for one or other European power to conquer the territory, and for the other this is anathema

Thus, in 1854 it is agreed to allow a joint protectorate, but an independent nation, to resume rule in Montevideo. Rivera has died in exile, and Manuel Oribe, coming out of exile to the West, takes up the mantle of President

Orleans' France makes clear that it considers its interests still to stand by sending a convoy of military transports bearing trade goods to the capital within a month of the Resumption


Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
The USA

Burr-ist female suffrage has by the time of the election of 1852 been adopted in most New England states. The initial inroads of Burr's supporters led it to become an aspect of the political spectrum identified with New England influence. Thus, it can also be found in Missouri and after a long and vicious struggle in Franklin by 1852

It is nowhere as complete a suffrage as that for men, though the exact requirements vary from state to state. At its most liberal it is for female property holders, at its most restrictive it is for female widows of veterans who own property and have children under 12.

The gradual expansion of female suffrage has seen a hand-in-hand development of the idea of a female politician and by 1853 there are a few, generally spurned and ridiculed by their contemporaries but their rights upheld by the state supreme courts

Burr's own daughter holds a district in the New York state House of Representatives, whilst Isabella Baumfree, Lydia Child, Amelia Jenks and Harriet Beecher hold elected positions in various New England positions by 1853. As a note it is becoming a sign of female suffrage to stand on one's maiden name, though not an absolute rule.

Female suffrage, like abolitionism, has become seen as a New England fancy, its progress in Missouri and Franklin something of an aberration since the West (in Kentucky and Tennessee), the New South, and the Old NorthWest do not accept it.


Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Russia

Tsar Aleksandr II's Russia might have dominion over NE Anatolia and Constantinople but this is not an absolute. In the Caucasus, the forces of Shamil (b 1798) have united varying Islamic tribal oppositions to Russian rule into a lasting insurrection that Russia initially does have sufficient forces to counter, only to hold

But with the Ottoman Empire extinct, and Egypt under Said picking up the imperial and Kalifa mantle, Russia reckons it has little to worry about, even if there is a lasting insurrection in the middle of its recognised territory

Russia is, however, stretched to the limit. Tsar Aleksandr II faces a barrage of complaints, advice and suggestions from his military commanders and political aides, all on how the current internal state of affairs can be made better. The army demands new and extensive railroads, the few already constructed having both proved their worth and proven to be far too little for campaigning needs. The navy demands a modernisation programme to bring its ships up to Western standards. With Constantinople and Salonika in its hands, it points out that any threat to Russian possession will come from the sea, and that at present Russia could not face off against any power with modern warships, and indeed could barely hold its own against Egypt.

Aleksandr II establishes a committee to look at the prospect of abolishing serfdom, whose remnants in the rest of Europe has been swept away by revolution and civil war. He takes note of several reports indicating that the institution is holding back modernisation, rather than giving anything of positive value to the Russian state

Admiral Vladimir Kornilov is put in charge of sorting out a modernisation programme for the fleet, but it becomes obvious that first he must acquire workmen from the West to bring Russian yards up to standard, and then the whole question brews as to where to concentrate this rebuilding effort, with the acquisition of Constantinople and Salonika. Vested interests, strategic considerations and dreams of glory all compete for a limited pot of money.


Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I wrote most of the updates above to answer people's questions

Might move on to the next part now, I guess

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
As always, GW, very thought-provoking stuff.

To confirm the US border changes vis-a-vis Spain, does the US now have a border with the Republic of Mexico?

Interesting dynamic in the UPC with the HBC. (Quietly rooting for either independent HBC Co. or sale the USA :rolleyes:).

I think I was most surprised by the extent of the collapse of the Ottomans and the resulting grant of a Mediterranean / Aegean coast to Russia. The Bear now glowers over all Europe. One wonders what will come of the reaction.

So the lasting legacy for GB seems to be a completely fractured political system. I keep thinking its similar to something like the Weimar Republic -- a political system so fragmented that society begins to lose a coherence.
 
As always, GW, very thought-provoking stuff.

To confirm the US border changes vis-a-vis Spain, does the US now have a border with the Republic of Mexico?

Most definitely. I'm working on a map, but its something like from Baja across through Chihuahua, Coahuila, Novo Leon, Sonora etc

Sort of the central mountains stick up into US territory from the South, and the US drips down either side of them a bit on the coast...

Nicomacheus said:
Interesting dynamic in the UPC with the HBC. (Quietly rooting for either independent HBC Co. or sale the USA :rolleyes:).

Not sure how I'm going to work this one out - ideas welcome !

Nicomacheus said:
I think I was most surprised by the extent of the collapse of the Ottomans and the resulting grant of a Mediterranean / Aegean coast to Russia. The Bear now glowers over all Europe. One wonders what will come of the reaction.

Yes, its so much a cliche for the Ottomans to collapse that they NEVER do in alternate history anymore, which seems to me to be its own cliche, or fundamentalist anti-cliche

They've also got a friend in Prussia, which should be interesting

On the other hand, Austria although fractured from Hungary has advanced back into the Banat and Oltenia, as well as made alliance with Hungary, and also would look to Janina which possesses Nish

A full fall-out awaits the shake-down of the events in Britain and France

Nicomacheus said:
So the lasting legacy for GB seems to be a completely fractured political system. I keep thinking its similar to something like the Weimar Republic -- a political system so fragmented that society begins to lose a coherence.

Yes, though no doubt some sort of cohesion will come in time. In a sense it mirrors more closely the OTL late 1840s, 1850s in the USA here

The Social Democrats (the name if not current at this time period could be said to be spawned in the cities, either of Britain or of France in their revolutions of this time) benefit immediately due to being the newcomers on the scene, seeming to represent "the people" but over time they will be seen in a more jaded light, and others have the chance to fight back. The next generation of politicians also won't carry the same baggage so won't be so unhappy to bring about mergers, formal alliances

British politics in this period in OTL was pretty weird anyway, and there are several examples of prominent MPs starting off as either Whig or Tory, sitting in a Reformist centricity and then ending up at the other end

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
the Cheyenne and Arapaho-led Plains Confederacy which has, most unusually and rather disconcertingly, gotten itself international recognition as a valid and established state, something that the implications of have probably not been fully appreciated yet within Washington,

Who recognized them? Are "they" recognizing African tribes as nations as well? I find it hard to believe that Europeans would recognize a bunch of Indians as "a valid and established state" (except maybe the British, as another way to screw with the Americans). If it stands, it would probably alter the colonization and partition of Africa immensely.

Great job overall. Well thought out and clearly articulated.
(despite unruly neighbors and guests;))
Keep it up
 
Originally Posted by Nicomacheus
Interesting dynamic in the UPC with the HBC. (Quietly rooting for either independent HBC Co. or sale to the USA :rolleyes:).
Not sure how I'm going to work this one out - ideas welcome !

Well, IMO, giving it to the USA will be interesting because it will engage them in a bit of overstretch and distract them from Fredonia long enough to let AS Johnston keep things interesting out west. It will also make things more interesting between the UPC and the UK.

Overall, I'd say the HBC is concerned that no matter the outcome of the Border Commission, they will lose out. Revenues from the fur trade are falling and the HBC in many ways needs a new lease on life. A merger with the UPC is only being forestalled because of the Commission and the Social Democrats in the UK have no love-lost for a big Colonial Corporation (same goes for the HEIC for that matter).

Hence, the HBC is looking for a solution. Enter a cadre of American industrialists bent on their own enrichment (and the aggrandizement of their country if the profit margins are sufficient). I'm thinking Cornelius Vanderbilt or William Backhouse Astor (son of John Jacob Astor, who dies in 1848 OTL). They make a deal with the existing directors of the HBC and become joint-owners of the company (for a huge sum). Their scheme is this: if they can sell plots of land to US settlers (and the large number of immigrants sure to be coming over from the European revolutions), they will make a fortune.

From here there are a number of options. Perhaps the US gets the sale because the UK is distracted. Perhaps the Border Commission is deadlocked and the new arrangement of the HBC leaves the entire area ripe to become a joint-condominium (untried TTL since the US position in Oregon stemmed from buying Russian claims). This is the path to an independent Hudsonia. It may also be preferred by the new HBC since it gives them the biggest potential market for land grants. {I think my preferred path would be for the new HBC to somehow suborn (read: bribe) the Border Commision into agreeing to endore the HBC's preferred solution to the question of title: joint-condominium, with the HBC acting as the agent of both soveriegn powers.}

Whatever the result, it gives you a nice event to allow some true working class dissent in the USA and the UK. International Capitalists have banded together to forestall the interests of both (by subverting the Border Commision). The new settlements in "Hudsonia" quickly become Company towns writ large, with everything controlled by the Corporation. Free-soil interests in the US evenutally equate this with Planter Capitalism and "the Slave-Money Compact" that threatens to control their lives.

Throw in conflicts with Fredonia and the residents of former New Spain plus the slavery and the US is bursting at the seams with groups resenting each other.
 
The US Territories in the South-West

As per the maps I will get scanned in and attached, the USA establishes five territories in its South-Western conquests

-1- The Territory of Tejas
Governed from Campeche (Galveston), stretching to the Rio Grande and thus including San Antonio de Bexar, and stretching as far North as Santa Fe

-2- The Territory of Monterrey
From Monterrey in the West, Matamoros in the North to Tampico in the South, on the West coast of the Gulf of Mexico

-3- The Territory of Chihuahua
Governed from Chihuahua city, and including the bulk of Chihuahua and Coahuila states

-4- The Territory of Sonora
OTL Sonora, extending South over Guaymas, and North into OTL Gadsen Purchase (now ironically the Northern borderlands here against the Spanish ViceRoyalty North of the Gila River)

-5- The Territory of California
Governed from San Diego and extending South over Baja California

- - -

In the NW Oregon is also established as a Territory, whilst the exact borders of "North-West Louisiana" remain uncertain, and its status one of military control


Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
The USA from 1853 up towards 1863

"Time of The Eagles" (slight name change I think) is going to have a base date of 1863, and whilst I intend to advance European and "world" events behind the scenes and then feed them into that Chapter, I need to have the events in N America fully settled and empirically have found that discussion in a thread allows for that best of all, harnessing the talents and the knowledge of kind readers and contributors

So, apologies for any randomness in the notes below, and please note although I have drawn up 2 maps I cannot post them until I can get to the library to scan them in, since my printer-scanner thing at home simply refuses to install, and I don't seem to be able to convince it to be nice to me.


2 coastal states could be created for Tejas with the dividing line being the Colorado river
calling these West and East Tejas makes sense
Campeche (OTL Galveston) would be capital of East Tejas
San Antonio de Bexar would be capital of West Tejas
This does not of course divide the entire Tejano territory
It is likely that their borders are running SW-NE in the North, between the Fredonian (Oklahoma) and Rio Grande borders (roughly midway along the S Oklahoma border of OTL, to where the Rio Grande turns more Northerly)

The remnant territory could be named the Sante Fe territory, or perhaps simply New Mexico Territory

I would see these states in existence in time for the 1860 election - E Tejas probably is admitted in time for the 1856 election, since Campeche and immediate area so populous, and the first waves of US settlers would settle in the area between the Sabine and Brazos rivers

On the other hand, administratively-speaking if only formed as the Tejas Territory in 1853, is there time to by 1856 carve it up again, and then bring one of those new parts to statehood ?

Perhaps it makes sense for both new states to have been created as new territories with popular sovereignty in 1856, and admitted as states of the union in 1859-60

There would be the very antagonistic question of what to do with regard to Spanish-speaking populations. The question isn't so much whether to enfranchise them as such, but how to avoid giving popular sovereignty, let alone statehood, to territories where there is a majority Spanish populace

This is got round in E and W Tejas by the immediate post-war settlement, no doubt encouraged by land grants and confiscation and redistribution of land belonging to those Tejanos and Spaniards who did flee, plus probably appropriations (or compulsory purchase) from the RC Church of any vast estates they own. This doesn't affect religious institutions but simply church land-owning

This is the area that Kearny and Worth fought over, and they are going to be particularly keen on bringing about conditions to get them into the Union.

There probably are going to be Spanish Uprisings and Indian Wars, and possibly even a brief, stupid war with Mexico, founded more on the internal politics of that country than on any sensible hopes of dispossessing US rule in a Monterrey or Chihuahua, or in Tampico or Guaymas

The Apache have something of a base in Western lands of Spanish ViceRoyalty of California, which is probably even less closely administered from Monterey (California) than it was from Campeche (Galveston). Most especially, Spain will not have the resources to fight a renewed Apache War from the West coast, nor will it have the desire or need to since it no longer has territories separated by the vastness in the centre. In factr, if the Spanish follow their policies with regard to the Indians as they had previous with the Comanche, Cheyenne, Arapaho etc, it would be in their interest to arm, horse etc the Apache and let them "actively guard" the frontier, reckoning that whilst the USA may make punitive raids into Spanish territory to pursue and hunt Apache warbands, it won't take it as a cassus belli

Houston's focus as Secretary for Indian Affairs could involve him with the Navajo in the rest of W Tejas (I need to find my Indian maps again). IIRC these make the best candidates for a civilised Nation, and making them so would, as it had in the Old NorthWest, allow the US to use the Indian Homeland as a bulwark against an aggressor, in this instance the Apache

Sorting out the HBC/USA border in NW Louisiana has to be a priority for getting things in place before embarking on the new chapter of the extended timeline, with its base date of 1863. Taking Puget Sound as the Western border of Oregon is in itself ambiguous - does it give the peninsular to the West of the sound to the USA, but land to the East on the same line of latitude as the S end of the sound (where OTL Seattle is), thus setting the US-British border considerably further South than OTL ?

This is not non-sensical when you could consider that Britain still holds, and has no intention of giving up, the Red River basin. There has been no setting of the OTL line of latitude as a dividing line, because it simply never came up. When the border in the East is examined, it is in most places far to the South of these theoretical lines - even N Minnesota is to the South of it. Only N Maine in the far East rises higher, but what does that have to do with the border in the West people would ask ?

It is thus on THIS basis that the whole question of where the border between the Hudson Bay Company's holdings for Britain and between the US holdings in 'North-West Louisiana' actually lies ?

Britain could make a good case for setting some of it on the Upper Missouri where that river runs West to East. Doing so would include ALL the Mandan and Hidatsa within British land, which is one of the main questions that has to be considered here

Quid pro quo's are obviously available - the N-S width of the US 'passage' across NW Louisiana is restricted by the existence of the Great Plains Confederacy, and British recognition of this state. However, the idea of exact borders to the Cheyenne and Arapaho is something of a vague one, so British tacit approval for US encroachments on the lands marked on the map as belonging to the GPC could be a pay-off in kind

If things get tense, one could imagine Ottawa getting annoyed at the Hudson Bay Company holding out for even greater tracts of wilderness, even more Indians etc, and voices would be raised for Canadian annexation of the Company's lands

The question would come down to politics in London, which is in a state of flux at this time. If the HBC is to be added to Canada, then it would massively enlarge that already self-governing dominion (an old enough word to use in this timeframe). If the risk of losing Ottawa is not to be faced, then spinning off the HBC as a fully self-governing entity in a more governmental and less corporation-style establishment may well appeal to the democratic sentiments raging in a Britain so far removed from events

Possibly ideal for the timeline would be
-1- Britain gets the best deal possible, the independent establishment of the HBC as a new entity (Columbia probably) being a US condition *(ie that all this new territory is not to be added to the United Provinces of Canada). Thus from Puget Sound East to the Red River basin is a line drawn, rolling at part of this along the N reaches of the Missouri. the Mandan, Hidatsa and Assinboin fall within the British orbit
-2- A second US condition, secret clause etc, is that Britain not protest about US encroachment into territory shown on the map as being part of the Great Plains Confederacy, and thus allows a widening in practice of the 'corridor' between the US on the Mississippi and the US in Oregon
-3- Houston's sterling work brings the Shoshoni and Nez Perce on side with federally-guaranteed homelands and the status as Civilised Tribes (increasing the number to 12 initially, to be extended to 13 later with the Navajo)

There is probably a place here for the final US defeat of the Sioux and their remnants to also request this status, under which name I am not sure - perhaps Lakota ?

In the SW things go as discussed above

1856 - the splitting off of the territories of E and W Tejasm with the rest of Tejas becoming the New Mexico territory (unless people fancy a better name ?), with popular sovereignty immediate in E Tejas, and coming the following year for W Tejas
1859-60 the admission of East Tejas and West Tejas into the Union in time for the 1860 presidential election

The Apache War rumbling along, and though US raids, incursions into de jure Spanish territory and pitched battles help to control them, and reduce their effect, they remain a problem into 1863

Spanish revolt in Coahuila, perhaps also in Monterrey (the last Spanish capital of New Spain), probably in the period 1856-7

The establishment of San Diego as a base for the Pacific Squadron, which is now permanently based off the West coast. The Columbia Estuary in Oregon probably sees a small secondary base established, maybe named after a president - I don't know who the candidates would be, though! Pinckney sounds good as a city, but why him ? Stewart was a naval man, but hardly beloved, though perhaps rehabilitated by the 1850s. Maybe Burr, but how do you make of that name a city ?

A short sharp Mexican War, perhaps in around 1858 when internal turmoil in Mexico leads someone new coming to the presidency to promise glory in the North, perhaps hoping that the US is too busy with the Apache to focus on a Mexican attempt to regain...well, Monterrey might seem the best bet. Maybe there is a thrust towards Tampico too, tho it would be a large US naval base by this time, having so-developed during the war years, and could be expected to have the largest American population in Monterrey Territory

Needless to say, the Mexicans get their head handed to them on a plate. Perhaps Beauregard is in command of the US forces in this little war ? Is Semmes old enough to be commodore at Tampico commanding the US naval response as well ?

I see Kearny and Worth winning re-election in 1856 relatively easily. Not sure who their opponents are - maybe Douglas or Buchanan for the Democrats ? (I think by this time they would have dropped their dual appellation in return for an easier to pronounce name !). Perhaps someone like Seward for the Whigs, quite possibly on the basis that this election is already lost so none of the bigger names (and there would be bound to be some, I think) want to bother running in it

The next election is in 1860, but the incumbent American Party can point to recent successes
- defeat of Mexico
- drawing of the sting of the Apache
- suppression of Spanish Risings
- admission of 2 new states

However, it would quite possibly be the question of social welfare, industrialisation, immigration, settlement and the general living conditions of the ordinary person that will probably decide this election

Maybe we can find a role for Charles Francis Adams in the 1860 election ? And of course, one might ask, what about Abraham Lincoln, which party would he have adhered to ? After all, the American Party needs its next generation of politicians for the decade ahead

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
More US Notes

The US Navy in the 1850s

I am thinking that the US will develop the ironclad steam frigate as its main weapon of war - on the basis that there's no point in building new steam/screw ships of the line in the face of such an invention, whilst an ironclad steam/screw ship of the line seems like a white elephant type of excess

Agreement in Congress for the new generation of warships could be bought with promises such as to name the port at the mouth of the Columbia 'Stewart' . In addition new generations of warships are going to require new generations of ports and arsenals. This is no doubt going to be contentious - the South coast for example will have potential bases all the way from Tampico, which will have strong strategic value, round to Mobile, whose strategic value will have diminished. And even if logically Tampico, Campeche (Galveston) and New Orleans are the main foci, what of the East coast - the Navy can't afford to upgrade all existing bases there, and does it really need THREE in the Caribbean when the 'Spanish Menace' is now severely diminished ?

The Pacific coast is easier, with San Diego the logical choice over 'Stewart' and with a definite need to have ONE base on that coast.

And what of the Great Lakes ? Is the United Provinces of Canada a threat on the same scale as Britain was, or does the self-governing dominion now offer little danger on that flank ? Does the US need a Lakes fleet, or would just one or two ships now suffice ? But if Ottawa's writ ends in time of war, then its armed forces, and whichever Britain might choose to deploy, could again threaten the US on that flank. Besides, the shipbuilders on the lakes would not want to see their trade diminish so severely, and the state legislatures representing them would be pushing their representatives in Congress to support them


Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Map of the USA 1853

Comparing this map to one for 1828 should show how the USA has grown Westward in the intervening period.

On one level it has been by proxy - with the establishment, and then growth of Fredonia

On the other level, it has been through the acquisition of Oregon, and of Tejas and the other N Mexican territories, which this map doesn't allow to be shown in their entirety

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

.

US 1853b.jpg
 
US Territories of the South West - 1853

This map shows how the USA has initially divided its conquests in the South-West into territories (as per my post previously)

It also shows where the borders of the Spanish Viceroyalty of California are, and where those of the Republic of Mexico in the North are


The dot I forgot to put a name to between Matamoros and Tuxpan is TAMPICO, which is probably more important that either of them !

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

.

USA SW Terrs 1853.jpg
 
Last edited:
Well, IMO, giving it to the USA will be interesting because it will engage them in a bit of overstretch and distract them from Fredonia long enough to let AS Johnston keep things interesting out west. It will also make things more interesting between the UPC and the UK.

Overall, I'd say the HBC is concerned that no matter the outcome of the Border Commission, they will lose out. Revenues from the fur trade are falling and the HBC in many ways needs a new lease on life. A merger with the UPC is only being forestalled because of the Commission and the Social Democrats in the UK have no love-lost for a big Colonial Corporation (same goes for the HEIC for that matter).

Hence, the HBC is looking for a solution. Enter a cadre of American industrialists bent on their own enrichment (and the aggrandizement of their country if the profit margins are sufficient). I'm thinking Cornelius Vanderbilt or William Backhouse Astor (son of John Jacob Astor, who dies in 1848 OTL). They make a deal with the existing directors of the HBC and become joint-owners of the company (for a huge sum). Their scheme is this: if they can sell plots of land to US settlers (and the large number of immigrants sure to be coming over from the European revolutions), they will make a fortune.

From here there are a number of options. Perhaps the US gets the sale because the UK is distracted. Perhaps the Border Commission is deadlocked and the new arrangement of the HBC leaves the entire area ripe to become a joint-condominium (untried TTL since the US position in Oregon stemmed from buying Russian claims). This is the path to an independent Hudsonia. It may also be preferred by the new HBC since it gives them the biggest potential market for land grants. {I think my preferred path would be for the new HBC to somehow suborn (read: bribe) the Border Commision into agreeing to endore the HBC's preferred solution to the question of title: joint-condominium, with the HBC acting as the agent of both soveriegn powers.}

Whatever the result, it gives you a nice event to allow some true working class dissent in the USA and the UK. International Capitalists have banded together to forestall the interests of both (by subverting the Border Commision). The new settlements in "Hudsonia" quickly become Company towns writ large, with everything controlled by the Corporation. Free-soil interests in the US evenutally equate this with Planter Capitalism and "the Slave-Money Compact" that threatens to control their lives.

Throw in conflicts with Fredonia and the residents of former New Spain plus the slavery and the US is bursting at the seams with groups resenting each other.

Thank you very much for taking the time to put this together

In the end, I went with an enlarged HBC becoming the colony of Columbia, and with the US and Britain trading off their interests one against the other, with both agreeing that an enlargement of Canada is not to either's benefit

Now, the US has more or less been given the green light to harrass the Plains Indians, which added to its over-stretch in the South (I think the maps I post give an indication of just how large that over-stretch is !) allows Columbia on the one hand, and Fredonia on the other to stabilise and sort themselves out

I am wondering whether BOTH the Whigs and the Democrats could come to be seen as sectional parties - could abolitionism become seen as being a North-Eastern thing as much as slavery be seen as a South-Eastern thing ? Neither is going to be entirely true, given both blocs expansion West but the American Party is presenting itself as a national party above sectional interests. Could a RIVAL movement occur, forming itself out of the remains of Whigs and Democrats to form something in opposition to this ?

I guess in one way I am asking whether the slavery v abolition question needs to end up on opposite sides of the political divide, or whether those holding these views could end up being seen as 'fundamentalist' whilst a truer picture is a divide on a different basis but a consensus more or less on the question of slavery

Virginia and Georgia both have industrial bases in this ATL, and the railroads have more or less established industrial colonies of both across the South. I imagine that the two Tejas states would see an equal influx of Southern industrial money and of New England industrial money. Remember, they are both building on the main area of Spanish investment over the last 30+ years so Campeche, Bexar, Matamoros are not little townships, but rather large-ish cities with their own colonial infrastructure in place (albeit not on the same scale as the US)

Maybe the emerging party is focused on social issues, a working class party importing its ideology from France and from Britain ?

A spur for its formation may well be a third term victory for the American Party in 1860, even though they are not committed to tackling the increasing social and urban issues. In fact, through a focus on developing the expansion of the USA (large territories splint into smaller ones with popular sovereignty, then proceeding to develop into full states) the impression could be that the American Party favours farmers, entrepreneurs, veterans, and Indians

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Last edited:
Errata

It would seem that the city of Matamoros was only called that after a Mexican independence hero, so since this remained Spanish territory in the ATL it would not bear that name

Wiki kindly mentions that the city was renamed in his honour, but doesn't bother to tell me what it was called before !

Anybody know ???

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Top