Minor note there is a missing 5 note.
Lovely read though
A very good catch thank you!
I'm glad you're enjoying! I have more coming to round out 1866!
Wrapped in Flames: The Great American War and Beyond
- Thread starter EnglishCanuck
- Start date
A very good catch thank you!
I'm glad you're enjoying! I have more coming to round out 1866!
I don't think Macdonald realized what he's unleashed with that senate. Sooner or later the Grand Coalition will fall and he's going to have some very powerful senators to contend with on top of opposition in the house.
Assuming the westward expansion happens as per OTL, it makes Alberta and Saskatchewan interesting. Do you split the area into two provinces with double the senators, or risk having a huge behemoth challenging Ontario and Quebec?
Assuming the westward expansion happens as per OTL, it makes Alberta and Saskatchewan interesting. Do you split the area into two provinces with double the senators, or risk having a huge behemoth challenging Ontario and Quebec?
That's not too hard to avoid.
On the Russian side alone, Alexander II, his finance minister von Reutern and his foreign minister Gorchakov were all skeptical of the proposed sale; not opposed I should precise, but skeptical, like in "if you get us a deal to sell it, fine, but we won't force the matter". Gorchakov feared the sale might antagonize the British, and von Reutern was skeptical the money from the sale would make much a difference to the imperial finances after the costly emancipation reforms and the fallout of previous wars.
I have to re read about the sale, but from memory, the only one to really advocate for the sale with vigor was de Stoeckl.
Actually, the negotiations with the US were kept a secret in Russia, and the sale was not announced here until the news got out in American newspapers as well. Understandably, the domestic reaction in Russia was mostly outrage, as a matter of prestige, though that eventually calmed down. Alexander II was weary as well, and was not far from revoking de Stoeckl's mandate to negotiate a sale when it happened; de Stoeckl had already tried it before the civil war, to no avail, and this second attempt with Seward was the last attempt.
Then, on the American side, besides Seward, I don't know who was actively interested in purchasing a piece of "frozen wilderness" as some put it. And McClellan does not strike me as someone who would waste millions of dollars on it, while there is so much to do after the end of the civil war.
So, if the sale had not happened in 1867, the chances are that it would never have happened at all after it. De Stoeckl was gone soon after for health reason, and his successor as ambassador, Konstantin Katakazi made such a good job of antagonizing the American governments that Russo-American relations cooled down a bit.
My sense, as I explored this path in a TL of mine, is that the Russians would have eventually followed the Canadian example of abolishing the Hudson Bay Company's monopoly by abolishing the Russian-American Company's monopoly in Alaska (the Golovin report, bleak as it was, tended towards such a conclusion from the descriptions I could read of it, even if I'm no certain without having had read the text itself), which would have made economic development of the Russian colony, particularly in the mining sector, easier (there were some mining surveys by Peter Doroshin in the 1850s, but the RAC was uninterested by it, focusing on other activities like fur trade). And once you find gold, no way the Russians would be letting go of it.
Last edited:
Prince Albert of Hawaii's godmother may have something to say about that
well, her government might.Unfortunately news travels slowly from Asia, and Her Majesty's Government are in the very near future going to get something they would consider to be very bad news indeed...
He only has an inkling. It's why you see him fighting hard for men who will be loyal premiers who will appoint good party loyalists to the Senate, and why in Quebec, Ouimet is Premier and Chaveau is in the Senate. They can trust Ouimet to run the province, but Chaveau (who historically resigned to be in the Senate) is a much better choice to coordinate the Conservative-Liberal views in that body.
Sandfield Macdonald in Ontario is a gamble, but in the short term it pays off. Once Brown gets back and starts to realign himself in the political field though, all bets are off...
That's indeed a challenge I've been considering! It will definitely depend on the government of the day, and how much power they want in the West. BC is going to be interesting on her own, and whatever ends up happening in the Red River may also shape opinions to a certain degree.
The events in China?
However, given that the topic talked about was the Russian Pacific getting expanded... (types "Russian Colonialism 19th centure" to Google)
Hokkaido gets annexed by Russians?
Russian return to Hawaii for reasons?
Remnants of Qing turns into a Russian puppet, with Russians grabbing as many lands as possible from their new vassal without making them go extinct?
As much as Eastern British North America wants union with each other, do the same stresses apply in the West? Could we see BC not joining Canada? Speaking of not joining Canada, what's going on with Newfoundland?Prince Albert of Hawaii's godmother may have something to say about that
Unfortunately news travels slowly from Asia, and Her Majesty's Government are in the very near future going to get something they would consider to be very bad news indeed...
He only has an inkling. It's why you see him fighting hard for men who will be loyal premiers who will appoint good party loyalists to the Senate, and why in Quebec, Ouimet is Premier and Chaveau is in the Senate. They can trust Ouimet to run the province, but Chaveau (who historically resigned to be in the Senate) is a much better choice to coordinate the Conservative-Liberal views in that body.
Sandfield Macdonald in Ontario is a gamble, but in the short term it pays off. Once Brown gets back and starts to realign himself in the political field though, all bets are off...
That's indeed a challenge I've been considering! It will definitely depend on the government of the day, and how much power they want in the West. BC is going to be interesting on her own, and whatever ends up happening in the Red River may also shape opinions to a certain degree.
Fascinating! I've been reading some of Seward's biography and he was propelled towards the sale via his belief in Manifest Destiny, but he was certainly fighting against some apathy. However, the belief in expanding the Union after the Civil War was strong, and no one seemed interested in fighting him on the matter so long as it was not too expensive. It turned out to be rather relatively cheap, which pleased everyone. There were some proponents, IIRC Charles Sumner supported it, as did Nathaniel Banks, so men who are TTL in the Radical Camp of the Republicans would be amenable, but its not the hill they are willing to die on with slavery still legal in the United States. This information on the Russian perspective is indeed eye opening. I never thought they'd just out abandon it, but my understanding was that the Russians basically thought it was a net drain on the treasury and that in the event of another conflict with Britain they would be unable to defend it.
In WiF you are correct that the McClellan administration is uninterested in the acquisition. There's enough expensive issues at home, and McClellan is unlikely to look at a map and decide its a reasonable expenditure. If he did, you can bet the Radicals would oppose it on principle, if only because McClellan proposed it.
Post 1867 Alaska is still in Russian hands (spoilers) but whether they decide - or are made to decide - otherwise, is an open question. Both Russia and Britain are about to have changing motives in the Pacific world so that will influence various decisions going forward.
Let's just say I've had fun writing the 1866 world update! Asia is a bit of a mess in terms of the sudden changes I've whipped into existence.
In the West the now united colonies of British Columbia have, as a result of the Cariboo War, the War of 1862 and general maintenance, gone into an even worse debt load than they were historically, pushing them to 2,000,000$ in debt. Maybe not a lot to some, but with a population of roughly 60,000 that's quite a bit. Historically the promise of a railroad, debt relief and responsible government is what pushed BC into Canada's arms, and as of 1866, that isn't rapidly changing here. There's still Americans who would rather be annexed into the US, but with the general Yankee phobia that the war created its a lot less of a vocal group. So the same pressures still apply in favor of Confederation.
Newfoundland meanwhile is still cheerfully uninterested. There's some who support it, but they're a minority in the island's political scene.
Need I mention that if Russia retains Alaska, this means the OTL Alaska boundary dispute between the US and Canada becomes a boundary dispute between the Russian and British empires... Not that it matters now, but comes the Klondike Gold Rush... ^^
Oh there's plenty of new opportunities for relations between Britain and Russia to get fraught as we go into the 1870s... this new boundary between them and some other emerging troubles are going to weight heavily on the minds of British politicos and military thinkers!
I mean with it being the Era of Hard Feelings, it's entirely possible if the gold rush happenes around the same time that Russia might actually be more stable than the US at the time, so there won't be the background that led to the Texan revolution and the US is really not going to want to start a war with the only European power they're on good terms with.
Not quite new. It technically dates back to the 18th century, and there was a treaty in 1825, but back then, this particular border was a non issue and the Great Game was not something yet. Add the Great Game, a Canada emerging and aspiring to grow out of the motherland's shadow, and, lest we forget, an awful lot of gold to the equation...
Hold that thought for soon...
However, the US is undergoing an extremely chaotic domestic political situation. They'll have more domestic gold rushes to start problems, but overall they are facing an uphill battle towards political stability which is going to end up with some very contentious elections. 1868 is gonna be a wild ride.
For gold an empire kills....
But I didn't know about the 1825 treaty! More time for research! The potential for boundary disputes will be interesting.
Oh, I also forgot to mention, the HBC had built a trading post on the Yukon inside Russian territory as defined by the 1825 treaty, Fort Yukon, though I believe from memory that he did not quite ask the permission from the Russians; the HBC was a rival and competitor of the RAC for the fur trade, but it's my understanding the Russians were simply not able or willing to do much about it, it being so deep inside the lands, at a time Russian control was essentially limited to the coasts.
The Americans did expell the Canadians from Fort Yukon after the Alaska purchase; unlike the Russians, they had more teeth to throw around I think.
Now, things might get a bit interesting if the HBC still has a presence at Fort Yukon if a serious crisis was to erupt between Russia and the United Kingdom. For one, since the boundary was clear cut along the 141st meridian west, the Canadians and the HBC would be hard pressed to justify their presence here and maintain it if the Russian wanted to evict them.
The Americans did expell the Canadians from Fort Yukon after the Alaska purchase; unlike the Russians, they had more teeth to throw around I think.
Now, things might get a bit interesting if the HBC still has a presence at Fort Yukon if a serious crisis was to erupt between Russia and the United Kingdom. For one, since the boundary was clear cut along the 141st meridian west, the Canadians and the HBC would be hard pressed to justify their presence here and maintain it if the Russian wanted to evict them.
From a purely military perspective, there wouldn't be much the Russians could do in an immediate crisis (IIRC during the Crimean War they sent part of a regiment over to defend their ports, but that was it). The British have beefed up their presence at Esquimalt in terms of ships, and neither side would be excited about a campaign into the frozen north.
However, with the Russians potentially wanting a diplomatic solution, the HBC would be hard pressed to justify their presence. That being said, there might be opportunists amongst them who wish to provoke a conflict if Britain begins throwing her weight around more.
The New World Order 1866 Part 2: The United States
The New World Order 1866 Part 2: The United States
“1866 would prove to be the most dismal year by far for the McClellan administration. McClellan himself would spend some time bedridden with dysentery in the middle of the year, and his cabinet would sorely miss him. As such, Seymour would often speak as the voice of the President in cabinet meetings, often after meeting with Barlow during March of 1866. In that time McClellan would largely be convalescent, focusing on his legacy concerns such as the railroad or the army. The President was often seen pouring over maps for the proposed rail routes while also taking reports from his department commanders, and grudgingly meeting with his Secretary of War to discuss the various crises of that year.
News that Kentucky had decided to secede shocked the cabinet, including McClellan himself who had been assured by many influential Kentuckians that he had been their first choice for president. Seeing the state suddenly decide to forgo its ties with the United States had struck McClellan as a personal betrayal. He would largely seek to pass the Bayard Flag Proposal, many said, out of spite…
The disaster of the Stoneman Massacre and then the Fenian fiasco in the Aroostook saw McClellan determined that in 1867 the nation would pursue a policy of “good neighbors and good fences” with Barlow being dispatched to work with influential men from both parties to ensure more money could be spent on the military, and importantly, new fortifications along the whole frontier. Protecting the integrity of the borders now became one of his chief policies that he would attach to his legacy…” - I Can Do It All: The Trials of George B. McClellan, Alfred White, 1992, Aurora Publishing
“The 1866 midterm elections would continue to frustrate all parties. With the Democrats carrying a razor thin majority in the House with 98 seats, while the divided opposition picked up 109 seats, but only 84 of those being Republican and 25 being Radical Democracy members. The Radicals had picked up seats in Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri and Kansas, with wildcard seats in Vermont, Indiana and New York. This meant that command of the house effectively fell into the Democratic leadership, having to lean more on conservative Republicans to get matters through. However, schisms were beginning to be felt in the party as its ostensible leader, Samuel Marshal, could not corral his members into a coherent bloc for many votes.
In the Senate, it was a different matter. The Radicals and Republicans could work together, especially with the bellicose Charles Sumner and Republican leaders John Sherman and Oliver P. Morton managing to, more or less, whip their members into line despite ideological differences. The two parties maintained a bare seat differential, as the Democrats lost a slew of seats after the events of the year.
This split was felt in all houses most by the Bayard Flag Proposal. In July of 1866, James Bayard of Delaware proposed changing the flag of the United States to represent the remaining 24 states minus the lost 12 Confederate states. Bayard, infamous for his pro-Southern sympathies during the war, had nonetheless managed to ingratiate himself with the Copperhead political faction and ride it to victory in his state. The proposal was viewed as less than odious by most in the House and only the 25 Radicals, 7 Republicans and 10 Democrats voted against it, having it pass by the House easily. However, when it reached the Senate pandemonium ensued.
Sumner and Sherman both refused to countenance any loss of face by “admitting to the base abandonment of this nation's rightful land to the Slave Power” as Sumner would brashly declare. As one, the Radicals and Republicans voted against the measure, joined by three Democrats. In what seemed more like a petty gesture against a small concession to the new status of the nation, the Senate sent a shot across the bow of the McClellan administration, signaling its instrangience against any effort to foster normal relations with the Confederacy. This included Democrats who like John Logan who did not wholly agree, or simply found the proposal from a man who was “half a secessionist” too odious to back.
Characteristically, McClellan would take the bickering on the Hill as a mark of disloyalty, often forcing issues. He would not pocket veto any proposals (meaning the Bayard Flag Proposal was only passed under a different name in 1869) but would lean on Barlow to act as his whip rather than the political machinery in place. To the detriment of the Democrats he only met with Marshal three times during his presidency, appearing to have no use for the man. Oftentimes when informed that there was a vote in the Senate he would send Barlow, when available, to observe, and then merely read notes as though he were receiving word from a scouting party and return to whatever work he had been otherwise engaged in.
It was this acrimony in the House which stalled any meaningful financial reform. Contrary to expectations, inflation had not “bottomed out” with the conclusion of the war, as the United States had to pay indemnities to Britain. While manufacturing output began to rise, many merchants found themselves competing directly with British imports when trying to import South, and the whiplash in food prices left many families leaning towards destitution as farmers kept prices artificially high, hedging against inflation and another glut on the market in 1867. The resulting wild fluctuations in prices would see many banks adamantly refusing to relinquish their species reserves into the market, driving prices up and confidence in the greenbacks down. This was felt most keenly in California where greenbacks were still used only grudgingly and many men were compelled to trade their gold in for far less than it had been worth five years prior.
John Sherman passionately advocated for continuing to allow greenbacks to be in circulation until the indemnities were paid, believing any contraction in the supply of money would further harm the economy. This was a project that was not entirely popular in Congress, however, powerful business interests in New York moved to try and keep the greenbacks in circulation, since many debts were being paid in greenbacks which were then being hoarded to hopefully achieve their stated value in gold. It was largely Midwestern districts, and in the Pacific, which opposed the continuance of greenbacks, with William Gwin of California[2] leading the discontent in the Senate against the measure, to the approval of both Republicans and Democrats. As such, an effort to pass a Contraction Bill to slowly ease the greenbacks from circulation in 1866 died on the House floor[3], with no major effort to address the monetary supply being accomplished in the 39th Congress…
Belatedly, in foreign matters, a brief effort would be made in the Senate to advocate for the very dead Monroe Doctrine by none other than Sumner himself. He saw the emergence of an independent Confederacy and a European puppet monarchy in Mexico as a direct threat to American interests. He would passionately advocate against “further European encroachment on the American continent” and beseech members of his nation not to give up on the republican ideal in Mexico. There was some interest, especially from Nathaniel Banks, in pursuing such a project. However, outside the Radical camp, neither party was exceedingly interested in the Mexican problem. When it became known that Banks advocated for aiding Mexico in exchange for territory, most simply looked on the idea as another flight of fancy from a man many Democrats and Republicans derided as a failure for his part in the war.
Finally though, one major economic act was passed as the United States voted to end its reciprocity treaty with the Kingdom of Canada, while deciding to raise a new tariff wall on goods shipped from Europe, primarily Britain. The Sherman-Hooper Tariff was a proposed raise on the cost to import machine parts from Britain, excluding railroad stock, in order to give aid to industries which had grown during the war which were now threatened by British dominance in the market. The move was condemned in some Democratic presses, but largely passed without incident. It ensured that protectionism was the watchword of American industry going forward[4]…” - The Era of Hard Feelings, William Avery, Random House, 1989
----
1] Essentially, vote splitting is still killing the Republicans on both sides, but its not enough to help the Democrats get a majority.
2] Gwin is one of those men to watch post-war. His loyalty is more to California than the United States, and his opposition of this measure should let you know how the West Coast opinion is swinging.
3] Historically this is a bill that passed rather easily. However, high war inflation and the greenbacks being in prime circulation and an emerging east/west divide on the money question means it won’t pass at all for a while.
4] Similar to 1812, there was a shot in the arm to domestic industry, but it was ruinously expensive. Naturally, many industrialists want to try and keep their domestic industries alive, but both national and foreign capitalists want easy money. Unfortunately, the chaotic monetary situation means that there’s a lot of pressure in the market now that it’s competing against foreign suppliers again.
Last edited:
Read a bit about Gwin. He was a pro-Confederate sympathizer who advocated for a Pacific Republic centred around California until 1861. I'm unsure if that actually happens ITTL but it seems the seeds for Western Alienation are being laid when Western US opinions is gradually turning away from Washington. Maybe not the case of the West seceding in another civil war scenario but I can see how this might cause future Presidents and other officials to have to consider the West in US politics. Perhaps the West will be seen as an equal to the East in the future.
On another note, I'm still trying to figure out what the Great War would be like and where it starts. Europe seems likely but I even thought the spark is a Pacific Republic seceding from the US that involves the rest of the world but that seems as plausible as The Pig War starting a full-blown Anglo-American War.
On another note, I'm still trying to figure out what the Great War would be like and where it starts. Europe seems likely but I even thought the spark is a Pacific Republic seceding from the US that involves the rest of the world but that seems as plausible as The Pig War starting a full-blown Anglo-American War.
It seems EC is teasing future problems with the American West Coast, while I doubt we'll see a Pacific Republic it's not entirely off the cards (still remembering the statement "the map of North America will be drastically different). However currently I'm leaning towards California becoming the American Quebec (minus the ethno-linguistic dimension) at worst and at best becoming the American Alberta/Saskatchewan in terms of alienation
Gwin and another cabal of disgruntled governors and state politicians in the West are currently not outright advocating for a Pacific Republic, but they are agitating against "Eastern Interference" thanks to the war. The war was very much not in their interests, with the gold economy being disrupted, a huge loss of trade, and the British occupations of swathes of the West Coast. California in particular saw one of Britain's two major decisive naval victories in the war at Golden Gate in 1863 lead to the occupation of San Francisco, which is going to leave a significant mark on peoples views of the war out west. The politicians in Washington will be dealing with the seeds of Western Alienation for a while, and I have some politicians in mind who fit the bill for powerful members of that faction.
That I am keeping close to the chest for now! I have 50 years of history to go, so there's many surprises to come for how the world will look in the 1910s!