Decades of Darkness #51b: A Matter of Democracy

[Kaiser Wilhelm III]

Decades of Darkness #51b: A Matter of Democracy

Excerpts from "The 100 Greatest Events That Changed The World"
By Josiah H. Canterbury, Richard Irving and Emily Vasquez
(c) 1950, Vanderbilt Press
New York City: Long Island
Republic of New England

Introduction

"Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do
study it fail mathematics instead."
- Attributed to Lord Percy Kelvin, 1st Prime Minister of Australia

Choosing a defining moment in history is never easy. There are so
many significant events to choose from that assessing the relative
weight of each one can present grave problems. Some events capture
the public imagination more than others. Wars, and the triggers of
wars, are particularly favoured. But how does one choose the decisive
moment? The event which triggered the war is often remembered, but
wars start from multiple causes, and if a particular event had not
happened, some other cause may well have triggered the war.
Similarly, during the course of a war, a particular battle may be
well-remembered, but who is to say that a different result at that
battle might not have been nullified by another battle later.
Consider, for example, Napoleon's victory at Waterloo. Though he
proclaimed it as a significant victory, he was in exile soon
thereafter.

Many other decisive events may pass unnoticed to the public eye, or be
less well-remembered. Johann Gutenberg's invention of movable type is
probably the most significant event of the past millennium, but how
many people today even recognise his name? Social events such as the
invention of contraception or the first country granting female
suffrage are equally important, but often earn less notice.

Perhaps an even greater challenge is selecting the defining event for
a long-term trend. This book focuses on single events, but often
these events are merely one small part of a major pattern. Take the
rise of Germany, first as a united nation, then to the status of a
great power, and eventually to the status of superpower. This is a
historical trend which deserves at least one, perhaps more events to
mark it, but which moments should we choose? The moment when Germany
made the transition from great power status to superpower status is
easy to define – when her armed forces managed a feat which had not
been achieved in over eight and a half centuries, and abolished
another nation's ambitions to superpower status – and has been given a
suitably high ranking. But there were many steps along that road,
starting with the formation of the German Confederation in 1815, the
first successful combined military operation in 1834, the
establishment of a common legislative structure, the first defeat of
another great power, the unification of the ruling houses, and so on.
Selecting which, if any of these events to include was a difficult
choice…

15. U.S. President Jefferson Davis's "Manifest Destiny" Speech, 1859

We have chosen this speech because no other single moment so clearly
marks the rise of American expansionism. When tracing this movement,
it is clear that there are trends which date even to before the United
States became a nation, such as the desire to expand across the
Appalachians. And, to be sure, there was a thread of military
expansionism prevalent in the United States from very early on, as
demonstrated by the War of 1811, the War of 1833 and the First Mexican
War.

Nonetheless, while the same expansionist attitude was demonstrated in
all three wars – albeit most successfully in the last instance - it
did not include the same flavour of outright conquest and annexation
which was to mark the United States' later activities. Even when the
First Mexican War was over, the United States still recognised the
Mexican government and negotiated a treaty which, while harsh, left
Mexico a sovereign state and included payment for the territory that
was annexed. Thus, as the defining moment for this trend, we have
chosen the speech by the first U.S. President to preside over the
annexation of a sovereign state… [1]

* * *

The Presidential Elections of 1856
From "The Atlas of American Political History"
(c) 1946 By Karl Wundt
Lone Pine Publishing Company
Hammersford [OTL Salem, Oregon], Oregon State
United States of America

Caption:
The 1856 elections represented a three-cornered struggle between the
two dominant parties, the Patriots and the Democrats, and the
fervently anti-immigration Freedom Party. Despite the surprisingly
strong showing of Tennessee Senator John Bell, the Freedom Party made
no significant impact on the elections. Instead, it was the war hero
General Jefferson Davis, born in Kentucky but resident in West
Florida, who put aside his uniform for civilian clothes, and won the
election for the Democrats, the first president from that party since
Jackson. Former vice-president Samuel Houston could not withstand the
steady trend against the Patriots, almost inevitable after so many
years in office, and particularly given Davis's great military
reputation.

Popular Votes Electoral Votes
State Houston Davis Bell Houston Davis Bell
Alabama 16,610 25,352 1,748 0 11 0
Arkansas 5,236 9,490 1,636 0 4 0
Delaware 4,761 3,174 1,984 3 0 0
East Florida 2,770 4,190 142 0 3 0
East Texas 13,778 8,357 452 5 0 0
Georgia 23,067 51,517 2,307 0 17 0
Illinois 31,836 26,176 12,734 12 0 0
Indiana 31,323 24,513 12,257 11 0 0
Iowa 14,441 8,290 4,011 5 0 0
Jackson 1,888 4,080 122 0 3 0
Jefferson 7,938 9,349 353 0 4 0
Kentucky 35,750 55,859 20,109 0 20 0
Louisiana 15,363 16,670 654 0 9 0
Maryland 29,707 25,629 2,912 12 0 0
Mississippi 10,523 19,808 619 0 9 0
Missouri 27,855 29,672 3,028 0 11 0
North Carolina 38,453 36,099 3,924 17 0 0
Ohio 113,336 79,335 34,001 40 0 0
Pennsylvania 107,090 55,457 28,685 34 0 0
South Carolina 13,883 24,196 1,587 0 12 0
Tennessee 48,259 58,131 3,290 0 20 0
Virginia 47,178 75,230 5,100 0 26 0
Washington 16,467 19,395 732 0 7 0
West Florida 12,437 27,281 401 0 10 0
Westylvania 48,181 28,739 7,608 16 0 0
Total 718,130 725,992 150,396 155 166 0

* * *

The Columbia Register
5 March 1857

PRESIDENT DAVIS INAUGURATED

… Alert readers of this newspaper will realise that we have taken the
immediate liberty of renaming it, in accordance with the recent name
change announced by President Davis in his inauguration address. As
he stated, "If I have a superstition, sirs, which governs my mind and
holds it
captive, it is a superstitious reverence for the Union. If one can
inherit a sentiment, I may be said to have inherited this from my
revolutionary father. And if I my father were alive today, he would
surely scorn that our nation's glorious capital bears the name of a
trumped-up Yankee from Massachusetts. Let this city rejoice instead
in the name of Columbia, a more fit appellation than its predecessor."

* * *

Excerpts from "Great American Speeches"
(c) 1946 By Peter van Buren,
Bear Flag Publishing Company
Los Angeles, North California
United States of America

President Jefferson Davis's address to Congress after the annexation
of Nicaragua, 1859

"Our forefathers, in the sacred Declaration of independence, stated
that all men are created free and equal. On this basis has been made
recent attack upon our social institutions, and invoked a position of
the equality of the races. But that Declaration is to be construed by
the circumstances and purposes for which it was made. The communities
were declaring their independence; the people of those communities
were asserting that no man was born -- to use the language of Mr.
Jefferson -- booted and spurred, to ride over the rest of mankind;
that men were created equal -- meaning the men of the political
community; that there was no divine right to rule; that no man
inherited the right to govern; that there were no classes by which
power and place descended to families; but that all stations were
equally within the grasp of each member of the body politic.

"These were the great principles they announced; these were the
purposes for which they made their declaration; these were the ends to
which their enunciation was directed. They have no reference to the
slave or the other unfree peoples; else, how happened it that among
the items of arraignment against George III was that he endeavored to
stir up insurrection among our slaves? Had the Declaration announced
that the negroes were free and equal, how was the prince to be
arraigned for raising up insurrection among them? And how was this to
be enumerated among the high crimes which caused the colonies to sever
their connection with the mother-country? When our Constitution was
formed, the same idea was rendered more palpable; for there we find
provision made for that very class of persons as property; they were
not put upon the equality of footing with white men -- not even upon
that of paupers and convicts; but, so far as representation was
concerned, were discriminated against as a lower caste, only to be
represented in the numerical proportion of three-fifths. So stands the
compact which binds us together.

"To this compact we have lately had cause to add a new class; those
who are not yet, but who may become, free. Some have advanced the
claim that here were have abandoned the wisdom of our forefathers who
framed the Constitution. Yet to this I have the simple answer: we are
not abandoning the Constitution, rather, we are extending and
clarifying it. Even our founding fathers proclaimed not two classes
of society - slave and free - but instead, they revealed three: slave,
free, and Indian. To this latter class was accorded neither the class
of slave which is the only just position for the Negro, nor the
freedom which is the fitting status of the white race, but a role in
between. And to this class we have recently seen fit to add others,
where those in our southern territories whose blood is not that of the
white race have instead been granted roles more fitting to their
status. Their role has not yet been universally accepted, but it
shall be.

"For now, gentlemen, we have seen a new path open up for the United
States. We have always been strong; this we have known, despite the
attempts of others of the white race to thwart us. But before us
stretches a new path, shown by the actions of how merely a few members
of the white race, endowed with greater strength than that of the
lesser races of mankind, have been able to fly our beloved Stars and
Stripes over first the jewel of the Caribbean, and now over the former
Nicaragua. God has shown us the path; the route by which the white
race shall take and hold its rightful place above others in the
struggle between races. Let us not forget what He has shown us! It
is the manifest destiny of the United States and the American race to
dominate all of this new world we have been granted, to drive out and
to conquer the lesser races and savages who currently people it. It
is our destiny to grow, to bring these continents into the leadership
of the white race so that they can grow in prominence and in power,
until all of these lands are one nation under God."

* * *

[1] These authors, like many others, do not class Texas as ever being
a sovereign state.

* * *

Thoughts?

Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://decadesofdarkness.alternatehistory.com/

[David]

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Decades of Darkness #51b: A Matter of Democracy
Excerpts from "The 100 Greatest Events That Changed The World"
By Josiah H. Canterbury, Richard Irving and Emily Vasquez
(c) 1950, Vanderbilt Press
New York City: Long Island
Republic of New England
Introduction
"Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do
study it fail mathematics instead."
- Attributed to Lord Percy Kelvin, 1st Prime Minister of Australia

(-: The lord Kelvin?

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
15. U.S. President Jefferson Davis's "Manifest Destiny" Speech, 1859
We have chosen this speech because no other single moment so clearly marks the rise of American expansionism. When tracing this movement,Thus, as the defining moment for this trend, we have
chosen the speech by the first U.S. President to preside over the
annexation of a sovereign state? [1]
The Presidential Elections of 1856
From "The Atlas of American Political History"
(c) 1946 By Karl Wundt
Lone Pine Publishing Company
Hammersford [OTL Salem, Oregon], Oregon State
United States of America
The 1856 elections represented a three-cornered struggle between the
two dominant parties, the Patriots and the Democrats, and the
fervently anti-immigration Freedom Party. Despite the surprisingly
strong showing of Tennessee Senator John Bell, the Freedom Party made no significant impact on the elections. Instead, it was the war hero
General Jefferson Davis, born in Kentucky but resident in West
Florida, who put aside his uniform for civilian clothes, and won the
election for the Democrats,

I'm not sure about Bell. Bell joined the rump Whigs/ Consitutional
Unionists/ Know-Nothings because (like Fillmore) he saw them as the
only non sectional party.

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Popular Votes Electoral Votes
State Houston Davis Bell Houston Davis Bell
Alabama 16,610 25,352 1,748 0 11 0
Arkansas 5,236 9,490 1,636 0 4 0
Delaware 4,761 3,174 1,984 3 0 0
East Florida 2,770 4,190 142 0 3 0
East Texas 13,778 8,357 452 5 0 0
Georgia 23,067 51,517 2,307 0 17 0
Illinois 31,836 26,176 12,734 12 0 0
Indiana 31,323 24,513 12,257 11 0 0
Iowa 14,441 8,290 4,011 5 0 0
Jackson 1,888 4,080 122 0 3 0
Jefferson 7,938 9,349 353 0 4 0
Kentucky 35,750 55,859 20,109 0 20 0
Louisiana 15,363 16,670 654 0 9 0
Maryland 29,707 25,629 2,912 12 0 0
Mississippi 10,523 19,808 619 0 9 0
Missouri 27,855 29,672 3,028 0 11 0
North Carolina 38,453 36,099 3,924 17 0 0
Ohio 113,336 79,335 34,001 40 0 0
Pennsylvania 107,090 55,457 28,685 34 0 0
South Carolina 13,883 24,196 1,587 0 12 0
Tennessee 48,259 58,131 3,290 0 20 0
Virginia 47,178 75,230 5,100 0 26 0
Washington 16,467 19,395 732 0 7 0
West Florida 12,437 27,281 401 0 10 0
Westylvania 48,181 28,739 7,608 16 0 0
Total 718,130 725,992 150,396 155 166 0

I'm a bit confused about the two parties. As I see it, the Democrats*
are the Whigs + about a third of (the more centeralist, moderates) the
OTL Democrats, while the Patriots are the more right wing 2/3rds of
the OTL Dems. The Patriots seem more frontier oriented, the democrats
more centerist (and presumably economic nationalist). Am I correct?

President Jefferson Davis's address to Congress after the annexation

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
of Nicaragua, 1859

Presumably for the purposes of a potential trans-continental canal?
Was Nicaragua already controlled by fillibusters, or did the US have
to conquer it?

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
"Our forefathers, in the sacred Declaration of independence, stated
that all men are created free and equal. On this basis has been made
recent attack upon our social institutions, and invoked a position of
the equality of the races. But that Declaration is to be co
framed the Constitution. Yet to this I have the simple answer: we are
not abandoning the Constitution, rather, we are extending and
clarifying it. Even our founding fathers proclaimed not two classes
of society - slave and free - but instead, they revealed three: slave,
free, and Indian. To this latter class was accorded neither the class
of slave which is the only just position for the Negro, nor the
freedom which is the fitting status of the white race, but a role in
between. And to this class we have recently seen fit to add others,
where those in our southern territories whose blood is not that of the
white race have instead been granted roles more fitting to their
status. Their role has not yet been universally accepted, but it
shall be.
"For now, gentlemen, we have seen a new path open up for the United
States. We have always been strong; this we have known, despite the
attempts of others of the white race to thwart us. But before us
stretches a new path, shown by the actions of how merely a few members
of the white race, endowed with greater strength than that of the
lesser races of mankind, have been able to fly our beloved Stars and
Stripes over first the jewel of the Caribbean, and now over the former
Nicaragua. God has shown us the path; the route by which the white
race shall take and hold its rightful place above others in the
struggle between races. Let us not forget what He has shown us! It
is the manifest destiny of the United States and the American race to
dominate all of this new world we have been granted, to drive out and
to conquer the lesser races and savages who currently people it. It
is our destiny to grow, to bring these continents into the leadership
of the white race so that they can grow in prominence and in power,
until all of these lands are one nation under God."

Just when you think it can't get any more evil...

Brilliant and plausible, as usual.

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://decadesofdarkness.alternatehistory.com/

[Kaiser Wilhelm III]

Post by David

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Decades of Darkness #51b: A Matter of Democracy
Excerpts from "The 100 Greatest Events That Changed The World"
By Josiah H. Canterbury, Richard Irving and Emily Vasquez
(c) 1950, Vanderbilt Press
New York City: Long Island
Republic of New England
Introduction
"Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do
study it fail mathematics instead."
- Attributed to Lord Percy Kelvin, 1st Prime Minister of Australia

(-: The lord Kelvin?

Not the famous Lord Kelvin of OTL, of course, being born post-POD, but
someone who acquired the name who ended up in Australia. The other main
purpose of this quote was to show that Australia includes a distinct crust
of aristocrats, something lacking in OTL.

Post by David

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
15. U.S. President Jefferson Davis's "Manifest Destiny" Speech, 1859
We have chosen this speech because no other single moment so clearly

marks the rise of American expansionism. When tracing this movement,Thus,
as the defining moment for this trend, we have

Post by David

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
chosen the speech by the first U.S. President to preside over the
annexation of a sovereign state? [1]
The Presidential Elections of 1856
From "The Atlas of American Political History"
(c) 1946 By Karl Wundt
Lone Pine Publishing Company
Hammersford [OTL Salem, Oregon], Oregon State
United States of America
The 1856 elections represented a three-cornered struggle between the
two dominant parties, the Patriots and the Democrats, and the
fervently anti-immigration Freedom Party. Despite the surprisingly
strong showing of Tennessee Senator John Bell, the Freedom Party made no

significant impact on the elections. Instead, it was the war hero

Post by David

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
General Jefferson Davis, born in Kentucky but resident in West
Florida, who put aside his uniform for civilian clothes, and won the
election for the Democrats,

I'm not sure about Bell. Bell joined the rump Whigs/ Consitutional
Unionists/ Know-Nothings because (like Fillmore) he saw them as the
only non sectional party.

ITTL, I'm assuming he joined the nativist Freedom party because they were
more his style than the other choices. But hey, I can always find someone
else to fill the role. Maybe Fillmore himself (he was from New York, but he
could have been one of the considerable number of pro-Union folks who
emigrated after the end of the War of 1811).

Post by David

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Popular Votes Electoral Votes
State Houston Davis Bell Houston Davis Bell
Alabama 16,610 25,352 1,748 0 11 0
Arkansas 5,236 9,490 1,636 0 4 0
Delaware 4,761 3,174 1,984 3 0 0
East Florida 2,770 4,190 142 0 3 0
East Texas 13,778 8,357 452 5 0 0
Georgia 23,067 51,517 2,307 0 17 0
Illinois 31,836 26,176 12,734 12 0 0
Indiana 31,323 24,513 12,257 11 0 0
Iowa 14,441 8,290 4,011 5 0 0
Jackson 1,888 4,080 122 0 3 0
Jefferson 7,938 9,349 353 0 4 0
Kentucky 35,750 55,859 20,109 0 20 0
Louisiana 15,363 16,670 654 0 9 0
Maryland 29,707 25,629 2,912 12 0 0
Mississippi 10,523 19,808 619 0 9 0
Missouri 27,855 29,672 3,028 0 11 0
North Carolina 38,453 36,099 3,924 17 0 0
Ohio 113,336 79,335 34,001 40 0 0
Pennsylvania 107,090 55,457 28,685 34 0 0
South Carolina 13,883 24,196 1,587 0 12 0
Tennessee 48,259 58,131 3,290 0 20 0
Virginia 47,178 75,230 5,100 0 26 0
Washington 16,467 19,395 732 0 7 0
West Florida 12,437 27,281 401 0 10 0
Westylvania 48,181 28,739 7,608 16 0 0
Total 718,130 725,992 150,396 155 166 0

I'm a bit confused about the two parties. As I see it, the Democrats*
are the Whigs + about a third of (the more centeralist, moderates) the
OTL Democrats, while the Patriots are the more right wing 2/3rds of
the OTL Dems. The Patriots seem more frontier oriented, the democrats
more centerist (and presumably economic nationalist). Am I correct?

Allow me to insert a long description here which I originally emailed to
someone, but haven't really got around to posting yet.

In a nutshell, a Democrat is a follower of the
Jacksonian ideal of an agricultural republic. A
Patriot is someone who opposes a Democrat.

To put it in a few more words, the Democrats gain
support from agricultural interests, and rural areas
in general. They are thus supported by the planters,
but also by the poor farmers and homesteaders of the
frontier. They oppose too much bureacratization and
governmental regulation, particularly over economic
activity (hence, they opposed the Bank of the United
States). Although they support the idea of a strong
central executive, they don't like government in
general to become overly-involved in supporting
commercial activity, or indeed in much activity. They
do, however, support a strong military - all U.S.
political figures of consequence do. The Democrats
opposed the relegalisation of the slave trade for a
long time because it would weaken the planters (their
key financial support base) and also the anti-black
feelings of some of the poor rural farmers.

The Patriots, on the other hand, are all for a strong
government, but place more emphasis on the legislative
rather than the executive branch. They support
government activity to strengthen commercial activity,
and support the expansion of manufacturing, mining and
other industries besides agriculture. They welcome
the use of slaves in such industries, too. They get a
lot of support from industrialists everywhere, and
also from the more urban areas in general. They
advocate more internal improvements like railways,
canals, etc. Hence, they were the ones who organised
all the new territories of the USA and turned them
into states as soon as possible.

Some issues, however, cut across party lines.
Militarism for one. All sides of politics in the USA
are expansionistic, although the Patriots are in
general more so, since war tends to expand their
industrial demand. Foreign relations is more of a
mixed bailiwick, since both sides tend to be
opportunistic. Although committed to republicanism as
an ideal, the USA is quite happy to support the
Emperor of Brazil, since Brazil is the only other
important slaveholding nation left. Personality plays
a part, too. The Democrats were more anti-British
during Jackson's era (he hated them), but, since the
War of 1833, are less so, and favour good relations
with Britain (including lower tarriffs) to enable
their agricultural interests to remain profitable.
The Patriots, on the other hand, started out as more
pro-British, but are becoming more anti-British,
particularly with Cass (who's a rampant expansionist
Anglophobe) taking the helm. He wants to expand, and
he hates the British and New England customs union and
tariff system which harms American manufacturing.

Also, note that party affiliations are complicated by
region. A Pennsylvania Democrat, although more
conservative than a Pennsylvania Patriot, is likely to
be more liberal than a North Carolina Patriot. And
even a North Carolina Democrat seems liberal compared
to a South Carolina Democrat. (There are very few
South Carolina Patriots of note).

And, for one more also, the Patriots have shifted to become more
frontier-oriented under Cass, and thus they tended to pick up most of the
northern states, and a lot of the western ones, particularly those without
high numbers of slaveowners.

Post by David
President Jefferson Davis's address to Congress after the annexation

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
of Nicaragua, 1859

Presumably for the purposes of a potential trans-continental canal?
Was Nicaragua already controlled by fillibusters, or did the US have
to conquer it?

Filibuster. Nicaragua being the second place to fall to them, the first
being the "jewel of the Carribean" mentioned in his speech - no prizes for
guessing where that is :). Davis grabbed both of them when he realised that
Britain, the only power with both the capacity and the interest to stop
them, was hopelessly bogged down in a shooting war on the other side of the
world, and while it hated the effects, was not going to start a second war
which would likely cost it Canada as a result, even if it did kick the
Americans out of Nicaragua et al.

Post by David

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
"Our forefathers, in the sacred Declaration of independence, stated
that all men are created free and equal. On this basis has been made
recent attack upon our social institutions, and invoked a position of
the equality of the races. But that Declaration is to be co
framed the Constitution. Yet to this I have the simple answer: we are
not abandoning the Constitution, rather, we are extending and
clarifying it. Even our founding fathers proclaimed not two classes
of society - slave and free - but instead, they revealed three: slave,
free, and Indian. To this latter class was accorded neither the class
of slave which is the only just position for the Negro, nor the
freedom which is the fitting status of the white race, but a role in
between. And to this class we have recently seen fit to add others,
where those in our southern territories whose blood is not that of the
white race have instead been granted roles more fitting to their
status. Their role has not yet been universally accepted, but it
shall be.
"For now, gentlemen, we have seen a new path open up for the United
States. We have always been strong; this we have known, despite the
attempts of others of the white race to thwart us. But before us
stretches a new path, shown by the actions of how merely a few members
of the white race, endowed with greater strength than that of the
lesser races of mankind, have been able to fly our beloved Stars and
Stripes over first the jewel of the Caribbean, and now over the former
Nicaragua. God has shown us the path; the route by which the white
race shall take and hold its rightful place above others in the
struggle between races. Let us not forget what He has shown us! It
is the manifest destiny of the United States and the American race to
dominate all of this new world we have been granted, to drive out and
to conquer the lesser races and savages who currently people it. It
is our destiny to grow, to bring these continents into the leadership
of the white race so that they can grow in prominence and in power,
until all of these lands are one nation under God."

Just when you think it can't get any more evil...

(Cackles quietly in the corner).

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://decadesofdarkness.alternatehistory.com/

[Noel]

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Decades of Darkness #51b: A Matter of Democracy
Excerpts from "The 100 Greatest Events That Changed The World"
By Josiah H. Canterbury, Richard Irving and Emily Vasquez
(c) 1950, Vanderbilt Press
New York City: Long Island
Republic of New England
Introduction
"Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do
study it fail mathematics instead."
- Attributed to Lord Percy Kelvin, 1st Prime Minister of Australia

(snip beautiful stuff)

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
[1] These authors, like many others, do not class Texas as ever being
a sovereign state.
* * *
Thoughts?

---A few. Why Nicaragua? And, if Santo Domingo exists,
it is really going to be trying very very hard right now
to convince either the New Englanders or the Canadian/
British to purchase them.

Best,

Noel

[Kaiser Wilhelm III]

Post by Noel

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Decades of Darkness #51b: A Matter of Democracy
Excerpts from "The 100 Greatest Events That Changed The World"
By Josiah H. Canterbury, Richard Irving and Emily Vasquez
(c) 1950, Vanderbilt Press
New York City: Long Island
Republic of New England
Introduction
"Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do
study it fail mathematics instead."
- Attributed to Lord Percy Kelvin, 1st Prime Minister of Australia

(snip beautiful stuff)

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
[1] These authors, like many others, do not class Texas as ever being
a sovereign state.
* * *
Thoughts?

---A few. Why Nicaragua? And, if Santo Domingo exists,
it is really going to be trying very very hard right now
to convince either the New Englanders or the Canadian/
British to purchase them.

Nicaragua because a few American filibusters (not under the not-born-ITTL
William Walker, of course) were invited to intervene in the ongoing civil
war there, and they gladly went. After they got bogged down, as you would
expect, they appealed for U.S. annexation. Davis went for that because
Britian is, shall we say, otherwise occupied. Partly because they were
considering a transoceanic canal, and this seemed a good site, but mostly
because, like every U.S. President since Wilkinson, there's been something
of a sense of "so, how many stars have YOU added to the flag".

The people in Santo Domingo are getting very nervous. New England simply
will not touch that deal, although Britain may, simply to stop it falling
into U.S. hands. The USA has already shown it's quite happy to grab
Caribbean islands, given the chance. Mind you, the rich classes (unless
black) would do quite well out of a U.S. takeover - they're the ones the USA
always works through. Those portions of the population who are poor and/or
black would probably have a different view of any potential U.S. annexation.
So, basically, the question will fall down to: are the British willing to
risk U.S. antagonism by purchasing the place, or do they leave it to Spain
to worry about?

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://decadesofdarkness.alternatehistory.com/

[Noel]

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III

Post by Noel

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Decades of Darkness #51b: A Matter of Democracy
Excerpts from "The 100 Greatest Events That Changed The World"
By Josiah H. Canterbury, Richard Irving and Emily Vasquez
(c) 1950, Vanderbilt Press
New York City: Long Island
Republic of New England
Introduction
"Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do
study it fail mathematics instead."
- Attributed to Lord Percy Kelvin, 1st Prime Minister of Australia

(snip beautiful stuff)

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
[1] These authors, like many others, do not class Texas as ever being
a sovereign state.
* * *
Thoughts?

---A few. Why Nicaragua? And, if Santo Domingo exists,
it is really going to be trying very very hard right now
to convince either the New Englanders or the Canadian/
British to purchase them.

Nicaragua because a few American filibusters (not under the not-born-ITTL
William Walker, of course) were invited to intervene in the ongoing civil
war there, and they gladly went. After they got bogged down, as you would
expect, they appealed for U.S. annexation. Davis went for that because
Britian is, shall we say, otherwise occupied. Partly because they were
considering a transoceanic canal, and this seemed a good site, but mostly
because, like every U.S. President since Wilkinson, there's been something
of a sense of "so, how many stars have YOU added to the flag".
The people in Santo Domingo are getting very nervous. New England simply
will not touch that deal, although Britain may, simply to stop it falling
into U.S. hands. The USA has already shown it's quite happy to grab
Caribbean islands, given the chance. Mind you, the rich classes (unless
black) would do quite well out of a U.S. takeover - they're the ones the USA
always works through. Those portions of the population who are poor and/or
black would probably have a different view of any potential U.S. annexation.
So, basically, the question will fall down to: are the British willing to
risk U.S. antagonism by purchasing the place, or do they leave it to Spain
to worry about?

---In OTL, France returned Santo Domingo to Spain
in 1809. The island declared independence under
José Nuñez de Caceres, which Spain neither resisted
nor recognized. Haiti occupied Santo Domingo in 1822.
The Dominicans threw the Haitians out, violently, in
1844. Slavery, of course, remained abolished, as many
of the rebels were black. While whites remained domi-
nant, there were more blacks (if not too black) in the
government than in the Spanish-controlled Caribbean.

If the DoD timeline has a history at all like this,
then the Dominicans will be increasingly desperate.
Unfortunately, if the British don't want to risk U.S.
antagonism, and the New Englanders can't be persuaded
that a naval base at Samaná Bay would be a Good Thing,
then the Dominicans are screwed.

OTOH, the U.S. might not want them, for a while. But
the Dominicans will be begging to be annexed by someone.

Best,

Noel

[Faeelin]

Post by Noel

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III

Post by Noel

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Decades of Darkness #51b: A Matter of Democracy
Excerpts from "The 100 Greatest Events That Changed The World"
By Josiah H. Canterbury, Richard Irving and Emily Vasquez
(c) 1950, Vanderbilt Press
New York City: Long Island
Republic of New England
Introduction
"Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do
study it fail mathematics instead."
- Attributed to Lord Percy Kelvin, 1st Prime Minister of Australia

(snip beautiful stuff)

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
[1] These authors, like many others, do not class Texas as ever being
a sovereign state.
* * *
Thoughts?

---A few. Why Nicaragua? And, if Santo Domingo exists,
it is really going to be trying very very hard right now
to convince either the New Englanders or the Canadian/
British to purchase them.

Nicaragua because a few American filibusters (not under the

not-born-ITTL

Post by Noel

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
William Walker, of course) were invited to intervene in the ongoing civil
war there, and they gladly went. After they got bogged down, as you would
expect, they appealed for U.S. annexation. Davis went for that because
Britian is, shall we say, otherwise occupied. Partly because they were
considering a transoceanic canal, and this seemed a good site, but mostly
because, like every U.S. President since Wilkinson, there's been something
of a sense of "so, how many stars have YOU added to the flag".
The people in Santo Domingo are getting very nervous. New England simply
will not touch that deal, although Britain may, simply to stop it falling
into U.S. hands. The USA has already shown it's quite happy to grab
Caribbean islands, given the chance. Mind you, the rich classes (unless
black) would do quite well out of a U.S. takeover - they're the ones the USA
always works through. Those portions of the population who are poor and/or
black would probably have a different view of any potential U.S. annexation.
So, basically, the question will fall down to: are the British willing to
risk U.S. antagonism by purchasing the place, or do they leave it to Spain
to worry about?

---In OTL, France returned Santo Domingo to Spain
in 1809. The island declared independence under
José Nuñez de Caceres, which Spain neither resisted
nor recognized. Haiti occupied Santo Domingo in 1822.
The Dominicans threw the Haitians out, violently, in
1844. Slavery, of course, remained abolished, as many
of the rebels were black. While whites remained domi-
nant, there were more blacks (if not too black) in the
government than in the Spanish-controlled Caribbean.
If the DoD timeline has a history at all like this,
then the Dominicans will be increasingly desperate.
Unfortunately, if the British don't want to risk U.S.
antagonism, and the New Englanders can't be persuaded
that a naval base at Samaná Bay would be a Good Thing,
then the Dominicans are screwed.
OTOH, the U.S. might not want them, for a while. But
the Dominicans will be begging to be annexed by someone.

Golly gee, I wonder if the germans want an overseas colony.

[Kaiser Wilhelm III]

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III

Post by Noel

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III

Post by Noel

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Decades of Darkness #51b: A Matter of Democracy
Excerpts from "The 100 Greatest Events That Changed The World"
By Josiah H. Canterbury, Richard Irving and Emily Vasquez
(c) 1950, Vanderbilt Press
New York City: Long Island
Republic of New England
Introduction
"Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Those

who

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
do

Post by Noel

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III

Post by Noel

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
study it fail mathematics instead."
- Attributed to Lord Percy Kelvin, 1st Prime Minister of Australia

(snip beautiful stuff)

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
[1] These authors, like many others, do not class Texas as ever

being

Post by Noel

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III

Post by Noel

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
a sovereign state.
* * *
Thoughts?

---A few. Why Nicaragua? And, if Santo Domingo exists,
it is really going to be trying very very hard right now
to convince either the New Englanders or the Canadian/
British to purchase them.

Nicaragua because a few American filibusters (not under the

not-born-ITTL

Post by Noel

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
William Walker, of course) were invited to intervene in the ongoing

civil

Post by Noel

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
war there, and they gladly went. After they got bogged down, as you

would

Post by Noel

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
expect, they appealed for U.S. annexation. Davis went for that because
Britian is, shall we say, otherwise occupied. Partly because they wer

e

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III

Post by Noel

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
considering a transoceanic canal, and this seemed a good site, but

mostly

Post by Noel

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
because, like every U.S. President since Wilkinson, there's been

something

Post by Noel

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
of a sense of "so, how many stars have YOU added to the flag".
The people in Santo Domingo are getting very nervous. New England

simply

Post by Noel

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
will not touch that deal, although Britain may, simply to stop it

falling

Post by Noel

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
into U.S. hands. The USA has already shown it's quite happy to grab
Caribbean islands, given the chance. Mind you, the rich classes (unless
black) would do quite well out of a U.S. takeover - they're the ones

the

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
USA

Post by Noel

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
always works through. Those portions of the population who are poor

and/or

Post by Noel

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
black would probably have a different view of any potential U.S.

annexation.

Post by Noel

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
So, basically, the question will fall down to: are the British willing

to

Post by Noel

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
risk U.S. antagonism by purchasing the place, or do they leave it to

Spain

Post by Noel

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
to worry about?

---In OTL, France returned Santo Domingo to Spain
in 1809. The island declared independence under
José Nuñez de Caceres, which Spain neither resisted
nor recognized. Haiti occupied Santo Domingo in 1822.
The Dominicans threw the Haitians out, violently, in
1844. Slavery, of course, remained abolished, as many
of the rebels were black. While whites remained domi-
nant, there were more blacks (if not too black) in the
government than in the Spanish-controlled Caribbean.
If the DoD timeline has a history at all like this,
then the Dominicans will be increasingly desperate.
Unfortunately, if the British don't want to risk U.S.
antagonism, and the New Englanders can't be persuaded
that a naval base at Samaná Bay would be a Good Thing,
then the Dominicans are screwed.
OTOH, the U.S. might not want them, for a while. But
the Dominicans will be begging to be annexed by someone.

Golly gee, I wonder if the germans want an overseas colony.

Oh, they want lots of them. But they can spell "filibuster" just as well as
the next country. To defend a Caribbean colony against the official or
semi-official actions of the USA, they'd need a substantial blue-water navy.
And building one like that would be guaranteed to antagonise the British,
who would realise what other uses it could be put to. The Germans are more
likely to concentrate on colonies in other areas where the need for naval
protection is less important. For a while, anyway. Until they decide that
matching the Royal Navy is a better idea.

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://decadesofdarkness.alternatehistory.com/

[Faeelin]

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III

Post by Faeelin
Golly gee, I wonder if the germans want an overseas colony.

Oh, they want lots of them. But they can spell "filibuster" just as well as
the next country. To defend a Caribbean colony against the official or
semi-official actions of the USA, they'd need a substantial blue-water navy.

No larger than, say, france's.

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
And building one like that would be guaranteed to antagonise the British,
who would realise what other uses it could be put to. The Germans are more
likely to concentrate on colonies in other areas where the need for naval
protection is less important. For a while, anyway. Until they decide that
matching the Royal Navy is a better idea.

I'm not altogether convinced that germany will be that dark. Liberals will
be stronger in germany TTL, having "won" in 49.

Incidentally, if the us is from patagonia to pennsylvania eventually, why is
there still a new enland republic?

[Kaiser Wilhelm III]

Post by Faeelin

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III

Post by Faeelin
Golly gee, I wonder if the germans want an overseas colony.

Oh, they want lots of them. But they can spell "filibuster" just as

well

Post by Faeelin
as

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
the next country. To defend a Caribbean colony against the official or
semi-official actions of the USA, they'd need a substantial blue-water

navy.
No larger than, say, france's.

The USA also has a substantial blue-water navy. I haven't posited exactly
how big yet - their shipbuilding capacity is considerably reduced without
New England, of course - but enough that the Germans would need a sizeable
navy of their own. Again, this doesn't necessarily have to be done in a way
which antagonises the British, but the Germans are going out of their way to
appear non-threatening to the British for a while. They want to consolidate
internally, after all. However, this could change with the next generation,
who are likely to have ideas along the lines of Weltpolitik...

Post by Faeelin

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
And building one like that would be guaranteed to antagonise the British,
who would realise what other uses it could be put to. The Germans are

more

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
likely to concentrate on colonies in other areas where the need for naval
protection is less important. For a while, anyway. Until they decide

that

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
matching the Royal Navy is a better idea.

I'm not altogether convinced that germany will be that dark. Liberals will
be stronger in germany TTL, having "won" in 49.

Not as dark as Nazi Germany, certainly. But something along the lines of
Wilhelmine Germany is possible. And the liberal victory in 1849 was less
effective than they might have liked - the bulk of the power still rests
with the monarchies.

Post by Faeelin
Incidentally, if the us is from patagonia to pennsylvania eventually, why is
there still a new enland republic?

Up until quite recently, they had the backing of the British Empire, which
was enough to make the USA less inclined to intervene. Racial
considerations also played a part - according to the racial views in the
*USA, the people in New England would count as white, and thus automatically
worthy of citizenship. Not much point to enslaving them, in that case, and
no real reason to pick a fight with the British Empire in doing so. From
the New England point of view, they are also increasingly careful not to
give the USA a reason to want to invade them. Thus, in short, the USA
tolerates New England's independence because conquering it would create more
problems than it solves. If the New Englanders ever antagonise the USA,
then they might change their mind on that point...

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://decadesofdarkness.alternatehistory.com/

[Vadim S Kaplunovsky]

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III

Post by Faeelin
Golly gee, I wonder if the germans want an overseas colony.

Oh, they want lots of them. But they can spell "filibuster" just as well as
the next country. To defend a Caribbean colony against the official or
semi-official actions of the USA, they'd need a substantial blue-water navy.
And building one like that would be guaranteed to antagonise the British,
who would realise what other uses it could be put to. The Germans are more
likely to concentrate on colonies in other areas where the need for naval
protection is less important. For a while, anyway. Until they decide that
matching the Royal Navy is a better idea.

I don't think so. We are not talking about OTL-like Germany here but a larger
German Confederation which includes the Netherlands and even OTL Belgium.
Which means they _already_ have a bunch of overseas colonies all over the globe.
And to protect these colonies -- and a very large Dutch+German merchant marine
-- against rather hostile Britain and other unfriendly powers, they _really_
need a serious kick-ass navy. So I bet the GC already has a respectable navy
and are building a bigger one. May be not big enough to start an all-out
arms race with Britain, but big enough to give anybody else serious trouble.

--Vadim.

[Kaiser Wilhelm III]

Post by Vadim S Kaplunovsky

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III

Post by Faeelin
Golly gee, I wonder if the germans want an overseas colony.

Oh, they want lots of them. But they can spell "filibuster" just as well as
the next country. To defend a Caribbean colony against the official or
semi-official actions of the USA, they'd need a substantial blue-water navy.
And building one like that would be guaranteed to antagonise the British,
who would realise what other uses it could be put to. The Germans are more
likely to concentrate on colonies in other areas where the need for naval
protection is less important. For a while, anyway. Until they decide that
matching the Royal Navy is a better idea.

I don't think so. We are not talking about OTL-like Germany here but a larger
German Confederation which includes the Netherlands and even OTL Belgium.
Which means they _already_ have a bunch of overseas colonies all over the globe.
And to protect these colonies -- and a very large Dutch+German merchant marine
-- against rather hostile Britain and other unfriendly powers, they _really_
need a serious kick-ass navy. So I bet the GC already has a respectable navy
and are building a bigger one. May be not big enough to start an all-out
arms race with Britain, but big enough to give anybody else serious trouble.

On reflection, yes, the German navy would be substantial. But the US Navy
is also nothing to be trifled with. Maybe the Germans would look at Santo
Domingo, but they might also figure that that part of the world is the U.S's
playground, and go look elsewhere. Germany has a very strong interest in
the Far East, for instance, and also an interest in Africa.

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://decadesofdarkness.alternatehistory.com/

[k***@cix.compulink.co.uk]

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
On reflection, yes, the German navy would be substantial.

OTL the reason Tirpitz build up concerned the British was because
most of it could not operate outside the North Sea. A sizeable cruiser
navy which could operate on the trade lanes would be a minor worry by
comparison.

Ken Young
***@cix.co.uk

Those who cover themselves with martial glory
frequently go in need of any other garment. (Bramah)

[Kaiser Wilhelm III]

Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
On reflection, yes, the German navy would be substantial.

OTL the reason Tirpitz build up concerned the British was because
most of it could not operate outside the North Sea. A sizeable cruiser
navy which could operate on the trade lanes would be a minor worry by
comparison.

The context was whether the Germans could build up enough of a blue-water
navy to defeat the US Navy, if the latter ever got frisky about invading.
In this case, a cruiser fleet might not be sufficient in 1860, if the US has
more ships of the line (which it probably would have done in 1860, although
the Germans would still be building up an appropriate navy). Any naval race
in the early twentieth century would be quite a different thing...

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://decadesofdarkness.alternatehistory.com/

[Daniel McCollum]

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
On reflection, yes, the German navy would be substantial. But the US Navy
is also nothing to be trifled with. Maybe the Germans would look at Santo
Domingo, but they might also figure that that part of the world is the U.S's
playground, and go look elsewhere. Germany has a very strong interest in
the Far East, for instance, and also an interest in Africa.

This reminds me of something I was thinking about early; seeing how
the US has a stronger reliance upon slavery in this TL, as well as a
revived slave trade, might it not make sense for them to attempt to
colonize portions of Africa to secure their hold upon the market. No
doubt they want to focus more of their attention upon Central
America(I have this feeling that Brazil is going to Dominate most of
S. America and the US all the way down to Panama), but grabbing parts
of Africa might very well help them as well as add to their
international prestigue(for that matter, it might also explain your
previous refernce to the Jackels being deployed in a desert
environment...perhaps they are trying to hold on to the Saharah.)

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://decadesofdarkness.alternatehistory.com/

[Kaiser Wilhelm III]

Post by Daniel McCollum

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
On reflection, yes, the German navy would be substantial. But the US Navy
is also nothing to be trifled with. Maybe the Germans would look at Santo
Domingo, but they might also figure that that part of the world is the U.S's
playground, and go look elsewhere. Germany has a very strong interest in
the Far East, for instance, and also an interest in Africa.

This reminds me of something I was thinking about early; seeing how
the US has a stronger reliance upon slavery in this TL, as well as a
revived slave trade, might it not make sense for them to attempt to
colonize portions of Africa to secure their hold upon the market. No
doubt they want to focus more of their attention upon Central
America(I have this feeling that Brazil is going to Dominate most of
S. America and the US all the way down to Panama), but grabbing parts
of Africa might very well help them as well as add to their
international prestigue(for that matter, it might also explain your
previous refernce to the Jackels being deployed in a desert
environment...perhaps they are trying to hold on to the Saharah.)

It is conceivable for them to make the attempt, but they are unlikely to do
so up to 1860 because of the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, which makes
it legal to import slaves already in bondage (ie those in Cuba, Brazil and
Puerto Rico), but illegal for the US to do so from mainland Africa.
Naturally, this provision gets ignored by potential slave traders who, at
best, transship through Cuba and Brazil, but abrogating this treaty directly
would give the Royal Navy an excuse to extend its antislavery patrols all
over the Caribbean and along the US Atlantic Coast. After the scramble for
Africa starts during the 1860s, though, the USA is likely to seek to grab a
chunk of territory in Africa, or at least a series of trading posts.

Cheers,
Kaser Wilhelm III
http://decadesofdarkness.alternatehistory.com/

[Kaiser Wilhelm III]

"Noel" <***@itam.mx> wrote in message news:***@posting.google.com...

[snip]

Post by Noel
---In OTL, France returned Santo Domingo to Spain
in 1809. The island declared independence under
José Nuñez de Caceres, which Spain neither resisted
nor recognized. Haiti occupied Santo Domingo in 1822.
The Dominicans threw the Haitians out, violently, in
1844. Slavery, of course, remained abolished, as many
of the rebels were black. While whites remained domi-
nant, there were more blacks (if not too black) in the
government than in the Spanish-controlled Caribbean.
If the DoD timeline has a history at all like this,
then the Dominicans will be increasingly desperate.
Unfortunately, if the British don't want to risk U.S.
antagonism, and the New Englanders can't be persuaded
that a naval base at Samaná Bay would be a Good Thing,
then the Dominicans are screwed.

The New Englanders do think that a naval base at Samana Bay would be a good
thing, they just (so far) think that not getting into another war with the
USA would be a better thing. Post-1859, though, they might figure that it's
worth seeking such support anyway. The British won't touch the deal while
busy in Eastern Europe, however.

Post by Noel
OTOH, the U.S. might not want them, for a while. But
the Dominicans will be begging to be annexed by someone.

Well, the Spanish did pick them up in 1861 in OTL, and may do the same
again. One possibility is that a more aggressive New England President
(Lincoln, perhaps?) might work with the Spanish. Mind you, the USA has just
shown it's prepared to thumb its nose at Spain and take other Caribbean
possessions of them, so who knows whether the Spanish will find anything to
gain in it here? _Maybe_ if the French, British, Spanish and New Englanders
issue some kind of joint declaration of protection of the whole of
Hispaniola, this might work.

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://decadesofdarkness.alternatehistory.com/

[Nathan Leahy]

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Decades of Darkness #51b: A Matter of Democracy
Excerpts from "The 100 Greatest Events That Changed The World"
By Josiah H. Canterbury, Richard Irving and Emily Vasquez
(c) 1950, Vanderbilt Press
New York City: Long Island
Republic of New England
Introduction
"Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do
study it fail mathematics instead."
- Attributed to Lord Percy Kelvin, 1st Prime Minister of Australia

That's going to be printed on a t-shirt realsoonnow
(snip)

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Take the
rise of Germany, first as a united nation, then to the status of a
great power, and eventually to the status of superpower. This is a
historical trend which deserves at least one, perhaps more events to
mark it, but which moments should we choose? The moment when Germany
made the transition from great power status to superpower status is
easy to define ? when her armed forces managed a feat which had not
been achieved in over eight and a half centuries, and abolished
another nation's ambitions to superpower status ?

France, definitely, Italy probably annexed in that case

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
and has been given a
suitably high ranking. But there were many steps along that road,
starting with the formation of the German Confederation in 1815, the
first successful combined military operation in 1834,

Eh, the Confederation War was in 1852-1853, according to #50

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
the
establishment of a common legislative structure, the first defeat of
another great power, the unification of the ruling houses

How, they all had lots of cadet branches if someone else offed an
inconvenient relative. Also how are you going to decide on their
religion? That really sounds unlikely.

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
, and so on.
Selecting which, if any of these events to include was a difficult
choice?
15. U.S. President Jefferson Davis's "Manifest Destiny" Speech, 1859

(snip)

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
* * *
Thoughts?
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://decadesofdarkness.alternatehistory.com/

[Kaiser Wilhelm III]

Post by Nathan Leahy

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Decades of Darkness #51b: A Matter of Democracy
Excerpts from "The 100 Greatest Events That Changed The World"
By Josiah H. Canterbury, Richard Irving and Emily Vasquez
(c) 1950, Vanderbilt Press
New York City: Long Island
Republic of New England
Introduction
"Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do
study it fail mathematics instead."
- Attributed to Lord Percy Kelvin, 1st Prime Minister of Australia

That's going to be printed on a t-shirt realsoonnow
(snip)

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Take the
rise of Germany, first as a united nation, then to the status of a
great power, and eventually to the status of superpower. This is a
historical trend which deserves at least one, perhaps more events to
mark it, but which moments should we choose? The moment when Germany
made the transition from great power status to superpower status is
easy to define ? when her armed forces managed a feat which had not
been achieved in over eight and a half centuries, and abolished
another nation's ambitions to superpower status ?

France, definitely, Italy probably annexed in that case

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
and has been given a
suitably high ranking. But there were many steps along that road,
starting with the formation of the German Confederation in 1815, the
first successful combined military operation in 1834,

Eh, the Confederation War was in 1852-1853, according to #50

The first combined operation was to suppress the Belgian revolutionaries in
1834. Historians tend to see this as a turning point, rightly or wrongly,
since it mean the German armies operated together for the first time.

Post by Nathan Leahy

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
the
establishment of a common legislative structure, the first defeat of
another great power, the unification of the ruling houses

How, they all had lots of cadet branches if someone else offed an
inconvenient relative. Also how are you going to decide on their
religion? That really sounds unlikely.

I was postulating that when the families intermarry, they end up having a
common heir who's closest to the throne of both. Dutch and Prussian ruling
houses are relatively easy to unite (both Protestant), but Habsburgs are
more difficult, because of the religion question, as you noted. However,
on further thought I figured it might be more fun to have the ruling houses
stay separate, since that leaves more room for the leading parliamentary
figures to have a say in government. A unified ruling house would probably
prevent that.

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://decadesofdarkness.alternatehistory.com/

[Tony Bailey]

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
"Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do
study it fail mathematics instead."
- Attributed to Lord Percy Kelvin, 1st Prime Minister of Australia

What have you been doing to Australia in this timeline?

In OTL there is NO way that someone named "Lord Percy Kelvin" could become
PM - he'd be laughed/ridiculed out of the country. Sydney Melbourne Bruce
was bad enough and he ended up in virtual exile as High Commissioner in the
UK.

[Kaiser Wilhelm III]

Post by Tony Bailey

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
"Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do
study it fail mathematics instead."
- Attributed to Lord Percy Kelvin, 1st Prime Minister of Australia

What have you been doing to Australia in this timeline?
In OTL there is NO way that someone named "Lord Percy Kelvin" could become
PM - he'd be laughed/ridiculed out of the country. Sydney Melbourne Bruce
was bad enough and he ended up in virtual exile as High Commissioner in the
UK.

Yes, this was mean tto be an indication of how Australia has changed ITTL.
It becomes a fully-fledged kingdom within the British Empire, and thus has
its share of aristocrats etc, although these tend to be diluted over time.
Later PMs will not really be lords any more (although may often become Sirs
instead).

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://decadesofdarkness.alternatehistory.com/

[Carlos Th]

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Decades of Darkness #51b: A Matter of Democracy

[...]

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Thoughts?

Oops!

I have probably missed that part but what was the Jewel of the
Caribbean that is now part of the USA?

Do you have anything on the status of Hispanic Americas. Well, the
POD would not prevent the Napoleoinc rule of Spain, and the first
attempts for autonomy/independence in the 1809-1811 period as OTL, but
I am not sure that everything should happen on schedule...

Given the trend of the alt-USA, I guess these issues should be cleared
soon.

-- Carlos Th

[Kaiser Wilhelm III]

Post by Carlos Th

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Decades of Darkness #51b: A Matter of Democracy

[...]

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Thoughts?

Oops!
I have probably missed that part but what was the Jewel of the
Caribbean that is now part of the USA?

No, you haven't missed anything. These posts aren't in strict chronological
order, and Davis was referring to the filibuster and subsequent annexation
of a certain large Carribean island south of Florida which happened in
1857-1858 and which will be covered in the next post, or maybe the one after
that - as always, this depends on what I finish first.

Post by Carlos Th
Do you have anything on the status of Hispanic Americas.

Some, but it mostly gets commented on indirectly, rather than through
"viewpoint" sources - mostly because I can't read Spanish or Portuguese and
most of the decent sources are in that language.

Post by Carlos Th
Well, the POD would not prevent the Napoleoinc rule of Spain, and the

first

Post by Carlos Th
attempts for autonomy/independence in the 1809-1811 period as OTL, but
I am not sure that everything should happen on schedule...

Mostly things went as per OTL until 1822-3. Then the French joined the
Spanish into trying to suppress the wars of independence (with some brief
help from other European powers). The British put a stop to this after too
long, but the intervention produced some butterflies: De Iturbide became
emperor of Mexico for a while longer; Bolivar survived longer than OTL and
held Ecuador into Grand Colombia as well as Panama (Venezuala hung around
for a while longer, but eventually left; and the British and Americans
started quite an active rivalry for influence in Latin America. The
Americans have very strong influence over Brazil, while the British have
more contact with the rest. There's been various other minor butterflies
since. The USA picked up Guadeloupe and the U.S. Virgin Islands during the
1840s, while Argentina has received greater immigration than OTL. The slave
trade into Cuba, Puerto Rico and Brazil is still thriving, due to reduced
British influence in stopping the slave trade (although they're really
cracking down on it post-1855).

Post by Carlos Th
Given the trend of the alt-USA, I guess these issues should be cleared
soon.

They will be. Expect butterflies of all sorts to set in (including mutual
defence pacts, etc) as a result of Davis's speech. He may as well have said
"We're coming for you". Mind you, people might take that as just empty
rhetoric... for a while.

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://decadesofdarkness.alternatehistory.com/

[Carlos Th]

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III

Post by Carlos Th

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Decades of Darkness #51b: A Matter of Democracy

[...]

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Thoughts?

Oops!
I have probably missed that part but what was the Jewel of the
Caribbean that is now part of the USA?

No, you haven't missed anything. These posts aren't in strict

chronological

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
order, and Davis was referring to the filibuster and subsequent annexation
of a certain large Carribean island south of Florida which happened in
1857-1858 and which will be covered in the next post, or maybe the one after
that - as always, this depends on what I finish first.

(Which means I guessed correctly which the jewel is ;) ).

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III

Post by Carlos Th
Do you have anything on the status of Hispanic Americas.

Some, but it mostly gets commented on indirectly, rather than through
"viewpoint" sources - mostly because I can't read Spanish or Portuguese
and most of the decent sources are in that language.

Post by Carlos Th
Well, the POD would not prevent the Napoleoinc rule of Spain, and the

first

Post by Carlos Th
attempts for autonomy/independence in the 1809-1811 period as OTL, but
I am not sure that everything should happen on schedule...

Mostly things went as per OTL until 1822-3. Then the French joined the
Spanish into trying to suppress the wars of independence (with some brief
help from other European powers).

I understand that there was no Riego insurrection, and that infront of a
more permanent threat by the Spanish, the new Hispanic republics has a
reason to stay together and more politically stable longer... Not sure how
this might come, but probably works.

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
The British put a stop to this after too
long, but the intervention produced some butterflies: De Iturbide became
emperor of Mexico for a while longer;

Does this include Central America as part of Mexico for a while longer?

How did Nicaragua split eventually?

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Bolivar survived longer than OTL and held Ecuador into Grand Colombia
as well as Panama (Venezuala hung around for a while longer, but
eventually left;

Technically it was not Ecuador who left Colombia but New Granada who
disolved it de facto; but if Bolivar was still and active political figure,
and probably Sucre survived, Colombian might have lasted longer. Well, sans
Venezuela.

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
and the British and Americans started quite an active rivalry for

influence

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
in Latin America. The Americans have very strong influence over Brazil,
while the British have more contact with the rest.

Much as OTL, I guess.

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
There's been various other minor butterflies since. The USA picked up
Guadeloupe and the U.S. Virgin Islands during the 1840s, while Argentina
has received greater immigration than OTL. The slave trade into Cuba,
Puerto Rico and Brazil is still thriving, due to reduced British influence

in

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
stopping the slave trade (although they're really cracking down on it
post-1855).

Post by Carlos Th
Given the trend of the alt-USA, I guess these issues should be cleared
soon.

They will be. Expect butterflies of all sorts to set in (including mutual
defence pacts, etc) as a result of Davis's speech. He may as well have said
"We're coming for you". Mind you, people might take that as just empty
rhetoric... for a while.

Just a question: Mosquito Coast and San Andres had been disputed by
Nicaragua and New Granada/Colombia, while most of the 19th century they
where occupied by the British (who also had a claim). I presume that with
the anexation of Nicaragua to the USA, they include Mosquito Coast
(Nicaraguan Caribbean plains North of San Juan River). Right? How about
San Andres/St Andrew and Old Providence?

-- Carlos Th
(for sending email to me, change my-deja.com to chlewey.org)
http://chlewey.org

[Kaiser Wilhelm III]

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III

Post by Carlos Th

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Decades of Darkness #51b: A Matter of Democracy

[...]

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Thoughts?

Oops!
I have probably missed that part but what was the Jewel of the
Caribbean that is now part of the USA?

No, you haven't missed anything. These posts aren't in strict

chronological

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
order, and Davis was referring to the filibuster and subsequent annexation
of a certain large Carribean island south of Florida which happened in
1857-1858 and which will be covered in the next post, or maybe the one

after

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
that - as always, this depends on what I finish first.

(Which means I guessed correctly which the jewel is ;) ).

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III

Post by Carlos Th
Do you have anything on the status of Hispanic Americas.

Some, but it mostly gets commented on indirectly, rather than through
"viewpoint" sources - mostly because I can't read Spanish or Portuguese
and most of the decent sources are in that language.

Post by Carlos Th
Well, the POD would not prevent the Napoleoinc rule of Spain, and the

first

Post by Carlos Th
attempts for autonomy/independence in the 1809-1811 period as OTL, but
I am not sure that everything should happen on schedule...

Mostly things went as per OTL until 1822-3. Then the French joined the
Spanish into trying to suppress the wars of independence (with some brief
help from other European powers).

I understand that there was no Riego insurrection, and that infront of a
more permanent threat by the Spanish, the new Hispanic republics has a
reason to stay together and more politically stable longer... Not sure how
this might come, but probably works.

Relatively more stable, but the basic structural problems of government are
still there.

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
The British put a stop to this after too
long, but the intervention produced some butterflies: De Iturbide became
emperor of Mexico for a while longer;

Does this include Central America as part of Mexico for a while longer?

Not for much longer than OTL. De Iturbide had too many problems at home to
try to hold onto the place, and they went their own way during the European
invasions.

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
How did Nicaragua split eventually?

For now, all that I've specified directly is that the Central American Union
started to break up during the late 1830s. Honduras went first, as in OTL,
and the other areas just didn't hold together.

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Bolivar survived longer than OTL and held Ecuador into Grand Colombia
as well as Panama (Venezuala hung around for a while longer, but
eventually left;

Technically it was not Ecuador who left Colombia but New Granada who
disolved it de facto; but if Bolivar was still and active political figure,
and probably Sucre survived, Colombian might have lasted longer. Well, sans
Venezuela.

I'm assuming they're still together in 1860, and probably for a fair while
after that. Although there would probably be some sense of nationalism in
Ecuador, it's unlikely they would break up unless someone external
encourages them to do so.

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
and the British and Americans started quite an active rivalry for

influence

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
in Latin America. The Americans have very strong influence over Brazil,
while the British have more contact with the rest.

Much as OTL, I guess.

Indeed, although the US influence on Brazil is slowly creeping into social
patterns as well. Mulattos are looked down on much more than in OTL, for
instance.

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
There's been various other minor butterflies since. The USA picked up
Guadeloupe and the U.S. Virgin Islands during the 1840s, while Argentina
has received greater immigration than OTL. The slave trade into Cuba,
Puerto Rico and Brazil is still thriving, due to reduced British influence

in

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
stopping the slave trade (although they're really cracking down on it
post-1855).

Post by Carlos Th
Given the trend of the alt-USA, I guess these issues should be cleared
soon.

They will be. Expect butterflies of all sorts to set in (including mutual
defence pacts, etc) as a result of Davis's speech. He may as well have

said

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
"We're coming for you". Mind you, people might take that as just empty
rhetoric... for a while.

Just a question: Mosquito Coast and San Andres had been disputed by
Nicaragua and New Granada/Colombia, while most of the 19th century they
where occupied by the British (who also had a claim). I presume that with
the anexation of Nicaragua to the USA, they include Mosquito Coast
(Nicaraguan Caribbean plains North of San Juan River). Right? How about
San Andres/St Andrew and Old Providence?

Mosquito Coast, yes, not sure about San Andres and Old Providence yet, but
probably yes there as well.

ITTL, I had been assuming that the British conceded OTL British
Honduras/Belize to Honduras, and the other disputed areas to Nicaragua,
during the early 1840s. The rationale for this was that the USA had been
getting rather antsy about British plans to turn British Honduras into a
crown colony, and rather than create war, the British decided to cede the
areas to the more compliant Central American states, since they figured,
correctly, that they would still have all the trade benefits with none of
the complications of owning the area directly. This is another reason they
are less than happy about the US annexation of Nicaragua, although they had
just about given up on the Mosquito Coast anyway (hard to plant colonies
there, as they discovered OTL).

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://decadesofdarkness.alternatehistory.com/

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
The Presidential Elections of 1856
From "The Atlas of American Political History"
(c) 1946 By Karl Wundt
Lone Pine Publishing Company
Hammersford [OTL Salem, Oregon], Oregon State
United States of America
The 1856 elections represented a three-cornered struggle between the
two dominant parties, the Patriots and the Democrats, and the
fervently anti-immigration Freedom Party. Despite the surprisingly
strong showing of Tennessee Senator John Bell, the Freedom Party made
no significant impact on the elections. Instead, it was the war hero
General Jefferson Davis, born in Kentucky but resident in West
Florida, who put aside his uniform for civilian clothes, and won the
election for the Democrats, the first president from that party since
Jackson. Former vice-president Samuel Houston could not withstand the
steady trend against the Patriots, almost inevitable after so many
years in office, and particularly given Davis's great military
reputation.
Popular Votes Electoral Votes
State Houston Davis Bell Houston Davis Bell
Alabama 16,610 25,352 1,748 0 11 0
Arkansas 5,236 9,490 1,636 0 4 0
Delaware 4,761 3,174 1,984 3 0 0
East Florida 2,770 4,190 142 0 3 0
East Texas 13,778 8,357 452 5 0 0
Georgia 23,067 51,517 2,307 0 17 0
Illinois 31,836 26,176 12,734 12 0 0
Indiana 31,323 24,513 12,257 11 0 0
Iowa 14,441 8,290 4,011 5 0 0
Jackson 1,888 4,080 122 0 3 0
Jefferson 7,938 9,349 353 0 4 0
Kentucky 35,750 55,859 20,109 0 20 0
Louisiana 15,363 16,670 654 0 9 0
Maryland 29,707 25,629 2,912 12 0 0
Mississippi 10,523 19,808 619 0 9 0
Missouri 27,855 29,672 3,028 0 11 0
North Carolina 38,453 36,099 3,924 17 0 0
Ohio 113,336 79,335 34,001 40 0 0
Pennsylvania 107,090 55,457 28,685 34 0 0
South Carolina 13,883 24,196 1,587 0 12 0
Tennessee 48,259 58,131 3,290 0 20 0
Virginia 47,178 75,230 5,100 0 26 0
Washington 16,467 19,395 732 0 7 0
West Florida 12,437 27,281 401 0 10 0
Westylvania 48,181 28,739 7,608 16 0 0
Total 718,130 725,992 150,396 155 166 0

Two things jump out at me.
1) There are four states where combining the Bell and Davis
votes would change the outcome, but there is no state
where combining the Bell and Houston votes would change
the outcome. It means that if the Bell and Houston votes had
been combined, Davis would still win the electoral vote,
while losing the popular vote by 45.5% to 54.5% - somewhat
like Lincoln in OTL 1860, and IMHO a very unlikely outcome.
(Though it turns out that Buchanan in 1856 achieved a
similar result.) Is this deliberate?

2) There is one near-exception to 1): in Kentucky, the Bell
vote is _exactly_ the difference between the Houston vote
and the Davis vote; that is, if the Houston and Bell votes
were combined there would be a tie. Is _this_ deliberate?
(I put the above numbers in a spreadsheet: it appears that
the vote counts were generated as even percentages of
projected turnout, so it's not really surprising that the
totals should add up this way in one case.)

[Kaiser Wilhelm III]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
The Presidential Elections of 1856
From "The Atlas of American Political History"
(c) 1946 By Karl Wundt
Lone Pine Publishing Company
Hammersford [OTL Salem, Oregon], Oregon State
United States of America
The 1856 elections represented a three-cornered struggle between the
two dominant parties, the Patriots and the Democrats, and the
fervently anti-immigration Freedom Party. Despite the surprisingly
strong showing of Tennessee Senator John Bell, the Freedom Party made
no significant impact on the elections. Instead, it was the war hero
General Jefferson Davis, born in Kentucky but resident in West
Florida, who put aside his uniform for civilian clothes, and won the
election for the Democrats, the first president from that party since
Jackson. Former vice-president Samuel Houston could not withstand the
steady trend against the Patriots, almost inevitable after so many
years in office, and particularly given Davis's great military
reputation.
Popular Votes Electoral Votes
State Houston Davis Bell Houston Davis Bell
Alabama 16,610 25,352 1,748 0 11 0
Arkansas 5,236 9,490 1,636 0 4 0
Delaware 4,761 3,174 1,984 3 0 0
East Florida 2,770 4,190 142 0 3 0
East Texas 13,778 8,357 452 5 0 0
Georgia 23,067 51,517 2,307 0 17 0
Illinois 31,836 26,176 12,734 12 0 0
Indiana 31,323 24,513 12,257 11 0 0
Iowa 14,441 8,290 4,011 5 0 0
Jackson 1,888 4,080 122 0 3 0
Jefferson 7,938 9,349 353 0 4 0
Kentucky 35,750 55,859 20,109 0 20 0
Louisiana 15,363 16,670 654 0 9 0
Maryland 29,707 25,629 2,912 12 0 0
Mississippi 10,523 19,808 619 0 9 0
Missouri 27,855 29,672 3,028 0 11 0
North Carolina 38,453 36,099 3,924 17 0 0
Ohio 113,336 79,335 34,001 40 0 0
Pennsylvania 107,090 55,457 28,685 34 0 0
South Carolina 13,883 24,196 1,587 0 12 0
Tennessee 48,259 58,131 3,290 0 20 0
Virginia 47,178 75,230 5,100 0 26 0
Washington 16,467 19,395 732 0 7 0
West Florida 12,437 27,281 401 0 10 0
Westylvania 48,181 28,739 7,608 16 0 0
Total 718,130 725,992 150,396 155 166 0

Two things jump out at me.
1) There are four states where combining the Bell and Davis
votes would change the outcome, but there is no state
where combining the Bell and Houston votes would change
the outcome. It means that if the Bell and Houston votes had
been combined, Davis would still win the electoral vote,
while losing the popular vote by 45.5% to 54.5% - somewhat
like Lincoln in OTL 1860, and IMHO a very unlikely outcome.
(Though it turns out that Buchanan in 1856 achieved a
similar result.) Is this deliberate?

It's meant to show that the electoral support for the Patriots is far more
concentrated geographically than that of the Democrats. The Patriots
regularly achieve huge majorities in the "Free Trio" - Ohio, Westylvania,
Pennsylvania - which don't help them so much in the other states. The
Democrats votes are more geographically spread. This would be an argument
in favour of the abolishing the electoral college, as far as the Patriots
are concerned, but they'll never get enough of a majority for that to
happen.

The other thing to bear in mind is that the Freedom Party didn't just take
votes off the Patriots; they also took them off the Democrats. They took
more off the Patriots overall, but removing the Freedom Party ticket would
probably give the Patriots only a slender margin in the popular vote, not an
overwhelming majority.

Post by Rich Rostrom
2) There is one near-exception to 1): in Kentucky, the Bell
vote is _exactly_ the difference between the Houston vote
and the Davis vote; that is, if the Houston and Bell votes
were combined there would be a tie. Is _this_ deliberate?

Partly. The numbers were generated by spreadsheet percentages, as you
surmised, but I noticed this one and figured it'd be fun to leave in. Gives
alternate historians of TTL something to do, in figuring out what would have
happened if there _was_ a tie in the vote. I don't even know that offhand -
referred to the individual state's Legislature for decision?

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://decadesofdarkness.alternatehistory.com/

--

"There have been six kings of England named George, the latest being George
VI. Name the other five."
- Alleged exam question from Trent High School, 1962

[DaveKohlhoff]

I am wondering about possible unmentioned divergences from OTL.

What are the developments concerning Homesteading?

How is the US dealing with the Indian tribes of the West ITTL?

Saint Louis was ~60% German in 1860 receiving thousands of immigrants
from 1830-1860. Is Saint Louis still a German city?
(Interesting butterflies on American brewery and culture)

Baltimore was be the 2nd largest city in the OTL US ITTL during
1830-1850. It will be the largest ITTL. The free population was 20%
immigrant in 1850.
Perhaps ITTL it would be more plausible for Bell to win in Maryland or
at least do better than 5%. In 1856 Fillmore won 55% of the vote in
Maryland. In a three-way split race, an anti-immigrant party seems
likely to win in MD.
IOTL in 1860 Bell won 45% of the vote in Maryland.
IMO that is the only flaw in the election projection.


ITTL it is highly plausible to see more immigration TOTL headed to the
Midwest.
Of course this won't make up for the population that immigrates to New
England but 60-70% of OTL total immigration is plausible given the
greater amount of unsettled land ITTL, especially if the US steals
more land TOTL from the Indians.

David Kohlhoff

[Kaiser Wilhelm III]

Post by DaveKohlhoff
I am wondering about possible unmentioned divergences from OTL.
What are the developments concerning Homesteading?

Hasn't started as of yet (didn't it start in 1862 in OTL?) but is likely to
do so in the future. It's more a Patriot thing than a Democrat thing,
though, so it may wait until the next time the Patriots are in power in
Congress.

Post by DaveKohlhoff
How is the US dealing with the Indian tribes of the West ITTL?

Unpleasantly. A lot of them have received arms from the British
(unofficially, of course), and tried to use them. The US has responded in
fairly effective fashion. Some of the tribes near the Canadian border are
still independent, as with the Apaches and other peoples of the Southwest,
but most of the other ones are no longer around as independent entities.

Post by DaveKohlhoff
Saint Louis was ~60% German in 1860 receiving thousands of immigrants
from 1830-1860. Is Saint Louis still a German city?
(Interesting butterflies on American brewery and culture)

Still receiving Germans, yes. Still full of beer, too.

Post by DaveKohlhoff
Baltimore was be the 2nd largest city in the OTL US ITTL during
1830-1850. It will be the largest ITTL. The free population was 20%
immigrant in 1850.
Perhaps ITTL it would be more plausible for Bell to win in Maryland or
at least do better than 5%. In 1856 Fillmore won 55% of the vote in
Maryland. In a three-way split race, an anti-immigrant party seems
likely to win in MD.
IOTL in 1860 Bell won 45% of the vote in Maryland.
IMO that is the only flaw in the election projection.

Hmm, I'll tweak this. Maryland going for Bell won't change the overall
election result anyway.

Post by DaveKohlhoff
ITTL it is highly plausible to see more immigration TOTL headed to the
Midwest.
Of course this won't make up for the population that immigrates to New
England but 60-70% of OTL total immigration is plausible given the
greater amount of unsettled land ITTL, especially if the US steals
more land TOTL from the Indians.

Still large amounts of immigration coming to the USA, although down from
OTL. New England still receives some, but since it lacks the vast open
spaces, not that much more than into those states in OTL. Canada gets more,
and so do some of the other colonies/nations around the place - South
Africa, Argentina and Australia all have their share of open spaces, and
travel is becoming more feasible to them from 1850 onwards.

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://decadesofdarkness.alternatehistory.com/

[Daniel McCollum]

The moment when Germany

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
made the transition from great power status to superpower status is
easy to define ? when her armed forces managed a feat which had not
been achieved in over eight and a half centuries, and abolished
another nation's ambitions to superpower status ?

This I find rather interesting, because it gives us a rather large
hint as to how Germany manages to assert itself as a world Super
Power.

First of all you have claimed that Germany manages to gain the
title after thwarting the ambitions of another power to gain the same
status. Let us assume that this other power is a European one, for it
seems rather unlikely that a Non-European power will be able to rise
to great hights pre-1940.

Now, you have already told us that the United Kingdom won't exist
as a nation by that point in this ATL; most likely there still exists
an English dominated state, but the Monarchy has been abolished. This
process of the destruction of the Monarchy obviously saps quiet a bit
of strength from England, because by 1950 both Canada and Australia
are still seen as Kingdoms which hints at a lack of connection to
which ever government rules in London.

Could this Alt-England be the power which Germany battles down? I
find that rather doubtful as any Civil War is going to greatly strap
the power of the Island nation. Furthermore, England has a history of
not attempting to gain territory upon the continent since the 100
Years War, if they attempt to regain their status they would be hope
likely to do so in the rest of the world, but not in Europe

Could the power be Russia? No. We already know that in 1950 the
three great powers in the world are Germany, Russia and the USA.
Therefore Russia's ambitions were not thwarted; they did gain the
status as a world super power.

Similiarly we can, with some justification, rule out Spain, Greece,
other Balkan nations, as well what ever nations might spring up in
Central or Northern Europe.

This leaves: France. There for my predition is that France gets
some Napoleonic ambitions, perhaps following a *Communist coup, and
attempts to subdue the whole of Europe. Germany stands against them,
occupies France and much of the rest of Europe(save for some Satalite
states) and becomes the dominant power in Europe besides Russia.

The only thing which throws me off is the comment of "when her armed
forces managed a feat which had not been achieved in over eight and a
half centuries". This refers to Charlemagne I would assume and the
Frankish Empire's control of Europe. There for I'm assuming that this
is a referance to Germany's uncontested dominance of Europe by 1950.

Good TL so far BTW! I do have two questions though:
1) Will the US ever go through a Civil War in this TL? Obviously it
would not be over slavery, but something might arise and cause a
little action :)
2) Any chance of a unified Scandanavia? What 19th century TL is
complete without this little jem? England might push for it as a
counter-weight to German power(FRANCE might push for it as well)

[DaveKohlhoff]

<snip>

Post by Daniel McCollum
Could this Alt-England be the power which Germany battles down? I
find that rather doubtful as any Civil War is going to greatly strap
the power of the Island nation. Furthermore, England has a history of
not attempting to gain territory upon the continent since the 100
Years War, if they attempt to regain their status they would be hope
likely to do so in the rest of the world, but not in Europe

Well he did say over 850 years since this feat had been accomplished.
A successful invasion of England after 1916 would be 850 years after
1066. England has not been successfully invaded since. This would
definately end Britain's superpower status.

How plausible is a German invasion?

Motivation is hard to find for such an invasion.

The German ability to successfully invade will be there by 1916. The
German navy will be able to mass in the Netherlands across the channel
and make multiple landings.
This Germany will have an economy at least twice the size of OTL. It
will also have a much larger military and a larger more experienced
Dutch-supported navy.

At the same time England will be much weaker as its ties with the
Empire weaken.

David Kohlhoff

[Kaiser Wilhelm III]

Post by DaveKohlhoff
<snip>

Post by Daniel McCollum
Could this Alt-England be the power which Germany battles down? I
find that rather doubtful as any Civil War is going to greatly strap
the power of the Island nation. Furthermore, England has a history of
not attempting to gain territory upon the continent since the 100
Years War, if they attempt to regain their status they would be hope
likely to do so in the rest of the world, but not in Europe

Well he did say over 850 years since this feat had been accomplished.
A successful invasion of England after 1916 would be 850 years after
1066. England has not been successfully invaded since. This would
definately end Britain's superpower status.

This is one possibility for the great feat, but there are others within the
right time period. If you want a more precise time bound, consider that the
great feat had to occur after 1850 (or it wouldn't be relevant), and before
1950, when the "book" was published. "More than 850 years" could mean
anywhere from 851 to 899 years. So... 999 to 1149, in other words. There
are a few things which happened then but not since. Consider, for example:
when was the last time a Christian army captured Jerusalem? (The First
Crusade, IIRC - it wasn't _captured_ again after that, although it was
traded to Frederick).

Post by DaveKohlhoff
How plausible is a German invasion?
Motivation is hard to find for such an invasion.

In the right circumstances, the motivation is easy to find. Constant
British interference with German colonies, for one example. At war with
both Britain and France, for another. Common cause with the United States,
for a third. There are other potential reasons, too.

Post by DaveKohlhoff
The German ability to successfully invade will be there by 1916. The
German navy will be able to mass in the Netherlands across the channel
and make multiple landings.
This Germany will have an economy at least twice the size of OTL. It
will also have a much larger military and a larger more experienced
Dutch-supported navy.

All true, but the British have a very strong interest in keeping up a
considerable naval advantage over their nearest rival...

Post by DaveKohlhoff
At the same time England will be much weaker as its ties with the
Empire weaken.

Well, Australia, South Africa, Canada will all be larger and more populous
than OTL, and Australia and Canada at least will be keen to help defend the
mother country. Even New England has good motivation to keep the UK alive.

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://decadesofdarkness.alternatehistory.com/

[Kaiser Wilhelm III]

"Daniel McCollum" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:***@posting.google.com...

[snip thoughful analysis of what provokes Germany's rise to superpower
status]

For obvious reasons, I'm not commenting too much on the specifics of this,
but a few general points:

From material posted in the TL so far, you can safely conclude that:
1) There is a United Kingdom (sans Ireland) in 1915

2) There is _no_ United Kingdom by 1949.

3) There is absolutely no mention of France surviving into the 1940s.

4) There is a Russian Federation around in the 1970s, but what form Russia
took before that date is not mentioned either.

From these points, feel free to draw your own conclusions. :)

Post by Daniel McCollum
1) Will the US ever go through a Civil War in this TL? Obviously it
would not be over slavery, but something might arise and cause a
little action :)

A civil war on the scale of OTL is unlikely, simply because sectional issues
that divisive are unlikely to arise. However, there may well be
smaller-scale revolts, uprisings, guerrila warfare etc over quite a wide
area.

Post by Daniel McCollum
2) Any chance of a unified Scandanavia? What 19th century TL is
complete without this little jem? England might push for it as a
counter-weight to German power(FRANCE might push for it as well)

Some chance, but it'd be more likely to be along the lines of a mutual
defense pact than joint sovereignty. Britain and France are both pushing
for all the counterweights to German power that they can find - Italy,
Scandavia, even Spain.

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://decadesofdarkness.alternatehistory.com/

[Fleetlord Hart]

Just got caught up on this TL, Herr Kaiser, and for the record it's
excellent.

One very minor quibble, though....as others have mentioned, East
Florida and Jackson are awfully -small-, even for a US obsessed with
putting more stars on the flag. Furthermore, I notice from your map
that TTL's West Florida stretches all the way to Tallahasse.....My
recollection of local history is that the short-lived Republic of West
Florida only went as far east as the Perdido river. (OTL's
Florida-Alabama border.) So....maybe it would make more sense for the
state of West Florida to stick to those boundaries, stretching from
Baton Rouge to Mobile, while "East Florida" covers all of OTL Florida
west of Tallahasse*, and "Jackson" takes up the peninsula. This would
balance those population numbers, I think.

Keep up the good writing

--Joe Hart

* Tallahasse, BTW, would be at best a minor village, since there'd be
no need for a state capital midway between Pensacola and St.
Augustine.

[Kaiser Wilhelm III]

Post by Fleetlord Hart
Just got caught up on this TL, Herr Kaiser, and for the record it's
excellent.
One very minor quibble, though....as others have mentioned, East
Florida and Jackson are awfully -small-, even for a US obsessed with
putting more stars on the flag. Furthermore, I notice from your map
that TTL's West Florida stretches all the way to Tallahasse.....My
recollection of local history is that the short-lived Republic of West
Florida only went as far east as the Perdido river. (OTL's
Florida-Alabama border.) So....maybe it would make more sense for the
state of West Florida to stick to those boundaries, stretching from
Baton Rouge to Mobile, while "East Florida" covers all of OTL Florida
west of Tallahasse*, and "Jackson" takes up the peninsula. This would
balance those population numbers, I think.

Sounds plausible. Consider it amended.

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://decadesofdarkness.alternatehistory.com/

[DanielSBen]

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III

Post by Fleetlord Hart
Just got caught up on this TL, Herr Kaiser, and for the record it's
excellent.
One very minor quibble, though....as others have mentioned, East
Florida and Jackson are awfully -small-, even for a US obsessed with
putting more stars on the flag. Furthermore, I notice from your map
that TTL's West Florida stretches all the way to Tallahasse.....My
recollection of local history is that the short-lived Republic of West
Florida only went as far east as the Perdido river. (OTL's
Florida-Alabama border.) So....maybe it would make more sense for the
state of West Florida to stick to those boundaries, stretching from
Baton Rouge to Mobile, while "East Florida" covers all of OTL Florida
west of Tallahasse*, and "Jackson" takes up the peninsula. This would
balance those population numbers, I think.

Sounds plausible. Consider it amended.
Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://decadesofdarkness.alternatehistory.com/

It was the Appalachicola (Sp?) River that bordered East and West
Florida. It's just west of Tallahasse and east of Pensacola.

West Florida would include Pensacola, Mobile, and Baton Rouge.
East Florida, in my judgement, would include the rest of the
panhandle, plus the St. Augustine-Jacksonville area.

The whole of the peninsula south of around OTL's Gainesville would
then be Jackson.

-DanielSBen

[Fleetlord Hart]

Post by DanielSBen
It was the Appalachicola (Sp?) River that bordered East and West
Florida. It's just west of Tallahasse and east of Pensacola.
West Florida would include Pensacola, Mobile, and Baton Rouge.
East Florida, in my judgement, would include the rest of the
panhandle, plus the St. Augustine-Jacksonville area.
The whole of the peninsula south of around OTL's Gainesville would
then be Jackson.
-DanielSBen

Well, I know that's how the current map shows it, but in the TL itself
the State of West Florida is contiguous with the Republic of West
Florida, which in OTL had it's eastern border at the Peridido river.
OTL the US annexed the republic and divided it between Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Alabama.....later we grabbed the rest of Florida,
which became the OTL state.

The way I read this TL, the West Florida republic is admitted as it's
own state, (to make up for the ones that were lost), and the US later
takes OTL's Florida and splits in two....the most sensible place, as
you say, being at the Appalachicola River. So we have a "West Florida"
centered around Baton Rouge and Mobile, an "East Florida" centered
around Pensacola, and a "Jackson" centered around St. Augustine and
*Jacksonville. This also strikes me as a more sensible division in
terms of population, since aside from a few naval bases, there -isn't-
anything south of Gainesville, and won't be until somebody invents the
air conditioner.

Cheers,
-Joe Hart (born and raised in Pensacola, natch <g> )

[Kaiser Wilhelm III]

Post by Fleetlord Hart

Post by DanielSBen
It was the Appalachicola (Sp?) River that bordered East and West
Florida. It's just west of Tallahasse and east of Pensacola.
West Florida would include Pensacola, Mobile, and Baton Rouge.
East Florida, in my judgement, would include the rest of the
panhandle, plus the St. Augustine-Jacksonville area.
The whole of the peninsula south of around OTL's Gainesville would
then be Jackson.
-DanielSBen

Well, I know that's how the current map shows it, but in the TL itself
the State of West Florida is contiguous with the Republic of West
Florida, which in OTL had it's eastern border at the Peridido river.
OTL the US annexed the republic and divided it between Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Alabama.....later we grabbed the rest of Florida,
which became the OTL state.
The way I read this TL, the West Florida republic is admitted as it's
own state, (to make up for the ones that were lost), and the US later
takes OTL's Florida and splits in two....the most sensible place, as
you say, being at the Appalachicola River. So we have a "West Florida"
centered around Baton Rouge and Mobile, an "East Florida" centered
around Pensacola, and a "Jackson" centered around St. Augustine and
*Jacksonville. This also strikes me as a more sensible division in
terms of population, since aside from a few naval bases, there -isn't-
anything south of Gainesville, and won't be until somebody invents the
air conditioner.

How did anyone ever live in Cuba, then? :)

But yes, West Florida ITTL is the OTL Republic of West Florida. That's
where the border is likely to end up. Otherwise Jackson's population
consists of three thousand or so men at the Ballington naval base, and lots
of alligators and manatees...

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://decadesofdarkness.alternatehistory.com/

[DaveKohlhoff]

If the borders put forth here are correct:
West Florida: Mississippi to Perdido, south of 32*
East Florida: Perdido to Apalachicola, south of 32*
Jackson: rest of Florida Peninsula

Then the population in OTL 1850 according to the US Census would be:
West Florida: 200,000
East Florida: 106,000
Jackson: 67,000

David Kohlhoff

[Kaiser Wilhelm III]

Post by DaveKohlhoff
West Florida: Mississippi to Perdido, south of 32*
East Florida: Perdido to Apalachicola, south of 32*
Jackson: rest of Florida Peninsula
West Florida: 200,000
East Florida: 106,000
Jackson: 67,000

The total population of the three states in 1850 is set as more or less
700,000, West Florida having the bulk of that at over 500,000. Shifting the
borders would add some to East Florida, and probably keep Jackson the same
(to represent the underdeveloped state of most of the peninsula). Say,
150-200,000 in East Florida? (taking the rest off West Florida).

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://decadesofdarkness.alternatehistory.com/

[DaveKohlhoff]

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III

Post by DaveKohlhoff
West Florida: Mississippi to Perdido, south of 32*
East Florida: Perdido to Apalachicola, south of 32*
Jackson: rest of Florida Peninsula
West Florida: 200,000
East Florida: 106,000
Jackson: 67,000

The total population of the three states in 1850 is set as more or less
700,000, West Florida having the bulk of that at over 500,000. Shifting the
borders would add some to East Florida, and probably keep Jackson the same
(to represent the underdeveloped state of most of the peninsula). Say,
150-200,000 in East Florida? (taking the rest off West Florida).

Well, in 1850 OTL Florida had 87,000 people. With Louisiana (East of
the Mississippi), Alabama (south of 32*) and Mississippi (south of
32*) the population of the Floridas would be 373,000 in 1850 in OTL.

The ATL figure is 87% higher TOTL.

Someone who is more versed in Florida/Gulf Coast history, development
and regions could predict more accurately the areas that would get
most of the ATL settlement.

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://decadesofdarkness.alternatehistory.com/

[DanielSBen]

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III

Post by Fleetlord Hart

Post by DanielSBen
It was the Appalachicola (Sp?) River that bordered East and West
Florida. It's just west of Tallahasse and east of Pensacola.
West Florida would include Pensacola, Mobile, and Baton Rouge.
East Florida, in my judgement, would include the rest of the
panhandle, plus the St. Augustine-Jacksonville area.
The whole of the peninsula south of around OTL's Gainesville would
then be Jackson.
-DanielSBen

Well, I know that's how the current map shows it, but in the TL itself
the State of West Florida is contiguous with the Republic of West
Florida, which in OTL had it's eastern border at the Peridido river.
OTL the US annexed the republic and divided it between Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Alabama.....later we grabbed the rest of Florida,
which became the OTL state.
The way I read this TL, the West Florida republic is admitted as it's
own state, (to make up for the ones that were lost), and the US later
takes OTL's Florida and splits in two....the most sensible place, as
you say, being at the Appalachicola River. So we have a "West Florida"
centered around Baton Rouge and Mobile, an "East Florida" centered
around Pensacola, and a "Jackson" centered around St. Augustine and
*Jacksonville. This also strikes me as a more sensible division in
terms of population, since aside from a few naval bases, there -isn't-
anything south of Gainesville, and won't be until somebody invents the
air conditioner.

How did anyone ever live in Cuba, then? :)
But yes, West Florida ITTL is the OTL Republic of West Florida. That's
where the border is likely to end up. Otherwise Jackson's population
consists of three thousand or so men at the Ballington naval base, and lots
of alligators and manatees...
Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://decadesofdarkness.alternatehistory.com/

Wasn't there a settlement in the Tampa / St. Petersburg area that
would be in Jackson?

And the Northeast coast had some plantations (Daytona area and north,
some of which would be in Jackson).

Population may still not be enough for 60,000, however...

I do think the East Florida/Jackson border should be then the Suwannee
River - the Appalachicola would leave East Florida mighty small in
size, if not population.

-DanielSBen

[Kaiser Wilhelm III]

Post by DanielSBen

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III

Post by Fleetlord Hart

Post by DanielSBen
It was the Appalachicola (Sp?) River that bordered East and West
Florida. It's just west of Tallahasse and east of Pensacola.
West Florida would include Pensacola, Mobile, and Baton Rouge.
East Florida, in my judgement, would include the rest of the
panhandle, plus the St. Augustine-Jacksonville area.
The whole of the peninsula south of around OTL's Gainesville would
then be Jackson.
-DanielSBen

Well, I know that's how the current map shows it, but in the TL itself
the State of West Florida is contiguous with the Republic of West
Florida, which in OTL had it's eastern border at the Peridido river.
OTL the US annexed the republic and divided it between Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Alabama.....later we grabbed the rest of Florida,
which became the OTL state.
The way I read this TL, the West Florida republic is admitted as it's
own state, (to make up for the ones that were lost), and the US later
takes OTL's Florida and splits in two....the most sensible place, as
you say, being at the Appalachicola River. So we have a "West Florida"
centered around Baton Rouge and Mobile, an "East Florida" centered
around Pensacola, and a "Jackson" centered around St. Augustine and
*Jacksonville. This also strikes me as a more sensible division in
terms of population, since aside from a few naval bases, there -isn't-
anything south of Gainesville, and won't be until somebody invents the
air conditioner.

How did anyone ever live in Cuba, then? :)
But yes, West Florida ITTL is the OTL Republic of West Florida. That's
where the border is likely to end up. Otherwise Jackson's population
consists of three thousand or so men at the Ballington naval base, and lots
of alligators and manatees...
Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://decadesofdarkness.alternatehistory.com/

Wasn't there a settlement in the Tampa / St. Petersburg area that
would be in Jackson?
And the Northeast coast had some plantations (Daytona area and north,
some of which would be in Jackson).
Population may still not be enough for 60,000, however...
I do think the East Florida/Jackson border should be then the Suwannee
River - the Appalachicola would leave East Florida mighty small in
size, if not population.

Smaller than, say, Rhode Island? I'm still not exactly sure where the best
dividing line should be, but there's not a minimum size for a state that I
know of...

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://decadesofdarkness.alternatehistory.com/

[DanielSBen]

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III

Post by DanielSBen

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III

Post by Fleetlord Hart

Post by DanielSBen
It was the Appalachicola (Sp?) River that bordered East and West
Florida. It's just west of Tallahasse and east of Pensacola.
West Florida would include Pensacola, Mobile, and Baton Rouge.
East Florida, in my judgement, would include the rest of the
panhandle, plus the St. Augustine-Jacksonville area.
The whole of the peninsula south of around OTL's Gainesville would
then be Jackson.
-DanielSBen

Well, I know that's how the current map shows it, but in the TL itself
the State of West Florida is contiguous with the Republic of West
Florida, which in OTL had it's eastern border at the Peridido river.
OTL the US annexed the republic and divided it between Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Alabama.....later we grabbed the rest of Florida,
which became the OTL state.
The way I read this TL, the West Florida republic is admitted as it's
own state, (to make up for the ones that were lost), and the US later
takes OTL's Florida and splits in two....the most sensible place, as
you say, being at the Appalachicola River. So we have a "West Florida"
centered around Baton Rouge and Mobile, an "East Florida" centered
around Pensacola, and a "Jackson" centered around St. Augustine and
*Jacksonville. This also strikes me as a more sensible division in
terms of population, since aside from a few naval bases, there -isn't-
anything south of Gainesville, and won't be until somebody invents the
air conditioner.

How did anyone ever live in Cuba, then? :)
But yes, West Florida ITTL is the OTL Republic of West Florida. That's
where the border is likely to end up. Otherwise Jackson's population
consists of three thousand or so men at the Ballington naval base, and

lots

Post by DanielSBen

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
of alligators and manatees...
Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://decadesofdarkness.alternatehistory.com/

Wasn't there a settlement in the Tampa / St. Petersburg area that
would be in Jackson?
And the Northeast coast had some plantations (Daytona area and north,
some of which would be in Jackson).
Population may still not be enough for 60,000, however...
I do think the East Florida/Jackson border should be then the Suwannee
River - the Appalachicola would leave East Florida mighty small in
size, if not population.

Smaller than, say, Rhode Island? I'm still not exactly sure where the best
dividing line should be, but there's not a minimum size for a state that I
know of...
Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://decadesofdarkness.alternatehistory.com/

I suppose. Still, the Suwannee gives it a bit of bulk - and it won't
be too deleterious on Jackson's population. This will put OTL's
Tallahassee in East Florida, and provide a more even size for the
states. It also makes the whole of the OTL Florida panhandle a state,
and the whole "pan" another.

Oh, and I don't think those TTL folks in Columbia/Knoxville want to
base any decision on yankee Rhode Island's size - although they'd
still have Delaware as a microstate...

-DanielSBen

[k312]

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Decades of Darkness #51b: A Matter of Democracy
But before us
stretches a new path, shown by the actions of how merely a few members
of the white race, endowed with greater strength than that of the
lesser races of mankind, have been able to fly our beloved Stars and
Stripes over first the jewel of the Caribbean, and now over the former
Nicaragua.

If Nicaragua was part of the United States of Central America, it
probably saw the same conflict between liberals and
traditionalists/clericalists/catholics that all of central america
saw.

I wonder what side woudl identify with the USA in this TL. The US is
clearly anti-Catholic, but it is not clearly liberal. Would the
looming threat of anti-liberal, anti-catholic USA create unity in
central american countries? (I think the alluded to ideology of
Matthism would be important to consider here. Would Matthism replace
liberalism?).

Also, how do you think the Catholic church and the Catholic hierarchy
would react to the USA? Presumably the church in Cuba and Nicarague
would be strongly opposed to annexation. Given that with annexation
come racial views, would the Catholic Church be identified with racial
equality? This would result in an even greater demonization of
Catholics in the highly racist USA.

(One would think that USA racism in TTL would be more easily exported
to protestant countries than Catholic ones. South Africa is a prime
possibility, as is Australia. But you seem to indicate that this is
not the case. waht has innoculated these protestant countries from US
protestant racism?)

The other option for the Catholic church is queisance -- as in Quebec
post 1763. The US government could confirm the privileges of the
church in education and faith (as the Brits did in Quebec) and the
Church would agree to encourage co-operation with the authorities.

Which will happen in this TL?

[Kaiser Wilhelm III]

Post by k312

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
Decades of Darkness #51b: A Matter of Democracy
But before us
stretches a new path, shown by the actions of how merely a few members
of the white race, endowed with greater strength than that of the
lesser races of mankind, have been able to fly our beloved Stars and
Stripes over first the jewel of the Caribbean, and now over the former
Nicaragua.

If Nicaragua was part of the United States of Central America, it
probably saw the same conflict between liberals and
traditionalists/clericalists/catholics that all of central america
saw.

It did, yes. The ongoing support

Post by k312
I wonder what side woudl identify with the USA in this TL. The US is
clearly anti-Catholic, but it is not clearly liberal. Would the
looming threat of anti-liberal, anti-catholic USA create unity in
central american countries? (I think the alluded to ideology of
Matthism would be important to consider here. Would Matthism replace
liberalism?).

Matthism is closest to OTL Social Darwinism, and doesn't really replace
liberalism as such, but is more a persuasive tool which either liberals or
conservatives can use to support their interests. To conservatives,
Matthist arguments are a good excuse for preserving social order. To a
liberal, Matthist arguments support the contention (in the USA) that "those
peoples won't develop liberal principles on their own, and thus we should
help them out".

ITTL, the liberals appealed for support from American adventurers, not the
USA as a whole. They didn't expect outright annexation from the USA. At
the time of the request, the USA had shown no direct signs of interest in
that - e.g. they conquered Mexico, but still left it as a state after they
left, taking land near the border. In the non-contiguous Yucatan, the USA
set up a protectorate rather than outright annexation.

And yes, post-Nicaragua the remaining Central American states are likely to
band together, to a degree. The problem is that there's always _someone_
willing to start a fight or who feels disaffected, and thus gives the USA
some reason to intervene.

Post by k312
Also, how do you think the Catholic church and the Catholic hierarchy
would react to the USA? Presumably the church in Cuba and Nicarague
would be strongly opposed to annexation. Given that with annexation
come racial views, would the Catholic Church be identified with racial
equality? This would result in an even greater demonization of
Catholics in the highly racist USA.

The Catholic church can be remarkably accomodating at times. It was notably
quiet on slavery in Cuba, for example. The USA tends to protect rights of
property, and _does_ include freedom of religion, so it doesn't necessarily
stomp on Catholics completely. The main difference is that a Catholic in
the Protestant areas of the USA (the "old states") is likely to be quite
heavily discriminated against. Catholics in Nicaragua are much less so.

Also, the USA tends to work with local elites. Church property would be, by
and large, respected (as it was in the OTL invasion of Mexico), and the US
makes a determined effort to get local elites onside. Bishops, rich
citizens etc, are treated well, and even classed as white. The poorer
citizens are certainly treated as second-class citizens, but nowhere near as
badly as slaves.

Post by k312
(One would think that USA racism in TTL would be more easily exported
to protestant countries than Catholic ones. South Africa is a prime
possibility, as is Australia. But you seem to indicate that this is
not the case. waht has innoculated these protestant countries from US
protestant racism?)

Actually, while Australia has been seen as less racist than OTL (mostly due
to the New Zealand experience, but also because the British took more active
steps in discouraging racism), no such comment has been made about South
Africa. South Africa is quite likely to develop racist views, although
probably not in quite the same way as the USA. More immigration from Europe
also plays a part here - the views on race in Europe are in general less
harsh than the USA.

Post by k312
The other option for the Catholic church is queisance -- as in Quebec
post 1763. The US government could confirm the privileges of the
church in education and faith (as the Brits did in Quebec) and the
Church would agree to encourage co-operation with the authorities.
Which will happen in this TL?

The Catholic church, as a whole, will be quiescent. Their privileges are
protected, since the USA has no desire to antagonise something which has
such a large influence on attitudes, and thus they are mostly comfortable
with the status quo. Nicaraguans who emigrate to the old states, of course,
receive plenty of informal discrimination, but not those who remain within
Nicaragua.

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://decadesofdarkness.alternatehistory.com/

[Carlos Th]

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
And yes, post-Nicaragua the remaining Central American states
are likely to band together, to a degree.

I wonder the path of Costa Rica. Banding with the other Central American
nations and you have US Nicaragua in the middle; banding with Colombia would
not be too palatable either, given Colombian claims on the Caribbean coast
and the situation of Panama. I presume that Colombia would be centered on
New Granada, with Quito and Panama (but mainly Panama) being regarded as
just annexed territories.

... and joining the USA would not look like a desired situation either.

BTW, OTL in the 1850's a railroad was built in Panama, with California gold
rush (but also British interests) as a great motivation. When would the
gold rush start TTL? What would be the demographics of the people reaching
and settling in California? Would the Panama railroad still be built?

I am still trying to figure out Colombian politics with a longer lasting
Bolivar and Quito still in the union. ...this might have interesting
butterflies on Panama.

-- Carlos Th
(for sending email to me, change my-deja.com to chlewey.org)
http://chlewey.org

[Kaiser Wilhelm III]

Post by Carlos Th

Post by Kaiser Wilhelm III
And yes, post-Nicaragua the remaining Central American states
are likely to band together, to a degree.

I wonder the path of Costa Rica. Banding with the other Central American
nations and you have US Nicaragua in the middle; banding with Colombia would
not be too palatable either, given Colombian claims on the Caribbean coast
and the situation of Panama. I presume that Colombia would be centered on
New Granada, with Quito and Panama (but mainly Panama) being regarded as
just annexed territories.

Costa Rica is in trouble, yes. Between the devil and the deep blue sea
(although Colombia doesn't make much of a deep blue sea). And yes, the core
of Colombia is still New Granada... Panamanian and Quitan nationalists would
be willing to encourage U.S. action to gain them independence and even
annexation - _if_ they hadn't already realised that the USA would be worse.

Post by Carlos Th
... and joining the USA would not look like a desired situation either.

Not for the majority of the people involved. For the rich and those who
would get something out of the deal, just possibly. But even then, unlikely
unless it happens by force.

Post by Carlos Th
BTW, OTL in the 1850's a railroad was built in Panama, with California gold
rush (but also British interests) as a great motivation. When would the
gold rush start TTL? What would be the demographics of the people reaching
and settling in California? Would the Panama railroad still be built?

The California gold rush hasn't started as of 1855. I'm still considering
when to place it within the 1855-1865 time frame. Without that, a railroad
in Panama is less likely, but the British may still support it anyway.

Post by Carlos Th
I am still trying to figure out Colombian politics with a longer lasting
Bolivar and Quito still in the union. ...this might have interesting
butterflies on Panama.

Could have all sorts of intriguing possibilities. And other butterflies
from having the ravening chacals swallowing countries to the north, one by
one.

Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III
http://decadesofdarkness.alternatehistory.com/