|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Aug 7, 2024 23:00:13 GMT
What if the North American continent of 1791 disappears and is replaced by the North America of 1891 - Yes, this is a "mirror-reverse" world scenario precisely opposite of the one discussed in this companion thread of mine: alternate-timelines.com/thread/5416/year-isot-scenario-north-america?page=1&scrollTo=203512How does the world of 1791 react? What effect does this have on the world economy of the time and US economy of the time? How does the Benjamin Harrison Administration deal with its new environment? What about the governing authorities in Canada (Prime Minister John A. McDonald, Governor-General Frederick Stanley, 16th Earl of Derby - hockey be preserved!), Mexico (El Presidente Porfirio Diaz), Guatemala, British Honduras (aka Belize today), the political authorities of the Central American republics of Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Costa Rica, and the Colombian government appointed provincial authorities in Panama. Note that the South America and Caribbean islands of 1791 remain their 1791 originals, along with islands far offshore from the North American mainland, like some of the Canadian Arctic ones like Baffin and Ellesmere Island and Newfoundland. Close, tidal islands like Vancouver, Long Island, Outer Banks making the intercoastal waterway in the Atlantic and Gulf, go back in time with 1891 North America. |
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Aug 7, 2024 23:01:42 GMT
The United States of America is automatically the economic, industrial and technological colossus of this world, and thus a trading and commercial colossus, of this world, by default:
And Canada and Mexico are nothing to sneeze at either, with technology in urban areas far exceeding that available in the rest of the world, highly productive farming and a good standard of living (especially in Canada), and a well-developed, capitalized and productive mineral extraction sector (in Canada and Mexico, and to some degree Central America), and productive fruit and coffee and ranching export sector (Central America as well as Mexico, as well as Canada and USA, for ranching).
While interested in exports and global commerce, none of these American governments have interest in political dominion, control or influence over areas outside of the hemisphere.
Routine foreign sources of capital and imports, especially luxury imports, will soon dry up, as odd encounters at sea, the severing of the Trans-Atlantic cable(s), and odd encounters with sailors from different times with different reckonings of the calendar and year take place in North America, the Caribbean, South America, and Hawaii, and a bit less often, Europe and Africa and Asia. [More of the cross-time encounters occur in North America's coasts and the Caribbean because so much more of the ocean is 1791 instead of 1891, despite so many 1891 steam vessels being speedier than 1791 vessels.]
Routine foreign market for American goods, especially manufactured goods, at 1891 levels, also dry up.
However, the substantial diminution of the export sector is still a diminution of something under 10% of the American economy, even less with Canada and Mexico still around for cross border trade, so the impact is not severely negative. And American grain and cotton and alcohol and fishery products still find foreign buyers, if not quite as many.
The Democratic opposition to the ruling Republican Harrison Administration, under the new circumstances, immediately points to the economic illogic of the protective tariff policy. There are no producers of manufactures abroad competitive with the USA on price and quality, and in agriculture, no one is more efficient except for reasons of climatic difference or suitability. Under these circumstances tariffs rates protect nothing except the profit margins of trusts and corporations, and keep the cost of living and business higher.
The only thing the protective tariff has going for it is inertia, and many, perhaps most Republicans won't bother to defend it, and would join Democrats in supporting free trade. The 1791 world is not exactly on a gold standard either, so it may create a more permissive, even completely permissive, environment for the coinage of silver in the United States as well, and in Mexico and Canada and Central America.
Europe is watching the developments of the Constitutional revolution in France with hope and increasing amounts of nervousness. It is also watching an Austro-Russian war against the Ottoman Turks, and the Poles are getting restless, while the Prussians (and French) are concerned lest the Austrians and Russians make too many uncompensated gains at Ottoman expense.
Britain and Spain had been posturing with each other of Spanish detention of British seamen at the Pacific Northwest's Nootka Sound. But the ISOT event "disappears" all British and Spanish establishments on shore and all ships of either side near to shore. Any 1791 Spanish or British ships who were far enough out to sea to escape ISOT transportation and then who inspect the coastline, will see a vastly different picture when closing in on the coast of 1891 British Columbia or Washington state. Possibly making a close enough encounter to meet uptime Canadians or Americans and venture ashore, or being intimidated and made wary by the differences and venturing hundreds of miles back out to sea until they can find a familiar, known port. In any case, in a few months, both sides will be getting reports from some of their own Captains that the object of their previous contention is now vastly different, and spoken for. And uptimer diplomats will provide updated maps to prove the point by the same time.
Visiting North American ships will be providing demonstrations of technology, offers of trade, and "news from the future" that will provide quite a scramble of warnings to all sorts of audiences from French aristocrats and royals, to French Republicans, to Poles about the near-term demise about their country, to France's neighbors about France's invasions of them, and vice versa.
Diplomats and naval attaches of the French 3rd Republic in North America, for example, may try to see if they could, for example, help their downtime countrymen stabilize their national revolution into stable republic like had been found by 1891, or a stable constitutional monarchy. This attempt would probably be in vain, given their limited resources and the passions of the time.
British diplomats and officials in Canada would seek to give downtime England/Britain a "leg up" for the French Revolutionary War and Napoleonic trials ahead. German and Spanish and Russian and Italian uptime diplomats would all have "agendas" in reporting "news from the future" back to their home states or precursor states.
Similarly, non-state immigrant diasporas in the USA and Canada could easily have their own voluntaristic "agendas" toward the old continent, as of 1891. Irish North Americans of the Fenian persuasion seeking to support separatism and republicanism in Ireland against England. German North Americans seeking to support the German states's military technology, tactics, and unity against French invasions, probably seeing Prussia as the natural leader in most cases. Some Mexicans and Central Americans and Spanish-heritage American citizens seeking to 'harden' Spain against French invasion and devastation in the peninsular war. But Mexicans and Central Americans will have diverse and mixed feelings about the mother country of Spain. For any number that feel a cultural kinship for Spain, hoping to see it be less violated by French or British armies, others would feel discomfort with so much of the map all South America being once more repainted all Spanish, alongside Hispaniola, in addition to Cuba and Puerto Rico. Some of these might try to accelerate South American and Caribbean independence movements.
One thing about the 1791 world that will be a big turn off to 1891 North Americans (most of them) will be slavery and the various slave trades, in the Caribbean, South America, and trans-Atlantic from Africa. Additionally, the Barbary slave trade.
There could easily be "awkward" moments of slave ship Captains, American, British or European, from 1791, pulling into American or Mexican, or Belizean or Central American ports with holds full of human cargo, looking to sell, and getting sent away, or to their surprise arrested, and then having thorny questions, for instance in ports like New Orleans or Charleston or Savannah about where to house the human cargo next.
Foreign policy debates would emerge inside the USA, Canada, and Mexico about whether to tolerate slavery's continued existence in the Caribbean or South America, or the international slave trade, with the dying embers of the abolition generation perhaps a bit reheated, but competing in the USA with the reconciliation generation, and a probable rise of a Democratic President in the 1892 election.
I suspect a quick bipartisan and pan-regional USA, and uptime North American consensus to form around banning the oceanic and African slave trades, at a minimum, with the US navy and Canadian based Royal Navy elements having the tech superiority to crush the trade as a "legitimate business" and reduce it into at most a set of small, daring criminal smuggling rings in the south Atlantic, mainly within the Portuguese empire.
Whatever irritation the British, Dutch, Danes, Spanish, and Portuguese feel at the Americans and Canadians doing this, they are pretty soon getting distracted enough by French Revolutionary Wars that they are in a poor position to retaliate. And Revolutionary France is distracted from the very beginning of the scenario.
The American and Canadian based fleets can also do a "favor" for the downtime Europeans and themselves that provides a service in return for imposing new rules. Replaying the Barbary Pirates War, and basically put their slaving and hostage-taking activities out of business, so they get none of their final heyday of profit from the neglect of European navies during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars.
Unless the Canadian government, local parliament, PM, Governor-General, are super-excessively shy, diffident, and all around "sore-y", it lacks a region with slavery nostalgia and a present-day antiblack white supremacy commitment, like the 1891 USA, so it should not be too bold a move for the 1891 Dominion of Canada in the 1790s, to arrogate to its own control and defence, the colonies of British Honduras, and the British Caribbean and Guiana to "loyally" help the United Kingdom with the burden of defence during the "European crisis, and to incidentally abolish slavery on all those islands and ashore territories.
Porfirio Diaz might make a similarly bold move with downtime Spanish Cuba, which is really not far from his own Yucatan peninsula, but I would still call his odds of acting even in such a modest territorially expansive way, well south of 50%.
The vast supply of European immigrant labor arriving to the USA and Canada in the early 1890s and beyond dries up instantly. Circa 1790 Europeans, even Britons, were not emigrating in vast numbers to America. Now America was not fabulously wealthy then. But it would take time for news to spread and for people to afford passage even America became known as an attractive destination to 1790s Europeans. And many of them may lack some rudimentary mechanical skills in demand in America. And presuming wars still break out in Europe on time, there will be "full employment" in Europe for people, and ships.
To some extent labor shortages won't be a big deal in the USA, with some of the trade-reduction induced slowing of the US economy. But the US economy and market for industry should still grow, still increasing labor demand. And presuming decades long disconnection of Europe, Africa, and Asia, still not yet open to international commerce, to the international labor market, industry in the northern, midwestern, and west coast of the USA will have to source its labor differently, probably primarily at first from its own southern states, from among impoverished black and white sharecroppers, and later from Mexicans and Central Americans, and also rural Quebecois. This should mean a substantially earlier black, and overall southern, Great Migration north and west, and Mexican/Chicano migration into the US southwest.
Further consequences are potentially interesting for the presumed wars of the French revolution in Europe and possibly the Caribbean. --
Unlike in OTL, while Britain and France will prosecute vigorous and brutal war of privateering and blockade against each other, they will not mess with the neutral American flag that can summon the protection of higher technology US Navy. Each side has incentives to be non-offensive to the Americans to retain access to American goods, services, and technology. While on average, American.....and certainly Canadian, and probably even Mexican, readings of the Napoleonic wars, should Napoleon even rise, would be more Anglophilic than Francophilic, I do not see this situation rapidly leading by circa 1800/1900 to a US leader analogous to Woodrow Wilson to intervene on Britain's side a la WWI. On the other hand, a 1895-1900 Canada feeling obligated to provide decisive help to Britain.....maybe it *would* shut down that cycle of European wars and French ambition pretty quickly once fully engaged, all by its own additional tech and resource contributions.
If not, it may be left to the USA of 1891-1901 to force the downtime East Asian monarchies to "open" to commerce with America and the west, with slightly more upgraded versions of the Matthew Perry Mission. I do not think the US government would make opium sales its hill to die (or kill) on, in forcing free trade and diplomatic relation with the Chinese. But I could just about see Uncle Sam forcing a war for free trade in the 1890s, early 1900s (uptime/North America time) to give American merchants free reign for unimpeded selling of tobacco cigars and cigarettes (and menthols when they get invented) [but Church ladies will draw the line at playing cards and demon rum or other alcohol], Coca-cola/Pepsi-cola/moxie, and kerosene lamps and kerosene, and various other products, and the right to missionize and have extraterritoriality.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856 
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Aug 8, 2024 18:20:39 GMT
Could be a very interesting world for all the people involve. N America and especially the US is very much in the driving seat but where would they want to interfere and by how much.
On trade policy by the US high tariffs were pretty much traditional and had two purposes, to aid US businesses and to provide the majority of federal funding. Neither of the latter really applies here as US businesses are so far ahead and the lack of industrial competition means there will be little/no funds going to the federal government. However there might be residual opposition to a free trade policy plus Canada - not sure about Mexico - already had tariffs of their own, in part to protect against US competition. While a minnow compared to the US how far would the latter be willing to push Canada on the issue. Also I suspect much of Europe, let alone the rest of the world wouldn't be willing to accept free trade as while being suggested by some radical economists its even more against their own traditional protectionists policies and doubly so with the US being so dominant in technology. Plus many will argue that maintaining tariffs, especially for those with a decent sized home market is an incentive for US manufacturers to set up factories in those nations to bypass such tariffs and hence give a chance to learn from those factories. As such, while it would take huge tariffs to make 1791 goods competitive with 1891 US ones I think governments will desire to maintain some capacity of their own and seek to update to 'modern' standards.
This will go even further for European nations colonial markets in this period which could cause serious clashes with the US. While they won't be able to do much about attacks by the US on their American colonies such operations, such as to suppress slavery, at this time an intensely wealth producing activity, it would cause a lot of resentment in the European powers. Doubly so if the US would seek to extend such policies to colonies elsewhere. Also I could see a number claiming the US was being hypocritical if it only attacks and suppresses African slavery by European powers and not slavery elsewhere in the world, including Africa and the ME.
As such there is a lot of potential for tension here. One approach the US might take is to encourage their own now free but often oppressed black population to take action against slavery elsewhere, especially in the Americans, which both distances the US government leadership from any actions they take and possibly has a number of those blacks moving out of the US.
In terms of Europe a hell of a lot will depend on how the various government and groups react to news of the forthcoming century. Most especially news of what was to happen in France with the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars. Such reactions will often be contradictory and divided between groups with radically different aims. As such I think just about any path could be followed. A certain Corsican could end up with a lot of people both inside and outside France after his head while others might seek to make him their leader. The partitions of Poland and the unification of Italy and Germany, along with the increase of state power are going to cause turmoil with many vested interests opposing such moves while many other people are inspired by them for action.
I think that the US will seek to open up China and other E Asian countries, especially since their used to having trade and other interests there but this won't be welcome to the Qing dynasty especially which still seems at the height of its powers and regardless of the military strength of the US - at least until its been demonstrated probably several times - will still be convinced of its innate superiority in all ways. You would see a similar reaction in Japan although its a lot less powerful and influential. How strongly the US pushes this would be a key issue and it would probably be a fairly divisive issue inside the US itself.
Britain has two advantages over most of its European rivals in that its the largest and most technologically advanced society as well as probably the most innovating and in terms of probably friendly relations with Canada - unless the 1791 Britain really screws things up which could be an issue. Will Britain accept Canadian independence and especially its greater power and political rights? Also there could be issues over questions of not just slavery but also ideas such as Catholic emancipation and the resulting government of Ireland? Can the British population in general accept that for a while at least and possibly for the entire future of the relationship they would be the junior partners to Canada?
As you say Spain will have something of a possibly influence via Mexico and much of central America but its likely that their 1891 nations will have less friendly relations with 1791 Spain, especially if the latter tries to resume its dominion which the Spanish government of the time might be stupid enough to try. I don't think any other 1791 powers have connections to the 1891 world - other than Russia which has lost Alaska.
|
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Aug 9, 2024 2:41:49 GMT
On trade policy by the US high tariffs were pretty much traditional and had two purposes, to aid US businesses and to provide the majority of federal funding. Neither of the latter really applies here as US businesses are so far ahead and the lack of industrial competition means there will be little/no funds going to the federal government. However there might be residual opposition to a free trade policy plus Canada - not sure about Mexico - already had tariffs of their own, in part to protect against US competition. While a minnow compared to the US how far would the latter be willing to push Canada on the issue. Also I suspect much of Europe, let alone the rest of the world wouldn't be willing to accept free trade as while being suggested by some radical economists its even more against their own traditional protectionists policies and doubly so with the US being so dominant in technology. Plus many will argue that maintaining tariffs, especially for those with a decent sized home market is an incentive for US manufacturers to set up factories in those nations to bypass such tariffs and hence give a chance to learn from those factories. As such, while it would take huge tariffs to make 1791 goods competitive with 1891 US ones I think governments will desire to maintain some capacity of their own and seek to update to 'modern' standards. I see the smaller (Canada and possibly Mexico) and more backward downtime powers as being more resistant to movement to perfect free trade or tariff reciprocity in this situation, with US consumers and businesses coming to see protective tariffs as at worst onerous taxes and fees that lack a positive protective rationale and that at worst are irrelevant as a supposed generator revenue because imports ad valorem will be so low. While they won't be able to do much about attacks by the US on their American colonies What kind of scale and type of attacks on the British/European American colonies are you envisioning from the United States here? Outright land grabs and annexations? That was not really anything I was expecting. The USA 1891 already has the Lower 48, plus Alaska, and was not conducting Caribbean occupations or filibusters in the years 1891-1898. The filibuster equivalent takeover of Hawaii by the American expat and business community in Hawaii in 1895 was contingent on a long established American community there, which would need to restart from scratch. Maybe after about a decade or so, as we got into this ATL's 1898-1901/1798-1801, and 1901-1915/1801-1815 era, the US would get more greedy and bossy in the Caribbean and South America to the point it could include getting "grabby" with European colonies in the Caribbean, South America, the fringes of Asia, etc. But I have no reason to count on it. such as to suppress slavery, at this time an intensely wealth producing activity, it would cause a lot of resentment in the European powers. Oh, now if US intervention is focused on suppression of slavery, I am not even certain the USA government would even do any armed interventions to occupy colonies/islands to abolish the institution of slavery and emancipate slaves. Believe it or not that my be considered controversial, "too involved" or too expensive to some 1891 Americans, especially Americans on the south. Maritime intervention against the middle passage and slave trade at sea, across the Atlantic from Africa to the western hemisphere is where the USA, and likely other uptime western hemisphere nations, would have a consensus to oppose the *international slave trade*. William Wilberforce was already a known more campaigner against this by 1791. Shipping and business concerns of downtime Portugal, Spain, and Britain will have some outrage at bossy interference with their business and profits, but downtime outrage won't be universal. In legal terms, the US came out against the international slave trade by 1808, Britain by 1807, France against the slave trade *and slavery* in its Jacobin phase in 1793-95 - despite Napoleon's later attempted reversal, and the Congress of Vienna had resolutions against the international slave trade in 1814-15, so it was already controversial and a dirty business in polite society by 1791 downtime. Additionally, I imagine that Americans and Canadians would want to boycott slave produced Caribbean, South American goods in favor of domestic substitutes. Also I could see a number claiming the US was being hypocritical if it only attacks and suppresses African slavery by European powers and not slavery elsewhere in the world, including Africa and the ME. Well I was suggesting that the Americans would shut down the slave-trade, piracy, kidnapping trade in that far west end of Middle East/North Africa, by earlier, more thorough naval suppression of the Barbary Pirates - that renders a service, mainly to downtime Europeans by eliminate a hive of criminal activity that chiefly victimized white, Christian, Europeans. I don't think the USA would extend itself and make great efforts to actually go onshore into Africa to suppress and destroy slave-taking operations or send anti-slave trade patrols up deep into the armpit of the Indian Ocean to really disrupt the Horn of Africa, Arab, and Indian slave trades. That sort of "brown on black" abuse did not have the same more implications or saliency or immediacy for Americans or even West Europeans as the white (and sometimes brown) on black abuse of the trans-Atlantic slave trade or brown on white abuse of the Barbary slave trade.
As such there is a lot of potential for tension here. There's some I'll admit, but I think there are some potential mitigating or softening factors. The more the USA or uptime people are tempted to impose actual abolition/emancipation on downtime pieces of territory, like Caribbean islands, the more tense downtime people will get. But, years long profound warfare in Europe surrounding the French Revolution could do a lot to distract Europeans from such meddling and provide uptimers with faits accomplis. Especially countries like Denmark, Netherlands that will spend a great deal of time under occupation or without fleets. This applies to Spain significantly as well, and somewhat to Portugal. To a limited extent to France which will always be fighting. Britain has the greatest potential to be offended. One approach the US might take is to encourage their own now free but often oppressed black population to take action against slavery elsewhere, especially in the Americas, which both distances the US government leadership from any actions they take and possibly has a number of those blacks moving out of the US. I have some strong skepticism about this as a deliberate US government policy. Especially if, as I suspect, we have a Cleveland Administration take power from Harrison after the 1892 election. The US government, elite and white population would probably have a bit of discomfort with encouraging 'do-it-yourself' (DIY) armed activism/filibustering by African-Americans abroad and could be worried about a spiral of white supremacist southerners or ex-Confederates deliberately volunteering for the opposing side. We cannot rule out some genuine "DIY" actions I suppose. Given the vast economic/industrial gulf between uptime USA/North America and the downtime world, some African-Americans (Afro-Canadians, Mexicans, Belizeans) may within a decade or so amass funds and other resources that.....in the downtime world, go quite far in terms of funding operations in Africa putting potentially multiple Liberia style projects into operation or funding the purchase or buyout of some lesser colonies or slave forts. One thing I would think the US 1890s government would try to have the presence of mind to do would be to try to prevent Haiti from devolving into a situation of race war. Which means once the French announce slavery abolition themselves, doing everything in their power to show French authorities, local and in France, the utter folly of trying to restore slavery on the island, and the necessity of accepting emancipation and self-government. In terms of Europe a hell of a lot will depend on how the various government and groups react to news of the forthcoming century. Most especially news of what was to happen in France with the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars. Such reactions will often be contradictory and divided between groups with radically different aims. As such I think just about any path could be followed. A certain Corsican could end up with a lot of people both inside and outside France after his head while others might seek to make him their leader. The partitions of Poland and the unification of Italy and Germany, along with the increase of state power are going to cause turmoil with many vested interests opposing such moves while many other people are inspired by them for action. Yep, exactly. I mean do you even come down on a position on whether the French Revolution will be stopped in its tracks whether there will be a lengthy batch of wars of the French Revolution, or feel completely unable to guess? I think that the US will seek to open up China and other E Asian countries, especially since their used to having trade and other interests there but this won't be welcome to the Qing dynasty especially which still seems at the height of its powers and regardless of the military strength of the US - at least until its been demonstrated probably several times - will still be convinced of its innate superiority in all ways. You would see a similar reaction in Japan although its a lot less powerful and influential. I agree, it would take many, many knocks on that door, especially Emperor Qianlong's door, to open up China. How strongly the US pushes this would be a key issue and it would probably be a fairly divisive issue inside the US itself. You think so? Think there would be a strong anti-imperial contingent arguing, "hey, if they say they want to be left alone, leave them alone", and "remember, nine years ago, we decided we did not want Chinese moving here and that they could not become good Americans. Would Japanese, Koreans, Annamites work any better? And should we insist on going to their countries if that is the case?" Britain has two advantages over most of its European rivals in that its the largest and most technologically advanced society as well as probably the most innovating and in terms of probably friendly relations with Canada - unless the 1791 Britain really screws things up which could be an issue. Will Britain accept Canadian independence and especially its greater power and political rights? Also there could be issues over questions of not just slavery but also ideas such as Catholic emancipation and the resulting government of Ireland? Can the British population in general accept that for a while at least and possibly for the entire future of the relationship they would be the junior partners to Canada? This is rather huge I think. It could basically become a question of accept the relationship, on Canada's terms, and thus benefit from having Canada as an ally, protector, but sidekick and bootstrapper building you up and making sure win efficiently against all your foes like France. Or tell Canada "my way or the high way" and basically cause Canada to become truly independent and ultimately indifferent to Britain's position and welfare. Because while Britain outnumbers Canada in population, Britain is in no way suppressing the quite extensive, wealthy, and tech forward Canada, nor "bringing it to heel" without its consent. It's just not. And actually, Canada connects back in with the slavery issue. I think the Canadian public by 1891, on its third Prime Minister was well used to being Dominion and responsible self-government by that point, since 1867. It valued its relationship with Britain, especially as a counterweight to the colossus to the south, but had self-respect and expectations to control its destiny. It also had 'modern' late Victorian moral expectations, more advanced in multiple areas than Georgian moral expectations. But how self-confident was it. I envisioned the Dominion of Canada being bold enough and having enough uptime Royal Navy units located there out of stations like Halifax and Vancouver, to *impose* some of its preferences on part of the British Empire, namely the part in the western hemisphere, including uptime, orphaned British Honduras, and the downtime Bermuda, Guyana, and British Caribbean islands. Possibly the Falklands. And here they could impose their moral views, including abolition of slavery, and certainly end to the slave trade. But to 1791 Britain that's some real insubordination, to the point of else-majeste. Did I imagine 1891 Canada, backtimed to 1791, being bolder than it would realistically dare to be? Also there could be issues over questions of not just slavery but also ideas such as Catholic emancipation and the resulting government of Ireland? Canada is going to have the Catholic policy it wants....in Canada...hands down. Canada is not going to dictate to England or the government of Ireland, as constituted by the Protestant ascendancy of the time....its Catholic policy, however much it complains, despite complaints and agitations of Irish-Canadians, and Irish-Americans. Indeed, where the Protestant Ascendancy has on the ground control might be exactly where it responds to outside pressures by getting its back up. As you say Spain will have something of a possibly influence via Mexico and much of central America but its likely that their 1891 nations will have less friendly relations with 1791 Spain, especially if the latter tries to resume its dominion which the Spanish government of the time might be stupid enough to try. To the extent that Spain actually deludes itself that it can boss Porfirio Diaz, forgets to call him Señor, and listen respectfully, and tries to actually deploy armies acting like they are in charge to Mexico or Central American republics....that is the extent they are pissing away their chance for goodwill and advance assistance against France and Britain, and almost goading the Mexicans into liberating Cuba from them, and the Panamanians from liberating the whole of Colombia from them. I don't think any other 1791 powers have connections to the 1891 world - other than Russia which has lost Alaska. I think Russia will need to learn fast, and will learn fast, to appreciate that it has a nice neighbor in Alaska that provides a useful supply station and search and rescue station for people Russia has operating in extreme northeast Siberia, and it should well trust that Russia was paid enough for Alyeska in another dimension, and has no sovereignty questions to ask. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Aug 9, 2024 12:46:14 GMT
Quick replies on some of those points.
a) I was thinking chiefly of possible US military intervention in the Caribbean islands to end slavery here. As you say a lot depends on how interventionist 1891 US feels but they do have a huge technological and military superiority and have had nearly 70 years of the Monroe doctrine which they have the clear ability to impose. That could be especially bad for Spain if they decided to 'open up' the rest of the Spanish empire in Latin America in response to Spain doing something stupid regarding Mexico or even making demands about Florida. You could well see a revival of filibustering by individuals and small groups and I suspect a lot of Americans would at the least turn a blind eye to such activities. You could see some tension with either the US and/or Canada over Newfoundland as its an important British colony because of the fisheries and it might be seen as a foothold to N America by either/both side.
b) Thanks for clarifying on possible US actions against slavery and slave trade in the Med.
c) On the French revolution I would be guessing as there are so many variables in play here. There was increasing instability and violence between assorted factions and a lot of cracks over the image of a united country heading toward a stable constitutional monarchy. Future knowledge is going to throw a lot of explosives into this. For instance all sides will fairly quickly become aware of events like the royal families attempt to flee what was practically imprisonment, the failure of which lead to a more open jailing and ultimately their execution. Even many in the US will oppose the death of the young heir to the throne. Not saying they will intervene and even diplomatic statements might incite further excesses. Its a very volatile situation and you could see an earlier foreign intervention by neighbouring nations to try and nip the chaos in the bud, which in turn will incite the more extreme elements and undermine the more moderate figures. I fear there's going to be a lot of violence and bloodshed but who comes out on top and whether it will lead to ~20 years of warfare is uncertain.
For instance might some groups in the 1891 world aid either side - or different groups both sides - with weaponry and other equipment. Modern [1891] rifles and artillery, even lightly armoured steamships along with less military aid such as knowledge of medical advances, tinned food, simple steam engines etc could have a massive affect on battles early on. Similarly while most 1791 rulers will oppose the ideas of the French revolution how much support might they get from middle and lower classes, especially when information that armed violence isn't the only way to get reform and that by 1891 the most advanced and successful nations have been those who accept news ideas and ways of government, at least to a degree.
d) On intervention, especially in China, there will be strong views both ways - and probably on intermediate suggestions. In a few years there's clear opposition to the annexation of Hawaii and then the annexations after the Spanish-America war but there's also a growing move to show American power and that power is now massively enlarged compared to the 1791 world it finds itself in. Also there's a lot of wealth in the region and potential for US exports, especially given they will massively outclass other rivals technologically. There was a desire to export American values and civilization and seek to re-establish open trade and missionary rights for example. As with so many other things its going to be messy.
e) The relationship of the UK with Canada and to a lesser degree the US will be vital for the country's future and they could really screw it up or if enough are intelligent and listen to up-timers could vastly improve Britain's chances of regaining a level of power. Coupled with the concerns about the events in France and the titanic impact those could have on the next few decades especially. There are movements for reform in the UK as well although most are far less extreme than in France and also there is growing concern about the social conditions in the new factory towns and the impact on older trades and activities. It could lead to a lot of unrest and or foreign combat the UK has no chance of winning with powers in N America or it could see some agreement for reform to start which stabilizes political and economic development and also provides the information to help avoid two decades of war in Europe.
f) With Catholic emancipation I was thinking more of pressure from the US than Canada. However its going to be another issue that will antagonize the current status quo.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Aug 9, 2024 12:53:07 GMT
One other impact that I don't think mentioned so far will be the cultural one. Not just information about say art and literature from the latter part of the 19thC but that the young Mozart and Beethoven for instance are about and how will they and their people respond to learning what they will produce in the future. Probably plenty of other such revelations that will surprise and possibly enhance the 1791 world.
|
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Aug 16, 2024 1:34:03 GMT
One other impact that I don't think mentioned so far will be the cultural one. Not just information about say art and literature from the latter part of the 19thC but that the young Mozart and Beethoven for instance are about and how will they and their people respond to learning what they will produce in the future. Probably plenty of other such revelations that will surprise and possibly enhance the 1791 world.
An interesting angle I had not thought of. It could boost their royalties and exposure and encourage to do new stuff, as good or better than the originals, or leave them depressed and feeling robbed of the process of creation, and unable to approach the heights of achievement of works " they" 'so-called created' with works they know and feel they personally 'created' The *obvious* areas for any such 'black filibustering' by African-American citizens of the 1891 USA, possibly Union veterans or former Buffalo soldiers would be Caribbean Islands, with majority enslaved black populations themselves, held by the 1791 colonial powers, or some mainland downtime areas like possibly Spanish Panama, British Honduras or Miskito coast, or the Guyanas. Were such a scheme to succeed against a downtime power, with the African-Americans taking advantage of more advanced American technology, arms, and tactics, despite being a small minority group, not wealthy by 1891 standards, and reliant on sympathetic benefactors, probably some white, giving them an edge against downtime opponents with inferior technology and global commitments, the African-American filibusters could, for a time at least and in some of these places, set themselves up as a politically dominating elite group, with some privileges relative to the average newly freed native downtime enslaved person. People would be freed from enslavement, but the results might not be entirely pretty, or a perfectly functioning "one-man, one-vote" democracy. Once established, these adventurers might then invite many of their kith and kin and friends to join them on said island or mainland patch to reinforce them and enjoy a higher social standing than they could hope to enjoy in the USA of the time. I would expect that such filibustering operations would have the least chance of success/highest chance of failure against British colonies, because of Britain having the best Navy and most ability to afford relief expeditions among 1790s powers, although African-Americans of the 1890s would have the most cultural commonalities with the inhabitants of British Caribbean colonies than the colonies of any other power in the region. Next in level of difficulty would be the Spanish Caribbean island colonies of Cuba and Santo Domingo and Puerto Rico. Spain would be a little less well equipped to resist because of its weaker Navy, greater poverty, and from 1793, absorption in land conflicts in the Pyrenees. There would be more white Creoles and mulattoes among their colonial populations, but many enslaved and free blacks as well. An advantage of carving out fiefdoms among Cuba and Santo Domingo compared to British islands however is their relatively large size. French, Dutch, and Danish colonies should all be much easier to filibuster in, especially once the French Revolutionary Wars get underway and their home countries are enduring occupations and having their Navies steadily smashed by Britain. As I noted earlier, African-Americans could start a Liberia project, in Liberia's historic location, just decades ahead of schedule, possibly giving it a preemptive boost in territorial size and population, possibly with a boost of quinine and other anti-malarial improvements available in 1891 USA. Or, perhaps more lucratively, African-American would be "back-to-Africa" colonists, possibly working with white businessmen, could make an arms for territory deal to purchase the Netherlands Cape Colony, a home of merely 60,000 people by around 1800, in return for gatling guns and ammunition and such when the Dutch Republic comes under threat from Revolutionary France from 1793 onward. Once American colonists are established in the Cape, they can spread out as farmers and merchants in much healthier climate than any other part of sub-Saharan Africa, and make for Kimberley in the northern Cape north of the Orange river, knowing if they dig there are diamonds to be found. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Aug 16, 2024 14:14:30 GMT
One other impact that I don't think mentioned so far will be the cultural one. Not just information about say art and literature from the latter part of the 19thC but that the young Mozart and Beethoven for instance are about and how will they and their people respond to learning what they will produce in the future. Probably plenty of other such revelations that will surprise and possibly enhance the 1791 world.
An interesting angle I had not thought of. It could boost their royalties and exposure and encourage to do new stuff, as good or better than the originals, or leave them depressed and feeling robbed of the process of creation, and unable to approach the heights of achievement of works " they" 'so-called created' with works they know and feel they personally 'created' The *obvious* areas for any such 'black filibustering' by African-American citizens of the 1891 USA, possibly Union veterans or former Buffalo soldiers would be Caribbean Islands, with majority enslaved black populations themselves, held by the 1791 colonial powers, or some mainland downtime areas like possibly Spanish Panama, British Honduras or Miskito coast, or the Guyanas. Were such a scheme to succeed against a downtime power, with the African-Americans taking advantage of more advanced American technology, arms, and tactics, despite being a small minority group, not wealthy by 1891 standards, and reliant on sympathetic benefactors, probably some white, giving them an edge against downtime opponents with inferior technology and global commitments, the African-American filibusters could, for a time at least and in some of these places, set themselves up as a politically dominating elite group, with some privileges relative to the average newly freed native downtime enslaved person. People would be freed from enslavement, but the results might not be entirely pretty, or a perfectly functioning "one-man, one-vote" democracy. Once established, these adventurers might then invite many of their kith and kin and friends to join them on said island or mainland patch to reinforce them and enjoy a higher social standing than they could hope to enjoy in the USA of the time. I would expect that such filibustering operations would have the least chance of success/highest chance of failure against British colonies, because of Britain having the best Navy and most ability to afford relief expeditions among 1790s powers, although African-Americans of the 1890s would have the most cultural commonalities with the inhabitants of British Caribbean colonies than the colonies of any other power in the region. Next in level of difficulty would be the Spanish Caribbean island colonies of Cuba and Santo Domingo and Puerto Rico. Spain would be a little less well equipped to resist because of its weaker Navy, greater poverty, and from 1793, absorption in land conflicts in the Pyrenees. There would be more white Creoles and mulattoes among their colonial populations, but many enslaved and free blacks as well. An advantage of carving out fiefdoms among Cuba and Santo Domingo compared to British islands however is their relatively large size. French, Dutch, and Danish colonies should all be much easier to filibuster in, especially once the French Revolutionary Wars get underway and their home countries are enduring occupations and having their Navies steadily smashed by Britain. As I noted earlier, African-Americans could start a Liberia project, in Liberia's historic location, just decades ahead of schedule, possibly giving it a preemptive boost in territorial size and population, possibly with a boost of quinine and other anti-malarial improvements available in 1891 USA. Or, perhaps more lucratively, African-American would be "back-to-Africa" colonists, possibly working with white businessmen, could make an arms for territory deal to purchase the Netherlands Cape Colony, a home of merely 60,000 people by around 1800, in return for gatling guns and ammunition and such when the Dutch Republic comes under threat from Revolutionary France from 1793 onward. Once American colonists are established in the Cape, they can spread out as farmers and merchants in much healthier climate than any other part of sub-Saharan Africa, and make for Kimberley in the northern Cape north of the Orange river, knowing if they dig there are diamonds to be found.
Not sure about Panama as uncertain of the borders - think on the other thread you talked to 1791 Spanish central America being invaded from Colombian Panama - but doesn't the affected area extend down toward about the Panama area so the other two at least would be from 1891 as well. British Honduras would still be a British colony but in its 1891 form - which could raise issues with 1791 Britain and the Miskito region is now part of Nicaragua, with possibly a bit in Honduras.
Interesting idea about blacks trying to trade tech for territory but I suspect that they would be preceded by too many other groups with access to the technology. Some from the US, especially possibly those of British or German descent, or from Canada might be willing to offer such knowledge for free or at least more willingly and would probably be more welcome to 1791 Europeans as trade partners. Although if they get in quick and possibly accept continued Dutch control of the Cape port so that they have a resupply area then black settlement of the hinterland could be the basis of a deal. In terms of tech transfer to Europe you might see republicans seeking to aid the French republican movement to try and keep it responsible rather than going into extreme violence and aiding it against the assorted reactionary neighbours. Things could get very volatile in Europe with tech and knowledge in-flowing from multiple sources.
I think more likely would be actions against slave colonies in the Caribbean, although as you say it might be difficult to hold such territories in the medium-longer term. Apart from anything else given the profits from sugar and other such crops how dependent would they be on imported food, although plantations could be turned over to crop raising. It might depend on whether they could call on the US for support under the Monroe Doctrine if they do establish free 'republics' as they could argue an attempt by a European power to restore its control would be a breach of that stance.
There is the danger as you say of such blacks establishing themselves as a new aristocratic type elite over any black populations they free as I think that is basically what happened in Liberia OTL.
|
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Aug 17, 2024 15:55:22 GMT
Not sure about Panama as uncertain of the borders - think on the other thread you talked to 1791 Spanish central America being invaded from Colombian Panama - but doesn't the affected area extend down toward about the Panama area so the other two at least would be from 1891 as well. British Honduras would still be a British colony but in its 1891 form - which could raise issues with 1791 Britain and the Miskito region is now part of Nicaragua, with possibly a bit in Honduras. Yes - I goofed on all those Central American spots, they would all be in their 1891 incarnations in this timeline, so, 1891 British Honduras/Belize - it would have a modern, slave-free administration, and downtime Britain...and uptime Canada, would have a proprietary interest in it, so not a good candidate for filibustering. Panama would be an uptime 1891 province of the Republic of Colombia, with a Colombian garrison, so again, not a good candidate for filibustering. It would default to self-rule and tolerate downtime Spanish attempts from the Viceroyalty of New Granada to seek control....indeed, it could attack the latter and seek to 'liberate' the Republic of Colombia, with Panama as the dominant province and Panama City as the national capital, unless it decides to live and let live and be separate. An it would be the 1891 Republic of Nicaragua, to which Britain had already conceded the Miskito coast, and which it could plausibly protect from 1791 Britain, and if it had any trouble in self-defense, certainly could do so with the assistance of Central American neighbors (Honduras, Guatemala), Porfirian Mexico, or the USA, plus simply the circumstances of 1791 and 1792 and 1793 Britain, soon having much bigger fish to fry than the Miskito coast. Interesting idea about blacks trying to trade tech for territory but I suspect that they would be preceded by too many other groups with access to the technology. Some from the US, especially possibly those of British or German descent, or from Canada might be willing to offer such knowledge for free or at least more willingly and would probably be more welcome to 1791 Europeans as trade partners. That is another alternative of white Americans and Canadians, and likely a bit more realistic. Although no need to limit white North American arms dealers in downtime Europe to people of British and German descent (although people from those heritages, and expats from those nations, diplomats, businesspeople, emigrants, would probably like to give their mother countries or predecessor nations a "leg up" for the wars with revolutionary France they expect to come). For the the Dutch Republic in particular, there is also a whole class of well-to-do Dutch heritage New Yorkers and New Jerseyans, Roosevelts, Van Burens, Schuylers, Van Dorens, Frelinghuysens, with financial and industrial connections who may be motivated to help support the Dutch with the means to defend themselves and avoid having their homeland or colonies become mere chew-toys and playthings for France and Britain. While less wealthy, by 1891, there is already a Polish diaspora of note in Chicago and New York and Pittsburgh that may see a "last chance" to try to save Poland from the final partitions. And of course in the USA and Canada, among the Irish diaspora, there will be Fenian Irish Republican independence activists, with a grudge against Britain, motivated to intervene directly in Ireland, or to support France, based on the principle of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Although if they get in quick and possibly accept continued Dutch control of the Cape port so that they have a resupply area then black settlement of the hinterland could be the basis of a deal. Maybe, can't rule it out. Maybe it could be a biracial collaboration born in New York State, with African-Americans getting a settlement spot with a good relative position in the Cape and interior, but New York Dutch Americans seeing this as an anti-British, and thereby pro-Dutch, preemptive move to reinforce the Cape Colony's self-reliance. Of course the downtime Dutch in the metropole and colony would have to agree to slavery abolition there. But the local population was a mere 67,000 or so. The complete Afrikaner and Boer ethnogenesis was ongoing, and in South African racial terms as it would evolve down the line, the closest analogue to American blacks would be neither Boer nor English whites, nor Black Africans, but the mixed-race 'Coloureds' of mixed European (mainly Dutch), African, and some Asian heritage. In terms of tech transfer to Europe you might see republicans seeking to aid the French republican movement to try and keep it responsible rather than going into extreme violence and aiding it against the assorted reactionary neighbours. Things could get very volatile in Europe with tech and knowledge in-flowing from multiple sources. I would think this would be the approach that diplomatic representatives of the French Third Republic and military attaches, and patriotic uptime French expats would try to take toward downtime France. Try to encourage France toward a stable, Republican path, and at the same time uptech the place and enable it to defend itself. Making this all happen and keeping it on track would actually be a lot of work, with no guarantees of success. I think more likely would be actions against slave colonies in the Caribbean, although as you say it might be difficult to hold such territories in the medium-longer term. Apart from anything else given the profits from sugar and other such crops how dependent would they be on imported food, although plantations could be turned over to crop raising. It might depend on whether they could call on the US for support under the Monroe Doctrine if they do establish free 'republics' as they could argue an attempt by a European power to restore its control would be a breach of that stance.
There is the danger as you say of such blacks establishing themselves as a new aristocratic type elite over any black populations they free as I think that is basically what happened in Liberia OTL.
All valid points. The danger of cultural and class and caste divides persisting longer and breeding more resentment and not breaking down over time with upward mobility for local people I think would be greater ironically in the non-British colonies that would be easier to conquer/liberate by filibuster, I fear. Precisely because native, newly freed slave populations in non-British colonies more often won't be speaking English already and are more likely to be Catholic than Protestant (but not always) compared with the African Americans. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Aug 18, 2024 9:39:01 GMT
Not sure about Panama as uncertain of the borders - think on the other thread you talked to 1791 Spanish central America being invaded from Colombian Panama - but doesn't the affected area extend down toward about the Panama area so the other two at least would be from 1891 as well. British Honduras would still be a British colony but in its 1891 form - which could raise issues with 1791 Britain and the Miskito region is now part of Nicaragua, with possibly a bit in Honduras. Yes - I goofed on all those Central American spots, they would all be in their 1891 incarnations in this timeline, so, 1891 British Honduras/Belize - it would have a modern, slave-free administration, and downtime Britain...and uptime Canada, would have a proprietary interest in it, so not a good candidate for filibustering. Panama would be an uptime 1891 province of the Republic of Colombia, with a Colombian garrison, so again, not a good candidate for filibustering. It would default to self-rule and tolerate downtime Spanish attempts from the Viceroyalty of New Granada to seek control....indeed, it could attack the latter and seek to 'liberate' the Republic of Colombia, with Panama as the dominant province and Panama City as the national capital, unless it decides to live and let live and be separate. An it would be the 1891 Republic of Nicaragua, to which Britain had already conceded the Miskito coast, and which it could plausibly protect from 1791 Britain, and if it had any trouble in self-defense, certainly could do so with the assistance of Central American neighbors (Honduras, Guatemala), Porfirian Mexico, or the USA, plus simply the circumstances of 1791 and 1792 and 1793 Britain, soon having much bigger fish to fry than the Miskito coast. Interesting idea about blacks trying to trade tech for territory but I suspect that they would be preceded by too many other groups with access to the technology. Some from the US, especially possibly those of British or German descent, or from Canada might be willing to offer such knowledge for free or at least more willingly and would probably be more welcome to 1791 Europeans as trade partners. That is another alternative of white Americans and Canadians, and likely a bit more realistic. Although no need to limit white North American arms dealers in downtime Europe to people of British and German descent (although people from those heritages, and expats from those nations, diplomats, businesspeople, emigrants, would probably like to give their mother countries or predecessor nations a "leg up" for the wars with revolutionary France they expect to come). For the the Dutch Republic in particular, there is also a whole class of well-to-do Dutch heritage New Yorkers and New Jerseyans, Roosevelts, Van Burens, Schuylers, Van Dorens, Frelinghuysens, with financial and industrial connections who may be motivated to help support the Dutch with the means to defend themselves and avoid having their homeland or colonies become mere chew-toys and playthings for France and Britain. While less wealthy, by 1891, there is already a Polish diaspora of note in Chicago and New York and Pittsburgh that may see a "last chance" to try to save Poland from the final partitions. And of course in the USA and Canada, among the Irish diaspora, there will be Fenian Irish Republican independence activists, with a grudge against Britain, motivated to intervene directly in Ireland, or to support France, based on the principle of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Although if they get in quick and possibly accept continued Dutch control of the Cape port so that they have a resupply area then black settlement of the hinterland could be the basis of a deal. Maybe, can't rule it out. Maybe it could be a biracial collaboration born in New York State, with African-Americans getting a settlement spot with a good relative position in the Cape and interior, but New York Dutch Americans seeing this as an anti-British, and thereby pro-Dutch, preemptive move to reinforce the Cape Colony's self-reliance. Of course the downtime Dutch in the metropole and colony would have to agree to slavery abolition there. But the local population was a mere 67,000 or so. The complete Afrikaner and Boer ethnogenesis was ongoing, and in South African racial terms as it would evolve down the line, the closest analogue to American blacks would be neither Boer nor English whites, nor Black Africans, but the mixed-race 'Coloureds' of mixed European (mainly Dutch), African, and some Asian heritage. In terms of tech transfer to Europe you might see republicans seeking to aid the French republican movement to try and keep it responsible rather than going into extreme violence and aiding it against the assorted reactionary neighbours. Things could get very volatile in Europe with tech and knowledge in-flowing from multiple sources. I would think this would be the approach that diplomatic representatives of the French Third Republic and military attaches, and patriotic uptime French expats would try to take toward downtime France. Try to encourage France toward a stable, Republican path, and at the same time uptech the place and enable it to defend itself. Making this all happen and keeping it on track would actually be a lot of work, with no guarantees of success. I think more likely would be actions against slave colonies in the Caribbean, although as you say it might be difficult to hold such territories in the medium-longer term. Apart from anything else given the profits from sugar and other such crops how dependent would they be on imported food, although plantations could be turned over to crop raising. It might depend on whether they could call on the US for support under the Monroe Doctrine if they do establish free 'republics' as they could argue an attempt by a European power to restore its control would be a breach of that stance.
There is the danger as you say of such blacks establishing themselves as a new aristocratic type elite over any black populations they free as I think that is basically what happened in Liberia OTL.
All valid points. The danger of cultural and class and caste divides persisting longer and breeding more resentment and not breaking down over time with upward mobility for local people I think would be greater ironically in the non-British colonies that would be easier to conquer/liberate by filibuster, I fear. Precisely because native, newly freed slave populations in non-British colonies more often won't be speaking English already and are more likely to be Catholic than Protestant (but not always) compared with the African Americans.
Shows some of the many potential combinations and complications that could occur. Things could get very wild especially in Europe and S America but potentially all over the place.
|
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Aug 19, 2024 1:34:50 GMT
|
|
