Sorry, I'm not very good with maps. If someone out there can make one I'd appreciate it, please.
I haven't decided if it'll take any land from Mexico or not - right now it's still in the pondering stages there.
Created Equal - Jefferson in 1796
- Thread starter DTF955Baseballfan
- Start date
Sorry, I'm not very good with maps. If someone out there can make one I'd appreciate it, please.
I haven't decided if it'll take any land from Mexico or not - right now it's still in the pondering stages there.
Request sent via PM. I have also reached a decision on France - a convoluted one, but one I think will make sense looking at the face of it.
Part 26: 1830: My, My, Monarchies Gone Awry
Let’s make one thing clear before we go any further. Princess Charlotte wasn’t actually *in* the Tower of London, despite the way movie producers depict this era. Had she been the revolt would have been worse, and George IV toppled. He was stubborn, but not dumb.
Here’s what happened in Britain. Charlotte had been coming out more and more in support of the Whigs. The Tories didn’t mind the King’s interference, of course, because he was propping up what seemed to be a very loose house of cards, and as long as he was keeping all the Tory plans in place, that was okay. Princess Charlotte was the “knight in shining armor” who was going to save Britain from the wicked king – some really romantically-inclined writers even dubbed her the “female King Arthur.” All the Whiggish ideals – an end to slavery, Catholic Emancipation, a Reform Act, and much more, were all associated with her.
Universal male suffrage was further down on the list – especially after she’d heard of the problems Andrew Jackson had caused – but she was in favor of expanding the right to vote, anyway. And, since she was actually starting to consider the possibility that women might one day vote, she couldn’t help but think at least a little about it.
George IV couldn’t stand it. Not only was she usurping what he saw as his divine right, she was a woman! Rumors swirled as he issued statement after statement. Her line was to be cut off. She was to be skipped in the line of succession. And so on. Finally, it got so bad that she and Leopold left for the country, where they often liked to vacation, and took their children with them. When asked if she was worried that the King might use her absence against her, she said, “Whatever can he do? I am more concerned that he might use my presence against me.”
Her absence led to early rumors that she had been sent away by King George, who was confined to his palace by illness now. As the British government under Wellington teetered on the brink of collapse, the few Whig leaders Charlotte trusted revealed that the Princess and her children were safe in an undisclosed location.
Then, that location was accidentally revealed, and people of all classes flocked to her. She wished they hadn’t – she was perfectly willing to bide her time. But, the public’s anxiety for the Princess to become Queen led to worries that she could march into London with the people and try to become Queen.
Hence, a possibly drunken proclamation by King George IV that his “unruly daughter” must be dealt with “to teach her a lesson.” That way – imprisonment in the Tower of London.
All of London was in an uproar. That uproar soon spread. The Tower of London had rarely been used for torture, and almost no executions were ever done in the Tower itself. In fact, it was safer and cleaner than other prisons. However, stories of Henry VIII and his wives made some people wonder if she was going to be more than imprisoned; and even the cooler heads – which was most of the populace – felt George IV needed to go.
George IV knew the impact this would have on Charlotte – at least he hoped he knew. It was supposed to scare her just as much as the threat of being with her grandmother in the “convent” with his unwed sisters had before he gave in and let her marry Leopold. That wouldn’t work now, but the Tower could.
That wasn’t the idea the public got, though. Their idea was of a tower where people were rescued from being tortured by nefarious evildoers. Protestors took to the streets, clamoring for their queen. While it is possible that George IV could have acted on his threat, even the most reactionary Tories knew that it would mean more than the end of their government if he did so. A second Glorious Revolution could occur.
In the end, George IV backed down, possibly realizing it himself as he pondered how to do it, possibly just because he never really intended to carry out such a thing in the first place.
The impact on his health of the constant bickering and stress from dealing with Charlotte’s opposition led to George IV’s death in April, 1830.(1) This led to a quick new election during which the Whigs, who were very close in elections before, swept into power. Catholic Emancipation had been accomplished earlier - another fact ignored by writers - but there was a mass of reformist legislation which took place in what was commonly referred to as the Hundred Days in Britain.
Earl Grey became Prime Minister and quickly set up a government. Charlotte I herself observed even before being officially crowned the Reform Act of 1830(2) passed quickly, as did a number of other measures, including an end to slavery.
As 1830 wound down, the people realized that everything was not going to be perfect in Britain. Hopes had been raised so high it was hard for her and the Whigs to maintain them. Yes, much election corruption was done away with. Slavery was ended. The franchise was extended, though not yet universal. However, the poor still couldn’t vote, and Queen Charlotte’s coronation, while modest, was still pretty big. Not only that, but Tories didn’t like how much power she was wielding; though this would help some as people worried that to not have her was to go back to the ways of George IV.
Queen Charlotte responded to this criticism by pointing out that not everything could be done at the same time. She responded to Tory critics by noting their love for George IV’s actions, and by arranging for hearings on how to help labor best.
What resulted were the first laws to protect children and women in the labor force. A brainchild of Leopold, the King Consort, these laws found somewhat stiff opposition, but they eventually were pushed through. Queen Charlotte accepted the praise along with the Whigs for pushing this through, but privately said that she was glad she’d been able to expend such efforts there, because she didn’t think she could ever exert enough influence to see universal male suffrage pass; to say nothing of female suffrage; even if these were highly desired. And, besides, not concentrating on foreign matters those first months had led to some confusion on the Continent that many in the government wished could have been avoided.
However, at least small steps were being made to relieve the poor. Her popularity eventually settled into a favorable position overall. Universal white male suffrage would come, but it wouldn’t be for quite a few years, much later than America got it.(3)
Whether Ferdinand IX of Spain would have ruled the same as he did without Charlotte’s example is uncertain. What is known is that when he took the throne in 1831 he stopped the intense persecutions and instead focused on improving Spain and industrializing, trying to be a very good absolute monarch.(4)
France, however, seldom saw anything normal. The Revolution of 1830, partly inspired by what was going on in Britain, overthrew Charles X. This had a number of repercussions. But, we’ll get into that in a moment.
First, it caused a split in Spanish-French relations, which had been growing closer. Even when Ferdinand IX came to the throne months later, there were concerns on Fracnis’ part that he might be next – with the French and Austrians also splitting a little because of this, Ferdinand chose to cast his lot with the Hapsburgs. He is quoted as saying, “It is amazing that less than a century after the Bourbons and Hapsburgs battled for control over all of Europe, now we are among the last of the absolute rulers, bound together against the tide of revolutionaries.”
Adding to this was the Russian bear. Russia and Austria had seen a rapprochement ever since Russia chose not to side with Prussia over Poland, but with France. Poland tried to remain blissfully neutral, the “Switzerland of the North,” as someone put it. It was hard, however.
Prussia also had the problem that Austria still wanted parts of Silesia.
As the 1830s wore on, the closeness of the Two Sicilies and Tuscany led Sardinia to oppose them in what Sardinia’s king hoped would someday become the Kingdom of Italy. With Two Sicilies being freer, this unnerved the Austrians somewhat, as they feared this would lead to citizens demanding more freedoms in its Italian provinces. It was possible that – if Sardinia attacked the Two Sicilies – Austria might support them for the moment, and then worry later about defending their parts of Italy. Poland already was only supported by Austria because of the marriage to a Hapsburg of the Polish Queen, a marriage which – it was hoped – could someday allow there to be a union of the crowns.
Therefore, the Ottoman Empire and the Italian Peninsula were both slowly building into powderkegs which could possibly ignite much of Europe into a general war. Especially because in France… let’s just say someone placed in a prominent spot in Parliament Queen Charlotte’s quote about a peaceful transition of government “unlike brute beasts of uncivilized nations.” And, some witty fellow placed a note right after it on which he had scrawled, “Or France.”
--------------------------------
(1) A few months earlier because of the increased pressure caused by his daughter’s opposition.
(2) OTL’s Reform Bill a bit earlier.
(3) Earlier than OTL – during her reign still – but things would go more slowly in Britain and in the United States.
(4) As he did OTL as King of the Two Sicilies, though here he had more to work with
Part 26: 1830: My, My, Monarchies Gone Awry
Let’s make one thing clear before we go any further. Princess Charlotte wasn’t actually *in* the Tower of London, despite the way movie producers depict this era. Had she been the revolt would have been worse, and George IV toppled. He was stubborn, but not dumb.
Here’s what happened in Britain. Charlotte had been coming out more and more in support of the Whigs. The Tories didn’t mind the King’s interference, of course, because he was propping up what seemed to be a very loose house of cards, and as long as he was keeping all the Tory plans in place, that was okay. Princess Charlotte was the “knight in shining armor” who was going to save Britain from the wicked king – some really romantically-inclined writers even dubbed her the “female King Arthur.” All the Whiggish ideals – an end to slavery, Catholic Emancipation, a Reform Act, and much more, were all associated with her.
Universal male suffrage was further down on the list – especially after she’d heard of the problems Andrew Jackson had caused – but she was in favor of expanding the right to vote, anyway. And, since she was actually starting to consider the possibility that women might one day vote, she couldn’t help but think at least a little about it.
George IV couldn’t stand it. Not only was she usurping what he saw as his divine right, she was a woman! Rumors swirled as he issued statement after statement. Her line was to be cut off. She was to be skipped in the line of succession. And so on. Finally, it got so bad that she and Leopold left for the country, where they often liked to vacation, and took their children with them. When asked if she was worried that the King might use her absence against her, she said, “Whatever can he do? I am more concerned that he might use my presence against me.”
Her absence led to early rumors that she had been sent away by King George, who was confined to his palace by illness now. As the British government under Wellington teetered on the brink of collapse, the few Whig leaders Charlotte trusted revealed that the Princess and her children were safe in an undisclosed location.
Then, that location was accidentally revealed, and people of all classes flocked to her. She wished they hadn’t – she was perfectly willing to bide her time. But, the public’s anxiety for the Princess to become Queen led to worries that she could march into London with the people and try to become Queen.
Hence, a possibly drunken proclamation by King George IV that his “unruly daughter” must be dealt with “to teach her a lesson.” That way – imprisonment in the Tower of London.
All of London was in an uproar. That uproar soon spread. The Tower of London had rarely been used for torture, and almost no executions were ever done in the Tower itself. In fact, it was safer and cleaner than other prisons. However, stories of Henry VIII and his wives made some people wonder if she was going to be more than imprisoned; and even the cooler heads – which was most of the populace – felt George IV needed to go.
George IV knew the impact this would have on Charlotte – at least he hoped he knew. It was supposed to scare her just as much as the threat of being with her grandmother in the “convent” with his unwed sisters had before he gave in and let her marry Leopold. That wouldn’t work now, but the Tower could.
That wasn’t the idea the public got, though. Their idea was of a tower where people were rescued from being tortured by nefarious evildoers. Protestors took to the streets, clamoring for their queen. While it is possible that George IV could have acted on his threat, even the most reactionary Tories knew that it would mean more than the end of their government if he did so. A second Glorious Revolution could occur.
In the end, George IV backed down, possibly realizing it himself as he pondered how to do it, possibly just because he never really intended to carry out such a thing in the first place.
The impact on his health of the constant bickering and stress from dealing with Charlotte’s opposition led to George IV’s death in April, 1830.(1) This led to a quick new election during which the Whigs, who were very close in elections before, swept into power. Catholic Emancipation had been accomplished earlier - another fact ignored by writers - but there was a mass of reformist legislation which took place in what was commonly referred to as the Hundred Days in Britain.
Earl Grey became Prime Minister and quickly set up a government. Charlotte I herself observed even before being officially crowned the Reform Act of 1830(2) passed quickly, as did a number of other measures, including an end to slavery.
As 1830 wound down, the people realized that everything was not going to be perfect in Britain. Hopes had been raised so high it was hard for her and the Whigs to maintain them. Yes, much election corruption was done away with. Slavery was ended. The franchise was extended, though not yet universal. However, the poor still couldn’t vote, and Queen Charlotte’s coronation, while modest, was still pretty big. Not only that, but Tories didn’t like how much power she was wielding; though this would help some as people worried that to not have her was to go back to the ways of George IV.
Queen Charlotte responded to this criticism by pointing out that not everything could be done at the same time. She responded to Tory critics by noting their love for George IV’s actions, and by arranging for hearings on how to help labor best.
What resulted were the first laws to protect children and women in the labor force. A brainchild of Leopold, the King Consort, these laws found somewhat stiff opposition, but they eventually were pushed through. Queen Charlotte accepted the praise along with the Whigs for pushing this through, but privately said that she was glad she’d been able to expend such efforts there, because she didn’t think she could ever exert enough influence to see universal male suffrage pass; to say nothing of female suffrage; even if these were highly desired. And, besides, not concentrating on foreign matters those first months had led to some confusion on the Continent that many in the government wished could have been avoided.
However, at least small steps were being made to relieve the poor. Her popularity eventually settled into a favorable position overall. Universal white male suffrage would come, but it wouldn’t be for quite a few years, much later than America got it.(3)
Whether Ferdinand IX of Spain would have ruled the same as he did without Charlotte’s example is uncertain. What is known is that when he took the throne in 1831 he stopped the intense persecutions and instead focused on improving Spain and industrializing, trying to be a very good absolute monarch.(4)
France, however, seldom saw anything normal. The Revolution of 1830, partly inspired by what was going on in Britain, overthrew Charles X. This had a number of repercussions. But, we’ll get into that in a moment.
First, it caused a split in Spanish-French relations, which had been growing closer. Even when Ferdinand IX came to the throne months later, there were concerns on Fracnis’ part that he might be next – with the French and Austrians also splitting a little because of this, Ferdinand chose to cast his lot with the Hapsburgs. He is quoted as saying, “It is amazing that less than a century after the Bourbons and Hapsburgs battled for control over all of Europe, now we are among the last of the absolute rulers, bound together against the tide of revolutionaries.”
Adding to this was the Russian bear. Russia and Austria had seen a rapprochement ever since Russia chose not to side with Prussia over Poland, but with France. Poland tried to remain blissfully neutral, the “Switzerland of the North,” as someone put it. It was hard, however.
Prussia also had the problem that Austria still wanted parts of Silesia.
As the 1830s wore on, the closeness of the Two Sicilies and Tuscany led Sardinia to oppose them in what Sardinia’s king hoped would someday become the Kingdom of Italy. With Two Sicilies being freer, this unnerved the Austrians somewhat, as they feared this would lead to citizens demanding more freedoms in its Italian provinces. It was possible that – if Sardinia attacked the Two Sicilies – Austria might support them for the moment, and then worry later about defending their parts of Italy. Poland already was only supported by Austria because of the marriage to a Hapsburg of the Polish Queen, a marriage which – it was hoped – could someday allow there to be a union of the crowns.
Therefore, the Ottoman Empire and the Italian Peninsula were both slowly building into powderkegs which could possibly ignite much of Europe into a general war. Especially because in France… let’s just say someone placed in a prominent spot in Parliament Queen Charlotte’s quote about a peaceful transition of government “unlike brute beasts of uncivilized nations.” And, some witty fellow placed a note right after it on which he had scrawled, “Or France.”
--------------------------------
(1) A few months earlier because of the increased pressure caused by his daughter’s opposition.
(2) OTL’s Reform Bill a bit earlier.
(3) Earlier than OTL – during her reign still – but things would go more slowly in Britain and in the United States.
(4) As he did OTL as King of the Two Sicilies, though here he had more to work with
Last edited:
Finaly decided on France
Part 27: The Bonapartes – Europe’s Soap Opera – 1 of 2
As noted, the French rarely did anything normal. Their 1830 revolution was abnormal even by their standards, however.
Charles X was not a well-liked king for a number of reasons. Some expected the House of Orleans to take over, as the Bourbons seemed to be at the end of their usefulness as a French dynasty, just as they were greatly populating Spain and growing in influence elsewhere in Europe because of that. A popular epithet when referring to Charles X was, “Let him have Spain,” a reference to Mari Antoinette’s supposed “Let them eat cake.” And, early in 1830 there was a vote of no confidence against the king, with elections suspended by him then.
However, Napoleon had left France – and the world - on a pretty high note. He’d won pretty many battles, and was only killed because his army was worn out after constant fighting in 1809. Davout was the real bad guy to the French, a “Great general who couldn’t run a country,” as many said. The hatred of Charles X led many to desire a return to the days when Napoleon’s family ruled; surely there was someone more palatable than Napoleon.
Louis had his treaty with Britain which said that he wouldn’t try to take over France, and neither would his descendants. In exchange, he’d gotten Wallonia carved out of his former Kingdom of the Netherlands. The mostly Catholic region was slowly spreading its influence by treaty and marriage with Bavaria. While Louis hadn’t always been kind to the Catholic Church, for the sake of his subjects and the treaties he was, and would raise his sons to be, while also allowing religious freedom. Wallonian industrialization was enough to allow the Bavarian king to marry his daughter, Duchess Ludovika (not to be confused with Elisabether Ludovika, wife of the future Prussian king), to the third son (second surviving) of Wallonia’s Louis I.(1) His older brother was also married to minor royalty in that part of the German confederation.
The British looked on this with concern, but not with much alarm. The policy, according to one government leader, was that, “We’d rather have Wallonia close to the Germans, who will be wary of Bonapartes, than to the French, who may turn them into rampaging monsters.”
Louis I certainly wasn’t from an established royal line, but for a small kingdom like that, marrying his line to the smaller states of the German Confederation, or to the larger but more agricultural Bavaria, was satisfactory. Even with Bavaria, Wallonia’s industrial capacity was seen by the Bavarians as a key to helping them grow, so it was a mutual friendship. However, monarchists in France weren’t accepting him as easily. France wasn’t a minor German state, after all; it was a superpower, and demanded a long established and powerful royal family. In other words, if the Bourbons weren’t satisfactory to the people, the Orleanists would have to rule.
Joseph Bonaparte knew this. He was happily living in America. He’d tried to overcome Davout, but failed, and for the sake of his then-young daughters, he’d sent them and his wife away and then left Europe. He married his oldest daughter off to the oldest son his brother, Lucien. He considered his daughters (he had no sons) to be his heirs, and felt he could continue the Bonaparte line through them. It is uncertain who eventually rejected his thought of marrying his other one to Constantine I of Russia; it would have been the Tsar’s fourth wife, but he was said to be fond of Napoleon.(2) This caused even more of a problem between him and his brother, Nicholas. But, it’s also possible Joseph backed out himself, or that the daughter simply refused to go that far away. As it was, she hadn’t yet married.(3)
When Charles X got his vote of no confidence and suspended Parliament in France, Bonapartists stepped up quickly. Some called for Joseph to come across the sea, but monarchists didn’t like that idea. Some called for Louis. For the message to get across the sea to America and back would take a couple months, and then they’d have to wait a bit longer if Joseph delayed. They wanted a ruler before the Orleanists took over.
Other Bonapartists pointed to the son of Eugene de Beauharnais. Eugene, while adopted, had been placed in line for the Italian throne by Napoleon. He’d died in 1824, but his eldest son was 19 and could conceivably do well taking the French throne.
However, most held to Joseph because Eugene and his line had only officially been in line to be King of Italy. Yes, it was possible they could claim the throne of France, but the Bonapartists were very mild on him. A group of Bonparists supporters egged the crowds on as April turned into May, and a message was sent for Joseph to come quickly. He was older and more able to rule than Eugene’s son Auguste might be.
As for an heir to the 63-year-old, they would worry about that later. For now, they were in control of the press, they had ended censorship, and they had papers and pamphlets singing the praises of Napoleon and calling for a return to his day, but without the horrible wars he’d begun. “He may have caused trouble outside France,” one said, “but inside it was joyous, French glory was seen, and liberty for all was certain,” one said famously. Yes, he’d left the nation heavily in debt, but Joseph would be a much kinder Constitutional monarch, they promised.
Enter Lucien. The British were a bit muddled in domestic confusion, but Lucien – while a true Republican and opposed to Napoleon’s empire – seemed innocent enough. A skilled diplomat, he’d won the Spanish over in 1801, and knew he could convince the British that he was not going to run roughshod over Europe like his brother Napoleon had. In fact, while most Bonapartists believed heavily in primogeniture and demanded Joseph, a small number allied with the Jacobins and called for Lucien. He could come much more quickly than Joseph, anyway, and try to keep things calm till Joseph arrived.
Therefore, Lucien travelled to Paris, but he wouldn’t accept an imperial crown. He called for free elections and a Republic, and with Bonapartists and Orleanists arguing, and the former fighting amongst themselves somewhat – a few even calling for Louis to sort out the mess – Lucien tried to lead a group of radicals to set up elections.
The Bonapartists were especially livid – they attacked him for his having been removed from the line of succession and even his eldest son, saying, “France needs an Emperor to guide them, not a bird watcher!” (Lucien’s son was a noted ornithologist.)
This is what was happening when Joseph arrived, oblivious to the craziness of the last weeks. He is reported to have exclaimed, “It is as much chaos as we learned whether my brother Napoleon had died!”
He met first with the Bonapartists. He doubted that his eldest daughter would want to return to France, and Lucien’s eldest son wouldn’t want an imperial crown, either. So, they were out. However, as one of the supporters of Eugene’s son Auguste noted, Joseph could marry his daughter Charlotte to him – it might even be an olive branch to the monarchists, as he was from a fairly noteworthy line. It wasn’t Orleans, but it was something. Then, Joseph could word a Pragmatic Sanction in such a way to exclude Lucien’s offspring, but include Auguste’s son.
By this time, Bonapartists agreed – just as Lucien and Jerome had been excluded from the royal line due to their not marring whomever Napoleon suggested, so too would Eugene’s descendants be. But, since Joseph wasn’t going to have any more sons, to avoid a similar mess when he died, they could live with a grandson of Joseph as King.
Lucien was still in the picture, though – and it was a strange one. Lucien was willing to be an egalitarian ruler, but he was also pragmatic enough to know that he might not get anywhere without Joseph’s support; there were enough people clamoring for the Orleanist branch still that if he didn’t make some kind of deal with Joseph, they might be back to where they started.
So, he agreed to be elected as ruler of the French Parliament, which had already begun to be assembled. Joseph would receive the throne with little official capacity. Since Joseph didn’t have a son, even if there was a Pragmatic Sanction it didn’t mean he would have any grandsons, and then the vacant throne would be dissolved. He was willing to risk that and Auguste’s son – or even Auguste – taking imperial power. He was too steeped in Jacobin ideology to think the people would allow it; nobody could be as bad as Napoleon, right?
This worked for a few years. Indeed, though it was a very sad time for France, Lucien’s gamble paid off. Charlotte died in childbirth; Auguste is said to have died of a broken heart after that.(4) There was talk of “dissolving the monarchy” upon Joseph’s death.
Joseph was a good Constitutional monarch; he had agreed to elections and appointed Lucien as his foreign minister even before the first session of Parliament, hoping to heal the rift and also use Lucien to build alliances which would benefit France. Just as when his eldest daughter had married Lucien’s son, the brothers were working together.
However, that wasn’t what a lot of Frenchmen wanted. The monarchists wanted a more prestigious house and a more potent monarch; Joseph wasn’t wielding a lot of power. The Republicans didn’t want any monarch and wished Lucien would overthrow his brother already, and they weren’t totally mollified when the aforementioned deaths brought talk of the monarchy dying out; they figured the monarchists and Bonapartists wouldn’t let that happen. And, the Bonapartists wanted a really powerful emperor who would not fritter away opportunities.
It seems that the French Army had attacked Algeria, but had only bombarded it; Lucien had decided to pull out, instead trying to spread Jacobin ideals there. However, Bonapartists and monarchists – and even, somewhat, Joseph - felt they should have built up the military to such an extent that Mehemet Ali of Egypt would have agreed to carve up Northern Africa with them. Not only that, but more moderate forces had prevented many French citizens from emigrating to Algeria.(5) this meant that the military was also somewhat against them.
When Lucien began to fall ill, they would get what they wanted in a much more forceful foreign policy. And, it would mean problems for Europe. Which was a shame, really, because Joseph had actually done a good job as king. As often happens, though, one doesn’t know how good one has it till the situation changes.
------------------------------------
(1) This is the future Napoleon III of OTL. He was too busy doing revolutionary things to settle down till the 1850s OTL, whereas in TTL, he is settled into a royal family in Wallonia which is trying to fit in with all the other countries in that region.
(2) OTL he was said to be an admirer of Napoleon’s after Tilsit, but that was before the invasion of Russia. Here, he’s willing to at least consider a Bonaparte, especially since he really wants an heir, and would see this as his last chance. While it wouldn’t be the most popular decision with the court, he never cared much about that.
(3) In OTL she was only married in 1826 to Louis’ second son (first surviving), who died in 1831 OTL. However, Louis isn’t as interested in bringing someone in to help further the line since he already has his own royal line in Wallonia, and it’s plausible he’d wait a few more years, maybe even making the arrangement with Eugene’s eldest before coming over.
(4) She reportedly died in childbirth OTL; Auguste died in 1835 after falling ill in OTL. Considering she died in childbirth anyway, there might have even been some “I told you so” shouts from Nicholas to Constantine in Russia.
(5) Napoleon III did this when he took power, preventing French moves further inland; given Lucien’s views, it would be more reasonable for them to simply try to export their ideals. With it happening so close to the end of Charles X’s reign as it was, it’s quite likely the colonization of Algeria would not occur; instead bombardment and a show of force would be enough. However, there would be those in the military who saw it as a place to be quickly gobbled up, thus increasing pressure on Lucien later.
Part 27: The Bonapartes – Europe’s Soap Opera – 1 of 2
As noted, the French rarely did anything normal. Their 1830 revolution was abnormal even by their standards, however.
Charles X was not a well-liked king for a number of reasons. Some expected the House of Orleans to take over, as the Bourbons seemed to be at the end of their usefulness as a French dynasty, just as they were greatly populating Spain and growing in influence elsewhere in Europe because of that. A popular epithet when referring to Charles X was, “Let him have Spain,” a reference to Mari Antoinette’s supposed “Let them eat cake.” And, early in 1830 there was a vote of no confidence against the king, with elections suspended by him then.
However, Napoleon had left France – and the world - on a pretty high note. He’d won pretty many battles, and was only killed because his army was worn out after constant fighting in 1809. Davout was the real bad guy to the French, a “Great general who couldn’t run a country,” as many said. The hatred of Charles X led many to desire a return to the days when Napoleon’s family ruled; surely there was someone more palatable than Napoleon.
Louis had his treaty with Britain which said that he wouldn’t try to take over France, and neither would his descendants. In exchange, he’d gotten Wallonia carved out of his former Kingdom of the Netherlands. The mostly Catholic region was slowly spreading its influence by treaty and marriage with Bavaria. While Louis hadn’t always been kind to the Catholic Church, for the sake of his subjects and the treaties he was, and would raise his sons to be, while also allowing religious freedom. Wallonian industrialization was enough to allow the Bavarian king to marry his daughter, Duchess Ludovika (not to be confused with Elisabether Ludovika, wife of the future Prussian king), to the third son (second surviving) of Wallonia’s Louis I.(1) His older brother was also married to minor royalty in that part of the German confederation.
The British looked on this with concern, but not with much alarm. The policy, according to one government leader, was that, “We’d rather have Wallonia close to the Germans, who will be wary of Bonapartes, than to the French, who may turn them into rampaging monsters.”
Louis I certainly wasn’t from an established royal line, but for a small kingdom like that, marrying his line to the smaller states of the German Confederation, or to the larger but more agricultural Bavaria, was satisfactory. Even with Bavaria, Wallonia’s industrial capacity was seen by the Bavarians as a key to helping them grow, so it was a mutual friendship. However, monarchists in France weren’t accepting him as easily. France wasn’t a minor German state, after all; it was a superpower, and demanded a long established and powerful royal family. In other words, if the Bourbons weren’t satisfactory to the people, the Orleanists would have to rule.
Joseph Bonaparte knew this. He was happily living in America. He’d tried to overcome Davout, but failed, and for the sake of his then-young daughters, he’d sent them and his wife away and then left Europe. He married his oldest daughter off to the oldest son his brother, Lucien. He considered his daughters (he had no sons) to be his heirs, and felt he could continue the Bonaparte line through them. It is uncertain who eventually rejected his thought of marrying his other one to Constantine I of Russia; it would have been the Tsar’s fourth wife, but he was said to be fond of Napoleon.(2) This caused even more of a problem between him and his brother, Nicholas. But, it’s also possible Joseph backed out himself, or that the daughter simply refused to go that far away. As it was, she hadn’t yet married.(3)
When Charles X got his vote of no confidence and suspended Parliament in France, Bonapartists stepped up quickly. Some called for Joseph to come across the sea, but monarchists didn’t like that idea. Some called for Louis. For the message to get across the sea to America and back would take a couple months, and then they’d have to wait a bit longer if Joseph delayed. They wanted a ruler before the Orleanists took over.
Other Bonapartists pointed to the son of Eugene de Beauharnais. Eugene, while adopted, had been placed in line for the Italian throne by Napoleon. He’d died in 1824, but his eldest son was 19 and could conceivably do well taking the French throne.
However, most held to Joseph because Eugene and his line had only officially been in line to be King of Italy. Yes, it was possible they could claim the throne of France, but the Bonapartists were very mild on him. A group of Bonparists supporters egged the crowds on as April turned into May, and a message was sent for Joseph to come quickly. He was older and more able to rule than Eugene’s son Auguste might be.
As for an heir to the 63-year-old, they would worry about that later. For now, they were in control of the press, they had ended censorship, and they had papers and pamphlets singing the praises of Napoleon and calling for a return to his day, but without the horrible wars he’d begun. “He may have caused trouble outside France,” one said, “but inside it was joyous, French glory was seen, and liberty for all was certain,” one said famously. Yes, he’d left the nation heavily in debt, but Joseph would be a much kinder Constitutional monarch, they promised.
Enter Lucien. The British were a bit muddled in domestic confusion, but Lucien – while a true Republican and opposed to Napoleon’s empire – seemed innocent enough. A skilled diplomat, he’d won the Spanish over in 1801, and knew he could convince the British that he was not going to run roughshod over Europe like his brother Napoleon had. In fact, while most Bonapartists believed heavily in primogeniture and demanded Joseph, a small number allied with the Jacobins and called for Lucien. He could come much more quickly than Joseph, anyway, and try to keep things calm till Joseph arrived.
Therefore, Lucien travelled to Paris, but he wouldn’t accept an imperial crown. He called for free elections and a Republic, and with Bonapartists and Orleanists arguing, and the former fighting amongst themselves somewhat – a few even calling for Louis to sort out the mess – Lucien tried to lead a group of radicals to set up elections.
The Bonapartists were especially livid – they attacked him for his having been removed from the line of succession and even his eldest son, saying, “France needs an Emperor to guide them, not a bird watcher!” (Lucien’s son was a noted ornithologist.)
This is what was happening when Joseph arrived, oblivious to the craziness of the last weeks. He is reported to have exclaimed, “It is as much chaos as we learned whether my brother Napoleon had died!”
He met first with the Bonapartists. He doubted that his eldest daughter would want to return to France, and Lucien’s eldest son wouldn’t want an imperial crown, either. So, they were out. However, as one of the supporters of Eugene’s son Auguste noted, Joseph could marry his daughter Charlotte to him – it might even be an olive branch to the monarchists, as he was from a fairly noteworthy line. It wasn’t Orleans, but it was something. Then, Joseph could word a Pragmatic Sanction in such a way to exclude Lucien’s offspring, but include Auguste’s son.
By this time, Bonapartists agreed – just as Lucien and Jerome had been excluded from the royal line due to their not marring whomever Napoleon suggested, so too would Eugene’s descendants be. But, since Joseph wasn’t going to have any more sons, to avoid a similar mess when he died, they could live with a grandson of Joseph as King.
Lucien was still in the picture, though – and it was a strange one. Lucien was willing to be an egalitarian ruler, but he was also pragmatic enough to know that he might not get anywhere without Joseph’s support; there were enough people clamoring for the Orleanist branch still that if he didn’t make some kind of deal with Joseph, they might be back to where they started.
So, he agreed to be elected as ruler of the French Parliament, which had already begun to be assembled. Joseph would receive the throne with little official capacity. Since Joseph didn’t have a son, even if there was a Pragmatic Sanction it didn’t mean he would have any grandsons, and then the vacant throne would be dissolved. He was willing to risk that and Auguste’s son – or even Auguste – taking imperial power. He was too steeped in Jacobin ideology to think the people would allow it; nobody could be as bad as Napoleon, right?
This worked for a few years. Indeed, though it was a very sad time for France, Lucien’s gamble paid off. Charlotte died in childbirth; Auguste is said to have died of a broken heart after that.(4) There was talk of “dissolving the monarchy” upon Joseph’s death.
Joseph was a good Constitutional monarch; he had agreed to elections and appointed Lucien as his foreign minister even before the first session of Parliament, hoping to heal the rift and also use Lucien to build alliances which would benefit France. Just as when his eldest daughter had married Lucien’s son, the brothers were working together.
However, that wasn’t what a lot of Frenchmen wanted. The monarchists wanted a more prestigious house and a more potent monarch; Joseph wasn’t wielding a lot of power. The Republicans didn’t want any monarch and wished Lucien would overthrow his brother already, and they weren’t totally mollified when the aforementioned deaths brought talk of the monarchy dying out; they figured the monarchists and Bonapartists wouldn’t let that happen. And, the Bonapartists wanted a really powerful emperor who would not fritter away opportunities.
It seems that the French Army had attacked Algeria, but had only bombarded it; Lucien had decided to pull out, instead trying to spread Jacobin ideals there. However, Bonapartists and monarchists – and even, somewhat, Joseph - felt they should have built up the military to such an extent that Mehemet Ali of Egypt would have agreed to carve up Northern Africa with them. Not only that, but more moderate forces had prevented many French citizens from emigrating to Algeria.(5) this meant that the military was also somewhat against them.
When Lucien began to fall ill, they would get what they wanted in a much more forceful foreign policy. And, it would mean problems for Europe. Which was a shame, really, because Joseph had actually done a good job as king. As often happens, though, one doesn’t know how good one has it till the situation changes.
------------------------------------
(1) This is the future Napoleon III of OTL. He was too busy doing revolutionary things to settle down till the 1850s OTL, whereas in TTL, he is settled into a royal family in Wallonia which is trying to fit in with all the other countries in that region.
(2) OTL he was said to be an admirer of Napoleon’s after Tilsit, but that was before the invasion of Russia. Here, he’s willing to at least consider a Bonaparte, especially since he really wants an heir, and would see this as his last chance. While it wouldn’t be the most popular decision with the court, he never cared much about that.
(3) In OTL she was only married in 1826 to Louis’ second son (first surviving), who died in 1831 OTL. However, Louis isn’t as interested in bringing someone in to help further the line since he already has his own royal line in Wallonia, and it’s plausible he’d wait a few more years, maybe even making the arrangement with Eugene’s eldest before coming over.
(4) She reportedly died in childbirth OTL; Auguste died in 1835 after falling ill in OTL. Considering she died in childbirth anyway, there might have even been some “I told you so” shouts from Nicholas to Constantine in Russia.
(5) Napoleon III did this when he took power, preventing French moves further inland; given Lucien’s views, it would be more reasonable for them to simply try to export their ideals. With it happening so close to the end of Charles X’s reign as it was, it’s quite likely the colonization of Algeria would not occur; instead bombardment and a show of force would be enough. However, there would be those in the military who saw it as a place to be quickly gobbled up, thus increasing pressure on Lucien later.
Last edited:
Neat; never realized Lucien's son was such a noted ornithologist till i started on this. Of course, that and not believing in imperial stuff will cause someone else to take power when Lucien grows sick from stomach cancer - hence the quote in the last section. But, it would have been interesting to see his son take over. As I note a little bit, Lucien's tenure does lead to a great increase in the sciences.
In fact, there is a way...but if I said any more I'd be giving somethigna way.
Last edited:
A bit of change to part 24, but not to facts
I'd made some comments at the end of Part 24 not totally knowing when I'd do certain things, though knowing the general way I wanted to do them. Now that I've fleshed Europe out and begun to come back tot he U.S., here is what I've done:
Clay still wins in '28. It's mentioned more specifically that he's a compromise for D-Rs and some Federalists just as DeWitt Clinton had been It's interesting that at the beginning he seems to have been a D-R in OTL even though he held some Federalist views. Whether he sensed that's the way things were going after the 1804 and 1808 elections, I don't know - however, it seems fairly plausible.
Here, he is probably more likely to be a Federalist, but not that much more. Still the Great Compromiser, Henry Clay makes a name for himself by forming coalitions, and so would be an ideal man for following Duncan McArthur.
At the same time, some things are clearer in my mind, including that it is 1832 tht will see more of a split, and not 1836. David Crockett ends up taking the mantle for Jackson a bit earlier, and... well, you'll see once I do one more section of Europe's stuff heading up to 1848 before coming back to America.
So, those are the big changes - insted of saing "whoever won in 1836 and especially 1840," here things come to a head a bit erlier than that vague statement I'd left of Part 24 with.
I'd made some comments at the end of Part 24 not totally knowing when I'd do certain things, though knowing the general way I wanted to do them. Now that I've fleshed Europe out and begun to come back tot he U.S., here is what I've done:
Clay still wins in '28. It's mentioned more specifically that he's a compromise for D-Rs and some Federalists just as DeWitt Clinton had been It's interesting that at the beginning he seems to have been a D-R in OTL even though he held some Federalist views. Whether he sensed that's the way things were going after the 1804 and 1808 elections, I don't know - however, it seems fairly plausible.
Here, he is probably more likely to be a Federalist, but not that much more. Still the Great Compromiser, Henry Clay makes a name for himself by forming coalitions, and so would be an ideal man for following Duncan McArthur.
At the same time, some things are clearer in my mind, including that it is 1832 tht will see more of a split, and not 1836. David Crockett ends up taking the mantle for Jackson a bit earlier, and... well, you'll see once I do one more section of Europe's stuff heading up to 1848 before coming back to America.
So, those are the big changes - insted of saing "whoever won in 1836 and especially 1840," here things come to a head a bit erlier than that vague statement I'd left of Part 24 with.
Okay, let's finish up this sectiojn in European history...
Becasue I don't want to go all weekend without the exciting conclusion...
Or continuation or whatever.
Part 28: The Bonapartes – Europe’s Soap Opera – 2 of 2
When Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte returned to France in the mid-1830s(1), few thought much of it. His older brother had died, but not before producing an heir to the Wallonian throne, one which would help cement the friendship between Wallonia and Bavaria.(2) Bavaria and Wallonia had developed a mutual relationship based on free trade, which was something liberals in France and Germany wanted.
Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte, on the other hand, felt that the agreement his father had signed didn’t apply to him – at least not as to being in an elected position.
Louis-Napoleon first served in parliament, and for several years was the leader of what was sometimes called the “militant wing” – this was the wing which espoused increasing industrialization and expansion in colonies. While Lucien’s foreign policy consisted of exporting Jacobin ideas, the militant wing supported doing so in a more aggressive manner, though not to the point of conquest as some would have had it. They worked well with Lucien for the most part, though he more supportive if building France up culturally and scientifically than of the hevy industrialization which the Militants” supported.
However, Lucien began to fall ill a few years before his death. The last of his one-year terms ended in August of 1837, when Charles was elected. Charles had often spoken of a one-year term not being long enough to do “everything which needed done.” Lucien, being a Bonaparte, had been popular enough to keep winning, but Louis-Napoleon wanted to go further. He determined that he had the support of all Bonapartists, as well as numerous others, and upon being elected to his position, he promised the governments of Europe he would not go conquering as his uncle hd, but that he did feel that government might have to be placed in the hands of one man “for a period of time,” though he didn’t say how long.
Of course, there was a roadblock to this – Joseph. Joseph approached the man who would become known as Napoleon II early in 1838 and asked him, point blank, if he intended to overthrow the government.
“Uncle, I intend to be the government,” Napoleon II claimed.
When word of his usurping of the royal throne reached the United States, one person quipped, “The Bonapartes have learned to act like the most powerful heads of Europe after all.”
In other countries there was shock, but Napoleon II did seem willing not to attack anyone, so they did nothing. After all, he was popularly elected and overthrowing another Bonaparte, and if he actually tried to act as they felt a monarch should, they would accept him. After all, Louis I of Wallonia was doing so. His oldest son, now deceased, had produced 4 children, one male and one female of whom survived infancy, with Maria Anna of Bavaria.(3) Louis was preparing a possible regency for his son should he die before the lad reached his majority, and using his connections with Bavaria and Baden to do so.
Joseph had no heirs who would want the throne now, anyway. He abdicated in favor of Napoleon II in August of 1838, to avoid a civil war. “I enjoyed my time as king. I only wish it could have been longer, so I could have provided stable leadership,” he said before leaving with his wife – who had remained faithful despite his infidelity. He would die in 1844.
Napoleon II built up his army and navy while trying to see what he could do about Egypt against the Ottomans; but first, he wanted to try to gather others’ support.
The British were very cold toward this; they wanted to keep the Ottomans as stable as they could. They had said as much when Ali approached them. However, there was a conflicting problem – Constantine I had died in Russia, leaving Nicholas I to be the Tsar. And, Nicholas was even better militarily. With the Russians having nearly gotten to Constantinople in the late 1820s, the British were worried that if the Russians went too far, they wouldn’t be able to dislodge them, and thus wouldn’t be able to keep Russian ships out of the Mediterranean.
Napoleon II tried rapprochement with Austria, as he knew the Austrians wouldn’t want the Russians to dominate the Ottomans. Why not divide up the Ottoman Empire, he reasoned? Austria could get the Balkans, Russia Constaninople if they wanted, and France could get the rest, as they would have a staunch ally and puppet in Ali.
The Austrians weren’t buying it. True, they didn’t want the Russians to have that much power, but neither did they want to fight the Russians. The Ottomans, they reasoned, were important in a three-way cold war of sorts in the Balkans, so no power became too powerful.
Napoleon II was frustrated. So much of the Old Guard which had risen after the Congress of London was against him having any fan, it seemed. He decided to accept the Allied position that they would not allow the Ottomans to be dismantled, or let Pahsa onto the throne, and instead attacked Algeria in 1839 - before the Spanish got it - while also making plans for other overseas colonies. However, he didn’t allow huge numbers of colonists into Algeria, which helped some, though there were still attempts at revolts as they tried to introduce Jacobin principles where they really had little impact.
. The first place Napoleon tried was Vietnam. Problems with local authorities harassing Catholic missionaries came to a head in the early 1840s, till Francesent warships able to conquer the area – which they did after an incident with a French ship in 1845.(4)
While a treaty between Britain and France setting Indochina as France’s sphere of influence, and also Siam as a neutral buffer, prevented moves into India, this conquest great increased Napoleon II’s popularity. This allowed him to try something more.
Raised in a royal household, he’d nonetheless heard tales of revolts. Louis I had tried his best to be a good king for Holland, and then for Wallonia, and he was well loved by the people. He’d granted rights to them that a lot of others didn’t have, just as Napoleon II had increased votings rights and such just as Lucien had done before. He hadn’t been involved directly with groups like the Caronari, but he had definite leanings toward the notion that the monarch must reign by the will of the people. He had just decided to hold onto his power a lot longer.
He wouldn’t go conquering like crazy, but he did want to spread those liberal principals. He truly felt for the oppressed in other lands. What better way to get power for France than to allow the people of other lands to see them as liberators?
He had begun sending spies to different places, seeing where he could possibly intervene, back in the late 1830s. The booming economy due to industrialization let him put more resources into a military that would let him help rebels; but where? He had a few notions.
And, he wasn’t listening to the British; he believed his beloved France would provide the proper counterbalance to Russia with a coalition of other states. His absolute certainty of this led him, in the midst of the revolts which would come in 1848, to provide a map of how he thought Europe should look – with no French-dominated states, only nations ruled by nationalist liberals who would provide freedom for their people.
“You are not supposed to dictate the entire map of the world,” the British ambassador is reported to have said.
Napoleon II is reported to have retorted, “No, you British think that’s your job.”
While that may be apocryphal, the mess of the late 1840s was very real.
Of course, the United States was having its own crises, and so we don’t leave them too far behind, we’ll go there for a little bit. After all, not only can any discussion flow from here, but soaps are supposed to end in cliffhangers.
-------------------------------------
(1) Similar to his first attempt at revolution in October, 1836 OTL, but here he’s much freer and arrives earlier.
(2) He died childless in 1831 OTL; he likely wasn’t around a measles outbreak as in OTL but the fact he caught it indicates he may well have been ore sickly, so dying in 1832 or 1833 isn’t out of the question.
(3) Maria Anna of Bavaria didn’t marry till 1833 OTL. She marries Napoleon Louis Bonaparte in the early 1820s in TTL, when both are in their mid- to late-teens. She could still be regent, of course, but there would be concerns, as Napoleon Louis dies in 1833 here. OTl he died in 1831 of measles; he wouldn’t be in position to get them here but this does indicate less than stellar health, hence a couple of their children die in childhood; 4 seems like a fair number since her twin sister married in 1824 and had 5.
(4) In OTL, there was almost a major incident involving a U.S. ship – with the French more ready for war, conquest of the region decades early seems plausible.
Becasue I don't want to go all weekend without the exciting conclusion...
Or continuation or whatever. Part 28: The Bonapartes – Europe’s Soap Opera – 2 of 2
When Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte returned to France in the mid-1830s(1), few thought much of it. His older brother had died, but not before producing an heir to the Wallonian throne, one which would help cement the friendship between Wallonia and Bavaria.(2) Bavaria and Wallonia had developed a mutual relationship based on free trade, which was something liberals in France and Germany wanted.
Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte, on the other hand, felt that the agreement his father had signed didn’t apply to him – at least not as to being in an elected position.
Louis-Napoleon first served in parliament, and for several years was the leader of what was sometimes called the “militant wing” – this was the wing which espoused increasing industrialization and expansion in colonies. While Lucien’s foreign policy consisted of exporting Jacobin ideas, the militant wing supported doing so in a more aggressive manner, though not to the point of conquest as some would have had it. They worked well with Lucien for the most part, though he more supportive if building France up culturally and scientifically than of the hevy industrialization which the Militants” supported.
However, Lucien began to fall ill a few years before his death. The last of his one-year terms ended in August of 1837, when Charles was elected. Charles had often spoken of a one-year term not being long enough to do “everything which needed done.” Lucien, being a Bonaparte, had been popular enough to keep winning, but Louis-Napoleon wanted to go further. He determined that he had the support of all Bonapartists, as well as numerous others, and upon being elected to his position, he promised the governments of Europe he would not go conquering as his uncle hd, but that he did feel that government might have to be placed in the hands of one man “for a period of time,” though he didn’t say how long.
Of course, there was a roadblock to this – Joseph. Joseph approached the man who would become known as Napoleon II early in 1838 and asked him, point blank, if he intended to overthrow the government.
“Uncle, I intend to be the government,” Napoleon II claimed.
When word of his usurping of the royal throne reached the United States, one person quipped, “The Bonapartes have learned to act like the most powerful heads of Europe after all.”
In other countries there was shock, but Napoleon II did seem willing not to attack anyone, so they did nothing. After all, he was popularly elected and overthrowing another Bonaparte, and if he actually tried to act as they felt a monarch should, they would accept him. After all, Louis I of Wallonia was doing so. His oldest son, now deceased, had produced 4 children, one male and one female of whom survived infancy, with Maria Anna of Bavaria.(3) Louis was preparing a possible regency for his son should he die before the lad reached his majority, and using his connections with Bavaria and Baden to do so.
Joseph had no heirs who would want the throne now, anyway. He abdicated in favor of Napoleon II in August of 1838, to avoid a civil war. “I enjoyed my time as king. I only wish it could have been longer, so I could have provided stable leadership,” he said before leaving with his wife – who had remained faithful despite his infidelity. He would die in 1844.
Napoleon II built up his army and navy while trying to see what he could do about Egypt against the Ottomans; but first, he wanted to try to gather others’ support.
The British were very cold toward this; they wanted to keep the Ottomans as stable as they could. They had said as much when Ali approached them. However, there was a conflicting problem – Constantine I had died in Russia, leaving Nicholas I to be the Tsar. And, Nicholas was even better militarily. With the Russians having nearly gotten to Constantinople in the late 1820s, the British were worried that if the Russians went too far, they wouldn’t be able to dislodge them, and thus wouldn’t be able to keep Russian ships out of the Mediterranean.
Napoleon II tried rapprochement with Austria, as he knew the Austrians wouldn’t want the Russians to dominate the Ottomans. Why not divide up the Ottoman Empire, he reasoned? Austria could get the Balkans, Russia Constaninople if they wanted, and France could get the rest, as they would have a staunch ally and puppet in Ali.
The Austrians weren’t buying it. True, they didn’t want the Russians to have that much power, but neither did they want to fight the Russians. The Ottomans, they reasoned, were important in a three-way cold war of sorts in the Balkans, so no power became too powerful.
Napoleon II was frustrated. So much of the Old Guard which had risen after the Congress of London was against him having any fan, it seemed.
He decided to accept the Allied position that they would not allow the Ottomans to be dismantled, or let Pahsa onto the throne, and instead attacked Algeria in 1839 - before the Spanish got it - while also making plans for other overseas colonies. However, he didn’t allow huge numbers of colonists into Algeria, which helped some, though there were still attempts at revolts as they tried to introduce Jacobin principles where they really had little impact.. The first place Napoleon tried was Vietnam. Problems with local authorities harassing Catholic missionaries came to a head in the early 1840s, till Francesent warships able to conquer the area – which they did after an incident with a French ship in 1845.(4)
While a treaty between Britain and France setting Indochina as France’s sphere of influence, and also Siam as a neutral buffer, prevented moves into India, this conquest great increased Napoleon II’s popularity. This allowed him to try something more.
Raised in a royal household, he’d nonetheless heard tales of revolts. Louis I had tried his best to be a good king for Holland, and then for Wallonia, and he was well loved by the people. He’d granted rights to them that a lot of others didn’t have, just as Napoleon II had increased votings rights and such just as Lucien had done before. He hadn’t been involved directly with groups like the Caronari, but he had definite leanings toward the notion that the monarch must reign by the will of the people. He had just decided to hold onto his power a lot longer.
He wouldn’t go conquering like crazy, but he did want to spread those liberal principals. He truly felt for the oppressed in other lands. What better way to get power for France than to allow the people of other lands to see them as liberators?
He had begun sending spies to different places, seeing where he could possibly intervene, back in the late 1830s. The booming economy due to industrialization let him put more resources into a military that would let him help rebels; but where? He had a few notions.
And, he wasn’t listening to the British; he believed his beloved France would provide the proper counterbalance to Russia with a coalition of other states. His absolute certainty of this led him, in the midst of the revolts which would come in 1848, to provide a map of how he thought Europe should look – with no French-dominated states, only nations ruled by nationalist liberals who would provide freedom for their people.
“You are not supposed to dictate the entire map of the world,” the British ambassador is reported to have said.
Napoleon II is reported to have retorted, “No, you British think that’s your job.”
While that may be apocryphal, the mess of the late 1840s was very real.
Of course, the United States was having its own crises, and so we don’t leave them too far behind, we’ll go there for a little bit. After all, not only can any discussion flow from here, but soaps are supposed to end in cliffhangers.
-------------------------------------
(1) Similar to his first attempt at revolution in October, 1836 OTL, but here he’s much freer and arrives earlier.
(2) He died childless in 1831 OTL; he likely wasn’t around a measles outbreak as in OTL but the fact he caught it indicates he may well have been ore sickly, so dying in 1832 or 1833 isn’t out of the question.
(3) Maria Anna of Bavaria didn’t marry till 1833 OTL. She marries Napoleon Louis Bonaparte in the early 1820s in TTL, when both are in their mid- to late-teens. She could still be regent, of course, but there would be concerns, as Napoleon Louis dies in 1833 here. OTl he died in 1831 of measles; he wouldn’t be in position to get them here but this does indicate less than stellar health, hence a couple of their children die in childhood; 4 seems like a fair number since her twin sister married in 1824 and had 5.
(4) In OTL, there was almost a major incident involving a U.S. ship – with the French more ready for war, conquest of the region decades early seems plausible.
Last edited:
Great update!
How is industrialization progressing in this TL. is it spreading faster in France and the U.S? And did Napoleonic war's leave France in a weaker or stronger position compared to OTL?
How is industrialization progressing in this TL. is it spreading faster in France and the U.S? And did Napoleonic war's leave France in a weaker or stronger position compared to OTL?
1. Industrialization is spread faster in the U.S. because of the American System being put in place to a fair extent in the 2 terms of John Quincy Adams (especially the 2nd) and the administrations of Clinton/McArthur and Clay. The South, of course, has been left behind somewhat, which will be discussed in the next update or two, as a *very* unique "War Between the States" develops for a reason I don't think I've seen in a TL.
Speaking of civil wrs, while Napoleon's lack of invading Russia helps, since he died in 1809, France underwent a short civil war till Davout finally got control of thigns, and then the Coalition came. It's still somewhat ahead, especially since the Militant Wing held a fair amount of influence even before Louis Napoleon took over.
But, even though George IV's death put Charlotte on the throne in Britain and then William (and then Ernest) right away in Hanover, because Hanover got some of the prime land in the Rhine and Ruhr (as did Bavaria) and Hanover still has a very friendly relationship with Britain, Britain may still be as far ahead of France as they were in OTL.
Russia, without the damage from 1812, really benefits, and that hasn't been squandered much. Europe, though, will get... confused pretty soon.
Okay, thanks; it's hard to find specifics on some of these guys; my resources are pretty limited. But, hopefully it's enjoyable anyway.
As i noted, this was sparked partly from a challenge (though my answer was a different, less developed idea) to end slavery by 1836 and have womens' suffrage by 1876. We won't quite get the first by 1836, but will possibly get the second a little earlier, so it'll even out. And, we'll get the start of the first here, in a way I don't think I've seen before.
Part 29: Where It All Begins
Some like to call Virginia “The state where it all begins.” True, they argue, New England started the Revolution, and Philadelphia hosted the Congresses, but Jamestown was the first surviving colony, Virginia was home to the Father of his Country, George Washington, the author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, those men as the first two Presidents, and three of the first four, with James Madison the Father of the Constitution.
They also claim the crisis which became known as the “War Between the States,” though it was not what some would consider a war.
James Monroe’s last term as Governor ended in 1822; he’d done very well handling an economic mess, one which saw slavery ding out some. As a member of the Recolonization Society, he felt slavery’s time had passed. His successor, John Floyd(1), had lost in the House of Representatives in the Jackson push of 1820 and so returned to the House of Delegates, and – with the help of Monroe and an aging Jefferson and Madison – put the final seal on the plan to gradually end slavery. His successor, John Tyler, went along with it without much complaint By the time of the Virginia Constitution of 1830, it was put in place that slavery would be gone by 1840, as the time was moved up a few years; it had been a 25 year plan at first, taking till 1848.
President Clay had worked with the Society as well as arguing for use of the National Road to settle Freedmen out West if they couldn’t get to Africa – admittedly a more expensive task; it was being stretched out to St. Louis(2). Clay was initially popular as head of the “middle ground” group. He had run in ‘1828 opposite Daniel Webster, who got a few New England votes, Andrew Jackson, who tried again but had lost much appeal because of his extension of a bad economy (and Clay’s intentional emphasis on his own support of universal white male suffrage), and John Calhoun, who took Southern votes from Jackson but was seen as too radical. The 1828 election had seen Clay gain a majority of electoral votes, and like in 1824, everyone figured that things would go along smoothly.
However, there were rumblings that showed that this spirit of unity and compromise wouldn’t last.
First, Calhoun had won South Carolina and Georgia because Jackson favored the same high tariffs as Clinton and McArthur; the South was tired of politicians supporting things that hurt their economy; some say this as much as Jackson’s poor response to the continued Panic of 1819 during his term cost him enough votes that he failed to get the 1828 election to the House of Representatives. While Clay supported a compromise in his campaign, earning him some Southern votes, he still faced increasing pressure from the South in that area.
Not only that, but Clay’s compromise on the Bank of the United States, whose charter was to run out in 1833, pleased few; he agreed to extend it 10 years and to continue to root out corruption. Jackson continued to claim it was totally corrupt, while Daniel Webster – who had defeated President McArthur in his re-election bid following Clinton’s death – insisted that it should be renewed for another 20 years. Downsizing it was not an option to Webster.
In addition, since 1825 there had been a gag order on discussions on slavery in Congress, something John Quincy Adams vehemently opposed. While President Clay had little to do with it, some clamored that this violated free speech rights. The slave trade had been abolished in the District of Columbia, but slave auctions continued, to the dismay of Northern leaders.
Clay could have gotten through all of this and won a second term – he was very good at working out deals, after all. However, back in Virginia, things were getting very tense.
Because of slavery ending soon in Virginia – as well as Maryland now, since it would be surrounded by free states and also had a very good relationship between its free blacks and whites in Baltimore – the price was increasing, and many owners were selling their slaves south. This increased after the Virginia Constitution of 1830. One Nat Turner’s owner decided to do so with all of his slaves, and this created some major problems.
First of all, Turner had begun to feel that himself to be a charismatic leader. He knew freedom was coming, but didn’t want to see it end. As he opened to various passages, he hit upon the idea that this freedom should not be taken away. He was willing to bide his time – in fact, he had returned to his master once after escaping.(4) But, when the day came to be sold, he suddenly began to speak up forcefully.
“Friends,” he cried out, “hear me, I am not a slave, but a brother, as Paul wrote to Philemon of Onesimus. We are free men according to your Constitution, only serving for a short time,” he declared. And then, a bunch of slaves began to walk out, giving only passive resistance when forced back. However, it created an interesting case.
Daniel Webster and John Quincy Adams took the case against the buyer, a North Carolina man. Turner may not have meant to, or maybe he did, but he had a sound argument that they could use. Hadn’t Virginia stated that all their slaves would be free after 1840? In that case, shouldn’t Turner and the other men be free after such a time, even if sold away before?
Turner’s lawyers argued that it was the priority of the state over the individual to make such laws. This got their former owner and the purchaser involved, as it did every other seller and purchaser of slaves. This, in turn, created economic chaos.
It seems that the number of slaves in Virginia was enormous. Delaware and – in the last few years – Maryland hadn’t been a problem, but the number of slaves in Virginia had meant that – not only were the numbers in other states increasing rapidly – but their price was dropping. Some from other states began to flood Virginia demanding an end to this emancipation or, at least, an end to the slave auctions. Others countered that this infringed upon the rights of some of the wealthy landowners to still make a profit while they could.
But, the lawsuit, which was now pretty big, threw even that into a quandary as it wound its way through the Courts and the 1832 election neared. What if the Supreme Court ruled that such auctions only allowed someone to own a slave till 1840?
It was into this confused mess that David Crockett, champion of the common man, entered the Presidency, with Martin Van Buren the new Vice President, a man who was realizing quickly that slaveholders owned too much power.(5). As Henry Clay told Crocket, “You Sir, are inheriting a hornet’s nest. I wish you good luck, for you will need it.”
-------------------------------------
(1) Floyd, governor in the early 1830s, wavered when it came to abolishing slavery even then – likely the last time Southern abolitionism OTL was really prominent, though of course it wasn’t as big in the Deep South even in OTL. However, it shows there was a faction in Virginia, further helping to push things slowly toward gradual emancipation with Washington living, no slavery west of the Mississippi causing it to look more like it was dying, and the economy.
(2) OTL the road didn’t get there because of budget problems, and that a few years later than in TTL. Here, it’s been sped up some, especially with almost a couple years of an administration which pushed public works to relieve the economic problems in the Panic of 1819.
(3) I’m not sure how Turner was reading the Bible, since Jesus spoke so much against violence, but the idea he was an “open the book to a random page” reader is quite possible, versus what should be done, interpreting Scripture with Scripture. Plus his “visions” give him the chance for interpretations based on what he wanted to think they meant. Since freedom *is* coming, unlike OTL, he thinks he’s supposed to do something different in TTL.
(4) He did this OTL, too.
(5) Eventually a Free Soil candidate for president in 1848 in OTL, Van Buren had only then seen the incredible power the South had. Here, it would seem he’d be less likely to see it, but the opposite is true. From his youth, he’s lived in a U.S. where slavery has been contained. However, the problem here isn’t the power of the slaveholding states. It’s the fact they’ve become so entrenched in their ways, coupled with the fact that Van Buren was, at least, a Democrat who believed in the power of the people. And, he saw in this mess a few rich landholders who were trying to control everything, just like the problem with the Bank of the United States.
Part 29: Where It All Begins
Some like to call Virginia “The state where it all begins.” True, they argue, New England started the Revolution, and Philadelphia hosted the Congresses, but Jamestown was the first surviving colony, Virginia was home to the Father of his Country, George Washington, the author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, those men as the first two Presidents, and three of the first four, with James Madison the Father of the Constitution.
They also claim the crisis which became known as the “War Between the States,” though it was not what some would consider a war.
James Monroe’s last term as Governor ended in 1822; he’d done very well handling an economic mess, one which saw slavery ding out some. As a member of the Recolonization Society, he felt slavery’s time had passed. His successor, John Floyd(1), had lost in the House of Representatives in the Jackson push of 1820 and so returned to the House of Delegates, and – with the help of Monroe and an aging Jefferson and Madison – put the final seal on the plan to gradually end slavery. His successor, John Tyler, went along with it without much complaint By the time of the Virginia Constitution of 1830, it was put in place that slavery would be gone by 1840, as the time was moved up a few years; it had been a 25 year plan at first, taking till 1848.
President Clay had worked with the Society as well as arguing for use of the National Road to settle Freedmen out West if they couldn’t get to Africa – admittedly a more expensive task; it was being stretched out to St. Louis(2). Clay was initially popular as head of the “middle ground” group. He had run in ‘1828 opposite Daniel Webster, who got a few New England votes, Andrew Jackson, who tried again but had lost much appeal because of his extension of a bad economy (and Clay’s intentional emphasis on his own support of universal white male suffrage), and John Calhoun, who took Southern votes from Jackson but was seen as too radical. The 1828 election had seen Clay gain a majority of electoral votes, and like in 1824, everyone figured that things would go along smoothly.
However, there were rumblings that showed that this spirit of unity and compromise wouldn’t last.
First, Calhoun had won South Carolina and Georgia because Jackson favored the same high tariffs as Clinton and McArthur; the South was tired of politicians supporting things that hurt their economy; some say this as much as Jackson’s poor response to the continued Panic of 1819 during his term cost him enough votes that he failed to get the 1828 election to the House of Representatives. While Clay supported a compromise in his campaign, earning him some Southern votes, he still faced increasing pressure from the South in that area.
Not only that, but Clay’s compromise on the Bank of the United States, whose charter was to run out in 1833, pleased few; he agreed to extend it 10 years and to continue to root out corruption. Jackson continued to claim it was totally corrupt, while Daniel Webster – who had defeated President McArthur in his re-election bid following Clinton’s death – insisted that it should be renewed for another 20 years. Downsizing it was not an option to Webster.
In addition, since 1825 there had been a gag order on discussions on slavery in Congress, something John Quincy Adams vehemently opposed. While President Clay had little to do with it, some clamored that this violated free speech rights. The slave trade had been abolished in the District of Columbia, but slave auctions continued, to the dismay of Northern leaders.
Clay could have gotten through all of this and won a second term – he was very good at working out deals, after all. However, back in Virginia, things were getting very tense.
Because of slavery ending soon in Virginia – as well as Maryland now, since it would be surrounded by free states and also had a very good relationship between its free blacks and whites in Baltimore – the price was increasing, and many owners were selling their slaves south. This increased after the Virginia Constitution of 1830. One Nat Turner’s owner decided to do so with all of his slaves, and this created some major problems.
First of all, Turner had begun to feel that himself to be a charismatic leader. He knew freedom was coming, but didn’t want to see it end. As he opened to various passages, he hit upon the idea that this freedom should not be taken away. He was willing to bide his time – in fact, he had returned to his master once after escaping.(4) But, when the day came to be sold, he suddenly began to speak up forcefully.
“Friends,” he cried out, “hear me, I am not a slave, but a brother, as Paul wrote to Philemon of Onesimus. We are free men according to your Constitution, only serving for a short time,” he declared. And then, a bunch of slaves began to walk out, giving only passive resistance when forced back. However, it created an interesting case.
Daniel Webster and John Quincy Adams took the case against the buyer, a North Carolina man. Turner may not have meant to, or maybe he did, but he had a sound argument that they could use. Hadn’t Virginia stated that all their slaves would be free after 1840? In that case, shouldn’t Turner and the other men be free after such a time, even if sold away before?
Turner’s lawyers argued that it was the priority of the state over the individual to make such laws. This got their former owner and the purchaser involved, as it did every other seller and purchaser of slaves. This, in turn, created economic chaos.
It seems that the number of slaves in Virginia was enormous. Delaware and – in the last few years – Maryland hadn’t been a problem, but the number of slaves in Virginia had meant that – not only were the numbers in other states increasing rapidly – but their price was dropping. Some from other states began to flood Virginia demanding an end to this emancipation or, at least, an end to the slave auctions. Others countered that this infringed upon the rights of some of the wealthy landowners to still make a profit while they could.
But, the lawsuit, which was now pretty big, threw even that into a quandary as it wound its way through the Courts and the 1832 election neared. What if the Supreme Court ruled that such auctions only allowed someone to own a slave till 1840?
It was into this confused mess that David Crockett, champion of the common man, entered the Presidency, with Martin Van Buren the new Vice President, a man who was realizing quickly that slaveholders owned too much power.(5). As Henry Clay told Crocket, “You Sir, are inheriting a hornet’s nest. I wish you good luck, for you will need it.”
-------------------------------------
(1) Floyd, governor in the early 1830s, wavered when it came to abolishing slavery even then – likely the last time Southern abolitionism OTL was really prominent, though of course it wasn’t as big in the Deep South even in OTL. However, it shows there was a faction in Virginia, further helping to push things slowly toward gradual emancipation with Washington living, no slavery west of the Mississippi causing it to look more like it was dying, and the economy.
(2) OTL the road didn’t get there because of budget problems, and that a few years later than in TTL. Here, it’s been sped up some, especially with almost a couple years of an administration which pushed public works to relieve the economic problems in the Panic of 1819.
(3) I’m not sure how Turner was reading the Bible, since Jesus spoke so much against violence, but the idea he was an “open the book to a random page” reader is quite possible, versus what should be done, interpreting Scripture with Scripture. Plus his “visions” give him the chance for interpretations based on what he wanted to think they meant. Since freedom *is* coming, unlike OTL, he thinks he’s supposed to do something different in TTL.
(4) He did this OTL, too.
(5) Eventually a Free Soil candidate for president in 1848 in OTL, Van Buren had only then seen the incredible power the South had. Here, it would seem he’d be less likely to see it, but the opposite is true. From his youth, he’s lived in a U.S. where slavery has been contained. However, the problem here isn’t the power of the slaveholding states. It’s the fact they’ve become so entrenched in their ways, coupled with the fact that Van Buren was, at least, a Democrat who believed in the power of the people. And, he saw in this mess a few rich landholders who were trying to control everything, just like the problem with the Bank of the United States.
Result of the court case
Part 30: The Historic Nat Turner Case(s) and War Between the States
The U.S. Supreme Court’s makeup was a key. 1807 Madison appointee William Johnson, moved away from his South Carolina home during the worries over Nulllification so as not to be swayed, and remained away because of this. John Berrien, Jackson’s lone appointee, hoped that he could lure Johnson to his side, but Johnson was very independent. Gabriel Duvall was also a Southerner, as was Chief Justice Marshall, but the former was a Marylander and Marshall easily able to put personal preferences ahead of him, though a Northerner, Joseph Story, often wrote opinions, especially since Marshall was ailing. Smith Thompson, the lone Clinton appointee, and John McLean, a Clay appointee, were the Northerners on the Court.
The arguments of Webster, Adams, and others were many. Ironically, Turner suffered a breakdown in 1832, leaving him possibly unfit to be a plaintiff, but since others had been joined, that didn’t matter. It was argued that the sales should not have been made because they were to be free in 1840, and that – even if they didn’t have standing as persons to sue – numerous purchasers, who had been joined as Plaintiffs after they were convinced of the possibility that they might lose their “investment,” had been defrauded.
They had been convinced of this because of a legal argument borrowed from estate planning. Turner and others had a future interest in their freedom. By the 1830 Virginia Constitution, children under 18 were free, and taxes would be raised to compensate owners for other slaves, who would be freed by 1840. Not only did Turner and others have standing, it was argued, but those under the original 1823 plan, wherein it was more gradual and all slaves would be free by 1848, also had standing.
Arguments and tensions were very high around the Court, as it was almost certain to hear the case, what with it involving the rights of the individual versus the state but also conflict of Virginia and North Carolina law. Marshall considered stepping down in 1832 but declined, even though it was likely Clay would lose and a Democrat enter office. “I do not wish to make of this a political situation any more than it is; when I die will be the time I am replaced. Then I cannot be said to have had my own desires influence anything,” he said.
Threats in Congress swirled – if they were slaves regardless of the Virginia Constitution, some Federalists pledged to introduce compensated emancipation laws into Congress, at which South Carolinians already mad about earlier tariffs threatened to secede. If Virginia triumphed, riots could break out in the South - Virginia legislators had received death threats for gradually ending slavery. Tensions had already been sky high because of the prices of slaves and the influx of slaves to the deeper south, but this could push them over the edge. Then again, so could a verdict for the North Carolinian; that would possibly mean a greater flood. Chief Justice Marshall and Justice Johnson would die within a couple years, and Duvall would retire. Too much is made of that coincidence; though Crockett was able to reshape the Court.
The lower court, a Southern district one, ruled that the slaves had no standing to sue and that the sales were perfectly valid. The Supreme Court decision came down in March of 1834.
First, the justices ruled that at the present time, North Carolina law didn’t view these slaves as citizens, but that didn’t matter because the suit was in Federal Court. Furthermore, the slaves did have a point about the right of a state to provide a future interest that couldn’t be thwarted by an individual. That suit, which had been brought in state court in Virginia and then joined with the Federal suits, had been joined with the other and both argued at the same time before the Supreme Court.
First, the Court ruled that a contract existed between two parties based on the law of the state in which it was transacted; there was little doubt that – with the gentleman travelling to Virginia, and all other parts of the action in Virginia, Virginia law applied. It had been transacted on the presumption that the North Carolinian would have full rights; but, was that a correct presumption? Obviously, people made incorrect presumptions all the time.
The Court ruled the Federal Constitution’s Bill of Rights didn’t apply to the states, but that a future expectation had been created. It didn’t matter that it could be revoked; like a will, which could be rewritten, it didn’t matter that it could have been at some point after the sale. What mattered was that at the time, that future interest did exist. (The Court left open the possibility that it could be removed, but that just increased tension and bitterness between states further south and Virginia, as Virginians refused to think of changing their law because of the whims of some other state or that state’s residents.)
What mattered was that the slaves’ future interest had been denied to them – the interest of being free. That future interest was how they had standing. However, in the interests of protecting the rights of the individual, the Court decided that what was required was not removing the slaves back to where they were, but financial compensation for the loss of that future interest.
The argument was this. Suppose a trustee holds a piece of land for someone else and through his intentional mismanagement destroys the future interest of someone else. That land can’t be restored to the future beneficiary. The future beneficiary would instead be entitled to compensation. In the same way, since the future promise of freedom existed at the time the slaves who were sold were entitled to financial compensation – from the people who had transacted the business which removed that future benefit. The case was remanded to the local court to determine which of the parties owed the slaves compensation.
There was a dissenting opinion, as well as a concurrence by McLean declaring the slaves should have been returned because the future interest trumped here, with the transaction being void (empty), not just voidable (able to be cancelled), which the majority felt.
The mood in Congress was one of relief. The Court had found a way not to rule too strongly one way or the other. However, the financial ramifications would be felt for quite a while. Slave auctions stopped totally in Virginia, as well as in Maryland (Delaware’s slaves were now completely freed), and the movement to end slavery in Kentucky, North Carolina, and Tennessee hit a snag as some worried that if people wanted to make money off of it, now they couldn’t. It would have been seen the same way in Virginia, except that increased pressure on their state from the Deep South worsened.
Not only that, but lawsuits began to pour in as buyers sued to have sellers declared the ones to compensate, slaves who had been sold years earlier suddenly found themselves able to sue if sold out of a state that was emancipating, and so on. This disruption to the economy led the governor of South Carolina to demand that Virginia promise to provide compensation if it was deemed necessary – or else they would send troops in to begin seizing assets.
Governor John Tyler, serving again after a hiatus, threatened to send out his state’s militia to protect it from other states. He declared, “It is my solemn duty as governor of this state to protect our right to govern ourselves as we see fit – be that from the power of the Federal government or from the menacing actions of another state.” Fearing a possible war between the states, Tyler informed the U.S. government that he wanted no Federal troops on his state’s borders, but that he would use the Virginia militia to “defend to the death” his state’s honor.
In several states, President Crockett found that a miniature war was brewing. Tennessee and Franklin each featured parts wanting an end to slavery so they had their own possible wars. He bemoaned the fact that, “The common person, who is not as interested in this matter so much as he is in living a peaceful life of freedom, is being used by forces which are opposed to the rights of the common man, except when it pleases them.” While he stopped short of declaring that the slaves could be given rights as citizens, he did acknowledge that if there were people in those states who opposed slavery, they should be free to speak their mind.
Virginia, too, had its people who were willing to fight for the Union, tnough some had only been born there. Winfield Scott, deemed by many the best general the U.S. had, was asked by Crockett to prepare plans to defeat whatever group of slave states might choose to secede or might choose to attack other slave states. He was mostly concerned about South Carolina. Zachary Taylor, living on a large estate in Franklin, also volunteered.
So did Andrew Jackson. He sent a message to Crockett, in fact, stating, “We have had great disagreements in our time. Despite our agreement in the rights of the common man, we are in fact worlds apart on a number of other matters. However, this is a federal union which cannot be broken apart by arrogant rulers who desire only what is best for themselves. I will gather up a group of men and await your orders,” he concluded.
Crockett wasn’t too crazy about Jackson, in his late 60s, commanding troops. However, he sent him to a place he figured would be out of the way; Memphis had quite a few slaves. Perhaps he could garrison it in the event of a larger war; other, younger men could handle the Cumberland Gap and other important regions which would let them keep the South in line.
With no slavery west of the Mississippi, there wasn’t much chance of any armies even wanting to go toward a St. Louis, though Aaron Burr did order a large militia to defend New Orleans, one of his last actions as Governor – Edward D. White would take over in 1835, ending nearly 20 years of Burr. Burr was concerned that Mississippi governor John Quitman might attack with his militia, though nothing came of it.
Crockett had his work cut out for him. He’d ridden to office in the wave of Jacksonians elected in 1820, going to the House of Representatives. He often marveled at how quickly the “common man” had triumphed. At the same time, he’d bickered with Jackson over a number of issues, and actually came to be closer to Clay in his political leanings, which had been just enough to get Crockett the nomination in 1832.
Now, faced with the greatest threat the nation had faced to date, he remarked, “All these fun tales of pioneer days are great. But, what will they matter if I cannot keep this blessed land together?” He knew the North – and even the west, where an aging Aaron Burr, in his late term as governor, pledged his support – could do it, but he dearly wanted to avoid a civil war.
Part 30: The Historic Nat Turner Case(s) and War Between the States
The U.S. Supreme Court’s makeup was a key. 1807 Madison appointee William Johnson, moved away from his South Carolina home during the worries over Nulllification so as not to be swayed, and remained away because of this. John Berrien, Jackson’s lone appointee, hoped that he could lure Johnson to his side, but Johnson was very independent. Gabriel Duvall was also a Southerner, as was Chief Justice Marshall, but the former was a Marylander and Marshall easily able to put personal preferences ahead of him, though a Northerner, Joseph Story, often wrote opinions, especially since Marshall was ailing. Smith Thompson, the lone Clinton appointee, and John McLean, a Clay appointee, were the Northerners on the Court.
The arguments of Webster, Adams, and others were many. Ironically, Turner suffered a breakdown in 1832, leaving him possibly unfit to be a plaintiff, but since others had been joined, that didn’t matter. It was argued that the sales should not have been made because they were to be free in 1840, and that – even if they didn’t have standing as persons to sue – numerous purchasers, who had been joined as Plaintiffs after they were convinced of the possibility that they might lose their “investment,” had been defrauded.
They had been convinced of this because of a legal argument borrowed from estate planning. Turner and others had a future interest in their freedom. By the 1830 Virginia Constitution, children under 18 were free, and taxes would be raised to compensate owners for other slaves, who would be freed by 1840. Not only did Turner and others have standing, it was argued, but those under the original 1823 plan, wherein it was more gradual and all slaves would be free by 1848, also had standing.
Arguments and tensions were very high around the Court, as it was almost certain to hear the case, what with it involving the rights of the individual versus the state but also conflict of Virginia and North Carolina law. Marshall considered stepping down in 1832 but declined, even though it was likely Clay would lose and a Democrat enter office. “I do not wish to make of this a political situation any more than it is; when I die will be the time I am replaced. Then I cannot be said to have had my own desires influence anything,” he said.
Threats in Congress swirled – if they were slaves regardless of the Virginia Constitution, some Federalists pledged to introduce compensated emancipation laws into Congress, at which South Carolinians already mad about earlier tariffs threatened to secede. If Virginia triumphed, riots could break out in the South - Virginia legislators had received death threats for gradually ending slavery. Tensions had already been sky high because of the prices of slaves and the influx of slaves to the deeper south, but this could push them over the edge. Then again, so could a verdict for the North Carolinian; that would possibly mean a greater flood. Chief Justice Marshall and Justice Johnson would die within a couple years, and Duvall would retire. Too much is made of that coincidence; though Crockett was able to reshape the Court.
The lower court, a Southern district one, ruled that the slaves had no standing to sue and that the sales were perfectly valid. The Supreme Court decision came down in March of 1834.
First, the justices ruled that at the present time, North Carolina law didn’t view these slaves as citizens, but that didn’t matter because the suit was in Federal Court. Furthermore, the slaves did have a point about the right of a state to provide a future interest that couldn’t be thwarted by an individual. That suit, which had been brought in state court in Virginia and then joined with the Federal suits, had been joined with the other and both argued at the same time before the Supreme Court.
First, the Court ruled that a contract existed between two parties based on the law of the state in which it was transacted; there was little doubt that – with the gentleman travelling to Virginia, and all other parts of the action in Virginia, Virginia law applied. It had been transacted on the presumption that the North Carolinian would have full rights; but, was that a correct presumption? Obviously, people made incorrect presumptions all the time.
The Court ruled the Federal Constitution’s Bill of Rights didn’t apply to the states, but that a future expectation had been created. It didn’t matter that it could be revoked; like a will, which could be rewritten, it didn’t matter that it could have been at some point after the sale. What mattered was that at the time, that future interest did exist. (The Court left open the possibility that it could be removed, but that just increased tension and bitterness between states further south and Virginia, as Virginians refused to think of changing their law because of the whims of some other state or that state’s residents.)
What mattered was that the slaves’ future interest had been denied to them – the interest of being free. That future interest was how they had standing. However, in the interests of protecting the rights of the individual, the Court decided that what was required was not removing the slaves back to where they were, but financial compensation for the loss of that future interest.
The argument was this. Suppose a trustee holds a piece of land for someone else and through his intentional mismanagement destroys the future interest of someone else. That land can’t be restored to the future beneficiary. The future beneficiary would instead be entitled to compensation. In the same way, since the future promise of freedom existed at the time the slaves who were sold were entitled to financial compensation – from the people who had transacted the business which removed that future benefit. The case was remanded to the local court to determine which of the parties owed the slaves compensation.
There was a dissenting opinion, as well as a concurrence by McLean declaring the slaves should have been returned because the future interest trumped here, with the transaction being void (empty), not just voidable (able to be cancelled), which the majority felt.
The mood in Congress was one of relief. The Court had found a way not to rule too strongly one way or the other. However, the financial ramifications would be felt for quite a while. Slave auctions stopped totally in Virginia, as well as in Maryland (Delaware’s slaves were now completely freed), and the movement to end slavery in Kentucky, North Carolina, and Tennessee hit a snag as some worried that if people wanted to make money off of it, now they couldn’t. It would have been seen the same way in Virginia, except that increased pressure on their state from the Deep South worsened.
Not only that, but lawsuits began to pour in as buyers sued to have sellers declared the ones to compensate, slaves who had been sold years earlier suddenly found themselves able to sue if sold out of a state that was emancipating, and so on. This disruption to the economy led the governor of South Carolina to demand that Virginia promise to provide compensation if it was deemed necessary – or else they would send troops in to begin seizing assets.
Governor John Tyler, serving again after a hiatus, threatened to send out his state’s militia to protect it from other states. He declared, “It is my solemn duty as governor of this state to protect our right to govern ourselves as we see fit – be that from the power of the Federal government or from the menacing actions of another state.” Fearing a possible war between the states, Tyler informed the U.S. government that he wanted no Federal troops on his state’s borders, but that he would use the Virginia militia to “defend to the death” his state’s honor.
In several states, President Crockett found that a miniature war was brewing. Tennessee and Franklin each featured parts wanting an end to slavery so they had their own possible wars. He bemoaned the fact that, “The common person, who is not as interested in this matter so much as he is in living a peaceful life of freedom, is being used by forces which are opposed to the rights of the common man, except when it pleases them.” While he stopped short of declaring that the slaves could be given rights as citizens, he did acknowledge that if there were people in those states who opposed slavery, they should be free to speak their mind.
Virginia, too, had its people who were willing to fight for the Union, tnough some had only been born there. Winfield Scott, deemed by many the best general the U.S. had, was asked by Crockett to prepare plans to defeat whatever group of slave states might choose to secede or might choose to attack other slave states. He was mostly concerned about South Carolina. Zachary Taylor, living on a large estate in Franklin, also volunteered.
So did Andrew Jackson. He sent a message to Crockett, in fact, stating, “We have had great disagreements in our time. Despite our agreement in the rights of the common man, we are in fact worlds apart on a number of other matters. However, this is a federal union which cannot be broken apart by arrogant rulers who desire only what is best for themselves. I will gather up a group of men and await your orders,” he concluded.
Crockett wasn’t too crazy about Jackson, in his late 60s, commanding troops. However, he sent him to a place he figured would be out of the way; Memphis had quite a few slaves. Perhaps he could garrison it in the event of a larger war; other, younger men could handle the Cumberland Gap and other important regions which would let them keep the South in line.
With no slavery west of the Mississippi, there wasn’t much chance of any armies even wanting to go toward a St. Louis, though Aaron Burr did order a large militia to defend New Orleans, one of his last actions as Governor – Edward D. White would take over in 1835, ending nearly 20 years of Burr. Burr was concerned that Mississippi governor John Quitman might attack with his militia, though nothing came of it.
Crockett had his work cut out for him. He’d ridden to office in the wave of Jacksonians elected in 1820, going to the House of Representatives. He often marveled at how quickly the “common man” had triumphed. At the same time, he’d bickered with Jackson over a number of issues, and actually came to be closer to Clay in his political leanings, which had been just enough to get Crockett the nomination in 1832.
Now, faced with the greatest threat the nation had faced to date, he remarked, “All these fun tales of pioneer days are great. But, what will they matter if I cannot keep this blessed land together?” He knew the North – and even the west, where an aging Aaron Burr, in his late term as governor, pledged his support – could do it, but he dearly wanted to avoid a civil war.
Part 31: Settling and Sorting Out the Mess
Tensions continued to flare. A variety of lawsuits and complaints between states showed some – especially South Carolina – had incredible aversions to emancipation. Most figured slaves would buy their freedom with this “compensation for loss of future interest,” and this led some state to start pushing their citizens to sell their slaves back north or to void sales to avoid such a fiasco. Franklin governor Nathaniel Beverley Tucker(1) is said to have carried on correspondences with prominent leaders about this and about his desire for states to retain their freedom from Federal control, even from the courts. He is said to have encouraged Tyler to announce his “neutrality,” though Tyler would not lead secession himself unless there was no other option. He was already despised by some for declaring the neutrality of his state.
Not that it mattered much. A group of South Carolina soldiers – numbers vary from a dozen to about 50 – were allowed to march through North Carolina by what were known as “fire eaters” and entered Virginia. They were there to enforce some contracts to hold auctions which were supposedly reneged on by Virginia planters after the court ruling, though also to pressure the Richmond government to rescind their decision to emancipate and “remove the fugure interest.” Virginian Edmund Ruffin(2) supported them. A clash ensued, and President Crockett glumly sent Tyler a message saying, “I’ll support you with troops if you want.”
Instead, Virginia and South Carolina ended up with their militias sparring. North Carolina joined South Carolina, and even Georgia did, though their nullification governor had been thrown out of office in favor of one who was more pro-Union. South Carolina sent more troops Richmond, with the intense anger of some owners causing the Virginians to insist that they should suspend their emancipation.
Add to this the problem of Southern Congressmen insisting they needed to attack Cuba to get more slave territory, and Crockett had major problems.
He sent Scott through the Cumberland Gap, as 1834 wound down, and Scott sent troops into North Carolina (whose Governor Swain quickly switched sides to avoid a conflict)(3) and Georgia while his main force marched straight for Columbia, South Carolina. The U.S. Navy also went into Charleston, threatening to attack.
Meanwhile, Zachary Taylor marched into his home state of Franklin and toward the capital. Much to his surprise, his troops almost accidentally fired on their own forces as Andrew Jackson and his men arrived from Memphis. He’d gotten wind of the problems and advanced. “All right, what are we doing?” he asked point blank as Taylor rode up to chastise him.
After a few minutes of arguing, Taylor decided that Jackson’s men were few in number and – as long as he placed one of his own men over them, instead of the elderly but still ornery Jackson – they could be joined to his army. He suggested that they march toward the capital just in case there were problems, and ordered Jackson to stay right with him where he could keep an eye on him. He knew Governor Tucker had threatened secession, as had Quitman in Mississippi.
It was later written by historians that, “The fact that Andrew Jackson’s men’s presence didn’t distract anyone shows how little of a problem there was. A few states had declared war on each other, but Crockett’s use of mostly Southern commanders and his rapid response kept things from getting too heated; there hadn’t been time for states to band together for forty to make their own country, or even to rally the people to their side; Federal forces received very little grief because they tried to leave everything and everyone alone.”
The show of Federal force worked. The Fire Eaters stopped their rhetoric and promised to abide by Federal laws and the Supreme Court’s ruling, as long as some agreements could be worked out regarding how such slaves were to be compensated, including possibly cancelling all auctions and forbidding slves from being sold out of state, which some considered.
Crockett also earned praise for letting Virginians fight their own war. Virginia’s forces wiped out the South Carolina regiment which had attacked. One of the fighters of note was a young Lieutenant named Robert E. Lee, who helped with a brilliant defensive stand after turning down an appointment to Washington in case something broke out in Virginia. He was rewarded for this, but considered foolish when he wanted to chase the “no good invaders” back to Columbia. Quitman’s popularity was sharply declining. He would be out of office soon.
The young Crockett, not quite 50, had been tested in a way an older man like Adams or Jackson – or even Clay – might not have been. He hadn’t blinked; instead, the South had. But, now what would he do to ensure nothing else bad happened?
He considered that what had happened to the Indians in the early 1820s – indeed, even before with the state militias fighting them – was happening to the slaves. Just as state militias had been used to destroy the Civilized Tribes, states had used them for nefarious means, to support something they saw as right when the rest of the world increasingly knew it as wrong.
He addressed the incoming Congress on March 4, 1835. He told them the time had come to consider whether Virginia’s example might be used again. “I do not ask as a monarch insisting upon something, not even as Queen Charlotte of late. I only suggest that a policy of gradual emancipation can work throughout the South, with the states conferring to determine what their plan will be, rather than having a bunch of individual and distinct plans to emancipate. As you go to your own districts until we meet again later this year, I ask you in Southern states to consider that the terrible pain and effort might be best avoided through a national plan, or if your own states would be better off doing it themselves.”
Crockett won re-election in 1836, defeating William Henry Harrison. However, the economy was still down some because of the confusion surrounding the Supreme Court ruling. Instead of destroying the Bank like Jackson had tried, since Clay renewed it for 10 years in 1832, Crockett allowed for state banks to be chartered but required a certain level of reserve and tried a variety of means that would allow Federal backing without the highly elitist control.(4)
A few other states began to gradually abolish slavery, too, with Kentucky, Tennessee, and North Carolina doing so – the last of these had been spooked by the fact that lots of their owners also might need to compensate the Freedmen now. A fair number were freeing their slaves themselves because of it.
It ws in this atmosphere that Daniel Webster proposed a plan for national emancipation late in 1835. It would use funds from the bank to compensate slaveholders. Henry Clay tried to modify it in his position in the House – he argued that this was a good move now before prices declined further, but that more funds should be spent on the African colony of Liberia. A few wanted to try to see how the Freedmen could live among whites; in the South.
Still others proposed the West, where Aaron Burr praised the fact that, as he put it, “I may not see the complete end, but I have lived to see the beginning of the end of that horrible institution, and I am proud to have created a place where they may live freely.”
Burr had carved out a legacy equaled by few in any other state. He had become a firm believer in the rights of Freedmen to vote, regardless of race. His “true universal suffrage over age 21” law in 1834 was possibly the first of its kind in the world. He was showing people it could be done. Louisiana and the territory of Texas, which was rapidly becoming ready to be admitted as a state – it would be in 1836, a year before Michigan - seemed like possible closer locations for the Freedmen.
Though more went to Louisiana and even Texas than Liberia, Burr’s focus on education was crucial, just as it had been for those he’d brought from South Carolina in the 1810s with the intent of developing a town. While they believed in quality of the races, they had to unlearn idea like enslaving others like the Southerners had done. That and the death rates once they got into the swampier areas taught some important lessons about what was needed before the Liberia settlement began. Diseases couldn’t be helped, but they could try to find other spots. As for self-government and learning to get along with the natives and educate them, they did so, somewhat following the British plan, too, and it caused much less tension where they went.(5)
John Calhoun’s and other South Carolinians’ insistence upon avoiding any legislation to do with slavery doomed them in the end. Some said they, and a few other states, could have banded together to agree to end slavery and pushed things out 25 or 30 years. However, Calhoun and others weren’t even willing to try that. And, they almost surely would have had to compromise no matter what, with slavery ending by 1860 or 1865. At the latest.
Martin Van Buren had put together the New York machine very nicely, but the candidacy of a Liberty Party nominee, James Birney, cost him some votes there. He probably wouldn’t have won anyway, though, as Birney also drew votes away from the Federalist candidate.
The Federalist, now known as Republican, leader was Daniel Webster, but some thought him too radical, too unwilling to compromise after 8 years of pretty good rule by the “common man’s candidate,” Crockett. He was surely a lot better than Jackson had been, so it would be harder to defeat Van Buren. Former President Clay was considered, as were John Sergeant, Theodore Frelinghuysen, and Justice John McLean.
-----------------------------------------
(1) Moved to Missouri before 1820 and then returned in 1833 to Virginia; here with a different Franklin state it’s easier for him to stay.
(2) Like Tucker, a noted early fire-eater.
(3) He was a delegate to the convention which seceded in 1861 but declined to serve, and then helped negotiate the surrender of his state in 1865. A quick surrender to save his state from troops who are really entering with no orders to destroy is plausible for the young governor..
(4) Though for different reasons (railroads) the Panic of 1857 came partly from the Dred Scott case decision. Here, the downturn is felt most in the South, though there is some normal economic ebb and flow elsewhere. Jackson’s main problem of OTL is lacking here, though, because the Bank is still around till 1843 and state banks require a reserve, which was not the case when they were allowed to form OTL, thus helping lead to the Panic of 1837.
(5) Both problems of OTL Liberia. Since it’s a benevolent society which is sending them to Africa, some do listen when told what will be needed to help the former slaves learn to govern themselves, and in turn how to teach the natives how to do so. It won’t improve Liberia *that* much, but it will some.
I thought with better relations with Britain there might be a chance for the British to help them find another spot, but there weren't that many, according to what I found looking through the archives about LIberia discussions and alternates. I thought of Namibia, and I suppose it's possible some could go there, but I think maybe more that relations with the natives whill just be better here, since I don't seem to find any problems with the emigrants to Sierra Leone practicing slavery.
Of course, there will be qquite a few going to Louisiana, too, and to Texas, so while there is more money to send at least a few more to Liberia, there won't be that much more and not that many more going.
Tensions continued to flare. A variety of lawsuits and complaints between states showed some – especially South Carolina – had incredible aversions to emancipation. Most figured slaves would buy their freedom with this “compensation for loss of future interest,” and this led some state to start pushing their citizens to sell their slaves back north or to void sales to avoid such a fiasco. Franklin governor Nathaniel Beverley Tucker(1) is said to have carried on correspondences with prominent leaders about this and about his desire for states to retain their freedom from Federal control, even from the courts. He is said to have encouraged Tyler to announce his “neutrality,” though Tyler would not lead secession himself unless there was no other option. He was already despised by some for declaring the neutrality of his state.
Not that it mattered much. A group of South Carolina soldiers – numbers vary from a dozen to about 50 – were allowed to march through North Carolina by what were known as “fire eaters” and entered Virginia. They were there to enforce some contracts to hold auctions which were supposedly reneged on by Virginia planters after the court ruling, though also to pressure the Richmond government to rescind their decision to emancipate and “remove the fugure interest.” Virginian Edmund Ruffin(2) supported them. A clash ensued, and President Crockett glumly sent Tyler a message saying, “I’ll support you with troops if you want.”
Instead, Virginia and South Carolina ended up with their militias sparring. North Carolina joined South Carolina, and even Georgia did, though their nullification governor had been thrown out of office in favor of one who was more pro-Union. South Carolina sent more troops Richmond, with the intense anger of some owners causing the Virginians to insist that they should suspend their emancipation.
Add to this the problem of Southern Congressmen insisting they needed to attack Cuba to get more slave territory, and Crockett had major problems.
He sent Scott through the Cumberland Gap, as 1834 wound down, and Scott sent troops into North Carolina (whose Governor Swain quickly switched sides to avoid a conflict)(3) and Georgia while his main force marched straight for Columbia, South Carolina. The U.S. Navy also went into Charleston, threatening to attack.
Meanwhile, Zachary Taylor marched into his home state of Franklin and toward the capital. Much to his surprise, his troops almost accidentally fired on their own forces as Andrew Jackson and his men arrived from Memphis. He’d gotten wind of the problems and advanced. “All right, what are we doing?” he asked point blank as Taylor rode up to chastise him.
After a few minutes of arguing, Taylor decided that Jackson’s men were few in number and – as long as he placed one of his own men over them, instead of the elderly but still ornery Jackson – they could be joined to his army. He suggested that they march toward the capital just in case there were problems, and ordered Jackson to stay right with him where he could keep an eye on him. He knew Governor Tucker had threatened secession, as had Quitman in Mississippi.
It was later written by historians that, “The fact that Andrew Jackson’s men’s presence didn’t distract anyone shows how little of a problem there was. A few states had declared war on each other, but Crockett’s use of mostly Southern commanders and his rapid response kept things from getting too heated; there hadn’t been time for states to band together for forty to make their own country, or even to rally the people to their side; Federal forces received very little grief because they tried to leave everything and everyone alone.”
The show of Federal force worked. The Fire Eaters stopped their rhetoric and promised to abide by Federal laws and the Supreme Court’s ruling, as long as some agreements could be worked out regarding how such slaves were to be compensated, including possibly cancelling all auctions and forbidding slves from being sold out of state, which some considered.
Crockett also earned praise for letting Virginians fight their own war. Virginia’s forces wiped out the South Carolina regiment which had attacked. One of the fighters of note was a young Lieutenant named Robert E. Lee, who helped with a brilliant defensive stand after turning down an appointment to Washington in case something broke out in Virginia. He was rewarded for this, but considered foolish when he wanted to chase the “no good invaders” back to Columbia. Quitman’s popularity was sharply declining. He would be out of office soon.
The young Crockett, not quite 50, had been tested in a way an older man like Adams or Jackson – or even Clay – might not have been. He hadn’t blinked; instead, the South had. But, now what would he do to ensure nothing else bad happened?
He considered that what had happened to the Indians in the early 1820s – indeed, even before with the state militias fighting them – was happening to the slaves. Just as state militias had been used to destroy the Civilized Tribes, states had used them for nefarious means, to support something they saw as right when the rest of the world increasingly knew it as wrong.
He addressed the incoming Congress on March 4, 1835. He told them the time had come to consider whether Virginia’s example might be used again. “I do not ask as a monarch insisting upon something, not even as Queen Charlotte of late. I only suggest that a policy of gradual emancipation can work throughout the South, with the states conferring to determine what their plan will be, rather than having a bunch of individual and distinct plans to emancipate. As you go to your own districts until we meet again later this year, I ask you in Southern states to consider that the terrible pain and effort might be best avoided through a national plan, or if your own states would be better off doing it themselves.”
Crockett won re-election in 1836, defeating William Henry Harrison. However, the economy was still down some because of the confusion surrounding the Supreme Court ruling. Instead of destroying the Bank like Jackson had tried, since Clay renewed it for 10 years in 1832, Crockett allowed for state banks to be chartered but required a certain level of reserve and tried a variety of means that would allow Federal backing without the highly elitist control.(4)
A few other states began to gradually abolish slavery, too, with Kentucky, Tennessee, and North Carolina doing so – the last of these had been spooked by the fact that lots of their owners also might need to compensate the Freedmen now. A fair number were freeing their slaves themselves because of it.
It ws in this atmosphere that Daniel Webster proposed a plan for national emancipation late in 1835. It would use funds from the bank to compensate slaveholders. Henry Clay tried to modify it in his position in the House – he argued that this was a good move now before prices declined further, but that more funds should be spent on the African colony of Liberia. A few wanted to try to see how the Freedmen could live among whites; in the South.
Still others proposed the West, where Aaron Burr praised the fact that, as he put it, “I may not see the complete end, but I have lived to see the beginning of the end of that horrible institution, and I am proud to have created a place where they may live freely.”
Burr had carved out a legacy equaled by few in any other state. He had become a firm believer in the rights of Freedmen to vote, regardless of race. His “true universal suffrage over age 21” law in 1834 was possibly the first of its kind in the world. He was showing people it could be done. Louisiana and the territory of Texas, which was rapidly becoming ready to be admitted as a state – it would be in 1836, a year before Michigan - seemed like possible closer locations for the Freedmen.
Though more went to Louisiana and even Texas than Liberia, Burr’s focus on education was crucial, just as it had been for those he’d brought from South Carolina in the 1810s with the intent of developing a town. While they believed in quality of the races, they had to unlearn idea like enslaving others like the Southerners had done. That and the death rates once they got into the swampier areas taught some important lessons about what was needed before the Liberia settlement began. Diseases couldn’t be helped, but they could try to find other spots. As for self-government and learning to get along with the natives and educate them, they did so, somewhat following the British plan, too, and it caused much less tension where they went.(5)
John Calhoun’s and other South Carolinians’ insistence upon avoiding any legislation to do with slavery doomed them in the end. Some said they, and a few other states, could have banded together to agree to end slavery and pushed things out 25 or 30 years. However, Calhoun and others weren’t even willing to try that. And, they almost surely would have had to compromise no matter what, with slavery ending by 1860 or 1865. At the latest.
Martin Van Buren had put together the New York machine very nicely, but the candidacy of a Liberty Party nominee, James Birney, cost him some votes there. He probably wouldn’t have won anyway, though, as Birney also drew votes away from the Federalist candidate.
The Federalist, now known as Republican, leader was Daniel Webster, but some thought him too radical, too unwilling to compromise after 8 years of pretty good rule by the “common man’s candidate,” Crockett. He was surely a lot better than Jackson had been, so it would be harder to defeat Van Buren. Former President Clay was considered, as were John Sergeant, Theodore Frelinghuysen, and Justice John McLean.
-----------------------------------------
(1) Moved to Missouri before 1820 and then returned in 1833 to Virginia; here with a different Franklin state it’s easier for him to stay.
(2) Like Tucker, a noted early fire-eater.
(3) He was a delegate to the convention which seceded in 1861 but declined to serve, and then helped negotiate the surrender of his state in 1865. A quick surrender to save his state from troops who are really entering with no orders to destroy is plausible for the young governor..
(4) Though for different reasons (railroads) the Panic of 1857 came partly from the Dred Scott case decision. Here, the downturn is felt most in the South, though there is some normal economic ebb and flow elsewhere. Jackson’s main problem of OTL is lacking here, though, because the Bank is still around till 1843 and state banks require a reserve, which was not the case when they were allowed to form OTL, thus helping lead to the Panic of 1837.
(5) Both problems of OTL Liberia. Since it’s a benevolent society which is sending them to Africa, some do listen when told what will be needed to help the former slaves learn to govern themselves, and in turn how to teach the natives how to do so. It won’t improve Liberia *that* much, but it will some.
I thought with better relations with Britain there might be a chance for the British to help them find another spot, but there weren't that many, according to what I found looking through the archives about LIberia discussions and alternates. I thought of Namibia, and I suppose it's possible some could go there, but I think maybe more that relations with the natives whill just be better here, since I don't seem to find any problems with the emigrants to Sierra Leone practicing slavery.
Of course, there will be qquite a few going to Louisiana, too, and to Texas, so while there is more money to send at least a few more to Liberia, there won't be that much more and not that many more going.
We interrupt this timeline to bring you the following...
Apparently, though Barvaria was a kingdom versus others being just Duchies and thigns, at least one person has said it's not realistic to have them have the Rhineland or the Ruhr Valley. (Apparently now that I read, the one time their leader was Holy Roman Emperor was kind of a fluke.) Who has the Rhine hasn't really impacted things yet, so there won't be much retconning that needs done. However, it will soon, as we gear up for sections on the events of 1848.
What was suggested was that Austria get them and that the Holy roman Empire be reformed. I hadn't thought of that - it didn't happen after OTL's Congress of Vienna, but that was 9 years later versus just 4. Austria has just been dealt 2 crushing blows while Prussia was dealt one and was neutral otherwise and had signed a treaty with Napoleon, whereas Austria was with Britain from the start agaisnt Napoleon.
I suppose one other thought is to give Prussia part of it, then have them lose to Austria later.
So, I'm starting a poll to see what should be done, just as I did about which Bonaparte should reign.
Apparently, though Barvaria was a kingdom versus others being just Duchies and thigns, at least one person has said it's not realistic to have them have the Rhineland or the Ruhr Valley. (Apparently now that I read, the one time their leader was Holy Roman Emperor was kind of a fluke.) Who has the Rhine hasn't really impacted things yet, so there won't be much retconning that needs done. However, it will soon, as we gear up for sections on the events of 1848.
What was suggested was that Austria get them and that the Holy roman Empire be reformed. I hadn't thought of that - it didn't happen after OTL's Congress of Vienna, but that was 9 years later versus just 4. Austria has just been dealt 2 crushing blows while Prussia was dealt one and was neutral otherwise and had signed a treaty with Napoleon, whereas Austria was with Britain from the start agaisnt Napoleon.
I suppose one other thought is to give Prussia part of it, then have them lose to Austria later.
So, I'm starting a poll to see what should be done, just as I did about which Bonaparte should reign.
A brief note before Part 32
Okay, only parts 15, I think 18, 27 and 28 needed tweaked. I said in the beginning it started mostly centered ont he U.S., and it shows. It's nice that the board gives us 2 weeks to edit (as it should witht he nature of what we do with timelines.)
Anyway, polling looks like Prussia is going to get the Rhine, which will make the events of 1850 more itneresting and more closely matched. The Dutch get the cape back instead of the French islands, which are reverted to France as per OTL. (I'm ashamed to say I probably would have writtent hat to begin with but I'd forgotten the Cape was Dutch before the 1800s
But that's looking ahead a bit.
Okay, only parts 15, I think 18, 27 and 28 needed tweaked. I said in the beginning it started mostly centered ont he U.S., and it shows.
It's nice that the board gives us 2 weeks to edit (as it should witht he nature of what we do with timelines.)Anyway, polling looks like Prussia is going to get the Rhine, which will make the events of 1850 more itneresting and more closely matched. The Dutch get the cape back instead of the French islands, which are reverted to France as per OTL. (I'm ashamed to say I probably would have writtent hat to begin with but I'd forgotten the Cape was Dutch before the 1800s
But that's looking ahead a bit.
Now, part 32
Part 32: The 1840s in the United States - Recovery and Reform
Whig goals in 1840 were as follows: Go from gradual abolition by a few states with different plans to a firm plan to end slavery in the U.S.; defeat incumbent Vice President Martin Van Buren; work a compromise that will not allow Bank of the United States - whose charter ends in 1843 – to remain oligarchical, but to slowly dissolve it (even if this means chartering it for only 10 more years and not 20); and, encourage Western settlement, especially by Freedmen, with education of them encouraged to be done by states themselves.
Of course, there were Whigs on extreme ends of this – some wished to extend the Bank a full 20 years, like Webster, while others wanted to drastically slow the eventual end of slavery, like Harrison. Still, most favored compromise. They realized that as much as Crockett was seen as a “man of the people,” Van Buren was a New Yorker who could be painted as aristocratic. And, even Webster might be willing to compromise on the Bank. He’d have Clay in the Senate if he didn’t become President again. On the other hand, Clay was a former president and well respected. While the turmoil that spelled the end of his term had hurt him, history was now looking on him a little more kindly, and his stock would rise further.(1)
Others suggested “favorite son” candidates who would follow the Party line pretty much. Ohio had three – Justice McLean, Congressman Samuel Vinton, and former governor Allen Trimble, who had retired but said if nominated, he would run, as long as his party of Ohio felt he was the best candidate – same with Indiana’s William Hendricks, a good Vice President for someone from the East. New Jersey had Theodore Frelinghuysen. New York had Francis Granger. Pennsylvania offered John Sergeant or Richard Rush.
McLean seemed viable because – as a Supreme Court Justice – he’d ruled against slavery but also said states couldn’t refuse to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. He would perhaps be very helpful in drafting an amendment which would bring together what were now four different states which were ending slavery, as well as laws which would curtail the growing number of lawsuits that arose out of the expectation which the Court had developed in the Nat Turner decision. People had – even before that decision – sued to get custody of children of theirs who were born free but sold illegally,(2) so a great deal of confusion existed.
In the center of it all, South Carolina’s John Calhoun, a Democrat, fumed. He could see the end coming; even he was starting to think it unavoidable, he just hoped he could stretch it out for a long time, rather than debate how or whether to educate the multitudes as Northerners and Upper South resident did. The influx had seen the price drop, and what he’d seen as wealth was disappearing. Not only that, but what would the planters do now that an even greater percentage of the state would be black? He had friends in the state legislature who called on the slave deals to be voided, with slaves sent back north, or for slaves to simply be sold to owners back north while they could be.
With a Northerner selected as its Presidential candidate, some had though William L. White would make a good balance on the ticket, but he’d died early in 1840; if Clay were selected, Granger or Frelinghuysen would be best, they said. Without White, some considered a Virginian, former governors James Barbour or John Tyler. Tyler’s fierce independence and states’ rights statements during the crisis made him seem too much like a Democrat, though, so the aging Barbour was likely the best one, due to his passionate speaking. He could always just promise to serve one term, like Pinckney had for Jackson.
In the end, Daniel Webster was nominated for President, and Thomas Metcalfe of Kentucky for Vice President. Another man, like Clinton, who had paid for internal improvements without Federal help – Metcalfe did so out of his own funds – he would make an excellent example for those who didn’t want the Federal government involved in every project. He wasn’t hard core for or against slavery, so he would work with Webster if Webster were chosen to accomplish what was desired.
Webster won the election. President Crockett had already been speaking of the need to end slavery so as to end the divisiveness that it was creating; discussing had begun in Congress as well. Still, the Webster administration would end it, if not in 1841 then soon. Without one party able to say with certainty they had ended it, there would be less bitterness.
The 1840s was an era of reform. President Webster stated as much when he remarked in his Inaugural Address, “…I have in the past been very elitist. While I make no apologies for wanting those I feel are best qualified to run our country to do so, I will not turn back the clock on suffrage… Rather, I intend to make mine an administration that turns the clock forward, to where America can prosper wholly free. If that includes negotiations with Southerners on the facts surrounding the Bank as the charter comes up for renewal, so be it, we have done well in providing states with the resources…”(3)
Webster had been helped by the fact that Van Buren planned just about the same thing; he would just do it more quickly and through the Federal government. As he stated further:
“All but the most reactionary of Southerners realizes that slavery is dying. Differing methods of abolition have led to extreme conflicts between the states. While my opponent believed that – if negotiations failed – a Constitutional Convention could and would be called, I feel it is the job of the Federal government to do that which is proper…”
For the first time ever after an election, the new Congress remained in session pretty much through the year. Finally, late in 1841, the Thirteenth Amendment was sent to the states. Among other things, it abolished slavery in all states or territories within five years of passage, freeing all slaves under 18 the day of passage. Democrat Thomas Hart Benton consistently made passionate pleas against slavery, as he had for several years.(4) Though he had originally supported Van Buren, and still loathed the Bank, he was willing to go along with the Republicans in 1841 for the sake of national unity; Clay utilized him as a co-sponsor of several measures related to this in order to make it a bipartisan effort.
Twenty of 26 states were needed. The last state required to pass the amendment did so on December 7, 1842. December 7, 1847 would be remembered fondly from then on, along with President Webster’s famous speech which began, “December seventh, 1847, a date which will live forever in glorious splendor.” With slavery ending shortly before 1848 and a convention on Womens’ Suffrage coming in 1848 as well, given events in Europe, there were quite a few who noted the ease of peaceful government in the United States versus that of the nations of Continental Europe, where there was lots of upheaval.
We’ll get to that once we examine what happened after the Webster Presidency and American culture in 1850.
---------------------------------------
(1) Think Truman from OTL, though Clay wasn’t as unpopular in 1832 as Truman in OTL’s 1952. The point is that both men had things happen in their Presidencies that people looking back can see were hard to avoid or do better at, whereas at the time people were much more critical of their handling of the Presidency.
(2) The woman who would become Sojourner Truth, Isabella Baumfree, did so in OTL; it would be more common here. She may or may not have needed to do so in TTL, but she will make an appearance, though with her given nme.
(3) OTL, Webster hadn’t yet compromised on slavery, and only did so in 1850 to preserve the Union. Here, there is no danger and so he would keep his stance against slavery, but this shows he is somewhat malleable, though of course once he is actually in office it may be different. However, some compromise would come where he sees it necessary to keep the Union going. He was extremely steadfast against slavery OTL, so it appears likely he would give a little to end it.
(4) Seeing its decline, he feels freer to move against it and does so faster than OTL.
Part 32: The 1840s in the United States - Recovery and Reform
Whig goals in 1840 were as follows: Go from gradual abolition by a few states with different plans to a firm plan to end slavery in the U.S.; defeat incumbent Vice President Martin Van Buren; work a compromise that will not allow Bank of the United States - whose charter ends in 1843 – to remain oligarchical, but to slowly dissolve it (even if this means chartering it for only 10 more years and not 20); and, encourage Western settlement, especially by Freedmen, with education of them encouraged to be done by states themselves.
Of course, there were Whigs on extreme ends of this – some wished to extend the Bank a full 20 years, like Webster, while others wanted to drastically slow the eventual end of slavery, like Harrison. Still, most favored compromise. They realized that as much as Crockett was seen as a “man of the people,” Van Buren was a New Yorker who could be painted as aristocratic. And, even Webster might be willing to compromise on the Bank. He’d have Clay in the Senate if he didn’t become President again. On the other hand, Clay was a former president and well respected. While the turmoil that spelled the end of his term had hurt him, history was now looking on him a little more kindly, and his stock would rise further.(1)
Others suggested “favorite son” candidates who would follow the Party line pretty much. Ohio had three – Justice McLean, Congressman Samuel Vinton, and former governor Allen Trimble, who had retired but said if nominated, he would run, as long as his party of Ohio felt he was the best candidate – same with Indiana’s William Hendricks, a good Vice President for someone from the East. New Jersey had Theodore Frelinghuysen. New York had Francis Granger. Pennsylvania offered John Sergeant or Richard Rush.
McLean seemed viable because – as a Supreme Court Justice – he’d ruled against slavery but also said states couldn’t refuse to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. He would perhaps be very helpful in drafting an amendment which would bring together what were now four different states which were ending slavery, as well as laws which would curtail the growing number of lawsuits that arose out of the expectation which the Court had developed in the Nat Turner decision. People had – even before that decision – sued to get custody of children of theirs who were born free but sold illegally,(2) so a great deal of confusion existed.
In the center of it all, South Carolina’s John Calhoun, a Democrat, fumed. He could see the end coming; even he was starting to think it unavoidable, he just hoped he could stretch it out for a long time, rather than debate how or whether to educate the multitudes as Northerners and Upper South resident did. The influx had seen the price drop, and what he’d seen as wealth was disappearing. Not only that, but what would the planters do now that an even greater percentage of the state would be black? He had friends in the state legislature who called on the slave deals to be voided, with slaves sent back north, or for slaves to simply be sold to owners back north while they could be.
With a Northerner selected as its Presidential candidate, some had though William L. White would make a good balance on the ticket, but he’d died early in 1840; if Clay were selected, Granger or Frelinghuysen would be best, they said. Without White, some considered a Virginian, former governors James Barbour or John Tyler. Tyler’s fierce independence and states’ rights statements during the crisis made him seem too much like a Democrat, though, so the aging Barbour was likely the best one, due to his passionate speaking. He could always just promise to serve one term, like Pinckney had for Jackson.
In the end, Daniel Webster was nominated for President, and Thomas Metcalfe of Kentucky for Vice President. Another man, like Clinton, who had paid for internal improvements without Federal help – Metcalfe did so out of his own funds – he would make an excellent example for those who didn’t want the Federal government involved in every project. He wasn’t hard core for or against slavery, so he would work with Webster if Webster were chosen to accomplish what was desired.
Webster won the election. President Crockett had already been speaking of the need to end slavery so as to end the divisiveness that it was creating; discussing had begun in Congress as well. Still, the Webster administration would end it, if not in 1841 then soon. Without one party able to say with certainty they had ended it, there would be less bitterness.
The 1840s was an era of reform. President Webster stated as much when he remarked in his Inaugural Address, “…I have in the past been very elitist. While I make no apologies for wanting those I feel are best qualified to run our country to do so, I will not turn back the clock on suffrage… Rather, I intend to make mine an administration that turns the clock forward, to where America can prosper wholly free. If that includes negotiations with Southerners on the facts surrounding the Bank as the charter comes up for renewal, so be it, we have done well in providing states with the resources…”(3)
Webster had been helped by the fact that Van Buren planned just about the same thing; he would just do it more quickly and through the Federal government. As he stated further:
“All but the most reactionary of Southerners realizes that slavery is dying. Differing methods of abolition have led to extreme conflicts between the states. While my opponent believed that – if negotiations failed – a Constitutional Convention could and would be called, I feel it is the job of the Federal government to do that which is proper…”
For the first time ever after an election, the new Congress remained in session pretty much through the year. Finally, late in 1841, the Thirteenth Amendment was sent to the states. Among other things, it abolished slavery in all states or territories within five years of passage, freeing all slaves under 18 the day of passage. Democrat Thomas Hart Benton consistently made passionate pleas against slavery, as he had for several years.(4) Though he had originally supported Van Buren, and still loathed the Bank, he was willing to go along with the Republicans in 1841 for the sake of national unity; Clay utilized him as a co-sponsor of several measures related to this in order to make it a bipartisan effort.
Twenty of 26 states were needed. The last state required to pass the amendment did so on December 7, 1842. December 7, 1847 would be remembered fondly from then on, along with President Webster’s famous speech which began, “December seventh, 1847, a date which will live forever in glorious splendor.” With slavery ending shortly before 1848 and a convention on Womens’ Suffrage coming in 1848 as well, given events in Europe, there were quite a few who noted the ease of peaceful government in the United States versus that of the nations of Continental Europe, where there was lots of upheaval.
We’ll get to that once we examine what happened after the Webster Presidency and American culture in 1850.
---------------------------------------
(1) Think Truman from OTL, though Clay wasn’t as unpopular in 1832 as Truman in OTL’s 1952. The point is that both men had things happen in their Presidencies that people looking back can see were hard to avoid or do better at, whereas at the time people were much more critical of their handling of the Presidency.
(2) The woman who would become Sojourner Truth, Isabella Baumfree, did so in OTL; it would be more common here. She may or may not have needed to do so in TTL, but she will make an appearance, though with her given nme.
(3) OTL, Webster hadn’t yet compromised on slavery, and only did so in 1850 to preserve the Union. Here, there is no danger and so he would keep his stance against slavery, but this shows he is somewhat malleable, though of course once he is actually in office it may be different. However, some compromise would come where he sees it necessary to keep the Union going. He was extremely steadfast against slavery OTL, so it appears likely he would give a little to end it.
(4) Seeing its decline, he feels freer to move against it and does so faster than OTL.
Just wanted to let y'all know there's a poll on the end of the Erfurt War, but for now, the last post for a few on the U.S. in 1850 will be coming. Then, perhaps one to focus on the rest of the world in 1850. I have some ideas on a few places, but sadly, not on Latin America. I figure they're a bit more stable, though, especially in Mexico and Haiti with mroe money. If anyone has ideas let me know.