List alternate PMs or Presidents

[Japhy]

Responses to "The Long Decline"

Thanks All, I do appreciate the positive reviews really. I'll warn you all though that the result of this project --- for which the list is simply Deep Background and might still be Jeopardized if I can make up my mind --- is at its core, just a detective story.

A few responses to sidelines though.

Works fine. Nice work, Japhy. Btw, how is your TLIAD coming along?

Well admittedly that one posters "Its going to be a week now..." comment rather annoyed me, which is why I haven't jumped right back into it. The main problem otherwise is that its not really a TLIAD due to the fact that I'm an oaf who can't be bothered to actually contain my updates to be a nice simple TLIAD length. I should ask a mod to retitle it for me. Its going to keep on going though, being as it is going to be rather short. One just has to keep it in mind when I start doing another one.

Very nice list, very inventive. It's rare to have that amount of constitutional upheaval in a US list.

I have to decline the request for help with the off-board project you discussed, btw, in PM, I'm simply too busy working on my own things* - though I'm sure the others could perhaps help.

*(Seriously - at the moment I'm working on two things on here, a review, and a database)

Hey, honestly don't worry. Everyone's got their own stuff, and like I said in the message, the project isn't my baby (I'd have come up with a better name than that project for one ), if you're ever interested in stopping in and telling everyone they're idiots that'd be good though.

OK, it's working now. Very original idea, that POD is definitely an example of "stranger than fiction" and it's a good way to prise the lid off of the "constitutional iffiness" in the Civil War period and send it all the way into full-blown institutional instability. I imagine there being substantial global effects with the American system viewed less favourably and less immigration to the US from people who saw it as a way of escaping war and conscription OTL -- though still plenty from those who see it as a volatile land of opportunity in which they can pursue their own political ideals.

The Turkey-style position of the armed forces in these constitutional setups is not going to end well.

Really interesting Japhy, it's nice to see the US go down the same path as its southern neighbours.

On both of these, first off Thande has a great point about "constitutional iffiness", a lot of what Lincoln had to do at the time was tantamount to dictatorship, but he knew his limits and made sure to get it post facto approved by Congress. He was one of the few figures in history where "Emergency Powers" actually meant that and the country was rather lucky that he didn't go completely down that easy path to victory, and that after the disfunction of the Johnson years that Congress didn't impeach the president (Some fellow on the site years ago started a long abandoned and possibly only one update Timeline where Congress gets rid of Johnson which set the stage for "Congressional Czars" to dominate the country for years to come, which seems possible) and then that President Grant on taking office made sure that things would be strictly constitutional.

But even after that there was years of paramilitary violence in the south, another round of coups against the elected governments down there, and in 1876 that lovely moment where George McClellan called for raising an Army in New York and marching on Washington. Many people by limiting their study of the era to the Civil War itself miss just how shoddy the foundations of the Government got between 1850 and 1877.

Also I find it interesting that you guys cite Turkey and Latin America as analogs, I've also been told Japan seems close, and with the Army and the rapid-fire elections I was aiming more towards an Americanized Weimar. I will though take the various ideas as a good thing, because I do prefer to have things be more original than a straightforward analogy --- at least when dealing with an original project, I certainly do enjoy the convergence lists that happen here.

 

[CanadianTory]

Japhy, I'd love to see you attempt a Canadian list.

 

[Japhy]

Self-satire of the PMs list thread is probably this site's /r/circlejerk.

Just wait, now I'm going to have to satirize one of my own lists. Let the navel gazing begin!

Seconded, it was very well put. In hindsight the list is very flawed and I'll take that on board when writing in the future.

I think the south Dakota thing was a coincidence on my part stemming from a lack of knowledge of US politics. I may yet go back and revise it and I'll definitely take it into account if I do the same for Prime Ministers/ UK government

Well I'm glad you're taking this is stride. I don't, and I don't think anyone else meant to be harsh on you. You've just joined this little corner of the site (Or apparantly, this Mastabatorium) and we're always glad to have new folks join the club. The real issue isn't you, its just that there have been quite a few FH lists posted in this thread, and this temporal stasis thing (Glad we finally have a name for it!) is just very common in them, either that or made-up folks with no story given.

And Bias as far as states go is a pretty common thing, I'm pretty sure most folks here would admit that they have them, I for one probably overuse New York politicians like there's no end in sight. Its not a bad thing, though having two congressional candidates that ran against each other getting into the White House only ever happened once before so that might be pushing it.

Japhy, I'd love to see you attempt a Canadian list.

I don't think I have anything to offer on that front, besides a vague idea of having Bonar Law being PM over there rather than in London. I think my foray into British PM's was enough to show that I really don't have the depth of knowledge to go too deep into other countries leadership like I can with Americans.

 

[CanadianTory]

I don't think I have anything to offer on that front, besides a vague idea of having Bonar Law being PM over there rather than in London. I think my foray into British PM's was enough to show that I really don't have the depth of knowledge to go too deep into other countries leadership like I can with Americans.

Give it some thought! I'm sure you'd have a blast learning about Canadian politics. But hey, it's up to you.

 

[nezza]

The Rise and Fall Of Bennery

1975-1977 Tony Benn Labour 1
1977-1978 Margaret Thatcher Conservative 2
1978-1981 Michael Foot Labour/SDP Coalition 3

1-The no camp wins the EEC referendum. Wilson resigns as PM. The pro-marketeers are seen as liabilities by the membership. Benn becomes PM with Foot as Chancellor

2-The 1976 sterling crisis lead to the Benn government introducing an Alternative Economic Strategy.

The £ collapses. Union power explodes. Healey resigns as Foreign Secretary and along with 39 other Labour MP's forms the SDP

Thatcher calls a no-confidence motion. The SDP abstains and the Tories win the ensuing election

Unions revolt agains Tory plans to curtail union power. A general strike begins, the first in 50 years. Labour and the SDP call a no confidence motion which they win

3 Foot becomes PM of a Labour/SDP government with Healey as Deputy PM and Chancellor

 

[Thande]

Give the idea a go, that's the point of TLIADs really.

I see what you mean, but Cordelia Gummer isn't really a dynastic reference - it's a joke about how someone in 1992 would know about John Gummer's daughter because he fed her a burger on TV aged 4.

I get it now.

Well, I don't think I have enough material for a TLIAD, but here's what I was thinking (BTW, this is my attempt at doing a "Japhy-style" list for the UK: 19th century setting, obscure POD, butterfly net on most foreign affairs to focus on the domestic).

List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom
1841-1843: Sir Robert Peel† (Tory "Conservative") [1]
1843-1843: Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington (Tory) [2]
1843-1846: Sir James Graham, 2nd Bt (Tory "Moderate") [3]
1846-1848: Lord John Russell (Whig) [4]
1848-1850: Sir James Graham, 2nd Bt (Moderate) [5]
1850-1853: Lord John Russell (Liberal) [6]
1853-1857: Sir James Graham, 2nd Bt (Moderate) [7]
1857-1864: Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston (Constitutionalist) [8]
1864-1864: James Bruce, 8th Earl of Elgin (Constitutionalist) [9]
1864-1866: Lord John Russell (Liberal) [10]
1866-1870: Sir George Grey (Liberal) [11]
1870-????: Benjamin Disraeli (Moderate) [12]



[1] Peel's promising career was cut cruelly short by his assassination at the hands of Daniel McNaughton in 1843.[A] He called himself a Conservative rather than a Tory, but as this newfangled rebranding failed to catch on, this is no more taken into account by most historical lists than William Pitt calling himself a Reform Whig. Peel was still somewhat popular and was mostly mourned by the country, unlike the cheers in the street that had greeted the news of the assassination of Spencer Perceval.

[2] Peel's death threw the government into chaos. Although the Whig-leaning Queen harboured optimistic ideas that Lord Melbourne might return to power in the face of a divided Conservative Party, she was dissuaded from such notions in favour of appointing a caretaker Conservative PM. The Duke of Wellington agreed to take on the role with great reluctance, as he had once before when Peel had been unavailable. Wellington had no appetite for post-Reform Act frontline politics and was aware that his previous premiership had damaged his wartime reputation. He served for six months while Parliament wrangled over who might succeed Peel permanently, and resigned after a press outcry when troops were used (not actually at Wellington's orders) to suppress a Chartist demonstration.

[3] Sir James Graham became PM as the "least worst option", trying to direct a moderate course between the factions in the Tories (indeed, trying to rebrand them once again but with the "Moderate" label of the "Derby Dilly" group of which he was a member). Despite this, the fact that he had defected from the Whigs and was remembered for giving a speech in which he declared he would never do so undermined his authority. The issue of the Corn Laws rose to precedence with the Great Famine of 1845, with the Tories violently split on free trade versus protectionism. Graham tried to hold it together with his characteristically moderate course, favouring limited reform to the tariffs but opposing free trade. Enough Tory MPs led by the Earl of Aberdeen broke with him that the government was defeated and a fresh election held.

[4] The Whigs won more seats than the Tories even if one included the small rebel 'Aberdeenite' faction as part of the Tories. However they still lacked a majority in their own right and Russell formed a 'broad-bottomed government' with some Aberdeenites and some members of the Independent Irish Party (aka the Irish Brigade); the latter split, with some refusing to support the government. Russell's government lasted a few years, with a major area of controversy being the Maynooth Grant. As part of his agreement with the IIP, Russell increased the stipend that the British government gave to a Catholic seminary in Ireland.[C] A few Whigs left the government in protest, but not enough to sufficiently deplete the government's majority, especially as the Queen supported the move. However this issue caused the remaining Aberdeenites to choose sides: many, including Aberdeen himself, went over to the Whigs, while some, including William Ewart Gladstone, returned to the Tories (or "Moderates"; Graham's rebrand had caught on). Gladstone favoured free trade and had considered joining with the Whigs, but strongly opposed the Maynooth Grant[D] and decided that Graham's lukewarm position was not unacceptably anti-free trade for him to serve under.[E] Russell's government finally fell over the 1848 revolutions in Europe, with Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston having secretly supported many of the revolutionaries against the wishes of the Queen and Russell himself. Palmerston was forced to resign, but took a significant number of supporters with him (the "Pamistas", so named as a reference to Palmerston’s foreign policy role and the then-contemporary Carlistas in Spain and Miguelistas in Portugal). The “Pamistas” voted with the Moderate opposition to bring down the government, which fell in the middle of the ongoing Spring of Nations. A fresh election was called.

[5] Graham was returned to power in 1848 due to fear from many voters (the franchise still heavily restricted) of revolutionary activity. However, some voters in the Radical interest within the Whigs became swept up in the revolutionary fervour and elected 7 Chartist MPs instead.[F] The shock of this led to calls for martial law and the disqualification of the Chartist MPs from some, and calls for moderate reform to head off a European-style revolution from others. These included Leader of the Opposition Lord John Russell. After some hemming and hawing, Graham came out in favour of reform himself: he had worked with Russell on the original Reform Act in 1832 and had privately supported widening the franchise for a while. In this he was supported by both his Chancellor, William Gladstone, and his President of the Board of Trade, Benjamin Disraeli. The junior nature of many of Graham’s ministers led to his government becoming known as the “Who? Who? Ministry” when the ageing Duke of Wellington called out “Who? Who?” in response to the names of the ministers being revealed.[G] However this move horrified many of the more conservative members in both the Whigs and Moderates (the latter being those who still identified as Tories). These naysayers found a voice in Lord Palmerston, who somehow managed to combine a strident opposition to Reform with being wildly popular with the common people.[H] Many of the naysayers remained grumbling backbenchers, but others joined with the “Pamistas” to form an Anti-Reform Bloc that called itself the “Defenders of the Constitution” and met at the new Constitution Club in London, in contrast to the Moderate White’s club and Whig Brooks’ club. Graham and Russell temporarily joined forces to create and pass a Second Reform Act that would equalise the county and borough franchises, add a few more urban seats, and reapportion the Irish seats which still suffered from many of the same problems that the Great British seats had before 1832. After its passage, Graham continued in a minority Moderate government for two years before the government became untenable and a fresh election was called. In this time, Russell rebranded his party as the Liberals (sometimes the “Reform Liberals”), able to absorb the Independent Irish Party.

[6] The 1850 election did not produce the decisive result one way or the other that Russell and Graham had hoped for. Despite the broadened franchise, Palmerston’s popularity meant that the anti-reform Constitutionalists still won almost 100 seats. Some of the newly enfranchised middle-class and upper working-class voters were content with the reform and supported Graham or Russell, but others remained loyal to the Chartists and elected 39 Chartist MPs. The result was a messily hung parliament in which, in truth, Graham’s Moderates and Russell’s Liberals were probably closer to each other than to either of the two smaller parties, but neither was willing to commit to a broad-bottomed “Ministry of All the Talents”, as the Queen suggested: both suspected this would only strengthen Palmerston. In the end Russell formed a minority government as unstable as Graham’s previous one, relying on intermittent Chartist and Moderate support to pass bills.

[7] Russia’s invasion of the Danubian Principalities in 1857 led to the outbreak of the Crimean War, with Russell attempting to put together an Anglo-French coalition with a measured response but failing in the face of staunch refusal from the Chartists to support a war. The government fell. Palmerston announced that he would support any government that would make him Foreign Secretary and Secretary at War, allowing him to conduct the conflict. Russell refused, but with some misgivings, Graham agreed, both he and the Queen believing it sufficiently important to ensure a strong response to Russian aggression to overcome their dislike of Palmerston. A broad-bottomed government between the Moderates and Constitutionalists was put together, negotiated in part by the ageing Col Charles de Laet Waldo Sibthorp, favourite target of Punch and an ultra-Tory who had joined with Palmerston in the Constitutionalists but retained many old contacts in the Moderates. Palmerston conducted the war well and pushed on when many had called for a negotiated peace, with the result that his ambitious war aim was achieved of not only throwing the Russians out of the Danubian Principalities, but also reclaiming the Crimea for the Ottoman Empire and humiliating the Tsar.[J] The parliamentary term ran out shortly after the war concluded with the Treaty of Paris and Graham hoped that being PM during the war would help him. However, he had not been the most visible public figure during the war…

[8] Palmerston reaped considerable public adoration over having presided over a great military victory—with issues like the Charge of the Light Brigade tactfully swept under the bed. With calls for further reform after the Second Reform Act largely having died down and remaining restricted to the Chartists (who were reduced to single figures in the 1857 election), Palmerston was able to distance himself from the origins of his party and obtain over 300 seats on a simple message of ‘strength abroad and justice at home’. The Constitutionalists finished just short of a majority, mostly at the expense of the Liberals but also taking seats from the Moderates. Much to the Queen’s horror, Palmerston was the only realistic PM and any dream of putting together a ‘ministry of everyone else’ to scrape out a majority was unrealistic. Despite his opposition to parliamentary reform, Palmerston presided over considerable populist social justice such as factory safety measures and reducing the legal working day, much to the surprise of many of his party’s more conservative members, but he kept them in line. Palmerston continued in his aggressive foreign policy but this would not come to a head until the outbreak of the American Civil War in 1861. Palmerston supported the Confederacy, as did his party—the landowners identifying with the threatened southern gentry. As Palmerston was a lifelong opponent of slavery, this helped made support for the south more respectable in British society. He initially hesitated over recognising the Confederacy as a sovereign state, believing it to be premature, but was egged on by his Constitutionalist allies into doing so.[K] US Secretary of State William H. Seward, though stopping short of a declaration of war, declared Britain a “hostile power” and cut off American corn exports to the UK, causing a new round of food shortages. Russell and the new Moderate leader Benjamin Disraeli accused Palmerston of bringing back the still well remembered famines. Palmerston shot back with claiming that “The Americans are killing more Irishmen in their little war then the famine ever did, and one might wonder if the conflict has any attainable object other than that”.[L] In 1861 an incident with Americans boarding a British ship carrying Confederate diplomats led to Palmerston declaring war on the USA, despite the Queen’s opposition, but the death of Prince Albert emotionally shattered her and caused her to retreat from society. If Palmerston had hoped the “Third American War” [M] would be another popularity-booster like the Crimean War, he hoped wrong. Many of the mistakes of the Crimean War in outdated tactics had not yet been created, and though the Americans also made many mistakes, those they had learned on the battlefields of the war so far gave them something of an edge. A joint British-Confederate attempt to attack Washington DC in 1862 messily failed and after that it was a long slow decline for the Confederacy, the Union forces buoyed by their victory, which was particularly held up in contrast to the fall of Washington in the War of 1812. Though the Union blockade of the Confederacy mostly broke down due to victories of the Royal Navy at sea (in which HMS Warrior and HMS Black Prince played a large part) the Confederacy ultimately proved unable to stand up to Northern industrial power and collapsed. However, Palmerston had a plan B: a British colony consisting of Florida plus the southern halves of Georgia and Alabama was set up (much to the opposition of the locals) and cemented in place by freeing the slaves (despite the pro-CSA position Britain had formerly taken) and giving them administrative roles over their former masters. At the same time, British forces had seen rather more success in Canada, understandably not seen as a high priority front by the Union, and had taken back disputed territories such as the northern half of Maine and Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Many expected America to fight on, but the assassination of Abraham Lincoln in 1864 and McClellan’s victory in the ensuing presidential election took the wind out of the USA’s sails. McClellan made it clear that he did not accept the British annexation of the territories Palmerston had won but at the present, with the American government deadlocked, dysfunctional and consumed with what to do with the majority of the rebel states that had been reconquered, did nothing.

[9] Palmerston promptly died in office and left the resulting mess to his successor, Home Secretary Lord Elgin, who had only a month in office before the parliamentary term ran out.

[10] The 1864 election illustrated just how much of a one-man band the Constitutionalists had been. Without Palmerston they were reduced to double figures of MPs, many of their former members instead standing as Moderates or Liberals save for the hardcore aristocrats. Furthermore the public regarded the American intervention as a messy defeat that had cost British lives, worsened people’s lives at home due to food shortages, and did not regard Palmerston’s figleaf of a slightly weakened USA and a new British colony as worth shouting about, especially as the McClellan administration continued to refuse to ship corn to Britain except with swingeing tariffs so long as Britain would not negotiate over the lost states. Both Moderates and Liberals gained hugely in 1864, with the Chartists also winning double figures of seats again. However, the Liberals came out on top, possibly in part due to some public reluctance to vote for a party led by the ethnically Jewish Disraeli.[O] During the Palmerston years the Constitutionalists had engaged in considerable race-baiting aimed at Disraeli, despite the fact that the Confederacy also had a senior Jewish minister (Judah P. Benjamin). Disraeli nonetheless remained at the top of the Moderate Party rather than his rival Gladstone, whose reputation had been somewhat damaged by vocally supporting the Confederacy,[P] when Disraeli had wanted the Moderates to be more circumspect in contrast to Palmerston. The ageing Russell served for only two years, presiding over a further (but less far-reaching) Third Reform Act in order to secure Chartist support.

[11] Sir George Grey was a rather ‘safe’ choice to succeed Russell and, though he managed to mostly satisfy the competing interests in the party, he failed to inspire the public and was criticised for a limp response to the German unification controversies on the Continent.

[12] Disraeli came to power in part due to public shock over the French defeat in the Franco-Prussian War and the idea that Britain could be next for the new united German juggernaut. His premiership would be dominated by his intense rivalry with his Chancellor and would-be successor, William Ewart Gladstone…





[A] POD, obviously; in OTL McNaughton killed Peel's secretary instead due to not knowing what the PM looked like.
The more common term in this era for 'coalition'.
[C] In OTL Peel did this out of goodwill to try and improve Anglo-Irish relations and it was equally controversial.
[D] He resigned from Peel's government over it in OTL.
[E] Whereas the OTL Protectionist Conservative Party under Derby was too far removed from Gladstone's economic views and he left it for the Liberals.
[F] In the OTL 1847 election, the Chartists won one seat in Nottingham, the only seat they would ever hold.
[G] This happened in OTL in 1852 with Lord Derby’s first government.
[H] OTL. Stranger than fiction.
Russell wanted to equalise the franchises for years and attempted it several times in the 1850s and 60s, but in OTL failed, usually blocked by Palmerston, and further reform had to wait for Derby and Disraeli in 1867. In OTL the Irish seats, amazingly, were not touched between the Act of Union in 1801 and the Third Reform Act in 1885!
[J] Palmerston wanted this in OTL.
[K] All this is OTL, but in OTL Palmerston was a Liberal PM and his first instinct—a rare note of caution—prevailed and so Britain never recognised the Confederacy.
[L] Palmerston had conspiracy theories in OTL that the American Civil War at one point became just an excuse for the Union to recruit ‘troublesome’ Irish and German immigrants into the army and then send them to die on hopeless battlefields.
[M] Named after the logic that the American Revolutionary War is the First American War and the War of 1812 is the Second American War.
[N] The sort of thing that would sound ridiculous and ASB if we were talking about anyone other than Lord Palmerston.
[O] OTL Disraeli had the advantage that he had already briefly served as PM by succeeding Lord Derby; TTL he’s untested in office so people’s fears of his ethnicity can play on that unknown.
[P] As in OTL.

 

[Meadow]

An excellent read. Unfortunately, like you I am not well-versed in the 1840s (though you put me to shame!). However, the one bit of insight I can offer may seem unduly harsh, what with butterflies and that, guvnor, but here is is nonetheless.

I studied Chartism in my final year of university, and I'm just not sure I can ever see them getting 7 MPs, let alone 30something, particularly after the late 1840s. I understand that there's a big butterfly here - Wellesley sends troops against them in 1843 (I know your POD is in 1843, but sending troops against the famous 1842 procession that presented the Charter to parliament for the second time would be a bigger and, dare I say it, better source of massive unrest).

But that butterfly aside, the Chartists just weren't all that interested in getting into parliament. O'Connor was their golden boy, their leader in all but name (and a fan of Peel, funnily enough for an Irishman) and his election in Nottingham a rather complex and nuanced affair, IIRC. The Chartists were a mass-movement that wanted to give people the vote, not actually achieve specific things with the vote. I'm also unsure of the plausibility of Radical elements of the Whigs/Liberals voting Chartist. The Chartists loathed the Whigs more than Hell itself (and certainly more than the Tories, whom many of them instructed their fellow Chartists to vote for), and people like Cobden and the Anti-Corn Law League hated the Chartists.

I really don't mean to dump on this, and I am not the foremost authority on Chartism in the world (though I think I was taught by the man who is, but I didn't pay much attention [not a joke, I regret phoning it in on that module]). I'm probably not the foremost authority on Chartism in this thread, so I hope someone will wade in and help me/us out.

 

[Thande]

An excellent read. Unfortunately, like you I am not well-versed in the 1840s (though you put me to shame!). However, the one bit of insight I can offer may seem unduly harsh, what with butterflies and that, guvnor, but here is is nonetheless.

I studied Chartism in my final year of university, and I'm just not sure I can ever see them getting 7 MPs, let alone 30something, particularly after the late 1840s. I understand that there's a big butterfly here - Wellesley sends troops against them in 1843 (I know your POD is in 1843, but sending troops against the famous 1842 procession that presented the Charter to parliament for the second time would be a bigger and, dare I say it, better source of massive unrest).

But that butterfly aside, the Chartists just weren't all that interested in getting into parliament. O'Connor was their golden boy, their leader in all but name (and a fan of Peel, funnily enough for an Irishman) and his election in Nottingham a rather complex and nuanced affair, IIRC. The Chartists were a mass-movement that wanted to give people the vote, not actually achieve specific things with the vote. I'm also unsure of the plausibility of Radical elements of the Whigs/Liberals voting Chartist. The Chartists loathed the Whigs more than Hell itself (and certainly more than the Tories, whom many of them instructed their fellow Chartists to vote for), and people like Cobden and the Anti-Corn Law League hated the Chartists.

I really don't mean to dump on this, and I am not the foremost authority on Chartism in the world (though I think I was taught by the man who is, but I didn't pay much attention [not a joke, I regret phoning it in on that module]). I'm probably not the foremost authority on Chartism in this thread, so I hope someone will wade in and help me/us out.

O, you're probably right there if we're thinking of the OTL Chartists, I was thinking that the movement would just be a useful existing vehicle for dissatisfied middle-class Radicals enthusiastic about the Continental revolutions to latch on to. Hence why they eventually get absorbed into the Liberals, which wouldn't happen so easily if we're talking about the smaller OTL Chartist group.

TBH there are probably lots of plausibility holes in this, hence my reticence above, but I thought I'd post it in the hope that any of our members better versed in this period might critique it.

 

[Japhy]

I get it now.

Well, I don't think I have enough material for a TLIAD, but here's what I was thinking (BTW, this is my attempt at doing a "Japhy-style" list for the UK: 19th century setting, obscure POD, butterfly net on most foreign affairs to focus on the domestic).

The list is a good one I have to say first off if I have even less to add to the knowledge of the era.

On this part though, I don't know If I'd say that I throw butterfly nets generally, except in using folks names long after they should have been born differently (Winstono Spencer-Churchillismo aside). With foreign policy for the US in the 19th Century I'd say the US' continual backing off from European and Asian Affairs is the real reason I don't tend to upturn the table. That said I'm very glad to take the credit for inventing using the obscure PoDs in this thread. ( )

 

[Thande]

The list is a good one I have to say first off if I have even less to add to the knowledge of the era.

On this part though, I don't know If I'd say that I throw butterfly nets generally, except in using folks names long after they should have been born differently (Winstono Spencer-Churchillismo aside). With foreign policy for the US in the 19th Century I'd say the US' continual backing off from European and Asian Affairs is the real reason I don't tend to upturn the table. That said I'm very glad to take the credit for inventing using the obscure PoDs in this thread. ( )

Thanks. To be fair it might just be that your TLs are set in eras when the US didn't have that much involvement in foreign affairs, as you say. I'm just covering my backside in case someone can make the likely quite accurate argument that things like the 1848 revolutions, Crimean War, American Civil War etc. would at least be different (not averted, but different) due to the ramifications of different British governments' foreign policy.

Also, a self-correction: apparently "coalition" was already starting to replace "broad-bottomed government" as the preferred term in the 1850s. Then-Chancellor Disraeli attacked his opponents (Whigs+Peelites) in his Budget as "I face a Coalition ... This, too, I know, that England does not love coalitions". I'm surprised nobody has looked up that one for Miliband to quote

 

[Plumber]

That's one of my favorite lists, Thande. Oh, please make a TLIAD off that. Palmerston's insane potential is so underused.

 

[Thande]

That's one of my favorite lists, Thande. Oh, please make a TLIAD off that. Palmerston's insane potential is so underused.

I would love to do it when I have more background knowledge of the period.

Reading Victoria's letters from this era is crazy, it reads like a somewhat unrealistic TL where somebody wants to destroy the UK by giving it an insane leader, yet then it turns into a wank because Palmerston had the luck of the Irish (somewhat appropriately, given his family background) and all the foreign rulers he pissed off all conveniently fell to revolutions at exactly the right time. You start to realise that what we think of as "The British Empire" is basically just that factor of Palmerston doing outrageously aggressive things, the international community not stopping him for various reasons, and then the British establishment saying afterwards "...we totally meant to do that". Britain became a superpower because of this, it wasn't really one to start with. There is, of course, some relevance of this point to current international news...

 

[TPL99]

Presidents of Brazil
24. 1961-1971: João Goulart (Labourist)
25. 1971-1976: Barbosa Lima Sobrinho (Democratic)
26. 1976-1986: Carlos Lacerda (Liberal Front)
27. 1986-1996: José Sarney (Liberal Front)
28. 1996-2001: Marco Maciel (Democratic)
29. 2001-2006: Itamar Franco (Social-Democratic)
30. 2006-2016: Geraldo Alckmin (Liberal-Democratic)

Prime Ministers of Brazil
01. 1962-1967: Tancredo Neves (Social-Democratic)
02. 1967-1975: Juscelino Kubitschek (Democratic)
03. 1975-1982: Leonel Brizola (Labourist)
04. 1982-1984: André Franco Montoro (Social-Democratic)
05. 1984-1991: Fernando Henrique Cardoso (Democratic Union)
06. 1991-1995: Fernando Collor (Social-Democratic)
07. 1995-2004: José Serra (Democratic Union)
08. 2004-2014: Luís Inácio Lula da Silva (Social-Labourist)
09. 2014-2017: Aloízio Mercadante (Social-Labourist)

 

[Emperor Charles V]

Presidents of the United States as of 2075

1. George Washington (Independent—Virginia) 1789-1797
2. John Adams (Federalist—Massachusetts) 1797-1801
3. Thomas Jefferson (Democratic-Republican—Virginia) 1801-1809
4. James Madison (Democratic-Republican—Virginia) 1809-1817
5. James Monroe (Democratic-Republican—Virginia) 1817-1825
6. Henry Clay (Democratic-Republican—Kentucky) 1825-1828
Henry Clay (Republican—Kentucky) 1828-1833
7. John Quincy Adams (Republican—Massachusetts) 1833-1837
8. Martin Van Buren (Whig—New York) 1837-1838††
9. Richard M. Johnson (Whig—Kentucky) 1838-1841
10. Abel P. Upshur (Republican—Virginia) 1841-1844†
11. Theodore Frelinghuysen (Republican—New Jersey) 1844-1845
12. Henry Clay (Republican—Kentucky) 1845-1852†
13. Daniel Webster (Republican—Massachusetts) 1852-1853†
14. Linn Boyd (Whig—Kentucky) Jan-Mar 1853
15. Lewis Cass (Whig—Michigan) 1853-1857
16. Stephen A. Douglas (Whig—Illinois) 1857-1861
17. William H. Seward (Republican—New York) 1861-1866††
18. Charles Sumner (Republican—Massachusetts) 1866-1869
19. David F. McCarron (Independent—Ohio) 1869-1877
20. Stewart Bridges, Sr. (Republican—New Hampshire) 1877-1881
21. Samuel J. Tilden (Liberal—New York) 1881-1885†
22. James Scott Lexington (Liberal—Indiana) 1885-1893
23. Samuel A. Bedford (Republican—New Jersey) 1893-1897
24. James Scott Lexington (Liberal—Indiana) 1897-1901
25. Richard M. Fulton (Republican—New York) 1901-1909
26. Henry David Sawyer (Liberal—Iowa) 1909-1913
27. Gregory Owens (Republican—Oregon) 1913-1921
28. Joshua Fullerton (Liberal—Maine) 1921-1925
29. Stephen V. Driscoll (Republican—Connecticut) 1925-1929
30. Charles Courtney (Liberal—New York) 1929-1940†[1]
31. Andrew M. Keller (Liberal—Ontario) 1940-1945
32. Hammond Griffin (Liberal—Illinois) 1945-1949
33. Kenneth Mitchell (Conservative—Ohio) 1949-1957
34. John W. Foulkes (Liberal—Kansas) 1957-1961 [2]
35. Gordon Knight (Conservative—Oregon) 1961-1969 [3]
36. Virginia Callahan (Conservative—Long Island) 1969-1974* [4]
37. Bill Martin (Conservative—Alberta) 1974-1977
38. Pierre Blanchard (Socialist—Quebec) 1977-1989 [5]
39. Jake Horowitz (Conservative—Ohio) 1989-1996** [6]
40. Henry Swann (Conservative—Pennsylvania) 1996-1997 [7]
41. Abigail Watson (Socialist—Massachusetts) 1997-2001
42. Henry Swann (Conservative—Pennsylvania) 2001-2005
43. Jerome Anthony Bilandic (Socialist—Illinois) 2005-2013 [8]
44. Sean Caldwell (Conservative—Ontario) 2013-2021
45. Amy Feinstein (Socialist—Minnesota) 2021-2025
46. Sebastián Caldero (Socialist—New York) 2025-2030†† [9]
47. Leonard Bachmann (Socialist—Montana) 2030-2033
48. Samantha Sferlazza (Conservative—New Jersey) 2033-2037 [10]
49. Matthew Shuler (Independent—Seward) 2037-2045
50. Samantha Sferlazza (People’s Liberty—New Jersey) 2045-2049
51. Michaëlle Bernard (Socialist—Quebec) 2049-2053 [11]
52. Rick Bryson (People’s Liberty—Absaroka) 2053-2061 [12]
53. Emily John (Green—Maine) 2061-2065 [13]
54. Mark Barrett (Socialist-Farmer-Labor—Wisconsin) 2065-2071*
55. Grace Chang (Socialist-Farmer-Labor—Columbia) 2071-2073 [14]
56. Sara LaMalfa (People’s Liberty—Indiana) 2073-present [15]

† died in office (illness / natural causes)
†† assassinated
* Resigned
** Impeached and removed from office

Italicized states represent states no longer part of the union

[1] First Roman Catholic president, First Irish American president
[2] First Native American president
[3] First Mormon president
[4] First female president
[5] First Francophone president
[6] First Jewish president
[7] First African American president
[8] First Croatian American president
[9] First Hispanic president, First Puerto Rican American president
[10] First Italian American president
[11] First African American female president
[12] First Mexican American president (non-Hispanic)
[13] First openly gay president
[14] First Asian American president
[15] First Hispanic female president, First Hispanic Mexican-American president

Records:
Oldest president – Pierre Blanchard (79 when he left office)
Youngest president – Samantha Sferlazza (37 when she entered office)
Longest-serving president – Henry Clay (15 years, nonconsecutive)
Longest-serving president (consecutive) – Pierre Blanchard (12 years)
Shortest-serving president – Linn Boyd (39 days)

Major Parties as of 2075:

People’s Liberty Party (PLP) – center-right to right-wing on economic issues, libertarian on social issues and foreign policy; led by President Sara LaMalfa, Vice-President Steve Oswald, Madison Devereux in Senate (majority leader) and Brandon McKinney in House (minority leader)
Socialist-Farmer-Labor Party (SFL) – center-left to left-wing on economic issues, center-left on social issues, mixed on foreign policy, receives strong support from labor unions and farmers; led by David Hauschka in Senate (minority leader) and Clarisse Cox in House (speaker)
Green Party – centrist to center-left on economic issues, left-wing on social issues, dovish on foreign policy, strongly environmentalist; led by Faith Buerkle in Senate (third party leader) and Jaimey Echohawk in House (coalition leader)
American People’s Party (APP) – center-right to right-wing on economic issues, right-wing on social issues, hawkish on foreign policy; led by Clinton Mifflin in Senate (fourth party leader) and Melanie McCotter in House (third party leader)

 

[MrHuman]

I would probably have more of a comment if there were footnotes instead of just names and pretty colors.

 

[Emperor Charles V]

I would probably have more of a comment if there were footnotes instead of just names and pretty colors.

Actually there's a thread. Even better than footnotes.

 

[The Red]

I would probably have more of a comment if there were footnotes instead of just names and pretty colors.

Things were finally looking up as well...

 

[Wendell]

I get it now.

[A] POD, obviously; in OTL McNaughton killed Peel's secretary instead due to not knowing what the PM looked like.
The more common term in this era for 'coalition'.
[C] In OTL Peel did this out of goodwill to try and improve Anglo-Irish relations and it was equally controversial.
[D] He resigned from Peel's government over it in OTL.
[E] Whereas the OTL Protectionist Conservative Party under Derby was too far removed from Gladstone's economic views and he left it for the Liberals.
[F] In the OTL 1847 election, the Chartists won one seat in Nottingham, the only seat they would ever hold.
[G] This happened in OTL in 1852 with Lord Derby’s first government.
[H] OTL. Stranger than fiction.
Russell wanted to equalise the franchises for years and attempted it several times in the 1850s and 60s, but in OTL failed, usually blocked by Palmerston, and further reform had to wait for Derby and Disraeli in 1867. In OTL the Irish seats, amazingly, were not touched between the Act of Union in 1801 and the Third Reform Act in 1885!
[J] Palmerston wanted this in OTL.
[K] All this is OTL, but in OTL Palmerston was a Liberal PM and his first instinct—a rare note of caution—prevailed and so Britain never recognised the Confederacy.
[L] Palmerston had conspiracy theories in OTL that the American Civil War at one point became just an excuse for the Union to recruit ‘troublesome’ Irish and German immigrants into the army and then send them to die on hopeless battlefields.
[M] Named after the logic that the American Revolutionary War is the First American War and the War of 1812 is the Second American War.
[N] The sort of thing that would sound ridiculous and ASB if we were talking about anyone other than Lord Palmerston.
[O] OTL Disraeli had the advantage that he had already briefly served as PM by succeeding Lord Derby; TTL he’s untested in office so people’s fears of his ethnicity can play on that unknown.
[P] As in OTL.

For me, this very interesting list fell apart towards the end.

 

[Turquoise Blue]

Actually there's a thread. Even better than footnotes.

Make footnotes, and you'll have a good amount of responses. I guarantee that.

 

[Japhy]

Actually there's a thread. Even better than footnotes.

Not really. Not at all.