Excellent update! Eagerly anticipating Ferguson's downfall. Does the Second Texan Republic count as a seventh flag over Texas, or does the first republic's flag do double-duty (thus giving us the Six Flags amusement park, as OTL)?
Good question haha I’d say it’s still the sixth because the Texas Republicans will see the RoT as a restorationist project
So basically if literally anyone else in the state other than Pa Ferguson was Governor Texas would remain Confederate? A somewhat unhappy part of the Confederacy but still a part nonetheless.
Idk if I’d go that far - the SNP/BQ-ification of the Texas Party was probably inevitable and if Texas loves to do one thing it’s threaten to secede - but Pa Ferguson definitely sped things up considerably
I look forward to seeing Texan independence; hopefully this Texas diversifies its economy to avoid being too dependent on oil. Though the question remains: what will happen to the “peculiar institution” in Texas post-war?
The faction that swallows abolition is likely to be in for some rough times in the immediate postwar
 
Two comments here.
1) In terms of the Peculiar Institution, the question is whether the Texas Party is *relatively* speaking a geographic one within Texas. If it is primarily based outside of East Texas, getting rid of Slavery might be a way to screw their opponents. OTOH, the US would still need to sign a treaty with the 2RoT and the US does hold a few pieces of the state that the Texans would want back. And if the Texans object, the US will tell them that what parts of Texas will be transferred to the US will be determined at peace negotiations with *Richmond*. And if things *really* get ugly there, the US will have a bit of Army to spare after Mexico departs.
2) If the Mexicans are putting troops north of the Rio Bravo (AKA Rio Grande), I *think* they just broke the Treaty of San Diego (unclear if that would be the name). However, at *worst*, I think the US delivers a note of protest which indicates that the Mexicans should allow American Troops to replace them. *Far* more likely is a note of protest with a request to send the US information on what the heck is going on.

Still curious as to what the US -Brazilian Treaty looks like. Something like Status Quo Ante, so we can go back to hating each other without shooting at each other.
 
Two comments here.
1) In terms of the Peculiar Institution, the question is whether the Texas Party is *relatively* speaking a geographic one within Texas. If it is primarily based outside of East Texas, getting rid of Slavery might be a way to screw their opponents. OTOH, the US would still need to sign a treaty with the 2RoT and the US does hold a few pieces of the state that the Texans would want back. And if the Texans object, the US will tell them that what parts of Texas will be transferred to the US will be determined at peace negotiations with *Richmond*. And if things *really* get ugly there, the US will have a bit of Army to spare after Mexico departs.
2) If the Mexicans are putting troops north of the Rio Bravo (AKA Rio Grande), I *think* they just broke the Treaty of San Diego (unclear if that would be the name). However, at *worst*, I think the US delivers a note of protest which indicates that the Mexicans should allow American Troops to replace them. *Far* more likely is a note of protest with a request to send the US information on what the heck is going on.

Still curious as to what the US -Brazilian Treaty looks like. Something like Status Quo Ante, so we can go back to hating each other without shooting at each other.
Texas Party is a combo of OTL People's Party/Farm Alliance in Texas, and good ol' Texan nationalism, so it has coverage more or less everywhere and at this point operates as something of a big tent. The US is going to quickly run into a point though where logistics become more of a problem, since their border areas near Texas are so-so for mustering troops and Texas is a little larger than France.

Re: Mexico, they're not going to launch an invasion of Texas, just make sure that nobody gets ideas about coming over the Rio Bravo
 
Burning Punjab
"...nearing the anniversary of its first year. The priority, as autumn deepened and the threat to Delhi and Bombay lessened, became bringing the hammer down on revolutionary activity as the India Field Force and Indian Army prepared for an offensive in early 1916 to take back Punjab and parts of Rajasthan and Sindh by force. Kitchener's semi-successful policy in Ireland had been to impose a form of strict martial law across most of the island and something similar was extended in India, though with a uniquely subcontinental twist.

Unlike in Ireland, Lord Kitchener had in fact served for a lengthy period of time in India and had a fairly decent (though like any Briton, superficial) understanding of the Raj and its culture, politics, and geographical divisions. In a letter to the Cecil government defending his "slow pace of operations," Kitchener replied calmly, "The Subcontinent comprises an area greater in mass than France, Germany, Italy and Austria-Hungary put together, and dwarfs them in the number of cultures and peoples who inhabit it. There cannot be one policy for the whole of the Raj any more than there is one policy for the whole of the European Continent." Punjab proper was nearly the size of Germany, and Britons were outnumbered severely within it; Kitchener knew that he would have one opportunity to pierce the heart of the Mutiny and slay the Ghadarite dragon, and the threat in the rest of India had to be containe dbefore he could do so.

As such, Kitchener drafted a strategy in which India was divided into zones that carried three classifications, Areas 1, 2 and 3. A "1" designated a province or territory in outright revolt, such as Punjab, the thus-unreachable North-west Provinces and, increasingly, parts of Bengal; a 2 designated an area "at risk," and this encompassed the United Provinces and the Bombay Presidency; and finally a 3 was an area of little concern, such as most of the native states save Rajasthan and Orissa and the Madras Presidency in the South of India. In the 1s, strict curfews from sundown to sunup were applied, pass-cards were handed out to the population that were required to be presented upon demand, and the use of rail transport was limited to only military operations. In the 2s, rail transport was limited to the military and those with permission to travel such as civil servants. Kitchener's strategy was to choke off the easiest means for Ghadarite or Samiti terrorists to intermix and connect with each other to coordinate, and thus strangle any nascent revolt in its crib across the rest of the Raj, with the help of the Special Branch of the India Police Service that had built a remarkable network of informants over the past year even as assassinations of officers and detectives escalated.

The problem with this strategy, of course, was that while it was targeted at Punjab it left other parts of India deeply resentful - not to the point that the pan-Indian rebellion that Punjabis had hoped for was in the offing, but nonetheless deepening the mainstream Home Rule movement's distaste for Britain. Kitchener made matters worse by throwing a number of activists, such as the famed Lal Bal Pal trio as well as longtime moderates such as Motilal Nehru, in prison, which only made them martyrs despite fairly short sentences. It was also the case that while the quick deployment of the IFF in the spring had probably prevented the fall of Sind and the disintegration of British rule in much of the west and east, the Ghadarites were no more close to being driven out of Punjab into the mountains of the frontier, and indeed the revolutionaries had rapidly established connections with Afghan chieftains and Nasrullah Khan, the younger brother of the neutral but softly Anglophile King Habibullah. Nasrullah, despite Russian distaste for his conservative Islamic worldview, had made himself an excellent middleman for smuggling weapons via his favored officers in the Afghan Army to the border city of Peshawar and from there into Punjab, northern Rajasthan and even deep into Balochistan and Sind.

Though British agents were fairly convinced that Russia was the culprit behind keeping the Afghans curiously if not suspiciously well-equipped starting in 1915, the bigger problem was the festering sore that far-eastern Bengal, now known in modern India as Assam, was becoming. The proximity of this area to poorly-controlled areas of China that were influenced by both the revolutionary Guomindang Party that advocated the extirpation of European colonialism in Asia and by the nuclei of budding opium-trading organizations in the hills of Yunnan especially meant that the semi-warlordism of south-western China provided an ample supply of rifles, hand grenades and even training grounds for the Samiti; key members of the rapidly-growing organization such as the Ghosh brothers or longtime, French-educated bombmaker Ullaskar Dutta spent as much if not more time in the hills of Assam or across the rugged frontier in Yunnan as they did in Bengal's major cities, where a massive bombing campaign erupted in the last months of 1915 to signal that while a bold move such as Ghadar revolting openly in Punjab was unlikely to follow in the east, a more pernicious, long-term problem was potentially emerging there.

All this was to say that Kitchener, by the end of 1915, had saved India from ruin but found himself increasingly unable to take the next steps to fully put out the fire that had been lit in February with the initial Mutiny, but certainly not without a lack of trying. With criticism mounting even from the conservative government in London, Kitchener launched a major operation in Sind Province and eastern Balochistan in December of 1915, stepping up patrols, attacking known rebel hideouts and tripling the number of forces moving through Karachi. The Sind Offensive, as it became known, as a qualified success; it gave Imperial soldiers, especially the famously daring and brutal Canadians [1], experience with counter-insurgency operations rather than the type of field offensives that had occurred around Panipat and Kaithal in May and June. Both would be needed as Kitchener plotted out a push towards Amritsar in January or February - it would be a triumph to put down the rebellion before its first birthday, after all..."

- Burning Punjab

[1] A group that had the most feared reputation in the Second Boer War and First World War
 
it gave Imperial soldiers, especially the famously daring and brutal Canadians, experience with counter-insurgency operations
Experience I'm sure they'll put to use against everyone in Canada who isn't a member of the Orange Order. Gonna be a great time for Quebecois, Catholics, metis, and Canada's Asian immigrant community.

The question isn't "why did Quebec secede ITTL?" The question is "why did it take so long for Quebec to secede ITTL?"
 
Texas Party is a combo of OTL People's Party/Farm Alliance in Texas, and good ol' Texan nationalism, so it has coverage more or less everywhere and at this point operates as something of a big tent. The US is going to quickly run into a point though where logistics become more of a problem, since their border areas near Texas are so-so for mustering troops and Texas is a little larger than France.

Re: Mexico, they're not going to launch an invasion of Texas, just make sure that nobody gets ideas about coming over the Rio Bravo
Yeah, I expect we'll see some re-alignment of the Texas parties post-war-independence, the question is still open as to how/whether the Three nations post-war that had slavery pre-war (CSA, RoT and Brazil) how they give up Slavery. Honestly, I expect that the last nation in the Western Hemisphere to give up Slavery will be Brazil, but that will have *much* more to do with post-war internal Brazilian Politics than what the United States wishes.

As for logistics, no kidding. *Probably* easier than it was in the Civil War, but not much.

And Mexico creating a *temporary* buffer zone won't annoy Philadelpha too much.
 
Yeah, I expect we'll see some re-alignment of the Texas parties post-war-independence, the question is still open as to how/whether the Three nations post-war that had slavery pre-war (CSA, RoT and Brazil) how they give up Slavery. Honestly, I expect that the last nation in the Western Hemisphere to give up Slavery will be Brazil, but that will have *much* more to do with post-war internal Brazilian Politics than what the United States wishes.

As for logistics, no kidding. *Probably* easier than it was in the Civil War, but not much.

And Mexico creating a *temporary* buffer zone won't annoy Philadelpha too much.
Why do you think Brazil will be the last? As far as % of the population Brazil likely has the lowest (IIRC manumission increased in the last years of the 19th century ITTL) and doesn't give the same cultural importance to the practice as the CSA, plus Brazil had and definetly still has a big anti-slavery movement (that i'm surprised hasn't translated into mass republicanism ITTL) which influences even conservatives in the military like Hermes (who IRL was an enemy of the coffee-growers). Honestly find it more implausible it hasn't been abolished yet, considering TTL Brazil is supposedly stronger and more industrial than OTL's.
 
Last edited:
while a bold move such as Ghadar revolting openly in Punjab was unlikely to follow in the east, a more pernicious, long-term problem was potentially emerging there.
I wonder who will lead this movement...
Some one named Subhas Chandra Bose?..
By the way, what is Surya Sen doing ittl?
 
Last edited:
I wonder how many undercover Ghadarites are in the Civil Service, police and military forces in the 'Peaceful' parts of India and the Princely States?

Also, if Texas leaves the Confederacy would Arkansas and Louisiana be economically pulled towards them or the remaining Confederacy?
 
Looks like the chance of India falling has been dealt with, now the question of how to conquer rebels holding land about as large as Germany and deal with the drug lords operating from French controlled land without bankrupting the empire or getting into a clash with France.
 
Experience I'm sure they'll put to use against everyone in Canada who isn't a member of the Orange Order. Gonna be a great time for Quebecois, Catholics, metis, and Canada's Asian immigrant community.

The question isn't "why did Quebec secede ITTL?" The question is "why did it take so long for Quebec to secede ITTL?"
Bear in mind we’ll have a dose of Les Troubles in the interim and 1991 may or may not be Quebec’s first bite at the Apple…
Why do you think Brazil will be the last? As far as % of the population Brazil likely has the lowest (IIRC manumission increased in the last years of the 19th century ITTL) and doesn't give the same cultural importance to the practice as the CSA, plus Brazil had and definetly still has a big anti-slavery movement (that i'm surprised hasn't translated into mass republicanism ITTL) which influences even conservatives in the military like Hermes (who IRL was an enemy of the coffee-growers). Honestly find it more implausible it hasn't been abolished yet, considering TTL Brazil is supposedly stronger and more industrial than OTL's.
There’s abolished and then there’s “abolished.” For all intents and purposes, slavery in Brazil has dwindled to miniscule proportions

Didn’t realize that about Hermes da Fonseca, not that he’ll be sticking around much longer
Which parts ?
No idea just speaking generally
I wonder who will lead this movement...
Some one named Subhas Chandra Bose?..
By the way, what is Surya Sen doing ittl?
We shall see!
I wonder how many undercover Ghadarites are in the Civil Service, police and military forces in the 'Peaceful' parts of India and the Princely States?

Also, if Texas leaves the Confederacy would Arkansas and Louisiana be economically pulled towards them or the remaining Confederacy?
Probably quite a lot. The British security apparatus in India was after all massive, and while they’re pretty burrowed into these revolutionary cells, it would stand to reason that in the massive British bureaucracy there’s plenty of sympathizers/plants

New Orleans being an economic hub of the CSA and relatively unscathed in the war probably prevents them from being economically subservient to Texas, though the western hinterland of both (think Texarkana, Shreveport, Fort Smith etc) will probably be very Texan-flavored
 
Yeah, I expect we'll see some re-alignment of the Texas parties post-war-independence, the question is still open as to how/whether the Three nations post-war that had slavery pre-war (CSA, RoT and Brazil) how they give up Slavery. Honestly, I expect that the last nation in the Western Hemisphere to give up Slavery will be Brazil, but that will have *much* more to do with post-war internal Brazilian Politics than what the United States wishes.

As for logistics, no kidding. *Probably* easier than it was in the Civil War, but not much.

And Mexico creating a *temporary* buffer zone won't annoy Philadelpha too much.
Honestly I see Brazil giving up slavery in the peace treaty so that they don't have to pay some reparation money or something along those lines. It's current slaves are all 40+ years old at this point so there isn't much economic value in them. It would look really good from the US point of view. "OK, we'll make peace, give this up, and you can say to everyone that you fought this war to get rid of slavery in the last countries that (openly) practiced it."
 
Didn’t realize that about Hermes da Fonseca, not that he’ll be sticking around much longer
that was basically his whole gimmick in the 1910 elections, Ruy Barbosa was backed by the traditional SP-MG axis and Hermes by a coalition of southern and northern states and RJ(represented by Nilo Peçanha, who i wish had appeared ITTL)
 
that was basically his whole gimmick in the 1910 elections, Ruy Barbosa was backed by the traditional SP-MG axis and Hermes by a coalition of southern and northern states and RJ(represented by Nilo Peçanha, who i wish had appeared ITTL)
In my research I just couldn’t find a good excuse to use him with Brazil still having slavery on the books
 
So basically if literally anyone else in the state other than Pa Ferguson was Governor Texas would remain Confederate? A somewhat unhappy part of the Confederacy but still a part nonetheless.

I doubt it. I suspect that any governorship which was seen as being too friendly with Richmond wih the war going badly, would have resulted in some kind of problems - and could have lead to rebellion - it's just Pa Ferguson is just exceptionally bad and tone deaf. But, really anyone who wasn't a Texan Party candidate would have had a lot of problems - Texas has a significantly higher population than most other Confederate states, it has more economic potentialy than the others, and Richmond is just always viewing Texas like its an underpopulated western state that doesn't deserve a much attention than the eastern states.
 
New Orleans being an economic hub of the CSA and relatively unscathed in the war probably prevents them from being economically subservient to Texas, though the western hinterland of both (think Texarkana, Shreveport, Fort Smith etc) will probably be very Texan-flavored
Somewhat surprising that the USA, now that Texas is gone, doesn't just annex the Mississippi River Valley states outright and flood them with Yankee colonists/empower the local black population to ensure it sticks. I cannot conceive of a world in which they've not annexed Kentucky and Tennessee on the backs of this, and the Mississippi is too vital to the security and economic health of the Midwest to do anything but ensure complete control over its length.
 
Br
Honestly I see Brazil giving up slavery in the peace treaty so that they don't have to pay some reparation money or something along those lines. It's current slaves are all 40+ years old at this point so there isn't much economic value in them. It would look really good from the US point of view. "OK, we'll make peace, give this up, and you can say to everyone that you fought this war to get rid of slavery in the last countries that (openly) practiced it."
The reason that Brazil will be last is that the peace treaties of the US with Texas and the CSA will be done with a *large* number of soldiers on their territories. The USA will not have a single soldier on Brazilian Soil at the time of its peace treaty with Brazil.
For Brazil, it just makes more sense for some Brazilian leader for whom their opponents are in north to do so in an attempt to hurt their opponents. Curious what happens to the Brazilian royalty as well. The types of changes that the author is talking about in Brazil don't seem to mesh well with keeping a Monarchy.
 
I doubt it. I suspect that any governorship which was seen as being too friendly with Richmond wih the war going badly, would have resulted in some kind of problems - and could have lead to rebellion - it's just Pa Ferguson is just exceptionally bad and tone deaf. But, really anyone who wasn't a Texan Party candidate would have had a lot of problems - Texas has a significantly higher population than most other Confederate states, it has more economic potentialy than the others, and Richmond is just always viewing Texas like its an underpopulated western state that doesn't deserve a much attention than the eastern states.
That’s more or less the crux of the problem
Somewhat surprising that the USA, now that Texas is gone, doesn't just annex the Mississippi River Valley states outright and flood them with Yankee colonists/empower the local black population to ensure it sticks. I cannot conceive of a world in which they've not annexed Kentucky and Tennessee on the backs of this, and the Mississippi is too vital to the security and economic health of the Midwest to do anything but ensure complete control over its length.
While access to the Mississippi is absolutely crucial, annexing half the CSA is a great way for a permanent war of resistance against the United States; Reconstruction didn’t go well and that was without fifty years of drift and the project being one of reuniting a shorn land
Br

The reason that Brazil will be last is that the peace treaties of the US with Texas and the CSA will be done with a *large* number of soldiers on their territories. The USA will not have a single soldier on Brazilian Soil at the time of its peace treaty with Brazil.
For Brazil, it just makes more sense for some Brazilian leader for whom their opponents are in north to do so in an attempt to hurt their opponents. Curious what happens to the Brazilian royalty as well. The types of changes that the author is talking about in Brazil don't seem to mesh well with keeping a Monarchy.
No, no they don’t quite, do they
 
Top