Guest Post: Washington's Warning of Enemies, Foreign and Domestic before his Death

This post first appeared on Today in Alternate History with input from Eric Lipps and Allen W. McDonnell.

April 30, 1789 - 

At Federal Hall in New York City, General George Washington took the oath of office as the first President of the United States. During this moment of joyous national celebration, his coach was escorted by militia and a marching band, followed by statesmen and foreign dignitaries in an inaugural parade, with a crowd of 10,000 in attendance.

Behind the pageantry, the contradictions were rife, starting with the location:  New York City had remained a stronghold for British Loyalists right until the end of the American Revolution. Nevertheless, the idea of a self-governing republic emerged after the Continental Army's successful struggle for independence from Great Britain. At this pivotal moment of hard-fought triumph, Washington issued a stark warning about the fragile nature of liberty, emphasizing that true freedom entails protection from arbitrary and unreasonable restraint on the individual. He stressed that democracy requires constant vigilance to sustain and defend it, raising concerns about potential internal divisions or rebellions, which were significant worries for many of the Founding Fathers of the new republic.

However, there was a contradiction inherent in the Constitution: freedom was denied to African Americans, First Nations, and even to white libertarians who accused Washington of tyranny. Notably, this group of naysayers included the leading anti-Federalist Albert Gallatin, America's Swiss Founding Father, who was an outspoken opponent of slavery, fiscal irresponsibility, and a vigorous advocate for free trade and individual liberty. As if in prophecy, just two years later, Washington himself would be killed while personally leading troops to suppress Western farmers during the Whiskey Rebellion. The residual reverence for Washington in a sense placed him on the wrong side of the Federalists' regional balance argument. The general himself had struggled with his leadership role as a republican executive short of a king; although he had been offered the monarchy, he chose to decline. He was driven by his strong commitment to the ideals of the American Revolution and a democratic republic, but ultimately he was unable to use his personal authority to impose this vision upon the country. This tragic outcome echoed Benjamin Franklin's prescient warning at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia that the new country would be "a republic, if you can keep it."

Some of the republic's problems were pre-existing conditions that the British and other Europeans had brought to the Americas. John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton adopted anti-slavery positions while other Founding Fathers owned slaves (including, allegedly Hamilton himself). Yet, all of them accepted the need to end the importation of slaves into the United States. The most charitable explanation for this confusion was a balance of ideals and self-interest. States rights challenged the Federalist cause, but the question survived the collapse of the Federalist Party, though in a transformed and less direct form. Radical thinkers such as Thomas Jefferson, who penned the famous words "all men are created equal," actively promoted libertarian philosophies while many of their personal and professional actions were a shocking failure of role-modelling. Conversely, in United States v. Schooner Amistad as a successful rebellion on the slave ship La Amistad led to questions of emancipation, former president and descendant of American revolutionaries, John Quincy Adams passionately and eloquently defended the Africans' right to freedom on both legal and moral grounds, referring to treaties prohibiting the slave trade and to the Declaration of Independence.

The accusation of tyranny would be repeatedly levelled at Washington's successors--most of whom were either military figures like himself or constitutional lawyers equipped to control the levers of federal power. This list included authoritative men such as John Adams, a Federalist who tried to balance states rights but used his executive power to enact the Alien and Sedition Acts that severely curtailed Freedom of Speech and the Press. Another, Abraham Lincoln who, despite promising "Government of the people, by the people, for the people," suspended habeas corpus (the right to a trial) during the struggle for states rights in the Civil War.

During the twentieth century, America became increasingly difficult to govern according to even the constitutional principles envisaged by the Founding Fathers. Most recently, the first African American president, Barack Obama, heralded as a product of Civil Rights progression, invited these same accusations after criticizing the Bush administration for losing its focus on national security. He promised that his own team would "refocus attention on al Qaeda," making the controversial decision to merge the roles of Secretary of Homeland Security with the Director of National Intelligence. This strategic move was designed to avoid turf wars, leading to the creation of a new, consolidated United States Investigation Services (USIS), which rolled all the policing agencies such as FBI, NSA, ATF, ICE, US Marshals, etc, into one entity. Obama's stated intention was to ensure investigators worked together at the city/state/national level instead of competing for personnel and resources. The precedent for this amalgamation could be traced back to the Manhattan Project, a consolidation of previously uncoordinated efforts by the US Navy and at least one group of Army scientists to develop the atomic bomb.

Author's Note:

The fictional killing of Washington is the point of divergence in L. Neil Smith's fictional Gallatin Universe, where a libertarian society forms the North American Confederacy. Meanwhile, the fundamental question of whether the Founding Fathers of the United States truly believed in liberty is complex and multifaceted. While they are often celebrated as champions of liberty, their views on freedom, equality, and individual rights were shaped by their time, personal experiences, and interests.

Provine's Addendum:

Finding a balance between personal freedom and national security proved the never-ending question in US politics. Some attempts at a more refined society, such as the Temperance Movement that argued for national prohibition of alcohol before falling flat on its face, demonstrated their issues but were ultimately humiliated in court. Other debates, such as defining personhood before birth, raised further questions about citizenship. In the end, power usually fell to the federal government itself, such as Unites States v. Reidel and Miller v. California restricting the abilities of individuals to distribute obscene materials. As legal definitions continued under scrutiny, often changing case to case, vagueness led to power by USIS to determine in the moment. Citizens could easily find themselves lost in the complex federal prison system, sometimes even overseas, without ever really knowing what it was they were accused of doing.

Guest Post: British Army evacuated from Yorktown

This post first appeared on Today in Alternate History with input from Jeff Provine, Philip Ebbrell, Robbie A. Taylor and Dirk Puehl.

Oct 19, 1781 -

An outright victory at the Capes would have enabled Lord Howe to deliver much-needed supplies and reinforcements to Cornwallis, breaking the siege of Yorktown. Instead, his diminished naval force only had the resources necessary for the evacuation of the 7,000-man British army trapped in Virginia.

As it turned out, that near-miraculous escape would be just enough for a British strategic victory. Liberty was denied by the timely actions of the Tories, who squeaked out an eventual victory in North America. The outcome had rested on a knife-edge; the reasons were many and varied, but the main one was money. The naval reforms of Lord Dover had allowed for a sufficient number of ships-of-the-line in European waters as well as on the North American station. This had enabled Lord Howe to knock the French out of the war, and indeed the Battle of Chesapeake was to be their last meaningful involvement in the conflict. If Cornwallis was humiliated by this outcome, then he could at least cling to the greater damage to the patriot cause: the talismanic General George Washington had been killed by misadventure after preparing to fire off the first cannonball at the besieged British rearguard.

At least fate, if not competence, was with the Tories, but otherwise their poor decision to build a defensible deep-water port was a strategic mis-step, badly mistaken both politically and militarily. It created a stand-off at a delicate moment when playing the long game would have been the smarter option. The Whigs, who were sympathetic to the Colonialists, had taken control of the British Parliament and passed a motion of "No Offensive Action in North America," now actively looking for an out. The Bourbon treasury, meanwhile, was exhausted, and the French involvement since Saratoga would only continue to be funded after a signature victory at Yorktown. Instead, confidence collapsed, and the French withdrew from the war to stop violent revolution from coming to their own backyard.

Victory had been cruelly snatched from the Patriots, and at least in the short term their military initiative was finished. The Tories' dastardly scheme of a peaceful settlement was diplomacy, to negotiate trade deals individually with each of their thirteen former colonies. Since they had taken out vast loans in Europe, the would-be "Americans" also had a major financial problem to solve. This end-game would avoid the cost of keeping 10,000 British troops stationed in North America, also preventing the rise of an independent, unified nation. For the British, it was a costly win-win, but this anti-climactic ending would only ensure the end of the Revolutionary War, but not the end of the Revolution.

Author's Note:

In reality, the surrender at Yorktown was a decisive victory for the Patriots that prompted the British government to negotiate an end to the conflict.

Provine's Addendum:

The insurrection in North America may have ended, but historians point to it as and indication of humanism demanding rights for the individual in the face of empire. Successful governments, such as the British and French, reacted appropriately with Parliament adding seats for qualifying colonies to end the "no taxation without representation issue" and France began extensive reforms to roll back the authoritarianism of the Louis XIV era. Spain and Portugal struggled with a few uprisings, but ultimately the idea of independence had been ended with the experiment in the British American colonies. Across the nineteenth century, more reforms worldwide would gradually end slavery, give political rights to women, and set up marginal self-rule for territories such as the German states, Ireland, and local colonial authorities.

With sprawling empires affirmed, the European nations quickly gobbed up Asia and Africa and then turned on each other for more territory. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire led to Britain, France, and Russia eagerly setting up protectorates. Late-comers such as Italy tried to carve out their own pieces, but they themselves would soon be absorbed in the German-speaking-led coalition centered in Austria. Diplomacy and sheer weight kept the empires from attempting to annihilate their European bases, instead trading colonies here and there along with long-lasting naval campaigns. Increasingly complicated treaties and leagues prompted the rulers to establish an ongoing international summit in neutral Switzerland, independent since a botched French invasion. By the late twentieth century, it became clear that, for empires to grow further, the next steps would need to be upon planets beyond Earth.

Guest Post: Justice John Quincy Adams

This post first appeared in two parts "Passing of Hon. John Quincy Adams" and "Dred Scot v. Sandford ruling saves the Union" on Today in Alternate History.

Feb 23, 1848 - Passing of Hon. John Quincy Adams

On this sad day, Justice John Quincy Adams passed away in the nation's capital where a quarter of a century earlier he had served the will of the people by stepping away from the presidency.

Driven by unfulfilled and misunderstood ambition tinged with nepotism he had always hoped to emulate his illustrious father by serving as Chief Magistrate to the United States. However, he narrowly lost out to a force of nature in the hard-fought 10th quadrennial presidential election of 1824. In hindsight his defeat--and the graceful manner in which he accepted it--was a vindication of the great republican principles that the young nation had fought so hard to secure.

But at the time, it was notable precedent but for a completely different reason. Since the passage of the Twelfth Amendment, this was the only election to have been decided by the House of Representatives in accordance with its provision to turn over the choice of the president to the House when no candidate secures a majority of the electoral vote. In declaring that "America shall have no dynasties," the House pronounced Andrew Jackson the winner over John Quincy Adams, who bowed to the decision gracefully and entered the judiciary as a Jackson appointee. A true American hero, by giving way to popular sentiment he had richly deserved to be titled "the Honorable" John Quincy Adams.

In retrospect, there was unending irony in that his father's stalwart defense of the monarchical principle had inadvertently created the misperception that he had wanted to found such a dynasty. Instead, his son's defeat led to a well known American tradition: children of prominent politicians rarely ever enter public life.

Beyond John Quincy Adams's bid for the executive branch, he made an impressive legal legacy, including the groundwork for the day the US Supreme Court ruled that Dred Scott was free - but only because he spent time in a Free state not a Free territory.

This landmark decision marginalized the Fire-eaters by drawing the rising anger from States Rights advocates who were reassured that the US Congress had no power to restrict slavery in the territories;  the States could do anything they wanted as regards to the institute of slavery. The ever-present fear that the North had been trying to impose its own lifestyle on the South sharply diminished, as did the terrifying prospect of a civil war over the matter.

This opportunity, this brief pause for peace, had been created by the late Justice John Quincy Adams. It was his hard work in the earlier case of Strader v. Graham that had steered the course for the anti-slavery direction. If he had not gracefully ceded the hard-fought 10th quadrennial presidential election, then he would never had served on the US Supreme Court at all. His appointment was a sporting gesture by the winning candidate Andrew Jackson, but as time would tell it was highly significant actually having a dramatic effect upon the events of the second half of the nineteenth century. Not only had John Quincy Adams vindicated the great republican principles that the young nation had fought so hard to secure, he may even have saved the Union from dissolution.

Provine's Addendum:

The informal "No Dynasties" rule among Americans would be tested through the centuries, including the 1888 Republican National Convention where William Henry Harrison's grandson, Benjamin, made a stirring speech that was nonetheless unable to win him enough votes to come out of the shadows as a dark horse candidate. Instead, John Sherman would win the candidacy and later election (though he later wrote that some people may have voted for him mistakenly thinking he was General William Tecumseh Sherman from the Spanish War that resulted from American intervention in war in Cuba in the 1870s). The Roosevelts, distant cousins, would toe the line of the policy with the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but FDR would break another tradition with his third election anyhow.

The biggest test would come in the year 2000 with the aggressive campaign of George W. Bush, son of George Herbert Walker Bush. While the Republican National Convention overwhelmingly voted to put the younger Bush up for candidacy, the nation as a whole determined they wished to keep families out of the White House. Florida, ironically governed by Bush's brother Jeb at the time, proved the matter when it was called early on Election Day for the Democrats. Gore's term would be marred with the 9/11 terrorist strike and economic fallout with his policies encouraging new, greener initiatives rather than propping up established investments with loosened banking rules.

Guest Post: Biden Quits on Top

This post first appeared on Today in Alternate History.

Feb 7, 2023 -

Honoring his campaign promise to serve as a transitional president, Joe Biden announced that he would not run for re-election the following year during his State of the Union address.

Having recently celebrated his eightieth birthday, Biden was in fine form during one of his brighter appearances. The timing was perfect, his penultimate State of the Union address provided a golden opportunity to define his legacy by highlighting a series of proud achievements for the American people. He was the first president to serve with a female vice president, and he signed significant legislation, including the American Rescue Plan Act. Additionally, aspects of the failed Build Back Better Act were incorporated into the Inflation Reduction Act. But, for many, his greatest accomplishment for the republic was his contribution to democracy by unselfishly opening the door to a competitive primary season that allowed several prominent figures to step forward and vie for the nomination.

Following the tragic death of his beloved son Beau in 2016, Biden found it difficult to follow Obama and stepped aside for Hillary Clinton's campaign that ultimately led to a Republicans win. Biden received a second chance to beat Trump, and there was a broad consensus that he was a winner. His departure from politics on a high note after half a century of public service included two unsuccessful presidential races (1988 and 2008) and actually began on another terrible note of tragedy, the death of his first wife and daughter. But if he was an "oldie but a goodie," there were unmistakable early warning signs of trouble ahead--not just the failure of the Build Back Better Act, but also because the 2023 State of the Union was the first address to a Republican-controlled House of Representatives since 2018. As events were to transpire, the challenges for the Biden administration began to surface well before the primary season started.

In retrospect, Biden might have better served partisan interests by making the more cynical but less democratic choice to resign. Had he done so, he would have become the only president to do so other than Richard Nixon because of the Watergate scandal. This tough decision would have given Kamala Harris sufficient time in office to build her own record of accomplishments and properly establish her leadership credentials. Some may argue that she had not achieved enough during her time at the White House to deserve that opportunity. While this is a matter of semantics, a resignation would have positioned Biden as a handover president rather than a transitional president. At the time, his decision to remain was well-received as a departure from the party's recent history of favoring elite candidates.

Author's Note:

In reality, he initially ran for reelection and, after the Democratic primaries, became the party's presumptive nominee in the 2024 presidential election. After his performance in the first presidential debate, renewed scrutiny from across the political spectrum about his cognitive ability led him to withdraw his candidacy.

Provine's Addendum:

While some political kingmakers had dreamed of Harris being set up for an easy victory in 2024, the Democratic primaries turned into a frenzied free-for-all. The prevailing voices proved to be in opposition of longtime Washington politicians, ready to move on from the Obama-era tradition and fearing another rallying cry of "drain the swamp" from Republicans. When the dust settled at the Democratic National Convention, the ticket proved to be Shapiro/Kelly with Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro and Arizona Senator Mike Kelly facing off against Trump/Vance in November. The national election became a drawn-out fight, but public opinion shifted toward the Democrats following Shapiro's out-pacing of Trump in the debates and the Dem campaign's push to make Trump's age an issue. With Shapiro managing to pull Pennsylvania voters to his side and Kelly doing the same with Arizona, a narrow victory in Michigan won the election for Democrats. The results, of course, were immediately appealed for review.

Guest Post: China Reconsidered on WTO Accession

This article first appeared on Today in Alternate History.

July 1, 1998 - U.S. Senate Confirms VP Gephardt

Following the resignation of Bill Clinton, the United States Senate voted to confirm House Minority leader Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., as vice-president under the 25th Amendment. This emergency constitutional instrument had only been used once before with Congressman Gerald R. Ford when a vice-presidential vacancy had arisen after the resignation of Spiro T. Agnew. After the subsequent resignation of Richard M. Nixon, Ford immediately assumed the presidency.

Echoes of the Nixon presidency rebounded with both men resigning over abuses of power, though the circumstances of this appointment were a little different, especially given the turn of subsequent events. Clinton's timing gave his successor Al Gore a golden opportunity to change course on key policies that might not affect the midterm elections but certainly turn the forthcoming presidential election upside down. Gephardt, a protectionist, strongly urged him to reconsider China's Accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). This was mid-negotiation; General Secretary Jiang Zemin had visited the United States the previous fall, and Clinton had planned to pay a return trip this summer.

Global trade with China increased sevenfold since the 37th President's historic visit to Beijing. WTO accession was certainly a huge photo opportunity for the glory-hound Clinton, one the more camera-shy Gore failed to capitalize on. As with many of the hottest political topics, Clinton had been equivocal in the sense of being highly vocal on the positive spin and yet reluctant to own the full consequential effects for the American people. His presidency had started with an executive order (128590) that linked the renewal of China's Most Favored Nation (MFN) status with seven human rights conditions, including "preservation of Tibetan indigenous religion and culture" and "access to prisons for international human rights organizations." One year later, he reversed this position. Clinton subsequently determined that China should join the WTO as a non-market economy, allowing its trading partners, including the United States, to use a special framework to determine whether China's exports were being sold at unfairly low prices and, if that was found to be the case, to apply additional anti-dumping duties.

Gephardt strongly disagreed with Clinton's policy, demanding that annual trade reviews continue. The technical issue was China's shallow integration with the global economy. Certain sectors of the economy, such as distribution, telecommunications, and financial services, remained entirely or largely closed to foreign direct investment. High tariffs and an array of non-tariff barriers meant that some critical sectors of the Chinese economy remained relatively insulated from international competition. It was unclear whether Zemin could agree to Gore-Gephardt's tougher terms of China's protocol of accession to the WTO.

Lacking Clinton's charisma, Gore needed to build a substantive domestic policy platform, which was of course why he had chosen Gephardt. Gore had played a secondary role in the formation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) trade bloc. This was originally proposed during the Reagan era, but in the 1992 presidential campaign, Clinton-Gore had to confront Ross Perot's populist warning of the "giant sucking sound [of US jobs] going south." Gore would famously appeared with Perot one year later for NAFTA discussions on Larry King Live. Feeling that he came across strongest on technical policy issues, Gore could play on legitimate fears that China's WTO Accession would have the same negative effect despite the opportunity for consumers to enjoy low-cost technology products that were becoming increasingly popular.

Five years after the Larry King show, Gore stole a trick from Perot by announcing that the U.S. government would enter regional trade negotiations to protect U.S. jobs but also help to develop technological and other manufacturing plants in Mexico and Brazil. As an environmentalist, he firmly believed that if more jobs were created for people to move to in the cities, less of the Amazon rainforest would be bulldozed by farmers. In so doing, he hoped to build a blue-collar/green alliance for his re-election campaign in 2000.

Even before then, Sino-American relations took a sour turn with the United States bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade coming only months ahead of the WTO Ministerial Conference in Seattle.

Author's Note:

In reality, Clinton paid the return trip, the United States and China reached agreement on terms for China's entry into WTO after talks in Beijing in November 1999, subject to approval by Congress.

Provine's Addendum:

Gore's efforts to unite blue-collar workers and green initiatives had an economic side-effect of propping up the famed bubble of Dot-Com tech companies that had begun to struggle by the end of the '90s. With federal funds encouraging international relations in the Western Hemisphere, the companies found new avenues to promote themselves. Ultimately, however, the tech overreach could not be sustained, and, though Gore won in 2000 against George Bush, son of 41st President George Bush, the dire economic situation afterward blamed on Democrats made it clear that the 2004 presidency would go to a Republican.

Gore's position on international security also led to significant critique. After the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 2001, Gore demanded that Afghanistan give up Osama bin Laden, leader of al-Qaeda. Afghanistan's slow actions to do so under Taliban rule became an embarrassment, but Gore refused to mount a full-scale invasion, instead leaning on international policing and diplomacy. China became a crucial player in the issue, having already established relations with Lu Shulin, Chinese ambassador to Pakistan, becoming the first senior representative of a non-Muslim country to meet with Mullah Omar. After extensive international and internal cooperation, bin Laden was arrested in a isolated strike seizing his hidden camp on the Pakistani border in 2007.

The victory would be counted by President John McCain, who won a sweeping vote in 2004 but would lose in 2008 as another financial crisis struck, this time brought on by subprime mortgages and liberalized banking issues. As the US headed into the second decade of the new millennium, the world economic scope looked much different with China's New Silk Road initiative found new markets in Central Asia while the US continued to focus on developing trade partners in the Western Hemisphere, setting the stage for a new era of spheres of influence.

Guest Post: Proclamation of German Kaiser's Realm

This post first appeared on Today in Alternate History.

Point of divergence:

Bismarck's expansionist strategy isolated Prussia's enemies by attacking them separately. This prevented confrontation with the coalition of forces that had defeated Napoleon, notably with the late arrival of Prussian troops winning the Battle of Waterloo. However, in this alternate history scenario the strategy is flawed, backfiring when capitulation goes too far. We imagine that the Habsburgs, similar to the Bonapartes, lose their throne, resulting in the unintended collapse of the Austrian state.

Jan 18, 1871 -

Otto von Bismarck, the "Iron Chancellor" of Prussia, paid the ultimate price for his disastrous political miscalculations in attempting to unify Germany. Dismissed by Kaiser Wilhelm Hohenzollern, he was not even present when the German Kaiser's realm was proclaimed at the Royal Palace in Berlin.

The supreme irony of this humiliating exclusion was that the formation of an all-German supranational state was an over-achievement that he would not have welcomed. Nonetheless, it was Bismarck, rather than Wilhelm, that was the real architect who had brought the Reich into being. After all, he had led the formation of the North German Constitution for a loosely organized confederation in which sovereignty rested with the individual states as a whole. This political re-arrangement was only made possible by the successful outcome of the Austro-Prussian War, which dissolved the German Confederation and allowed Prussia to annex many of the smaller German states. The unforeseen consequence was that the crushing victory at Sadowa caused the collapse of majority-Catholic Austria from a great power. A series of revolutionary events inexorably led to not only the dissolution of the Austrian-led German Confederation states but also the fall of the Hapsburg monarchy that had ruled Central Europe for centuries and in its current form since Napoleon dismantled the Holy Roman Empire.

Even worse was the unfortunate timing with the dissolution occurring during the latter stages of the Franco-Prussian War. The failed devolution attempt at power-sharing with Hungary had necessitated a reorganization of the sweeping Hapsburg territories. This political initiative had created a crown land of Cisleithania with Vienna as the capital. But now after the break-up of the Hapsburg Empire the nascent Republic of Cisleithania desperately needed protection from a vengeful neighboring Hungary.

The defenseless Austrian state was forced to take the fateful step of joining the Empire on the sole condition that the hated Bismarck was replaced. After all, in Vienna he was seen as the architect of the Austrian downfall, as evidenced by the assassination attempt by Ferdinand Cohen-Blind.

It was not just the Austrians who believed there was a straight line to be drawn between the carnage of the crushing victories at Sadowa and Sedan, and perhaps it would have been for the best for all concerned if Bismarck had indeed died. These unforeseen developments following the assassination attempt meant that he was alive but out, replaced by Otto Graf zu Stolberg-Wernigerode, and unexpectedly the Austrians were in.

Delicate negotiations between Berlin and Vienna successfully averted religious tension between the Lutheran North and the majority Catholic South (including Bavaria, albeit there were some Lutherans in the South). They also prevented a revanchist future Hapsburg attempt to usurp a rump kingdom in Cisleithania. Based upon the reconsideration of these unification factors, it was determined that the original location of the proclamation in Paris smacked of Hohenzollern adventurism. To bring the focus back to confederation, the ceremony was moved to Berlin to respect the odd composition of the Reich into a realm of kingdoms and republics. In hindsight, Prague, Hanover, or Magdeburg might have been more humble choices.

By preventing internal strife these fateful decisions did unite a German Empire under Hohenzollern leadership, but the flawed strategy of subduing neighboring states had unforeseen consequences. Overreach was surely the biggest mistake, and the unnecessary acquisition of Alsace-Lorraine with the subsequent Germanization of the French became a flashpoint. Hungary allied with the Third Republic, leading to a wider continuation war in which the victorious Germans gained even more French territory.

Of course this repeat humiliation made matters worse as not even Bismarck had been in favor of colonies. Had he become Reich Chancellor instead of zu Stolberg-Wernigerode, then he certainly would never have agreed to Denmark's offer to join the Empire in return for the territories it lost in the Second Schleswig War. With events racing out of control at this dangerous moment, it became apparent that the Reich's ultimate ambition was to unite all Europeans into a loose multinational confederation ruled by Berlin. This of course was nothing less than a supersized Hohenzollern version of the Hapsburg rule in central Europe, and a growing realization set the stage for the outbreak of general war. A bitter and regretful Bismarck would famously make a note of Proverbs 16:7 in his diary, "When a man's ways please the Lord, he makes even his enemies to be at peace with him."

Author's Note:

In reality, the proclamation occurred in the Hall of Mirrors at the Palace of Versailles with Bismarck center stage and the Hapsburgs not even present. Napoleon III would be exiled to London, where he would die in 1873 with his last words, "We were not cowards at Sedan, were we?" This compares with "We were not cowards at Sadowa, were we?", the final worlds of ATL Austro-Hungarian general (Feldzeugmeister) Ludwig Benedek speaking to Prince Albert of the Kingdom of Saxony.

Provine's Addendum:

The German acquisition of Alsace-Lorraine proved to be the ongoing cause of French-German enmity that Bismarck warned. Commentators of the time such as Karl Marx and later commentators like Winston Churchill felt much the same, although Heinrich von Treitschke wrote, "We Germans who know Germany and France know better what suits the Alsatians than the unfortunates themselves." The dismissive attitude prevailed with most of German attention focused on the Austrian lands, particularly the Austrian Littoral where German railroads could reach the Gulf of Trieste as a Mediterranean port, opening whole new markets. The economic surge chided Italy, mirroring the displeasure of Hungarians and Russians sharing the large border with Germany in the east, especially with the former Austrian lands with large Polish and Ukrainian populations scooped up by Germany as they seized Cisleithania.

France worked its diplomacy to build up an Entente against predicted future German expansion. Germany, meanwhile, sought to break the ring around itself with allies in the Ottoman Empire, carefully balancing the independence of Serbia in the Congress of Berlin and the establishment of the Principality of Bulgaria. In the Balkans, the Bosnian Question lingered as Hungary wished to hold onto its reaches of the former empire or grant the Condominium of Bosnia and Herzegovina independence. Even Britain joined in the Entente, suspicious of German interests overseas with its expanded naval operations past Denmark into the North Sea.

The Great War broke out early in the twentieth century with the assassination of Wilhelm, German Crown Prince, while touring the empire (ironically to promote peace). Italy ultimately remained neutral, although Romania was pulled into the chaotic war in the Balkans between Russian-Bulgarian and German-Ottoman influences. The war in the west quickly became a stalemate with long trench lines in France and naval harassments across the North Sea. The east saw intensive bloodshed and starvation as the front moved across hundreds of thousands of square miles. As the dust settled without a clear winner though many losers, self-determination became the topic of the redrawn maps. A new line was drawn between France and Germany, though neither party rested easily upon it. New nations were born in the east, granting sovereignty to the Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Albanians, Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, and Finns; even the Ottoman Empire collapsed into Turkey with its further lands being claimed largely by Britain. The British hoped to add the Middle East to a great chain ensuring connection with India, but these states, too, would all see their own efforts toward independence. France turned its attention more toward its colonies overseas, but Germany remained focused on Europe, building up an impressive congress through diplomacy and economics, arguably "conquering" everything east of the Rhine through new means of banking and legal authority instead of calculated military might

Guest Post: Austria collapses after losing the Seven Weeks War

This post first appeared on Today in Alternate History exploring related ideas in Why didn't Switzerland and Austria join the German Confederation?, Why didn't Bismarck want to absorb Austria into the new Germany as well? and If Kaiser Frederick III of Germany and Prince Rudolf of Austria had not died, what would have happened to Europe (WWI)?.

November 7, 1866 -

The Habsburg's vast multinational empire was drawing its final breath. The family had ruled as monarchs since 1282, dominating Central Europe for centuries. Six hundred years later, Austrian, Sudeten, and Siebenbürger Saxons accounted for just a quarter of the population of the ten different ethnic groups living in the huge territory that covered much of Central Europe. Nationalist pressures within her borders plus German and Italian aspirations triggered the Habsburg downfall.

In better days, the Austrian emperor led the German-speaking peoples through the thousand-year-old Holy Roman Empire and then later as the president of the Rhine Confederation. But the rising influence of Prussia dominated the successor Deutscher Bund (the German Confederation), causing tension. Consequently, the spirit of the Holy German Empire had long-since disappeared. It was to be replaced by sectarian struggles between the Protestant "Iron Chancellor" Otto von Bismarck and the Catholic Habsburgs. As the architect of a German customs union under the Zollverein policy, Bismarck sought no political interference of Catholic Austria; however, scientific, cultural and economic ties remained strong. The final blow to Habsburg rule came from Deutscher Dualismus, the intensifying rivalry between Austria and Prussia for the domination of the German states. The climax to this struggle was the Seven Weeks War that pitted Austria against the largest alliance since the fall of Napoleon: the Kingdom of Prussia, various allies within the German Confederation, and the recently unified Kingdom of Italy.

The decisive Prussian victory occurred at the Battle of Königgrätz on July 3. Sadowa, as it was commonly known, was a calamitous setback for the authority of Austrian Chancellor Count Friedrich Ferdinand von Beust. With the result no longer in doubt, the conflict petered out weeks later with the Prussian occupation of northern Württemberg. Military capitulation triggered a political collapse caused by a general uprising across the Habsburg lands. This unexpected outcome was an unwelcome surprise in Berlin as there was no realistic prospect that the Germans could absorb Slav territories into the German Empire. However, the German-speakers in the former Habsburg lands soon realized that only the Prussians could provide the necessary military protection from the new Slav nations arising from the conflict.

Although Italy gained territory in the south, the key result was that the majority German-speaking region, including a chunk of Bohemia and pro-Imperial Slovenia, were brought under Prussian hegemony as the German Kingdom of Austria. This was ruled by the Prince Rudolf Habsburg, a much weaker figure than his father, the recently deposed Emperor Franz Joseph. Lichtenstein, which had been under Austrian protection, also joined with the Germans. After the defeat of France, these territories would merge to form the Second German Reich that was proclaimed at the Palace of Versailles. This ethnically unified polity only excluded Swiss Germans who had been independent from the Holy Roman-Germanic Empire after the Swabian war and formalized by the Treaty of Westphalia.

The creation of the new powerful German state was a major challenge for the British whose primary foreign policy goal was to prevent continental domination by one Great Power. Had the late Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha survived, then perhaps Great Britain would have been more directly involved much earlier. Fortunately, the immense difficulties in consolidating the new territories with the states of the former German Confederation, and the tiny size of the Austrian Navy, were a constraint upon further expansion. Certainly they prevented the Reich from investing resources in colonial empire-building. Britain and Germany watched each other warily from the sides of their eyes and yet without clashing points or disputed areas there was no immediate threat of war breaking out.

The royal architect of German unification, Kaiser Wilhelm I, passed in 1888. His death ushered in the steady rule of Kaiser Frederick III, husband of Victoria, Princess Royal. Bismarck stepped down as Iron Chancellor, opening the way to democratic and social reforms. Intense diplomatic efforts were made to build a friendlier relationship, based upon neutrality, around agreed spheres of influence with Great Britain. The wise decision to return the province of Lorraine to France further reduced the tension in Europe.

Many royal heads attended the funeral of "Good Emperor Fritz" when he passed in 1905, but storm clouds were already gathering. He was to be replaced by his eldest son, Wilhelm II, an unstable individual who entertained dreams of a bellicose "New Course" to cement German status as a leading world power.

Author's Note:

In reality, the major result of the Seven Weeks War was a shift in power among the German states away from Austrian and towards Prussian hegemony. It resulted in the abolition of the German Confederation and its partial replacement by the unification of all of the northern German states in the North German Confederation that excluded Austria and the other Southern German states, a Kleindeutsches Reich. The war also resulted in the Italian annexation of the Austrian province of Venetia.

A further OTL consequence of von Beust's desire for revenge, was The Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 which established the dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary.

Provine's Addendum:

With Europe finding a new balance of power, the twentieth century began with a general sense of good feelings diplomatically. Britain, France, and other nations with long-standing overseas empires kept their eyes abroad with passion for colonialism, yet the recently unified nations of Germany and Italy served as seeming proof of the effectiveness of nationalism for unity. The same was seemingly being revealed in the east as the collapse of the Austrians meant independent nations for the Hungarians, Romanians, Czechs, Slovenes, Slovaks, and more. The Ottoman Empire retreated from the Balkans with independence for Greece in 1830 and Romania, Serbia, and Bulgaria in 1878 overseen at the Congress of Berlin. Russia had been a major player in the Ottoman decline, supporting each of the rebelling nations, but it soon came into its own bitter inward struggle with antiquated serf laws and a sprawling territory that would be difficult to industrialize quickly. It was all the more agitated by the experimental republics established for Poles and Ukrainians spun off from former Austrian lands that Germany knew better than to attempt to absorb. Germans imagined that Russia might be the next empire to give way to nationalism, and they made ready to benefit.

The Russian Civil War was born out of the Balkan Wars where the new nations attempted to find mutually agreed borders. Parallel to military altercations was rampant genocide and huge numbers of refugees attempting to find a peaceful home. While Germany profited from industrial and agricultural sales, Russia became embroiled in the tensions and met demands for reform with unpopular crackdowns that only worsened the situation. The assassination of Nicholas II and attempted repression turned to open warfare and rebellions in Polish and Ukrainian lands as well as the Baltic states. This situation turned even more desperate with the death of the tsarevich in 1918. Wilhelm II stepped in to aid with another Congress of Berlin reinforced by German military authority that redrew borders and saw even more new countries added to the European map. The rump Russian Kingdom had only a fraction of its population and became, like much of the rest of Eastern Europe, economically dependent on German banking and industrialization.

Germany grew wealthy exploiting natural resources of its neighbors, creating a new system of economic colonialism rather than the more literal political states held by other empires. Following the Pacific War between Japan and an alliance of British, French, Dutch, and American forces, this German model became the norm for empires disintegrating from the map but still maintaining spheres of authority through commonwealths.