The constitution is still in force, so they'd need the Texas legislature to consent to that first, and unlike Virginia, Texas had no parts of it trying to break away to stay with the Union:
Last edited:
Reconstruction: The Second American Revolution - The Sequel to Until Every Drop of Blood Is Paid
- Thread starter Red_Galiray
- Start date
The constitution is still in force, so they'd need the Texas legislature to consent to that first, and unlike Virginia, Texas had no parts of it trying to break away to stay with the Union:
The only way I'd see Texas being split is if it was less united in joining the Confederacy, a constant Unionist insurgency of some kind.
When Abraham Lincoln travels the world like he always wanted to I think he should actually meet Tsar Alexander II and they have some discussions about the merits of autocracy vs democracy. Abe admits that on some level he envies that Alexander was able to abolish serfdom so easily; however, he also talks about why he prefers democracy. Alexander likewise defends the virtues of autocracy, but is able to acknowledge that some degree of reform is needed for Russia to keep up with the world. Both men walk away with a respect for the other even if they heartily disagree with the other in key areas. This could inspire Alexander to somewhat stick to his reforming ways; he doesn't think the people are ready for democracy and might never be, but he is able to realize that to some degree change is needed.
In real life Alexander II signed an Ukhaz that set up advisory councils; he admitted it was a first step to a constitution.....sadly he was murdered the same day and his reactionary son walked it back.
In real life Alexander II signed an Ukhaz that set up advisory councils; he admitted it was a first step to a constitution.....sadly he was murdered the same day and his reactionary son walked it back.
It would be interesting seeing Alexander II not assassinated TTL, Russia gradually (very gradually) turns into a constitutional monarchy like Britain, though I think the monarch will still have a lot of power and say as some check against democratic forces that could possibly go the wrong way.
That would be interesting; Alexander II makes more transitional steps towards democracy, but also works to make sure that the Monarchy still wields a lot of power and influence in how affairs are run.
In the long run Alexander III and Nicholas II really killed the monarchy.
It's also worth noting that Alexander III was an INCREDIBLY reactionary man; one of the reasons so many Jews fled Eastern Europe for America was because of how much of an anti-semitic bastard he was. Alexander II was relatively mild towards Jews, so if another Nikolai came to power he could possibly be less reactionary. Not nice to the Jews but not cruel either, and maybe giving them more of a chance to advance.
Problem was that Alex II sucked, his open market decisions impacted negatively the Russian industries, meanwhile his serf liberation act did little to address their state afterwards and screwed up something that was steadily withering away on it's own and his attempts at liberalization alienated his supporters and failed to get sympathy of the liberals and leftists in general who continued to hate his guts and caused his assassination.
People often shit talk Alexander III as being as "reactionary despot" but the fact was that under him, 19th Russia was under it's best period of economic and military growth as he managed to avoid getting into unnecessary wars, stabilized the economy and invested into industry as well as cementing the Franco Russian alliance given how Russia had been snubbed by Germany. Not to say he was perfect of course, stuff like the Pogroms comes to mind, but he's way better than people give him credit for, especially compared to his father.
Alexander II did have another older son, Tsarevitch Nicholas, who unfortunately died in 1865 at the age of 18.
He is pretty much a blank sleight, and some slight butterflies could possibly keep him alive...
Given he basically made them free without any land, forced them to basically pay for their own freedom, and in general did nothing to really improve it besides allegedly making them 'free', is it really that big a shock it landed badly?
It isn't really and it really tells you something many people applaud him for that without actually looking into the effects it had, all that matters was "that he was making Progress(TM)" and therefore closer to the western model despite it bringing several problems to Russia
I for one feel entirely comfortable saying that the Tsar of All the Russias who presided over one of the worst periods of Jewish persecution in centuries was a 'reactionary despot.'
Seriously man, 'not to say that he was perfect' as if pogroms are a minor sin?
Never said it was but what I'm saying is that compared to his father, he did much more for the Empire while still having his own flaws(the aforementioned Pogroms)
Alexander II could have done more, but it was a step in the right direction. Future heirs needed to build on it, but he was taking some steps towards liberalism (the ukhaz he signed the day he died). Alexander III might have had economic growth but he also walked back what little steps towards democracy Alexander II did and enshrined autocracy when it was no longer really viable.
Alexander III also failed to train Nicholas II properly, and Nicky's attempt to emulate his father helped lead to revolution. So in the long run Alexander III was an idiot who ruined the country.
Alexander III also failed to train Nicholas II properly, and Nicky's attempt to emulate his father helped lead to revolution. So in the long run Alexander III was an idiot who ruined the country.
How was it a step in a right direction when the effects were all bad? Duma wasn't that more competent outside of some people like Stolypin so they really weren't meant to be trusted with actual governance of the country, whereas Alexander III policies did much more to industrialize and power up Russian economy which no one can say it's a bad thing, even if he did his own errors like the aforementioned pogroms and not preparing Nicholas II