A Golden Island To The West — California ISOT from 2018 to 1850

[Shaithan]

This would de facto be North Germany vs South Germany.

Click to shrink...

You have no idea how the German unification worked, have you?

This wasn't just Prussia deciding to gobble up whatever it could grab, the Revolutions of '48 had already shown that there was strong sentiment for a nation there. Both Napoleons were enemies of Germany and France was generally ill-regarded. It was clear in both Vienna and Berlin that a German nation had to be formed, the fundamental disagreement was who was going to lead and how big it was. Kleindeutsch (excluding Austria completely), Großdeutsch (with Austria and some other parts of the Austrian Empire, the rest would fall to Hungary) or Großösterreichisch (all of the Austrian Empire becomes part of it).

 

[LastStandZiggy]

Großösterreichisch (all of the Austrian Empire becomes part of it).

Click to shrink...

I find this one somewhat impossible, but if successful, the Germania-Austrian empire would literally be the single largest power block on mainland Europa. Discounting Tzarist Russia, who will be dealing with a lot more issues than any other country for a long, long time.

 

[Shaithan]

I find this one somewhat impossible, but if successful, the Germania-Austrian empire would literally be the single largest power block on mainland Europa. Discounting Tzarist Russia, who will be dealing with a lot more issues than any other country for a long, long time.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, Greater Austria would shatter the Concert of Europe quite decisively.

 

[stevep]

I would agree that Hanover, while it was an opponent of Prussia's plans to dominate Germany, doesn't have anything like the military strength to resist a Prussian attack. Neither does Bavaria or the pair of them together. 1866 demonstrated this when most of Germany supported Austria against the Prussia attacks and still got stomped. Its less clear in 1851 and a war now could go the other way, especially since Austria is still entrenched in N Italy, or possibly result in some sort of draw. IIRC there were some military reforms in the early 1860's that were pretty crucial in this.

Suspect one reason why most of the states preferred Austrian to Prussian domination was because the latter was seen as more of a threat to their liberties whereas Austria seemed less organised and threatening to impose its will, possibly in part because of its diversions in trying to make sense of its empire.

Of course as everybody gets to know the 'future' just about everyone will seek to prevent or secure those outcomes or some variant of so its likely to be very chaotic in Europe. As long as California isn't a direct military threat, which seems likely Europe is likely to be too busy 'sorting itself out' to be interested in California other than seeking knowledge and technology from it.

One other possibility in Germany would be internal reform inside Prussia itself with liberal unrest against the autocracy and aristocracy, which could change a lot.

 

[Satar]

There's a problem with this way of seeing things. And that's the fact that India is only one country BECAUSE of the British.

Otherwise it would be a gaggle of nations with somewhat similar cultures. Kind of like Central America (of course rather larger per country, but still).

Click to shrink...

Well, it isn't, actually. Ancient India extended from Southern Afghanistan to Sri Lanka, and large swathes of Southeast Asia came under heavy Indic influence. The modern India is just the biggest successor state. Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka being various successor states of somewhat lesser heft.

More to the point, the notion of British rule as a catalyst for the modern India is highly controversial. British historians tend to credit the economic and political linkages that emerged during the Raj as factors that made unification possible, but eh, British historians, not exactly the most unbiased parties. More probably it was the centralized Indian army that made unification inevitable, as no princely state or coalition of princely states had any force that could conceivably beat them in the field.

The Indians, I believe, never lagged behind in military technology when compared to the British, though that is the common conception. By the late 18th century both sides were fielding similar armament, with some regional Indian powers possessing European-trained armies that, on multiple occasions, beat back the British. What doomed the Indians was their essentially feudal political and military organization, as well as their inability to prevent inopportune betrayals and defections and, of course, the ongoing deterioration of the Mughal Empire. This was at its worst during the early to mid 18th century and the British were fortunate enough to gobble up the rich territory of Bengal, which gave them the men and money to be serious contenders in the ongoing 'civil war'.

Had the Mughal Empire not deteriorated, it is not unlikely they would have unified all of modern India or more under one banner, especially if they had adapted the 17th to 18th century organizational knowledge that made political control over the whole subcontinent feasible.

 

[Guardian54]

Well, it isn't, actually. Ancient India extended from Southern Afghanistan to Sri Lanka, and large swathes of Southeast Asia came under heavy Indic influence. The modern India is just the biggest successor state. Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka being various successor states of somewhat lesser heft.

Click to shrink...

You ever tried looking at a map of say India 1444 (cough Europa Universalis 4) or at any point during the Crusader Kings 2 timeframe (769 onward)?

India was generally fractured into a few major blocks throughout that whole timespan. Meanwhile, China spent the majority of its time as one huge state with periodic breakups and reunifications, and Japan had the same lineage of Emperors throughout...

The result is that it is within reason to claim that the British laziness in administration (i.e. dealing with one huge colony instead of several) had a huge effect on unifying India.

 

[Instant Sunrise]

Also, W/R/T the Google servers issue, Google is building a NorCal datacenter right now IOTL. ITTL it was finished and began mirroring their Oregon datacenter just before the ISOT.

 

[stevep]

Well, it isn't, actually. Ancient India extended from Southern Afghanistan to Sri Lanka, and large swathes of Southeast Asia came under heavy Indic influence. The modern India is just the biggest successor state. Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka being various successor states of somewhat lesser heft.

More to the point, the notion of British rule as a catalyst for the modern India is highly controversial. British historians tend to credit the economic and political linkages that emerged during the Raj as factors that made unification possible, but eh, British historians, not exactly the most unbiased parties. More probably it was the centralized Indian army that made unification inevitable, as no princely state or coalition of princely states had any force that could conceivably beat them in the field.

The Indians, I believe, never lagged behind in military technology when compared to the British, though that is the common conception. By the late 18th century both sides were fielding similar armament, with some regional Indian powers possessing European-trained armies that, on multiple occasions, beat back the British. What doomed the Indians was their essentially feudal political and military organization, as well as their inability to prevent inopportune betrayals and defections and, of course, the ongoing deterioration of the Mughal Empire. This was at its worst during the early to mid 18th century and the British were fortunate enough to gobble up the rich territory of Bengal, which gave them the men and money to be serious contenders in the ongoing 'civil war'.

Had the Mughal Empire not deteriorated, it is not unlikely they would have unified all of modern India or more under one banner, especially if they had adapted the 17th to 18th century organizational knowledge that made political control over the whole subcontinent feasible.

Click to shrink...

Its difficult to see the Mughal empire surviving to the present day, even if it had avoided its effective suicide under Aurangzeb. As an absolute monarchy under under a dynasty of foreign origin and with also a foreign religion it would only be able to survive as long as there was no social change and even then only by a very spectacular run of able rulers as every dynasty, empire or state will fail over time.

If you want to see a surviving Indian empire, which might in time develop into a more democratic state then a Maratha state that becomes stable and successful would probably be a much better option. Especially if it could emerge in time to provide the stability that prevents any European state getting substantial territorial footholds. You may still get a situation similar to China in the 19thC given the huge social edge that the main European states had during this period. Such an Indian empire might develop some of the aspects of a 'modern' industrial state, as did places like China and the Ottomans to use the most famous examples but their unlikely to do much if any better. As such you might see something like 'unequal treaties' and some control of foreign affairs and or trade/finance although given Indian's geography its less likely to see major territorial losses to European powers. [I.e. basically a few naval bases and probably Sri Lanka being controlled by whoever's the primary naval power, which might be someone other than Britain]. Mind you as noted not even the Mughal's at Aurangzeb's expansionist height the latter island was never part of the empire.

I suspect that given the vast cultural and religious differences even such a successful Maratha empire that makes the transition to a modern state is likely to lose a fair number of fringe areas, especially those with Muslim majorities and its unlikely to expand into Afghanistan as the Mughal's did in their early years.

 

[kaazmiz]

Shipping will transition to fuel oil within a decade or two. Steel production is going to bloom. Railroads will be built from the beginning with an eye to electrify and convert them to high-speed in the future (and a future not that many years away)

Click to shrink...

Nearly all oil in 19th and early 20th century came from a few places.
US, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, French Indochina, Dutch Indies, Iran, Lebanon, Algiers, Colombia, Venezuela. Many of which are controlled by European colonial powers, but also very hard to exploit, and having issues with transportation. Even by 1930 coal operated trade ships were still a common thing.
And one needs to remember that most of those trade ships in this timeline are still Clippers, powered by sail, steam ships are only just being introduced... because the economy only just got to the point where it could build large enough, and sturdy enough engines.

California could certainly become the leading engine constructor and trade ship fleet owner like Poland (in the period between 1960-1980), to beef up its economy.
Introducing a ship that could weight only about 3000 tones and carry additional 4000 tones would revolutionize global economy, especially with bulk cargo crossing oceans.

Whether steel production can keep up will be grossly dependent on the willingness of Colonial Powers to expand their colonies, and invest in them, and not just exploit them.

 

[Highlord]

I wonder, is there a case to be made for any uptime UK citizens, especially those in official positions, still being subjects of the downtime crown?

Or are said subjects keeping a low profile to avoid the (literal) shithole that is 19th century London?

 

[stevep]

I wonder, is there a case to be made for any uptime UK citizens, especially those in official positions, still being subjects of the downtime crown?

Or are said subjects keeping a low profile to avoid the (literal) shithole that is 19th century London?

Click to shrink...

If you mean by the government in London I suppose they can try but I can see California offering at least refuge if not citizenship as an alternative. Hopefully the British and other governments, or at least some of them, will realise that softly softly is a better route that trying to wave a big stick. Especially when its a stick you can't use very effectively. What they should be doing is talking to their up-time citizens and asking for their assistance, in terms of information about California and its people, attitudes and abilities and what they would advice doing as well as technical and historical information they can offer.

 

[Gladi]

Very unlikely. They generally were aware that France would sooner or later get ambitions again. Especially this shortly after Napoleon.

Because one thing is clear, if a somewhat comprehensive timeline makes its ways into the German Confederation, things will turn ugly. Napoleon III is already on the throne, I think, and his desire to carve off parts of Germany is documented. Plus there being no guarantee that France will stop at the Rhine. Let's not forget that both Napoleons were expansionist at the expense of Germans.

Plus, the desire for a unified nation is there and if it isn't Prussia that is in charge, it's going to be Austria.

Click to shrink...

!) The Second French Republic is going to last few more months and Napoleon's III ascension might be butterflied away completely, by simple reading comprehension.

2) A desire for unified German people might be there, but the liberal unification failed in 1848 and neither the Habsburg-Lothringien or the Hohenzollern can just declare Germany.

A comment for chapter 17:

what's a country where not even their great grandparents are born yet?"

Click to shrink...

Seriously? While I would not cooperate with Bach-absolutist Austria, that is a function of associating with the Empire rather than disassociating with the history.

 

[Couch-Gamer]

You know, that plan of theirs reminds me of a youtube video. Oh yeah.



Super Germany!

 

[htgriffin]

I wonder, is there a case to be made for any uptime UK citizens, especially those in official positions, still being subjects of the downtime crown?

Or are said subjects keeping a low profile to avoid the (literal) shithole that is 19th century London?

Click to shrink...

There are those who would argue, at length, that British citizens with usable knowledge or skills would be flocking to said shithole to make massive fortunes/become highly important (never mind the drop in living standards, or any possible race/religion/gender issues); likewise almost any other resident of California who is from a foreign background.

And frankly any remotely forward thinking governments would at least seriously consider trying to lure such folks in, although how successful they would be may vary.

 

[Highlord]

Now that I'm home from work and not using my phone.

The geopolitics are going to be interesting. Assuming California breaks off the US, it will very likely come into more territory west of the Rockies over the decades. As for the US, with knowledge of how the future went the first time around, Europe, especially the British Empire, is almost certainly going to take strides to make sure it stays small. The other European powers will likely do the same. How successful they will actually depend on how good the US manages to keep it's relationship with California.

Which will also be interesting. If California starts expanding west of the Rocky Mountains and allies with Mexico, I can quite easily see the US getting belligerent. As technology spreads, a clash on the great plains isn't entirely out of the question if things go completely downhill. If that happens, it's probably be several generations away, once the majority of people that have connections to pre-Event America are gone.

China, Japan and Korea will be very interesting. I don't know enough about either nation to really make commentary, but if California can get on good terms with them, they'll have a lock on the Pacific. If the Brits get Alaska, the Californians will likely be annoyed, but it's not something that can't be worked around, especially if they get allies in Japan and China.

Though having the British Empire suddenly active and expanding on the North American continent is probably one of the nightmare scenarios of the US at this time.

 

[Alane1]

Which will also be interesting. If California starts expanding west of the Rocky Mountains and allies with Mexico, I can quite easily see the US getting belligerent. As technology spreads, a clash on the great plains isn't entirely out of the question if things go completely downhill. If that happens, it's probably be several generations away, once the majority of people that have connections to pre-Event America are gone.

Click to shrink...

Expands west across the rockies? I mean setting aside the suggesting of going full imperialist on the US I somehow don't think California is chaos sorcerers who warp reality(even if the rest of us do joke about them being the land of fruits and nuts.)

 

[Matsci]

Speaking of Steel, the Bessemer process hasn't been invented yet.

Depending on how fast California moves on the matter, they might be able to become the worlds steel capital.

 

[ExNihilo]

Speaking of Steel, the Bessemer process hasn't been invented yet.

Depending on how fast California moves on the matter, they might be able to become the worlds steel capital.

Click to shrink...

Cali's steel production will dwarf everyone else's, Bessemer or no. Modern steel production is far better than early Bessemer, and cheap foreign steel suppresses local production. Why buy British steel if Cali's is cheaper and better?

 

[Instant Sunrise]

Exhibit Hall D, Moscone Center — San Francisco — June 1st, 1851

Ever since The Event had happened, The North "D" hall of the Moscone Center in San Francisco had been used as the congressional chambers for the 2018 Government-in-Temporal-Exile. Most of the work had been to simply coordinate the remnants of the uptime federal agencies to act as a coherent government.

Now, however, with the constitutional convention upon them, and the sole remaining uptime state calling for an Article V convention, the temporary congressional chamber was being used for a different purpose, a constitutional convention that would lead to the dissolution of the remaining uptime federal government and folding it into the state government.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, Please rise for the acting President of the uptime United States, Madam Nancy Pelosi." Came the voice of the Sergeant at Arms over the PA system.

Emerging from the side room into the small stage, Pelosi was flanked by two secret service agents. Walking up to the podium, which had the presidential seal affixed to it as she had been walking up, she looked across the crowd of delegates, state senators, assemblymembers, and congressional representatives.

"My fellow Californians," She said. "We stand before a crossroads right now. This supernatural disaster has uplifted all of us into a world that we can hardly recognize, and has created a legal uncertainty for many of the freedoms we hold dear. We stand here on behalf of the people of California to create a new constitution that resolves this uncertainty."

———

Winners and Losers In The New Constitution. — John Myers, Los Angeles Times, July 1st, 1851.

SAN FRANCISCO—With the constitutional convention now underway at the Moscone Center, every aspect of California's Constitution is under a microscope. When compared side by side to the the old constitution, the first thing to notice is that the new constitution is a significantly shorter document than its predecessor. Large parts of the old constitution were removed and rewritten into statutes to be passed alongside of it. The new leaner constitution is focused on the organization of government and of establishing the rights of the people, and not legislating from the constitution.

Winners:

• Lieutenant Governors: The Lieutenant Governor is no longer elected separately from the governor, instead both the Governor and Lieutenant Governor are elected on a single ticket.
• LGBT people: The new constitution unceremoniously removes Proposition 8 and added a constitutional protection against discrimination due to sexual orientation.
• Taxpayers: The new constitution combines the IRS, Franchise Tax Board, and Board of Equalization into a single agency. According to a report by the Legislative Analysts Office, the tax savings from the reduced redundancy across the entire government would translate to an effective tax rate 10% lower for the average taxpayer.
• Renters: The ad-hoc publicly owned housing programs that counties set up after the Event have been formalized into the Department of Public Housing.
• MediCal recipients: The new constitution reorganizes Medicare and MediCal into a single agency with the mission to provide healthcare for everyone in California.
• Immigrants: Without exception, everyone who was in the state when The Event happened is now a citizen of California.

Losers:

• Prop 13: The ballot measure born out of the infamous 1978 property tax revolt has been scaled back significantly to only cover owner-occupied houses. That means that owners of commercial and industrial property will see their tax bills rise with the valuation of the property.
• Prop 98: The Prop 98 school funding formula has been removed from the constitution to give legislators more flexibility in budgeting. In exchange, the constitutional declaration of rights guarantees the right to a quality and free education.
• Immigration Hardliners: Proposition 68, which declared English the official language of California, has been quietly excised from the new constitution. In addition, the new constitution declares that all people residing in California on the date of the Event are California citizens, effectively granting amnesty to California's population of undocumented immigrants.
• Rep. Bob Huff (R-Fullerton) and Former Assemblywoman Young Kim: The two GOP congressional candidates who controversially won the top two slots in the June primary for their district despite the Democratic candidates receiving more votes will be feeling the heat in future elections, as the top two primary system was amended to prevent future minority party top two lockouts like what happened in the 39th congressional district. Under the modified top two system, the party that receives the most votes in the primary is guaranteed a spot on the November ballot, even if no single candidate has enough votes to reach the top two.[1]
• The Rich: Under the reorganization plan, the Franchise Tax Board will be the sole collector of income taxes, as a result, capital gains will be taxed at the same rate as regular income. Previously, this only applied to the state income tax, while IRS taxed capital gains at a lower rate than income.
• The Initiative Amendment Process: The requirements for an initiative amendment to the constitution are far stricter under the new constitution. For somebody to use the initiative process to amend the constitution, the proposed amendment must now pass via a two thirds majority and have more than half of all eligible voters cast a vote for that amendment.

———

PREAMBLE:

We, the People of California, grateful for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.

ARTICLE I: Declaration of Rights

1. All human beings have the freedom of thought and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Only in the case of defamation, false statements, and acts of perjury may this freedom be abridged by court order. All peoples have the right to petition their elected representatives regarding grievances.
   
   
2. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. All peoples are entitled to rights and freedoms without any distinction based on race, nationality, ethnicity, sex, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, ideological views or economic status. All persons within the Republic of California or subject to the jurisdiction thereof are entitled to equal protection under the law. All persons have the right to a fair and expeditious trial to resolve disputes or criminal charges against them. All persons have the right to freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention. If accused of a crime, the accused is to be assumed innocent until proven otherwise by a court of law. Persons proven guilty of charges by a court of law have freedom from excessive bail and or cruel punishment.
   
   
3. All human beings have the right to a free, and healthy life. It is the government of California's responsibility to ensure that every citizen has the right to a free choice of employment, just and favorable working conditions, and social security in the event of unemployment. In the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control, citizens will be entitled to a right of economic security. All peoples have the right to equal pay for equal work. All peoples have the right to form or join a trade union for the protection of their interests. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of themselves and of his family. All peoples have the right to a free, comprehensive, and compulsory education until the age of majority. A public option will be provided by the republic for higher education on the basis of merit. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities for the maintenance of peace.
   
   
4. All human beings are entitled to be free of fear of their government. Only in the state of extreme national emergency may the freedoms enshrined in this document be infringed, and even then only for a set time period with 3/4 approval from both chambers of the legislature. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor subjected to unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause.

ARTICLE II: California

1. The Republic of California is the Legal and Constitutional Successor to the State of California and the United States of America as of November 6th, 2018.
2. (a) All residents and peoples residing in California on November 6, 2018 are named citizens of the California Republic due to the extraordinary circumstances.
   (b) All persons born or naturalized in California, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of California.
   (c) All persons born to a citizen of California are themselves citizens of California regardless of their place or birth or place of residence.
   (d) All persons have the right to a fair and speedy process of naturalization.

[...]

Click to shrink...

—————————

1: In the June 5th, 2018 primary election ITTL, there were two Republican candidates and five Democratic vying for the seat of retiring Congressman Ed Royce. Even though the Democratic candidates overall had more votes overall in the June election, the Democratic votes were evenly spread among the five candidates, while the Republicans had less votes in the primary overall but only two candidates. As a result, the two candidates with the most votes were the two Republicans, locking the Democratic party out from that race in November.

 

[Moonlit Lord]

As a bit of a minor nitpick, but the Board of Equalization no longer exists. It got split into the Caldifornia Department of Tax and Fee administration (CDTFA) and the Department of Tax Appeals. Though, I have to say, the new portal for filing is so much worse than the previous one. Curse you standardization!!!

 

[Accelerator]

Damn. Anymore culture shocks?

 

[TiaC]

They didn't just go for ranked choice voting?

 

[Sakuya's Butler]

Might want to quietly make sure that the 'no military unit may be quartered in a civilian's home without due compensation' (forgot the exact wording) STAYS in their new Constitution. Otherwise that is liable to get abused at a later date.

Also, I see that you skipped a version of the 2nd Amendment entirely, or its further down in the Articles. That will cause.....issues.....I can very easily foresee in the future, if it really was skipped. Mostly because if it's deliberately left 'up in the air', then its still legal (under the 'if there isn't a law against it or for it, its legal' ideology), but has the proverbial sword of Damocles hovering over those that try to abuse things. And if there is one thing human history, or more precisely, US history, has proven, is that we just love to toe the line as close to the edge as possible, until we're balancing the razor (with some people sneering at those who are further back from said edge).

 

[Skelm]

Might want to quietly make sure that the 'no military unit may be quartered in a civilian's home without due compensation' (forgot the exact wording) STAYS in their new Constitution. Otherwise that is liable to get abused at a later date.

Click to shrink...

That one became obsolete when modern military logistics. No one wants to house soldiers in people's houses, you don't need a law against it, certainly not in the constitution.

 

[Guardian54]

The Rich losing out a bit here is no issue for one big reason: The fortune that they can make off the downtimers trivially dwarfs any such losses. So making a fuss isn't worth their time.