Re: [alternate-history] Re: New Sweden
- That requires knowing in 1788 than 1860 will happen as it did. The compromise was a Potomac capital for taking over the state and continental debts. Politics. However given the politics DC was not an insane choice the way say Wheeling would have been. Brazilia was in a basically undeveloped zone while DC was a swamp in a rich, settled, economically productiver zone.Logrolling is usally less bad than Marxist planning.scott----- Original Message -----From: Michael Edward McNeilSent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 1:33 AMSubject: [alternate-history] Re: New Sweden(Mail was down when I wrote this. Found it in my drafts folder and decided it wasn't so old to not send it....)
Although -- wouldn't you agree that having the national capital located precisely on the boundary of the seceding region was a considerable danger and disadvantage during the Civil War?
scott palter wrote:Actually DC made as little sense as Brazilia did and took longer to finish. The difference is that while the actual location of both was absurd in a micro sense, Brazilia's location made no sense in a macro sense either while DC was actually an intelligent placement between the two developing regions even if the micro of putting it in a swamp was idiotic.Scott----- Original Message -----From: Michael Edward McNeilSent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 1:15 AMSubject: [alternate-history] New Sweden (was: WI:No Black Plague?)mattias persson wrote:
Don't forget how few people there mostly were, scattered along the eastern seaboard during the colonial period. As late as 1752 the "city" of Baltimore held a mere 200 souls! A half century later, as Henry Adams was to report on page 1 of his famous (1889) History of the United States, as of 1800 the United States' center of population still lay only 18 miles from Baltimore, thus east of Washington. Funny to think of Washington, D.C., as the Brasilia of its age.
The new Swedish kingdom might also have had enough clout and manpower to secure a hold in some colonies in the New World. They had an incipient one in what later became Delaware, I think.
swedish gov didnt care about it to much. THere were never more than 400 people there at one time
As Henrik Krog pointed out earlier to this group, it was Swedes (and Finns) residing along North America's Delaware River who introduced what came to be that pervasive instrument of backwoods-living technology in America, the log cabin -- not to speak of introducing us to Finnish baths!
Perusing a 1651 map (John Farrer's "Virginia"), I note that along the course of the Delaware one finds a notation: "This River the Lord Ployden hath a Patten of and calls it new Albion but the Sweeds are planted in it and haue a great trade of Furrs."
Peter Stuyvesant of Holland's New Netherlands domain usurped control in 1655 over the Swedish colony, which then was passed along with the rest of the United Provinces' American dominion to the English in 1664. It's seldom recalled today, but after its initial loss the Dutch actually reconquered their New Netherlands colony -- then traded it away again to the British in lieu of Surinam at the peace conference. (Thus, a good alternate history point of departure might be, what if the Dutch had made a different choice?)
There was some question raised earlier as to where the Swedish colony (mainly) stood. Fort Christina was erected, beginning in 1638, at the present site of Wilmington, Delaware. The governor built a palace on Tinicum Island, some miles above Fort Christina. Following the transition to English rule, when William Penn arrived as regional proprietor in 1682 (to found -- a little up the Delaware -- the city of Philadelphia, colony of "Pennsylvania"), he also assumed jurisdiction over the Swedish town of Upland, henceforth renamed Chester. The lower Delaware region, resenting this new state of affairs, was eventually spun off as a separate colony (taking on the name of the river). Swedes, Finns and others residing along the Delaware became British citizens, where they (as one narrative put it) "lived [on] in peace and harmony."
- I would say that the 'Drang Nach Osten' would actually be more pronounced - the land pressures were intense in Western Europe, so even more German emigrants would've poured into Poland. The Jews most likely would've stayed put, since they were barred from farming and land ownership.Ross
Henrik Krog <estrup@...> wrote:
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 11:54:05 -0800 (PST), Kingsbury Run
> Not that the Germans would need all that much of a pretext to slaughter
> helpless Jews, of course, but the Black Death started a massive migration to
> the East. When Sigismund saw that he could attract highly educated,
> commercially savvy, NON-GERMAN settlers into his lands, he did so.
Does that mean the German penetration of Poland is bigger in this TL?
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web