Subject: Re: WI Secretary Seward dies 4/14/1865?
From: Michael J. Lowrey <orangemike@aol.com>
Date: 1997/09/05
Message-ID: <873478459.28231@dejanews.com>
Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if
[Subscribe to soc.history.what-if] 
[More Headers]
In article <19970903061001.CAA26546@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
mrmikeind@aol.com (MrMikeInd) wrote:
> Premise: Secretary of State (under Lincoln) Wm. Seward dies in assasination
> attempt the same day Lincoln is assasinated results in USA losing Pacific
> war in WWII. Here goes:
>
> 1. Seward dies. Obviously, he isn't there for the reconstruction era, and so
> he isn't there in 1867 to use his influence with President A. Johnson to
> make the purchase of Alaska ("Seward's Folly.").
> 2. Alaska remains in Russian control.
> 3. Japan takes control of Alaska in the Russo-Japanese war during the first
> decade of the 20th century. They establish a military presence there.
> 4. The balance of power in the Pacific shifts to the point where Japan's
> power either necessitates the US to sue for peace, or the Pacific coast
> is attacked by Japan with some degree of success.
>
> A few flaws, maybe (ignores the peace process which ended the Russo-
> Japanese war under TR's influence, which won him the Nobel Prize; or
> maybe Japan attacks sooner with a presence on the North American
> continent). But interesting premise. Might be a good thing that knife used
> on Seward wasn't a few inches in a different direction.
You forgot about the first potential consequence of such a death: would
the Radical Republicans in Congress be more emboldened and/or embittered
by the death of one of their favorites, thus precipitating the Johnson
Impeachment Crisis even sooner, and possibly tipping the balance of votes
in the Senate the other way? If Johnson was successfully impeached, the
pro-Johnson historians insist, the U.S. presidency might have suffered a
permanent dimunition in power and prestige, to the advantage of the
Radical Reconstructionists at the time [with what consequences for the
South and the freed slaves?], and in the long run to the advantage of the
Congress, whoever dominated there.
Aside from this, Mr. Mike, your step #1 might be iffy. Although he was
widely blamed and razzed for it, "Seward's Folly" might have been
purchased anyway, whoever held office at the time. Remember, the USA was
pretty shamelessly imperialist during the era in question, and if we
didn't snap it up the English probably would have been interested. Given
the lack of love lost between US and English interests, there might even
have been something of a bidding war (any 19th-century specialists out
there?) over the place.
If Russia still held Alyeska in 1905, given the outrageous racism of
1905, I doubt if the white powers would have let the Yellow Peril of
Japan grab a chunk of North America, whatever the "merits" of their claim
to have won it fair and square. (Remember, by then there was knowledge of
great mineral wealth thereabouts.) We may speculate on what other
arrangements might have arisen: some sort of Anglo-American-Russian
codominion or protectorate; outright annexation by the US or the English;
continued Russian sovereignity with special Japanese trade rights [but
not immigration; this was the period in which immigration treaties became
the most blatantly racist]; or...?
I have speculated on the possibility of Russian-ruled Alyeska being used
as a place of exile for dissidents, being even farther from Moskva than
Siberia? If a few radicals fled south to Canada or the States, all the
better; just keep them from re-crossing the borders. In such a scenario,
we can then speculate on the role of Alyeska in the revolution(s) of
1905, 1917, etc. Revolutionary Alyeska vs. Tsarist Russia, or White
Russian Alyeska (subsidized by the US & England) vs. the Soviets, are two
possibilities that come to mind.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
