• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Nanwe's Maps and Graphics Thread

Ares96

Ísbjörn í húsdýragarðinn!
Published by SLP
#82
So far, both cdH and PTB have ruled out being in government. PS and Ecolo are currently talking to try and form a government, excluding the liberals. But they wouldn't have a majority combined, so the end result might be a minority coalition government reliant on support from other parties to pass legislation.
If those parties are the PTB and/or the CDH, that's not a terrible outcome tbf.
 

Nanwe

The Troika always wins
Location
Lund, DK
#83
I've been thinking that I might re-do the Columbia list of premier with false people, as this gives me way more liberty to play with things. So this is something of a start to the whole thing. The country's independence is in 1833, but I haven't yet decided how I want to show the beginnings of the state.

1844-1850: Francis C. Adams (National)
1844: xx (Federal)
1848: xx (Federal)


The scion of the Adams political dynasty

1850-1856: Charles A. Winthrop (National)
1852: xx (Federal)

When Francis C. Adams resigned the premiership in 1850 mid-legislature, there were signs of the storm to come. Tensions were high in the west and in Congress, successive tariff-raising bills were introduced amidst the National’s plan for forcing local and state governments to invest in developing infrastructure were decried as tyrannical, prompting fits of anger in the backbenches and the occasional duel between members of both parties.
Out west, rumours spread of Federal militias arming against any tax officials or attempts by military forces to reduce the power of the states, the ultimate aim to enforce the Federal programme by force, expanding suffrage and returning power to the individual. In the east however, rumours also spread, but of the pact of the Federals with the English or the Devil – depending on the degree of religious puritanism.

In that atmosphere, ultimately it was a matter of time for things to explode. On 14 June 1853, during a local festival in the – then – small town of Adrian, a standoff between a mob and soldiers stationed there turned into a violent street clash resulting in the expulsion of the troops from the town. In response, military authorities sent a larger detachment to impose peace on the town, which called upon neighbouring towns for succour. The larger detachment was again expelled, but not after killing several men. From there, things spiralled and within two months half the country was in open revolt against Columbus and Winthrop’s authority. The rebels called for universal franchise, lower tariffs and taxes, a stronger response to Indian attacks and an end to the so-called ‘Massachusetts Monarchs’ [1]. The leaders of the Federal Party, like Marcus Morton, seized the opportunity to end their absence from power and enforce their programme, and put themselves at the helm of the revolt.

Historians today point at Winthrop’s dubitative nature as part of the reason for the beginning of the war, by delaying the start of operations in putting down the revolt. Ultimately, Winthrop would find his determination in leading the war effort putting down the Federalist rebellion. Along the way, and taking advantage of the war power, Winthrop recrafted the Columbian state to mirror his party’s ideals of strong government and a strong, protectionist economy.

By 1855, the civil war was over, the west had been pacified and the process of reconstruction was underway. In October of that year, Morton and the other major leaders of the rebellion were publicly executed for treason. At this point, Adams confided in his party that he had no desire to run again, and instead opened the field for the party conference to choose his successor.


1856-1864: Jasper E. Morgan (National)
1856: scattered opposition
1860: Lucius C. French (People’s)

Jasper E. Morgan was narrowly elected party leader by its congressional conference. With the backing of the party’s grandees, Morgan’s election was guaranteed. In the 1856 election there was virtually no opposition. The Federal leaders and other rebel commanders had been exiled, imprisoned, executed or disenfranchised. As a result, the National agenda could pass in a legislature where the party held a commanding majority. Morgan’s tenure was marked by his diplomatic overtures towards Britain and the expansion of the railway westwards.

Domestically, Morgan stood at odds against his own party over immigration, the great political issue of the 1860s. The great famine that struck Ireland drove thousands of Irishmen to move to Columbia. Many National politicians, remembering the support of 1848 revolutionaries to the Federal cause, were very wary of allowing further immigration into the country, particularly of Catholics. Morgan would however place himself in the pro-immigration side of the debate, driving tensions between the party’s liberals and restrictionists.

By 1864, pro-free trade and Western elements had begun to coalescence around a new party. The new leader, Lucius French, was a former Federalist that had remained opposed to the rebellion in his home state of Kankakee. French managed to form a party that accepted the National principles of a strong state but defending the old Federal plank of universal suffrage, free trade, free immigration to the west and harder anti-Indian policies.


1864-1866: Reuben A. Fenton (National)
1864: Eliphalet Banks (Restriction National), Lucius C. French (People’s)

Fenton was elected party leader by the National Party conference thanks to the support of western Nats and other immigration liberals. As a result, many easterners walked out, instead running as ‘Restriction National Independent’, obtaining a great deal of support in New England as especially in the Massachusetts area. In the election, the ‘official’ National candidates won a majority and Fenton began negotiating an Aliens Act in a transversal fashion.

Before it could be passed, Fenton was murdered by a former Federal rebel.


1866-1876: Francis D. Cox (National)
1868: Lucius C. French (People’s), xx (Democratic)
1872: A

With Fenton’s death, the National grandees sought instead to try and

[1] Ironical given that some of the most important leaders of the Federal Party, like Morton, were also part of the Bay Colony’s elites.
 

Nanwe

The Troika always wins
Location
Lund, DK
#87
Some more maps:

The Catholic People's Party (KVP) was the largest party in 1967, although much of its vote share was concentrated in the two Catholic-majority provinces of North Brabant and Limburg. The party was founded in 1946 as a successor to the Roman Catholic State Party (RKSP) of the interwar period. By 1967, the KVP had been consistently in government since 1945 in centre-left coalitions with the PvdA (1965-66), in centre-right ones with the ARP, CHU and VVD (1958-65, 1966-67) or in centrist ones with both the PvdA, CHU, ARP and/or VVD (1948-58). Internally by this point, the party was divided between two major wings, one closer to the Christian left and progressivism (that would split off in 1968 to found the PPR) and another more traditionally Christian democratic and closer to conservative positions. The 1967 elections represent the beginning of the decline of the Catholic bloc vote, as the KVP went from 30% to 26% of the vote and lost 8 seats.

 

Thande

Ricky Carlson / David Alameel '20
Published by SLP
#88
Looking at @Nanwe 's maps of the Netherlands and Belgium does make you wonder (and this springs to mind to me for obvious reasons) what the politics in this era of a united Low Countries would look like.

I've not talked about it much in LTTW but I have this vague idea that the King is quite powerful because, thanks to the pillarisation and bloc vote of confessional and linguistic parties, there isn't much space for a nationwide Adamantine (ie liberal) party to oppose him and governments tend to be constructed around the royalists who are the only functional (mostly) nationwide party.
 

Nanwe

The Troika always wins
Location
Lund, DK
#89
Next up, the PvdA. Unlike other social democratic parties in Western Europe, the Labour Party (PvdA) was a newly-created entity in 1946, resulting from the merger of the SDAP, the interwar social democratic party and the VDB, a left-leaning liberal party. By 1967, the PvdA had been out of power for a decade with the exception of the brief Cals government (April 1965-November 1966). The PvdA Prime Minister, Willem Drees (1948-58) had been a very popular figure who, in coalition with the KVP built the Dutch welfare state. By 1967, the party had been going through some electoral decline and as a way to remedy it, it had begun to move towards New Left position to gain over young and female voters. Ultimately this pissed off the party's old guard that split off in 1970 to found the Democratic Socialists 1970 (DS'70), a new party led by Willem Drees Jr.

The PvdA's result in 1967, when it only obtained 37 seats out of 150 was its worse electoral performance until 1994 when it obtained again 37 seats. To this day it's the party's 7th worse performance.

 

Nanwe

The Troika always wins
Location
Lund, DK
#90
Looking at @Nanwe 's maps of the Netherlands and Belgium does make you wonder (and this springs to mind to me for obvious reasons) what the politics in this era of a united Low Countries would look like.

I've not talked about it much in LTTW but I have this vague idea that the King is quite powerful because, thanks to the pillarisation and bloc vote of confessional and linguistic parties, there isn't much space for a nationwide Adamantine (ie liberal) party to oppose him and governments tend to be constructed around the royalists who are the only functional (mostly) nationwide party.
That'd be very interesting although it would depend on where those monarchists come from. If the monarchy is associated with Catholicism, then like in Belgium, there's a huge mass of supports ready in Flanders, Brabant and Limburg. If it's associated with Protestantism, then which Protestantism? Conservative (ARP) or liberal Calvinist (CHU) strands? [1]. I suppose royal power can be preserved a bit like it is in Belgium where the monarch is an umpire who manages to bring together all the pillars at the top level.

[1] Funnily enough ITOL, the ARP was founded to be the party of the Dutch Reformed splinter from the main church because it was too liberal, but by 1960 it was the more left-leaning party of the two.
 

Alex Richards

Tends to eat truffles once found
Patreon supporter
Published by SLP
Location
Derbyshire
#91
Looking at @Nanwe 's maps of the Netherlands and Belgium does make you wonder (and this springs to mind to me for obvious reasons) what the politics in this era of a united Low Countries would look like.

I've not talked about it much in LTTW but I have this vague idea that the King is quite powerful because, thanks to the pillarisation and bloc vote of confessional and linguistic parties, there isn't much space for a nationwide Adamantine (ie liberal) party to oppose him and governments tend to be constructed around the royalists who are the only functional (mostly) nationwide party.
Oh good grief. German pillarisation as well.
 

Nanwe

The Troika always wins
Location
Lund, DK
#92
Some more maps:

The Catholic People's Party (KVP) was the largest party in 1967, although much of its vote share was concentrated in the two Catholic-majority provinces of North Brabant and Limburg. The party was founded in 1946 as a successor to the Roman Catholic State Party (RKSP) of the interwar period. By 1967, the KVP had been consistently in government since 1945 in centre-left coalitions with the PvdA (1965-66), in centre-right ones with the ARP, CHU and VVD (1958-65, 1966-67) or in centrist ones with both the PvdA, CHU, ARP and/or VVD (1948-58). Internally by this point, the party was divided between two major wings, one closer to the Christian left and progressivism (that would split off in 1968 to found the PPR) and another more traditionally Christian democratic and closer to conservative positions. The 1967 elections represent the beginning of the decline of the Catholic bloc vote, as the KVP went from 30% to 26% of the vote and lost 8 seats.

Compare that map to this one:

 

Thande

Ricky Carlson / David Alameel '20
Published by SLP
#93
I suppose royal power can be preserved a bit like it is in Belgium where the monarch is an umpire who manages to bring together all the pillars at the top level.
That's kind of what I was thinking, with a Catholic monarch but some royalist penetration of the Protestant north based on the 'record of stable governance' message following a dark period in the former Dutch Republic's history.
 

Nanwe

The Troika always wins
Location
Lund, DK
#94
So in this scenario, I'm getting 18.6 million Dutch-speakers (50.4%), 14.1 million German speakers (38.2%) and 4.2 million French speakers (11.5%).

Religion-wise, it's trickier to calculate but my very rough guess would be 19.9 million Catholics (53.9%), 10.6 million Protestants (28.6%, split between the two Dutch main Reformed churches back in the 70s, and I suppose also Lutherans), 6.5 million Others (17.5%, mainly non-religiously affiliated people, I don't have exact data for either Belgium or Germany)
 

Thande

Ricky Carlson / David Alameel '20
Published by SLP
#95
So in this scenario, I'm getting 18.6 million Dutch-speakers (50.4%), 14.1 million German speakers (38.2%) and 4.2 million French speakers (11.5%).

Religion-wise, it's trickier to calculate but my very rough guess would be 19.9 million Catholics (53.9%), 10.6 million Protestants (28.6%, split between the two Dutch main Reformed churches back in the 70s, and I suppose also Lutherans), 6.5 million Others (17.5%, mainly non-religiously affiliated people, I don't have exact data for either Belgium or Germany)
Sorry, just to be clear, which scenario do you mean? LTTW or something else?
 

Makemakean

Rootless Rōnin
#96
Looking at @Nanwe 's maps of the Netherlands and Belgium does make you wonder (and this springs to mind to me for obvious reasons) what the politics in this era of a united Low Countries would look like.

I've not talked about it much in LTTW but I have this vague idea that the King is quite powerful because, thanks to the pillarisation and bloc vote of confessional and linguistic parties, there isn't much space for a nationwide Adamantine (ie liberal) party to oppose him and governments tend to be constructed around the royalists who are the only functional (mostly) nationwide party.
Something I brought up in my article on Christian Reconstructionism I wrote for @Uhura's Mazda was that Rushdoony was in his theology (and his politics was basically an outgrowth of his theology) by the Dutch-American Cornelius Van Til, and something I would have liked to have brought up in connection with this was that Van Til was personally very much influenced theologically by Abraham Kuyper, founder of the Anti-Revolutionary Party. I would have liked to have added how odd that was since my understanding of Kuyper was that his brand of conservatism was very much in line with the Salisburyian philosophy of "it is the job of a good conservative to oppose the inevitable until it becomes harmless", and that while Kuyper was very conservative in his Calvinist theology, in politics, he was very much ecumenical, and had no problem working with the Catholic confessional parties. After all, they both wanted basically the same conservative policies anyway, and they weren't competing for one another's voters, so it seemed really straight-forward.

It would be interesting to do a timeline where for some reason (like in LTTW), Ireland is never incorporated in the Union, and by the time the 20th century comes around, Ireland has a political system very much resembling the Netherlands, where an I-Cannot-Believe-It's-Not-Ian Paisley and an I-Cannot-Believe-It's-Not-Eamon De Valera are in negotiations as to merging their separate conservative confessional parties into a single Christian Democratic Party, with the Paisley analogue going, "Well, of course the Pope is the Antichrist and the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon, that's what I teach my congregation every Sunday, but darned it, the Catholics truly are a wonderful ally to have on the abortion issue! You couldn't ask for better people!"
 

Nanwe

The Troika always wins
Location
Lund, DK
#97
Sorry, just to be clear, which scenario do you mean? LTTW or something else?
I did work off the latest map I managed to find of LTTW Europe but admittedly I haven’t read up on the last two acts.

But I’ve been also been thinking of this scenario for a bit so it works for that too.
 

Nanwe

The Troika always wins
Location
Lund, DK
#98
Now it is the turn for the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), which as you can see usually got pretty even results throughout the country. The party's strongholds appear to be in the suburban areas of the country's large cities, in cities like Wassenaar, the wealthiest municipality to this day in the Netherlands, next to The Hague. The areas where it got the least percentage of votes were rural Limburg, in North Limburg.

 

Nanwe

The Troika always wins
Location
Lund, DK
Mildly surprised the Gooi doesn't stand out more.
Probably because back then wealth didn't yet equal voting for the VVD just yet, only secular wealth. The values for Hilversum for instance are:
PvdA 23,83%, KVP 17,64%, VVD 15,45%, ARP 11,32%, CHU 7,7%, D66 6,67%

For the record, I actually really recommend you check out: https://www.verkiezingsuitslagen.nl/verkiezingen/ Besides the data results, you can actually download the results map in both svg and png, which are editable. It saved me a lot of time with the map and makes finding the municipality maps from as early as the 1920s a piece of cake.