• 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

Belgium of the East: Slovakia & Subcarpathian Ruthenia
  • 3cppBsg.png
    UIelUoa.png

    Slovakia (/sloʊˈvækiə, -ˈvɑːk-/, Slovak: Slovensko [ˈslɔʋɛnskɔ]; Hungarian: Szlovákia [ˈslovaːkiʲɒ]), officially the State of Slovakia (Slovak: Krajina Slovenká [krajina ˈsɫɔvɛŋka], Hungarian: Tartomány Szlovákia [ˈtɒrtomaːɲ ˈslovaːkiʲɒ]) is a state of Czechoslovakia. Slovakia is located on the eastern half of Czechoslovakia, and borders, clockwise, Poland to the north, Subcarpathian Ruthenia to the east, Hungary to the south, Austria to the west and Moravia-Silesia to the north-west. With an estimated area of 49,006 square kilometres (18,921 sq mi), Slovakia is the second-largest Czechoslovak state, comprising roughly 35 per cent of the country's landmass. With an estimated population slightly over six million inhabitants, Slovakia is also the second-most populous Czechoslovak state, after Bohemia. The state has a population density of 125.7 inhabitants per square kilometre (325.5h/sq mi). Slovakia's main cities are its capital city, Bratislava (German: Preßburg, Hungarian: Pozsony), Košice (Hungarian: Kassa) and Trnava.

    The Slavs arrived in the territory of present-day Slovakia in the 5th and 6th centuries. In the 10th century, after the dissolution of Great Moravia, the territory was integrated into the Principality of Hungary, which would become the Kingdom of Hungary in 1000. Modern-day Slovakia, known as Upper Hungary would be a part of the Kingdom of Hungary and later the Austrian and Austro-Hungarian empires until 1918. After World War I, the Czechoslovak National Council established Czechoslovakia. Under Czechoslovak control, Slovakia saw the development of a strong nationalist movement as early as 1921, and calls for autonomy or independence would grow until Slovakia was granted autonomy in 1941, and became a state of federal Czechoslovakia after the 1967 constitutional reforms.

    The state is officially bilingual. Both Slovak and Hungarian are co-official languages for the state level, although the situation is more complicated at the district level. Germans pockets exist across Slovakia as a result of the 13th and 14th-centuries Ostsiedlung. In some districts of north-eastern Slovakia, Ruthene-speakers form a plurality of the population. In these districts, German and Ruthene are co-official. Slovak-speakers form about three-quarters of the population, while Hungarians represent 16% of the state's population, and are clustered in southern Slovakia, along the Hungarian border.

    ***
    Subcarpathian Ruthenia (Ruthene, Ukrainian: Підкарпатьска Русь, romanized: Pidkarpats'ka Rus', pronounced [pidkarpatsʲka rusʲ]; Hungarian: Kárpátalja, pronounced [kaːrpaːtalʝa]; Yiddish: קאַרפאַטן־לאנד, romanized: Karfatn-Land, pronounced [kaʀfatn ln̩d]), often simply referred to as Ruthenia or Subcarpathia is a state of Czechoslovakia. Subcarpathian Ruthenia is the easternmost state of the country and it borders, clockwise, Poland to the north and west, Romania to the south, Hungary to the south-west and the Czechoslovak state of Slovakia to the east. Subcarpathian Ruthenia is the smallest state by area, with an estimated area of 12,617 square kilometres (4,871 sq mi), comprising around 6% of Czechoslovakia's total landmass. Ruthenia is also the least-populated and least-densely populated state, with a population slight above 1.4 million as of 2019 and a population density of 112 inhabitants per square kilometre (290.1h/sq mi). Subcarpathian Ruthenia's main cities are the capital city Uzhorod (Ruthene, Ukrainian: Уґоград or У́жгород, Czech: Užhorod, Hungarian: Ungvár, Yiddish: אונגוואר), Mukachevo (Ruthene, Ukrainian: Мукачево, Yiddish: מונקאטש‎, Hungarian: Munkács) and Khust (Ruthene, Ukrainian: Хуст, Yiddish: חוסט‎).

    The present-day territory of Subcarpathian Ruthenia was first settled by the Slavic White Croats in the 8th and 9th centuries. During the 10th century, Slavs from the north (Galicia) and east settled in Ruthenia, often assimilating the previous local inhabitants. Despite the territory's Slavic majority, it came quickly under control of the Hungarian Kingdom, acting as a borderland between it and the Kievan Rus. Between the 12th and 15th centuries, the area was probably colonized by Eastern Orthodox groups of Vlach highlanders with accompanying Ruthenian populations. All the groups, including the local Slavic population, blended together creating distinctive culture from main Ruthenian-speaking areas. From 1570 until 1699, the region was divided between the Habsburg Monarchy and Principality of Transylvania under Ottoman suzerainty. This period saw the creation of the Greek Catholic Uniate Ruthenian Church in 1595 and 1646, setting the territory aside from trans-Carpathian Ukrainians. After 1699, the entire territory became a part of the Habsburg Monarchy and later of the Hungarian part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire until 1918. Following WWI, the Treaty of St. Germain granted the territory of Ruthenia to Czechoslovakia while mandating it to provide the territory with autonomy. Autonomy would however not be attained until 1941.

    Subcarpathian Ruthenia has a markedly distinct character from the rest of Czechoslovakia, owing to its East Slavic majority, close cultural and ethnic ties to Ukraine and Russia, Greek Catholic majority and the presence of a large Yiddish-speaking Jewish minority. It is an ethnically diverse region, home to Ruthene (who self-identify as Ruthene or Ukrainian), Lemko, Hutul, Hungarian, Jewish, German, Roma, Romanian and Czechoslovak populations. Subcarpathian Ruthenia, historically so undeveloped that it gave birth to the notion of Ruritania as a backwater territory, has seen great social and economic development throughout the course of the 20th century, although the territory remains significantly behind in terms of economic wealth and social developments compared to the rest of Czechoslovakia. Today, although Subcarpathian Ruthenia's GDP per capita is markedly higher than neighbouring Romania, southern Poland or indeed Soviet Ukraine, the territory is by far the poorest region of Czechoslovakia, showcasing an inordinate degree of wealth concentration in the capital city of Uzhorod.
     
    Last edited:
    OTL: 1967 ARP election share map
  • 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.

    XutnKo8.png

    Continuing from this map, here are the results of the Anti-Revolutionary Party (ARP), the largest of the two Christian democratic protestant parties, the other being the CHU. In 1967, the party obtained 9.9% of the vote and 15 seats (out of 150). By the 1960s, the ARP was the more socially liberal of the two Calvinist parties. By the late 60s and early 70s, the younger generations of the ARP were marked by a preference for governing with SDAP rather than the other confessional parties, for instance.

    The ARP was the party of one of the two main Calvinist churches in the Netherlands at the time, "Reformed Churches in the Netherlands", from the 1892 merger of two churches that had split from the main church - the Dutch Reformed Church. Coincidentally, it was also the church that would give birth to the SGP Calvinist theocrats, although the would-be SGP members split off in 1918.

    Its voter base was primarily concentrated in the northern provinces of Frisia and Groningen, as well as in Zeeland and to a lesser degree in the areas of South Holland closest to Catholic majority North Brabant.

    GTArvF2.png
     
    Last edited:
    Belgium of the East: Tomas Singer & Helena Dvořáková
  • 1xbny8L.png
    FXfMCWE.png

    Tomáš Singer (Czech pronunciation: [ˈtomaːʃ sɪnɡɛr]; born 8 April 1969) is a Czechoslovak politician serving as the State President of Bohemia since 2010 and as the leader of the Czechoslovak Social Democratic Workers' Party (ČSDSD) in Bohemia since 2008. Singer is generally associated with social liberal, Third Way views and is considered a member of the right-wing of the Social Democratic Party.

    Singer affiliated to the Social Democratic Party in 1987, following in the example of his father, a party member and Kladno's local OSČ-DGB union boss. He would quickly become active in local politics in Prague, as a member of the Social Democratic Youth. Singer has been a member of the Bohemian Assembly since the election of 1996 for the constituency of Prague Periphery (Praha-venkov).

    An economist by training, Singer served as the party's spokesperson in the Assembly's Welfare committee from 1997 until his nomination as State Councillor for Welfare and Public Health in 1999. Singer would serve in that post until 2002, under State Presidents Lubomir Šedivý (1999-2001) and Alena Němcová (2001-02). Following the 2002 election, Singer was appointed State Councillor in the second Němcová government (2002-06).

    After Alena Němcová's resignation as party leader in 2008, Singer was elected by the 26th Congress, becoming the unofficial leader of the opposition. Following the 2010 elections, Singer replaced Josef Kořán as Land President after forming a six-party coalition government together with the National Socialists, the German Social Democrats, the Czechoslovak and German people's parties and the Greens. Singer was re-elected in 2014 and 2018, renewing the centre-left coalition government.

    Singer is considered a popular politician, often receiving high approval ratings from voters from opposition parties, like the Republican Party (61%). According to a 2017 poll conducted by Lidové noviny, Singer is the second-most popular Social Democratic politician in Czechoslovakia and four-most popular overall.

    ***
    Helena Dvořáková (Czech pronunciation: [ˈɦɛlɛna ˈdvor̝aːkovaː]; born 6 April 1987) is a Czechoslovak politician serving as the State President of Moravia-Silesia since 19 September 2019. A member of the Christian democratic Czechoslovak People's Party, she has been a member of the Moravo-Silesian Assembly for Brno since 2015 and served as the State Councillor for Science, Research, and Arts between 7 February 2018 and 19 September 2019. She is also a member of the Board of Trustees of Orel.

    Dvořáková graduated from Masaryk University in 2012 with a master's in Sociology of Law. Dvořáková previously served as a member of the Brno City Council between 2010 and 2015, and as Chair of the federal Czechoslovak People's Youth League, the People's Party youth wing, from 2012 until 2016.

    Following her investiture by the state assembly, Dvořáková became the youngest-ever Czechoslovak state executive at 32 as well as the third women to lead an executive in Czechoslovak history.
     
    Last edited:
    Belgium of the East: Pavol Šrobár & Daniel Klochurak
  • 59F7KN6.png
    AzH5PNQ.png

    Pavol Šrobár (Slovak pronunciation: [pavɔl ʃrɔbaːr]; born 23 October 1961) is a Czechoslovak politician serving as the State President of Slovakia since 2016 and as a member of the Slovak Assembly for Košice. A member of the conservative-liberal Republican Party, Šrobar served as Slovak Councillor of Economy and Innovation in the second and third Zoch cabinets (2000-04) and as federal minister of Economic Cooperation and Development in the Hampl government. Šrobar ran and was elected as the Republican Party's candidate for Land President in the 2012 election in a contested party leadership election against Josef Šuhaj. Šrobár would become the opposition leader until forming his own government after the 2016 election together with the Social Democratic Party, the Slovak National Party and the United Hungarian Party.

    Šrobár is an economist by training, studying in Comenius University until he began his PhD in trade economics in the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, between 1986 and 1991. After returning to Czechoslovakia in 1993, Šrobár began teaching economics in the Milan Štefánik Technical University in Prešov. Šrobár has continued to teach economics as a guest lecturer at both Milan Štefánik Technical University and at Comenius University since 2012. Šrobár is the father of Eduard Šrobár, the current mayor of Prešov.

    ***

    Daniel Klochurak (Ruthene and Ukrainian: Данило Клочурак, romanized: Danylo Klochurak, pronounced: [dɑnɪlʲɔ klɔt͡ʃurɑk]; born 8 June 1976) is an ethnically-Ruthene Czechoslovak politician of the Federal Agrarian Union (FZS) currently serving as the Governor of Subcarpathian Ruthenia. Klochurak entered politics in 2002, rapidly becoming the mayor of Beregszász (Berehovo) in 2005. Klochurak's tenure as mayor launched him to the Ruthenian political forefront, as a vocal adversary of the incumbent governor, Mikhail Kichkovsky. Klochurak was elected Governor in 2014 after defeating Kichkovsky's protégé, Ivan Sydor. Klochurak's tenure has been denounced by the opposition by his authoritarian and populist style, although Klochurak was re-elected for his second and final term in 2019.
     
    Last edited:
    Belgium of the East: Soym & FZS
  • [WIP]

    The Diet of Subcarpathian Ruthenia (Ukrainian, Ruthene: Сойм Підкарпатської Русі, romanized: Soym Pidkarpats'koyi Rusi, Hungarian: , Yiddish: , romanised: , Czechoslovak: Sněm Podkarpatské Rusi), often referred to as Soym (Ukrainian, Ruthene: Сойм, romanized: Soym) is the unicameral legislature of Subcarpathian Ruthenia in Czechoslovakia. It is composed of 80 deputies elected every five years from a single, at-large constituency. The legislative election is held simultaneously with the gubernatorial election. The Soym convenes in the state's capital city of Uzhorod.

    The last legislative election took place on 1 September 2019.

    ***

    The Federal Agrarian Union (Ukrainian, Ruthene: Федеральний 3емлеробський Cоюз, romanized: Federal'niy Zemlerobs'kiy Sojuz; abbreviated as Ф3C, FZS in English) is a populist, big tent political party in Czechoslovakia. The Federal Agrarian Union was founded in 1923 as the 'Subcarpathian Agrarian Union' and is closely linked to the Greek Catholic hierarchy in the state of Subcarpathian Ruthenia. The party operates in Subcarpathian Ruthenia as well as in some Ruthene-majority areas of eastern Slovakia.
     
    Last edited:
    OTL: Alternate 2014 Ukraine general election
  • Ukraine has recently decided to alter its electoral system - from a legislature formed by 450 members, 225 of which are elected by FPTP and half from a single, national closed list, to one where it's formed by 300 members all elected from a single, nation-wide constituency through open-list PR.

    So I decided to try something a bit different. To indeed take the 300 members number but instead distribute it between the country's 24 oblasts, 2 special cities and the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Now, as a significant chunk of the country is under Russian occupation, these areas did not participate, leaving seats empty: All of Crimea and Sebastopol, 16 seats from the Donetsk Oblast and 9 from the Luhansk Oblast. Instead of a national 5% threshold for all parties, here the threshold is still 5% but at the constituency level.

    I decided to map the 2014 election with this system because frankly, the 2019 one is boring.

    A funny thing happened, the two largest parties vote-wise, the Petro Poroshenko Bloc and the People's Front obtained 21.82% and 22.14% of the vote respectively but 72 and 64 seats respectively, making it an odd case of wrong winner. This can be explained by the strength of the PPB in eastern Ukraine where the People's Front barely existed.

    The parties were:
    • The People's Front, led by Arseniy Yatsenyuk. Nationalist but reformist, close to Poroshenko, and formed as a splinter from Yulia Timoshenko's Fatherland. Right-wing, socially and economically. Open to ending the Donbas War by force. Pro-European.
    • The Petro Poroshenko Bloc, led by Yuri Lutsenko. Pro-President but nominally economically liberal, reformist and anti-populist. Centre-right. Wish to end the Donbas War peacefully. Pro-European.
    • The Self-Reliance Union, led by Andriy Sadovyi. Liberal-conservative and very reformist party, particularly stronger in the urban areas of Western Ukraine. Centre-right. Pro-European.
    • The Opposition Bloc, led by Yuriy Boyko. Regionalist, centrist, populist. Created from the ashes of the pro-Russian Party of the Regions. Strongest in eastern Ukraine, non-existent elsewhere. Anti-European.
    • The Radical Party, led by Oleh Lyashko. Populist: Economically leftist but socially conservative as well as very Ukrainian nationalist. Odd case of a western Ukrainian party that happens to be Eurosceptic. Created as a splinter from Yulia Timoshenko's Fatherland. Anti-European.
    • The Communist Party of Ukraine, led by Petro Symonenko. Economically far-left, socially conservative and Russophilic (Soviet nostalgia). Anti-European. Non-existent beyond Eastern Ukraine.
    • The All-Ukrainian Union "Fatherland", led by Yulia Timoshenko. Reformist and economically liberal, but less so than Self-Reliance or the People's Front. Centre-right. Pro-European.
    • The All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda", led by Oleh Tyahnybok. Far-right party: economically and socially nationalistic, anti-Semitic, anti-Russian. Non-existent outside Kyiv and western Ukraine. Pro-European.
    • Strong Ukraine, led by oligarch Serhiy Tihipko. Little ideology beyond wanting to put an end to the Donbas War by negotiating with Russia. The party defines itself as "patriotic but not nationalistic". Non-existent outside of Eastern Ukraine. No clear posture on EU membership.

    bafGsnE.png
     
    Last edited:
    OTL: Alternate 2019 Ukraine general election
  • In 2019, President Zalinskyy's Servant of the People got a thumping majority, 142 out of 260 seats that were up for election in practice. The opposition was very weak, which further favoured him.

    So these are the parties:

    • Servant of the People, named after Zelenskyy's well-known political comedy show, is a pro-president party. It appears, like all parties in Ukraine to be liberal-conservative and, like with Poroshenko, fairly reformist in implementing market and administration changes that move the country closer to Europe. Zelenskyy, however, is not terribly interested in foreign policy.
    • Opposition Platform - For Life!, at 46 seats was the second-largest party. The party is the result of the breakdown of the Opposition Bloc. Policy-wise it's similar, it's basically a vehicle for Russian-speakers or Russian-ethnic voters (not always the same) in eastern Ukraine. Socially conservative, economically populist, Soviet nostalgic and somewhat Eurosceptic and Russophilic, anti-NATO membership.
    • European Solidarity (21 seats) is Petro Poroshenko's party, affiliated with the EPP. Liberal-conservative, pro-NATO/EU membership, hawkish on the Donbas but fairly reformist in domestic issues.
    • The All-Ukrainian Union "Fatherland" (20 seats), led by Yulia Timoshenko. The same as in 2014.
    • Voice (10 seats) is by all accounts the most genuinely liberal and reformist party - anti-oligarch, pro-state modernisation, anti-corruption, non-populist and concerned about human rights. It is, therefore, strongest in western Ukraine and in the city of Kyiv. Came first - by one point - in Lviv.
    • The Radical Party (8 seats), led by Oleh Lyashko. Same as 2014.
    • The Opposition Bloc (5 seats). The leftovers of the 2014 Opposition Bloc.
    • Strength and Honour (3 seats), led by former state security services director Ihor Smeshko. Conservative, pro-European party.
    • Groysman's Ukrainian Strategy (2 seats), led by former Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman (2016-19). Liberal-conservative, reformist, pro-European party.
    • The All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda" (2 seats), led by Oleh Tyahnybok. Same as in 2014, perhaps the party has moderated a bit.
    • The Party of Shariy (1 seat), led by Anatoly Shariy (hence the name). Anti-corruption, pro-Zelenskyy, economically liberal, pro-European party.


    sBXFCEK.png
     
    Last edited:
    Columbia: Charles Withrop
  • Question for those who are better at writing than me, is this any good?

    Captura de pantalla 2020-03-18 a las 18.49.47.png

    1850-1856: Charles A. Winthrop (National)
    1852 def. Samuel M. Thornton (Federal)

    When Francis C. Adams resigned the premiership in 1850 mid-legislature, there were signs of the storm to come. The National Party’s consecutive steamrolling of tariff raising bills through Congress had sparked extreme opposition in Congress from Federalists and occasionally violent protests in the west. Designed to support New English industrialists, they forced local and state governments to invest in infrastructure projects with limited autonomy. This was denounced out west as tyrannical if not outright royalist behaviour. On the second and third readings of the 1851 Infrastructure Bill, the loud accusations from the Federal benches turned violent, as congressmen clashed on the grounds of the assembly – a widely-reported fact that further ignited anger among Western yeomen.
    West of the Ohio River, rumours Federal militias arming themselves spread. Soon, public denunciations and threats of lynching against any tax officials followed in an atmosphere of increasing hysteria, where many Federals began to see a National conspiracy to abolish state autonomy and limit suffrage.
    The agitated atmosphere also spread eastwards. In New England, northern New York and other National Party strongholds, there were calls for action against the so-called seditious militias forming an underground army to destroy the country in league with the dastardly English – or the Devil depending on the degree of religious puritanism. Religious authorities, rather than calm, further inflamed the situation by denouncing the Federalists as Popists-in-disguise.
    In that atmosphere, it was a matter of time for things to explode. And they did, literally. On June 14, 1853, in Adrian (Huron), a group of armed men carrying the Federal yellow banner assaulted a small Army garrison in the city. In the firefight, a powder keg was ignited, resulting in an explosion that killed all involved and set off a fire that nearly destroyed the town.
    In response, the Winthrop Cabinet sent two battalions to restore order to the city and calm the region, putting an end of the Adrian-style attacks on government facilities. By the time the troops arrived, they were welcomed by the locals with hurling, stones and eggs. In the confusion, the troops opened fire killing over twenty people before taking over the town and sending envoys east to request further reinforcements.
    Soon word spread across western Columbia of the ‘Adrian Massacre’, with frontier towns and locals assaulting federal government buildings. Often, Federal local officials and sheriffs would lead the charges. In Philadelphia, by July 1853, the Federalist delegation withdrew from Congress, arguing it was part of the “monarchist” system that was killing free citizens.
    As Federalist congressmen returned home, they gathered in Peoria. There, the Peoria Declaration was drafted. The assembled Federalists called for universal franchise, lower tariffs and taxes, a stronger response to Indian attacks and an end to the so-called ‘Massachusetts Monarchs’ (1). They denied the legitimacy of Winthrop and called to a return to the values of the short-lived confederation of states of 1776. They also elected Marcus Morton as the head of the rebellion and began organising the disperse citizen militias to fight off the federal army.
    Interpreted as an act of rebellion, the leaders of the rebellion were declared outlaws by the Winthrop government. Party grandees like Francis Whitcomb and Wilbur Bowdoin Jr called on him to mobilise troops from New England and then-Upper New York and move east quickly. Despite his initial misgiving owing to his dubitative nature, he would be turned to an aggressive stance by his son’s influence.
    National Party leaders called upon citizens to volunteer to supplement the small standing army, forming the ‘Yankee Battalions’. Under the command of Generals James Armstrong III and Hugh Gorham, governmental troops advanced west, beginning with the battle of Fort Pitt in Allegheny, where the Federal militias were routed. From there, they advanced further until reaching Fort Wayne, where a prolonged siege began as the harsh winter of 1853 approached, and the Army feared for the safety of its supply chains owing to guerrilla tactics in Erie.
    In the east, late 1853 was marked by another bout of Winthrop’s melancholia. In his place, Home Secretary Morgan would act as ersatz-First Secretary. Martial law was declared, habeas corpus and press freedom temporarily suspended and draft laws introduced. Meanwhile, taking advantage of the absence of most opposition congressmen, the National Party caucus proceeded to pass substantial constitutional revisions to re-model Columbia in their image: a strong central government, investment and protectionism, limited autonomy and property qualifications-based suffrage. The Federalist Party, so closely tied to the rebellion, was disbanded, many of its eastern members forced to either resign their seats, join the Nationals or sit as independents.
    The fall of Fort Wayne and the battle of the Tippecanoe River in April 1854 largely put an end to the active phase of the civil war. From then on, both volunteers and Army soldiers would be split to chase after surviving Federalist guerrillas that would plague the region until well into the 1860s.
    Meanwhile, Morton and other significant Federalist Party leaders were captured. Taken to trial, they were executed for treason in February 1855 to the displeasure of Winthrop, who by this point was eager to both resign and to put an end to the war.
    Convinced of the need to call an election after the gruesome conflict and tired of office, Charles Winthrop confided in party leaders his wish to retire and not designating a successor, unlike Adams. Instead, the party would decide.
     
    Last edited:
    1896 Spanish General Election (Congress)
  • After talking to the wikipedist who has been improving articles from the era, here's a much more simplified/cleaner version of the map, also with a simple colour scheme - they were oddly insistent about that.

    I'm also doubtful about how hard it is to distinguish Possibilist republicans and ordinary republicans and between the Conservatives and the dissident Silveslist Conservatives

    xG4zNEY.png

    1896 Spanish General Election - description incoming.

    For this election, the districts in León and Zamora were slightly modified to create one new district in each province in order to be able to create safe seats for local magnates, whereas in Vizcaya, the map was modified as well to create the new seat of Baracaldo, encompassing most of the former seat of Bilbao (without the actual city, which was its own seat) probably in a way to avoid Carlists winning the seat, as the seats in Guipuzcoa and Vizcaya were modified several times in the 1880s and 1890s to prevent Carlist candidates from winning the seats.

    xhoYibD.png
     
    1896 Spanish General Election
  • 1896 Spanish General Election

    [Note: I have decided, in style with the contemporary press, not to refer to the followers of Práxedes Mateo-Sagasta, or the Liberal-Fusionist Party, as ‘liberals’ but as ‘fusionist(s)’ after the first mention, for clarity’s sake.]

    Having come to power in 1892 by Royal Decree and obtained a comfortable parliamentary majority in 1893, the Sagasta cabinet embarked on one of the most fractious periods of Fusionist governance during the regency of Maria Cristina of Habsbug-Lorraine, as the cabinet would last less than two years and new elections would have to be called in 1896.

    The new government encompassed the whole spectrum of Fusionist opinion, and it featured, besides Sagasta as Prime Minister, the Marquis of Vega de Armijo as Foreign Minister, Eugenio Montero Ríos as Grace and Justice Minister, General José López Domínguez as War Minister, Admiral Pascual Cervera y Topete as Navy Minister, Germán Gamazo as Finance Minister, Venancio González Fernández as Interior Minister, Segismundo Moret as Public Works Minister and Antonio Maura as Overseas Minister. This was the so-called ‘ministry of notables’.

    As spelt out in Her speech to the co-legislating chambers, the Queen Regent, on behalf of Her Government, announced the cabinet’s intention to revise the country’s judicial system, from the Penal Code or the mortgage laws to improve the financing of the system, to pursue new free trade agreements and finalise the negotiations with Sweden-Norway, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Portugal.

    Other proposed reforms included a reform of the local administration system both in Metropolitan Spain as in the Antillean islands, the customs system for Cuba and Puerto Rico or the institution of municipal institutions in the Philippines.

    Despite all these reforming intentions, the Fusionist cabinet would instead end up tied endlessly fighting fires that kept popping up and marred in the internal conflict between the party’s left and right, particularly over the question of trade and the way to balance the state finances, a task that had not been accomplished by any Spanish government, thanks to nearly half a century of war and internal strife.

    The first few months of the cabinet were easy-going, almost a continuation of the long government of Sagasta (1885-1890), although the Finance Minister, Germán Gamazo, [1] was the most prominent cabinet member other than the “old shepherd” [2]. Gamazo had renounced his protectionist ambitions to appease the Fusionist left and centre but in return demanded - and obtained - from the cabinet a commitment to balance the books, requiring both budget cuts and new taxes.

    The single-mindedness in balancing the budget forced out the Navy Minister in March and the Justice Minister in July, as both opposed the cutbacks in their portfolios, and especially for Montero Ríos, the cutbacks would have made it impossible to enact his judicial reform plans.

    In Parliament, the new cabinet faced the obstructionist opposition of the Conservatives, who felt that the Queen Regent had dismissed Cánovas over a minor issue and that the Fusionists had failed at neutering the strength of the non-dynastic left, as evidenced by the republican success in the big cities in the 1893 election. Indeed, their strength and unity were so evident that the cabinet managed to delay the local and provincial elections from spring 1893 until January 1894. In response, the republicans deputies abandoned the Parliament not to return until the end of the legislature.

    In the meantime, in the autumn of 1893, several crises sparked. The most serious erupted over the combined cabinet, parliamentary and extra-parliamentary opposition to the budget presented in May 1893 by Gamazo for 1894.

    The budget bill contained provisions reducing the fiscal autonomy of Navarra, all-but-in-name eliminating the province’s fueros, as well as introducing a new tax on wine exports and on real estate transfers.

    In response, Navarrese officials and society rose up. The provincial government, the Diputación, dominated by pro-autonomy (‘fuerista’) Fusionists, together with mayors and the local fusionist press all spoke up against the proposal. Carlists, integrists and the local Conservatives, led by the Marquis of Vadillo backed the Diputación and sent delegations to Madrid to negotiate while organising massive signature-gathering campaigns and demonstrations. These mass movements - rare in the highly depoliticised society of the time - spread to the other three Basque provinces, and were similarly backed by an odd mix of republicans, traditionalists and pro-autonomy fusionists and conservatives.

    However, through the intervention of the Crown, the Conservatives rallied in Parliament to the government and ended their obstructionist practices, which facilitated a peaceful end to the issue.

    At the same, in the autumn, the first terrorist attacks of what would be the first wave of anarchist violence in Barcelona began. The origin of the bombing campaign can be traced to the anarchist uprising of January 1892 in Jérez de la Frontera, when hundreds of landless farm workers entered the city, killing two people, shouting anarchist slogans and attacking the military garrison and the prison, only to be dispersed, and later for the ringleaders to be arrested, judged by a military court and promptly executed on 10 February 1892.

    The response by anarchists was fast. The day before the execution, a bomb was thrown into Barcelona’s Plaza Real, killing an onlooker, and unleashing the first wave of state violence against anarchist societies and aligned press in the city. In turn, anarchists would bomb various symbols of the Barcelonese bourgeoisie like the building of Fomento Nacional [3] and culminated in the attempted murder of the Captain-General of Catalonia, General Martínez Campos during a military parade on 24 September 1893. The attacker killed one person and injured a dozen but failed to murder the General. He would be quickly arrested, tried by a military court and executed.

    The attack was soon followed by a much deadlier bombing in response to the execution. On 7 November 1893, an anarchist threw two bombs in the middle of Barcelona’s Liceu Theatre at the start of that year’s opera season, killing 22 people and injuring 40. Predictably, this was followed by further state violence against the city’s anarchists and its working classes. State violence would be matched by anarchist terrorism in a vicious cycle that culminated in 1897.

    The combined upheavals in Barcelona and Navarra led to the resignation of the Interior Minister, Venancio González, who was replaced - against Gamazo’s wishes - by a member of the party’s left, Joaquín López Puigcerver.

    In the meantime, to prevent obstructionism, the Government had postponed parliamentary sessions, resulting in the delay in the approval of the various pending trade agreements that the party’s left wanted to be approved as soon as possible. In the meantime, Gamazo’s proposals concerning a wine tax and a tax on real estate transmissions raised the ire of some of his ministerial and party colleagues, like the Deputy Speaker, the Duke of Almodovar del Río.

    To make things worse for party unity, the Overseas Minister (and Gamazo’s son-in-law), Antonio Maura, presented in the autumn of 1893 his own proposals for an autonomy regime for Cuba and Puerto Rico.

    To say that these proposals were controversial is an understatement. The granting of an autonomy regime was denounced by the dominant Cuban Constitutional Union and the Unconditionally Spanish Party in Puerto Rico, and supported - if timidly given the watered-down nature of the proposals - by Antillean autonomists. In Madrid, it also faced the frontal opposition of the Conservative deputies and a not insignificant number of fusionists.

    Across the Gibraltar Strait, tensions were rising too. The construction of a new line of fortifications around Ceuta, some of which were being built on Moroccan land, had increased tensions between the Spanish and the local cabilas (Rif tribes). The spark was the construction of the Sidi Guariach fort, close to the tomb of a Rif holy man. This was too much for the locals, and on 3 October 1893, a large troop of over 6,000 rifeños, armed with modern rifles, attacked the lightly-manned Spanish garrisons around Ceuta.

    The rifeños took over the most external posts but were forced to withdraw when they approached the city itself, which had been supplied from across the Strait by heavy artillery and over 3,000 troops, as well as by the presence of the Spanish Navy. Spanish firepower forced the rifeños to withdraw, and the Spanish took back the outermost military posts. Armed with heavy artillery, they began a campaign of the systematic bombing of nearby positions, resulting in wanton destructions, including that of a mosque.

    The destruction of the mosque triggered calls for jihad that spread across Morocco, and while the Sultan sided with Spain and tried to pacify the situation, soon, the mass of jihadis was too large to contain - within days, tens of thousands had joined the rifeños.

    During the month of November 1893, the rifeños continued to besiege the city, while an increasing number of troops and artillery pieces were being sent from across the Strait. The Spaniards launched in response a bombing campaign from the sea that helped recover all lost fortifications.

    Facing the possibility of going to war with Spain, the Sultan, Hassan I, dispatched an army to pacify the Rif tribes and proceeded to negotiate with Spain, concluding a treaty where Morocco paid a significant indemnity for Spain, and agreed to cede all lands in Ceuta’s hinterland to Spain and to pacify the Rif.

    All these difficulties had been managed thanks to party unity, but this began to break over the winter of 1893, leading to an attempt at conciliation in a cabinet meeting in March 1894, where the party’s right would continue to renounce protectionism and accept the resumption of sessions in Parliament, but in return the party’s left had to renounce the ratification of the trade agreements with Belgium and Russia, the proposed railway credit, and accept the Antillean reform proposals in full.

    However, when a compromise seemed reached, Gamazo decided to demand an immediate start to cabinet discussion of the reform plans, which prompted Sagasta to resign before the Queen and form a government without Gamazo’s followers. By doing this, Gamazo expected to be proven as an ‘indispensable man’ in the cabinet, but he would be outplayed, and party left members were appointed to replace him and Maura.

    However, the disunion with the party right led to cabinet defeats in the Senate over the approval of trade agreements and endlessly delayed the approval in Congress of the agreement with Germany and the railway tax credit proposals. The fear of a loss of power due to disunity led to a new unity cabinet being formed in November, where Sagasta managed to make the party left to drop their trade agreements and the right their demands on Navarrase fiscal autonomy, protectionism and overseas reforms.

    The new cabinet lasted two months before the party’s right supported in Congress a motion presented by the Conservative opposition that called for additional tariffs. This prompted the resignation of the Finance Minister, Amos Salvador, who was replaced by the more protectionistic-minded José Canalejas, who proposed an increased tariff on wheat and flour. That proposal in turn led to the resignation of López Puigcerver from the cabinet.

    In the Antilles, and following 15 years of peace, Cuban independentists rose up again, this time led by José Martí, on 24 February 1895. The uprising had been prepared months in advance and resulted in a simultaneous revolt of locals in 35 different towns across Cuba.

    While the uprising failed in most of western and central Cuba, it was successful in the eastern third of the island, where the authorities were not able to muster sufficient troops or support to arrest the revolutionaries, and opened the door for the arrival - in April - of a detachment of armed Cuban revolutionaries landed from Haiti in eastern Cuba that strengthened the revolutionaries’ position in eastern Cuba and marks the start of the war.

    The start of hostilities in Cuba after the ‘Tregua fecunda’ (fertile truce), had a pernicious effect on Spanish politics - the Spanish Army revived as a political actor.

    On 14 March 1895, a large group (from 70 to 500 participants) of junior military officers [4] attacked the offices of two republican newspapers, El Resumen and El Globo and destroyed their presses in response to the publication in both newspapers of articles very critical of the ‘prepotent’ behaviour of military officers. The incident became known as the ‘tenientada’ (as the officers involved were mostly lieutenants).

    High-rank officers, like General Martínez Campos openly approved of the behaviour of these junior officers and called on the government to pass legislation to restrict press freedoms when they damaged the Army’s honour and reputation.

    Similar words were uttered too, in Parliament on 16 March, by the War Minister, General López Domínguez, who argued that the honour of the military was not sufficiently protected, and later, speaking to the press, argued that this was caused by the weakness of the state.

    The minister’s weak defence of the primacy of civilian power and constitutional freedoms meant that both Sagasta and his War Minister were subjected to strident parliamentary criticism, on top of the coordinated press attacks against López Domínguez for his handling of the issue [5].

    The cabinet also received pressure from Generals to pursue legal action against the newspapers. The combination of the pressure from the press and military circles - in opposite directions - on top of the Cuban situation and internal differences in the Fusionist ranks all conspired to convince Sagasta to present the resignation to the Queen Regent, who accepted it after several days.

    In line with the established political practice of the era, the Queen Regent proceeded to dismiss the Fusionist government and call on the leader of the Conservative opposition, Antonio Cánovas del Castillo to form a government in March 1895.

    After less than a year in power, with Parliament dissolved, and after appointing General Valeriano Weyer (a committed fusionist but favourable to a much harsher Cuban policy) to replace General Martínez Campos as Governor-General of Cuba as well as ensuring the dismissal or transfer of countless Fusionist mayors, governors and judges, elections were held in April 1896 to elect a Conservative majority to support the pre-existing Conservative ministry.

    The result was - as expected - a crushing parliamentary majority for the ‘official’ Conservatives, who obtained 278 seats to the Fusionists’ 96, the Carlists’ 10 or the dissident Silvelist conservatives’ 10 seats.

    The large republican presence vanished too, as the progressive and centrist republicans, the followers of Manuel Zorrilla and of Nicolás Salmerón decided to refrain from running for office, while the federalist republicans led by Pi y Margall did not, but failed to get elected anywhere. The only 3 elected republicans were possibilists who had opted not to join the Fusionist Party, including Castelar himself.

    * * * * *
    1. The gamacista platform, which was ideologically designed more by Maura than Gamazo, who provided the political influence and the oratory skills, stood for protectionism, debt reduction, balanced budgets and the reorientation of the budget from military expenses to productive investments, and autonomy for Cuba and Puerto Rico.
    2. The ‘Viejo Pastor’ or ‘Old Shepherd’ was the nickname assigned to Sagasta for his ability to steer the fusionist sheep.
    3. Fomento Nacional del Trabajo (Foment Nacional del Treball) is the Catalan employers’ association.
    4. Including future Captain-General of Catalonia-turned-Spanish dictator Miguel Primo de Rivera.
    5. On 16 March 1893, the editors and the main Madrid newspapers gathered to form a common Committee to jointly discuss the attack with the Government. Following what was deemed a weak response on the government’s part, most editors agreed to stop their presses on 17 March and only publish a public protest against the government in response.


    Congress

    Liberal-Conservative Party:
    278 seats (+221)
    Fusionist Liberal Party: 96 seats (-194*)
    Cuban Constitutional Union: 30 seats (+7)
    Unconditional Spanish Party (Puerto Rico): 16 seats (+1)
    Conservative Union [Silveslist dissidents]: 10 seats (-4)
    Traditionalist Communion: 10 seats (+2)
    Republican independents: 3 seats (-25)
    Integrist Party: 1 seat (-1)
    Independents: 3 seats (+1)
    vfqnsgA.png

    Senate
    Liberal-Conservative Party:
    115 seats (+79)
    Fusionist Liberal Party: 41 seats (-83*)
    Conservative Union [Silveslist dissidents]: 4 seats (+3)
    Republican independents: 3 seats (+2)
    Traditionalist Communion: 2 seats (=)

    Independents: 15 seats (-1)

    8uyF6n0.png
     
    Back
    Top