WI: Federal Italy in 1861?

[Neoteros]

So, I was reading this, and I happened across this passage:

Nel settembre del 1860 Garibaldi invitò a Napoli il Cattaneo, che vi si recò e prese parte per quel gruppo di seguaci del «donatore di regni» che volevano l’elezione di parlamenti speciali per la Sicilia e per il Napoletano, e conservate le autonomie locali, pur trattando col governo di Torino i patti dell’unione nazionale. Mazziniani e cavouriani volevano, invece, l’annessione immediata e incondizionata. Garibaldi, che s’era professato federalista, cedette agli unitari.

In the September of 1860, Garibaldi invited Cattaneo to Naples; he went there, backing those supporters of the "Giver of Kingdoms" that wanted the election of special parliaments for Sicily and Naples, keeping their local autonomies while debating with the government of Turin the exact terms of the nation's unification; the supporters of Mazzini and Cavour, however, wanted an immediate, unconditional annexation. Garibaldi, that called himself a federalist, capitulated to the centralists' demands.

So, what if the proposal of Cattaneo and Garibaldi went through? Italy would've been unified in 1861, but as an 1848-flavoured federation of at least three components: a Kingdom of Upper Italy comprising northern Italy, Sardinia and maybe even Romagna (as discussed at Plombières a couple years prior), a Kingdom of Naples and a Kingdom of Sicily still under the Savoyard crown but with substantial autonomies, while the remainder of the Papal States could either be annexed by Upper Italy or become some kind of federal subject, with the fate of Rome up in the air - federal district, given Cattaneo's admiration for the United States? Capital of Italy and of Central or Upper Italy, without being a federal subject? Papal remnant, or perhaps the Pope retains the Leonine City as per contemporary proposals?

This could be the latest possible POD for a federal Italy. Thoughts?

@AndreaConti, @LordKalvan @Tarabas

 

[Evil Crusader]

Sounds like a mess and a recipe for actual civili wars, which in the mid-term possibly help Italy, but in the short rob it of Venetia (because there's no way the embattled nation is ready to have a go at Austria in 1866).

 

[Andristan]

Plus gives an opportunity for Austria to intervene in said civil war, retake their old turf.

 

[The Anglo-Dutch Union]

Sounds like a mess and a recipe for actual civili wars, which in the mid-term possibly help Italy, but in the short rob it of Venetia (because there's no way the embattled nation is ready to have a go at Austria in 1866).

This statement seems contradictary, italy is in the mid-short term better off but it's unable to get Venetia? which was acquired in the mid-short term? Anyhow I think a federal Italy would be more stable and lead to a more even development.

 

[Evil Crusader]

This statement seems contradictary, italy is in the mid-short term better off but it's unable to get Venetia? which was acquired in the mid-short term? Anyhow I think a federal Italy would be more stable and lead to a more even development.

It would be better and stabler in the mid-term due to a better resolution of tensions (with one party winning instead of striking shaky compromises that ossified into bad traditions), but it wouldn't be ready to take part in the Brothers' War.

 

[Neoteros]

It would be better and stabler in the mid-term due to a better resolution of tensions (with one party winning instead of striking shaky compromises that ossified into bad traditions), but it wouldn't be ready to take part in the Brothers' War.

If Garibaldi's hand were a stronger one... maybe he doesn't try to act like a caudillo in southern Italy, but actually goes forward with his promise of redistributing the southern landowners' fields to the peasants toiling on them, satifying his bloody urges on the landowners' hired goons instead, rather than the other way around - this way, he gets a whole lot more volunteers than those who joined him IRL, and some of the landowners' resources are seized to help with the war effort.

This way, the Thousand and the southern volunteers are able to conquer Rome, as Garibaldi wanted to do; hanging the carrot of the Eternal City in front of Cavour and Victor Emmanuel, Cattaneo and Garibaldi are able to make Turin agree to the deal of a triune Italian monarchy (this would mean that the whole of the former Papal States join the Kingdom of Upper Italy), with Napoleon III being bought off via Nice and Savoy, to the displeasure of Garibaldi himself - and of Napoleon III, of course.

Due to Garibaldi's actions, the Brothers' War sees Austria and France intervene against Italy and Prussia; Garibaldi's military skill and an improved pan-Italian army (the Neapolitan and Sicilian troops, especially) achieve the impossible and defeat the Franco-Austrian troops, with Germany unifying ahead of schedule and Italy gaining at least Nice and Veneto; a result that would be more likely, if the United Kingdom intervened in the war, against France.

 

[Evil Crusader]

If Garibaldi's hand were a stronger one... maybe he doesn't try to act like a caudillo in southern Italy, but actually goes forward with his promise of redistributing the southern landowners' fields to the peasants toiling on them, satifying his bloody urges on the landowners' hired goons instead, rather than the other way around - this way, he gets a whole lot more volunteers than those who joined him IRL, and some of the landowners' resources are seized to help with the war effort.

This way, the Thousand and the southern volunteers are able to conquer Rome, as Garibaldi wanted to do; hanging the carrot of the Eternal City in front of Cavour and Victor Emmanuel, Cattaneo and Garibaldi are able to make Turin agree to the deal of a triune Italian monarchy (this would mean that the whole of the former Papal States join the Kingdom of Upper Italy), with Napoleon III being bought off via Nice and Savoy, to the displeasure of Garibaldi himself - and of Napoleon III, of course.

Due to Garibaldi's actions, the Brothers' War sees Austria and France intervene against Italy and Prussia; Garibaldi's military skill and an improved pan-Italian army (the Neapolitan and Sicilian troops, especially) achieve the impossible and defeat the Franco-Austrian troops, with Germany unifying ahead of schedule and Italy gaining at least Nice and Veneto; a result that would be more likely, if the United Kingdom intervened in the war, against France.

Feels like a lot of wankium was involved. My expectations were more along the lines of 'the British aren't that happy about this whole affair anymore and Garibaldi ends up stuck in Sicily until the time for a Borbonic counterattack comes'.

 

[Neoteros]

Feels like a lot of wankium was involved. My expectations were more along the lines of 'the British aren't that happy about this whole affair anymore and Garibaldi ends up stuck in Sicily until the time for a Borbonic counterattack comes'.

Sure, mine was just the best case scenario, but even a normal one, Italy with OTL 1861 borders but as an union of three kingdoms, the British wouldn't back down if Cavour accepted the deal, since Italy would still have one king, one PM, and one foreign policy, that would still be pro-British.

The butterflies, in this conservative scenario, would be mostly internal at first, with the three kingdoms' local policies resembling those of Swiss cantons or US states (going by Cattaneo's main inspirations, probably closer to the latter, though) with regards to their independence from Turin/Florence/Rome.

This would surely be felt in the south, even if Bixio and Garibaldi were to turn on the peasants as they did IRL, but especially if they pushed for land reform. In both instances, the south's mismanaged wealth would not be stolen by Piedmont outright, even in the worst case scenario it would stay in the hands of southern magnates, that would be able to become the tail wagging the Savoyard dog, since Turin's wartime expenses would need to be repaid.

 

[Evil Crusader]

Sure, mine was just the best case scenario, but even a normal one, Italy with OTL 1861 borders but as an union of three kingdoms, the British wouldn't back down if Cavour accepted the deal, since Italy would still have one king, one PM, and one foreign policy, that would still be pro-British.

The butterflies, in this conservative scenario, would be mostly internal at first, with the three kingdoms' local policies resembling those of Swiss cantons or US states (going by Cattaneo's main inspirations, probably closer to the latter, though) with regards to their independence from Turin/Florence/Rome.

This would surely be felt in the south, even if Bixio and Garibaldi were to turn on the peasants as they did IRL, but especially if they pushed for land reform. In both instances, the south's mismanaged wealth would not be stolen by Piedmont outright, even in the worst case scenario it would stay in the hands of southern magnates, that would be able to become the tail wagging the Savoyard dog, since Turin's wartime expenses would need to be repaid.

There's probably a very small window of opportunity for that, otherwise he either commits to the old order before crossing or finds himself unable to hold it down until 'unitary' forces intervene anyways, leading to something not much unlike OTL either way.
That said, I see the arrangement more like pre-1848 Switzerland: everybody minds their own business, fiercely opposing any attempt at unity that doesn't benefit them, essentially resulting in a sort of deadlock that doesn't really go anywhere. While Garibaldi may froth for more adventures, his fellows in the new South government will probably remind him how touch and go is the situation in there.

 

[LordKalvan]

This could be the latest possible POD for a federal Italy. Thoughts?

All the provinces of Two Sicilies voted for the union with the (future) kingdom of Italy in the plebiscite on 21 October 1860.
The plebiscites (same as all the other plebiscites of the same period) did not feature multiple choices, there was just the option to accept or refuse the union with the kingdom of Italy.
Garibaldi's alleged federal sympathies come as a bit of a surprise to me, and the paper you linked does not include any firm reference or quote.
As a matter of fact, Garibaldi nurtured republican sympathies, but at the same time he met in 1859 VEII in a private meeting, where allegedly the two guys liked each other a lot (to the annoyance of Cavour, who had a very poor opinion of the political savvy of both). I believe that Garibaldi certainly was keen on the unification of Italy, and also on a constitutional regime, but he would never oppose the proclamation of a unitary kingdom.
In any case, I am firmly convinced that the window of opportunity to set up an Italian federation or confederation closed up with the failure of the 1848-49 (and it was a very narrow window anyway).

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

@isabella @Nuraghe