This seems to make sense to me. From what I've read, the NJ plan still creates a centralized government, just under congress not the executive branch, so it solves the problems of congress not exercising any real power and the states acting independently without tipping the balance I favour of large states or giving a lot of power to one office. The thing is, some historians see the NJ plan as an extreme counterproposal for the purpose of negotiation, so while I see the one state one rep aspect as being very likely to be adopted, I think that greater economic centralization may still be accepted TTL. Federal taxation is super limited in this plan, while the states can impose internal tariffs, which can be a problem. It also lets people just make states in the territories if they have a large enough pop instead to the gradual integration. This isn't something I see as very likely. I feel like congress would still control the integration of new states.
The Colossus Of The New World - a worldbuilding project
- Thread starter Višeslav
- Start date
This seems to make sense to me. From what I've read, the NJ plan still creates a centralized government, just under congress not the executive branch, so it solves the problems of congress not exercising any real power and the states acting independently without tipping the balance I favour of large states or giving a lot of power to one office. The thing is, some historians see the NJ plan as an extreme counterproposal for the purpose of negotiation, so while I see the one state one rep aspect as being very likely to be adopted, I think that greater economic centralization may still be accepted TTL. Federal taxation is super limited in this plan, while the states can impose internal tariffs, which can be a problem. It also lets people just make states in the territories if they have a large enough pop instead to the gradual integration. This isn't something I see as very likely. I feel like congress would still control the integration of new states.
Good point, so the final product probably won't be the NJ Plan, but rather a compromise shifted closer in that direction.
I wonder how that would work with a parliamentary system, my guess is that it would favor major parties and regional interest parties, while minor ideological parties get shut out.
It is my understanding that, IOTL, PEI resisted to integrate into the Canadian Confederation, and only after bankrupting itself did it acquiesced, so I wouldn't take for granted that small states favor centralization, I indeed believe it's the opposite, they usually resist it due to the domination bigger states have by virtue of population.
Okay, so this is my proposal for North American borders in 1820, after the signing of Adams-Onís, based on the assumption that inner developments change little in foreign policy and the US has a stronger position during negotiations and manages to push de border into Texas; the extreme claim is also reflected.
I'm quite a fan of this. I'm having trouble deciding on an Adams-Onis analogue border so this is helpful. I was working on some changes to the internal borders along with that and I couldn't figure out what to change about the southern boundary, but I thought I'd ask about these (as modern internal borders for the far northwest and Alabama, which is really all I changed)
I see where the Germans are coming from but I can't see a reason for the hatred of Mexicans. Maybe I'm missing something obvious. I'm not telling you you're wrong or vetoing the idea or anything, I just want to know why this would be the case.
I think he was referencing my comment about increased anti-Catholicism in reaction to Quebec.
I think the distinction of Upper and Lower Canada wouldn't happen once America wins the War For Independence. The Ontario Peninsula was populated almost entirely by Royalists fleeing the USA once it became independent, and was (to my knowledge) almost completely uninhabited by any Anglos or Europeans except for a couple forts during the Seven Years' War. Sure, they might want to split up a monstrously big Quebec, but Ontario* would be part of the Northwest Territories in the best case.
As others have mentioned, Catholicism is a huge thing to consider. It is important to note that, in part, anti-Catholicism dipped down during and immediately following the Revolution in non-Royalist populations, with the most prominent reasons being that Catholic France was aiding the Revolution.
However, I do think that the absorption of a majority-Catholic, majority-French state would change that sort of dynamic to some degree. It certainly is something to look into. The ascension of Quebec further provides interesting dynamics during the French Revolution, and I predict that neutral politicians IRL would be more vocal about being pro-France to gain the Quebecois vote, which would probably mean two things:
1. Anger the shit out of the Federalist stronghold known as New England
2. Make Dem-Reps a much more prolific party
I mean, both of these hinge on a partisan, FPTP-style government a la the Constitution, but I think the cultural differences between New England and Quebec were big enough to warrant a surge in anti-Catholicism in New England in particular.
As others have mentioned, Catholicism is a huge thing to consider. It is important to note that, in part, anti-Catholicism dipped down during and immediately following the Revolution in non-Royalist populations, with the most prominent reasons being that Catholic France was aiding the Revolution.
However, I do think that the absorption of a majority-Catholic, majority-French state would change that sort of dynamic to some degree. It certainly is something to look into. The ascension of Quebec further provides interesting dynamics during the French Revolution, and I predict that neutral politicians IRL would be more vocal about being pro-France to gain the Quebecois vote, which would probably mean two things:
1. Anger the shit out of the Federalist stronghold known as New England
2. Make Dem-Reps a much more prolific party
I mean, both of these hinge on a partisan, FPTP-style government a la the Constitution, but I think the cultural differences between New England and Quebec were big enough to warrant a surge in anti-Catholicism in New England in particular.
What I see happening with "Ontario" is that it starts off as part of the Rupert's land or Ohio territory, and then gradually being settled eventually being raised to the status of a state, though this would of course be much slower than the settling of Ontario OTL, and even with settlers, it would still have a significant Francophone Catholic population, probably being the most mixed state. I agree that it was a mistake to make it a state in the initial post/revolution map though.
I agree with the bit about the democratic republicans, and I actually mentioned it at some point I think. So yeah. Good points all around, but I don't think OTL Ontario would stay a territory forever.
Also, I just noticed that I have Bermuda and a number of small islands filled in as part of the US. Before someone mentions that, it is an error and will be corrected.
For Europe, what do you guys think about a successful Kosciusko uprising in Poland?
Is there any way in which the existing POD affects the uprising or are you suggesting it as another POD to make the world interesting?
Also, a general question for everyone: Would the British try harder to keep the Mosquito Coast colonies/protectorates alive or would they have more important things to do in Australia and New Zealand?
I'm no expert, but I think we have to consider both governmental policy (surely more 'northern' than OTL, but we would need to analyze how would Quebec fit in the American political system instead of de facto lumping it to 'the North', given that slavery vs free wasn't the focus from minute 1) and population/demographic dynamics. If only, Manifest Destiny ideal can only be strengthened by the US having even more of North America, and the demographic pressure will send settlers to the sparsely-populated north of Mexico either we want it or not. We must consider how will politics play, maybe Quebec gives the North earlier advantage over the South, maybe it doesn't align with them or maybe it does but it causes the South to act as a tighter unit earlier if their common interests seem attacked. So many ways to see it.
Then there's gold discovery in California which will cause surely a rush, and I don't feel New Spain/Mexico will be able to hold it. Most probably we end up with American republiquets/filibuster breakaway states fighting the Mexican government and surely petitioning for admission in the US with less option than IOTL to seek British protection. There will be factions opposing and favoring annexation, but with so much northern territory reap to settle, the North may not feel anxious about the South conquering swaths of land to outpower them.
I'm not 100% sure. Obviously Quebec is solidly Francophone majority, OTL Ontario and probably Manitoba are probably mixed with "Ontario" having the biggest French population outside of Quebec. I expect parts of southern Louisiana to have a large Francophone population as well. I expect there to be pockets of French speakers in New Brunswick, but not a huge percent of the population. If anyone thinks my assumptions are wrong, corrections are welcome.
So to answer your question: mainly Quebec, OTL Upper Canada, and that long state that roughly corresponds with Manitoba (which could still have a large Metis population but might not)
Alright, a couple ideas and thoughts:
1. FATE OF THE NATIVE AMERICANS:
The United States in this timeline seem to be far more Northern-focused (or following the center of the USA, considering the annexation of Quebec); because of this, the Trail of Tears might not happen. However, this also has some negative implications: namely, the possible replacement for the Trail of Tears. Based on the original map, Georgia owns a large swath of the South, and, by extension, a large amount of Native American land: In particular, they own a lot of Florida. I focus on Florida in particular here because of the Seminole Tribe (one of the Five Civilized Tribes, and the one I know the most about). The Seminole were known to raid Georgia and other colonies of England to raid settlements and liberate the slaves (which was part of the reason for the Seminole Wars); with these lands under effective control of Georgia, and a weakened Federal Government, we could see a large-scale war that absolutely decimates the Native populations in the South -- not only the Seminole, but very likely the Cherokee too (with rumors of gold on their lands). So, yeah, fun.
2. THE FATE OF THE PRESIDENT:
If we're following a pro-Jersey Compromise, or an Article of Confederation-esque USA, then the President will be much more of a figurehead than IRL. Due to this, I could see Presidents having longer terms (or shorter, whatever), but with much more importance placed on the Congress (which will resemble the Senate without the House of Representatives). Perhaps we can see Roger Sherman, the man who crafted the Connecticut Compromise, be the first Continental President of the United States of America (name chosen because of how much Revolutionary-era America loved to use "continental" as an adjective).
1. FATE OF THE NATIVE AMERICANS:
The United States in this timeline seem to be far more Northern-focused (or following the center of the USA, considering the annexation of Quebec); because of this, the Trail of Tears might not happen. However, this also has some negative implications: namely, the possible replacement for the Trail of Tears. Based on the original map, Georgia owns a large swath of the South, and, by extension, a large amount of Native American land: In particular, they own a lot of Florida. I focus on Florida in particular here because of the Seminole Tribe (one of the Five Civilized Tribes, and the one I know the most about). The Seminole were known to raid Georgia and other colonies of England to raid settlements and liberate the slaves (which was part of the reason for the Seminole Wars); with these lands under effective control of Georgia, and a weakened Federal Government, we could see a large-scale war that absolutely decimates the Native populations in the South -- not only the Seminole, but very likely the Cherokee too (with rumors of gold on their lands). So, yeah, fun.
2. THE FATE OF THE PRESIDENT:
If we're following a pro-Jersey Compromise, or an Article of Confederation-esque USA, then the President will be much more of a figurehead than IRL. Due to this, I could see Presidents having longer terms (or shorter, whatever), but with much more importance placed on the Congress (which will resemble the Senate without the House of Representatives). Perhaps we can see Roger Sherman, the man who crafted the Connecticut Compromise, be the first Continental President of the United States of America (name chosen because of how much Revolutionary-era America loved to use "continental" as an adjective).
Another thing. What do y'all think of this variant for an Adams-Onis analogue border (yes, I know it's on the modern state map that doesn't mean that that will be the border, I just haven't figured out how far south the US will expand into Mexico, I don't want the borders to be to convergent. Also, ignore Texas.):
also any advice for the border of Alaska, I can't decide if I like it or not.
also any advice for the border of Alaska, I can't decide if I like it or not.
The borders in the west look pretty good, it’s the ones out east that are bit inaccurate.
It's meant to diverge from the OTL treaty if that's what you mean, that's why is said it's an analogue for the Adams-Onis agreement, not the treaty itself (the original map follows it more or less exactly) so the point isn't resemblance to the original but plausibility. If you mean state borders, I'm going to need a bit of clarification, but I'm aware that some of the lines are odd (I made them while zoomed in, so my sense of what comes off as following latitude and longitude at this map's tilt was way off). Either way, thanks for the advice.
I can see the million or so Quebecois that moved to the U.S. IOTL instead moving west into Ontario, Michigan and maybe Manitoba.
Michigan. A French population there makes sense. When did this move happen? Was it a gradual thing or after a specific event? Do you know the cause?