The Revenge of the Crown : An Alternate 1812 and Beyond.
- Thread starter Sarthak
- Start date
they will encounter anglo resistance. For now the Northern states are supporting Louisiana
Derek Pullem
Donor
Actually Louisiana massively strengthens Mexico even without any land grab. Aside from the fact that Mexico has a French Bonapartist monarch on the throne (influence competition between Mexico and Bourbon France in Louisiana should be interesting), the establishment of Louisiana if it is maintained virtually guarantees no Anglophone interference in Texas.
So long as Texas isn't lost to Louisiana (unlikely) or another European state (a bit more likely but still low probability) Mexico will be a massively stronger nation in the 20th century
A fantastic couple of updates @Sārthākā. So glad to see this continuing and I can't wait for more.
As for the meat of it, this is the best chance Louisiana has to become independent, the US is in a civil war already, and the Anglophone population is still small enough to either be expelled or brought into line. That being said, an alliance with a greater power will still be necessary to ensure independence both in this war and later on.
Luckily for Louisiana, Britain, France, and Mexico all have reasons to keep the US from gobbling up the territory later on. Mexico especially given their weakness in the north, better to have small Louisiana as a neighbour than a large and revanchist US.
As for the meat of it, this is the best chance Louisiana has to become independent, the US is in a civil war already, and the Anglophone population is still small enough to either be expelled or brought into line. That being said, an alliance with a greater power will still be necessary to ensure independence both in this war and later on.
Luckily for Louisiana, Britain, France, and Mexico all have reasons to keep the US from gobbling up the territory later on. Mexico especially given their weakness in the north, better to have small Louisiana as a neighbour than a large and revanchist US.
Uff, I missed the questions regarding what we expect to happen and have only just caught up! Looking good.
Lots of people speculating on what the UK, France and Spain are doing, but it's like we've almost forgotten about Mishigama and the Commonwealth of New England!
I imagine, if the Commanche are supporting Louisiana, there might also be some support from Mishigama; or at least Mishigama provides a precedent that the aid of Native Americans will be rewarded with a homeland. It also means that, in general, the word of the 'white man' might be seen as more trustworthy ITTL.
I'm less sure what the Commonwealth of New England will be doing. They might recognise Louisiana, but I feel they'll be a little more isolationist in terms of supplying any type of physical aid. Plus, logistically speaking, I doubt they'd want to be sailing all the way from Boston to New Orleans to supply what little aid they could.
There also seems to be some anglocentric talk of this timeline being "balkanisation for the sake of balkanisation." However, I imagine that with a strong Mexico, the Americas north of Panama will be less balkanised than IOTL. By that I mean that I expect Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala will all end up part of this greater, more powerful Mexican Empire. Either they'll join willingly or Mexico could see taking the isthmus much how the USA of OTL saw Westward expansion. Especially when it comes to Panama and a canal there. IOTL French attempts to build a canal in Panama began in 1881, however;
"The earliest record related to a canal across the Isthmus of Panama was in 1534, when Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain, ordered a survey for a route through the Americas in order to ease the voyage for ships traveling between Spain and Peru. The Spanish were seeking to gain a military advantage over the Portuguese." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal#Early_proposals_in_Panama)
A Mexican Empire with Californian gold, Texan oil, and the Panama Canal would be a frickin' beast...
Northstar
EDIT: For anyone keen on maps, the last map of North America is on page 13 and the last map of South America is on page 23. I find the maps help better imagine the political situation.
Lots of people speculating on what the UK, France and Spain are doing, but it's like we've almost forgotten about Mishigama and the Commonwealth of New England!
I imagine, if the Commanche are supporting Louisiana, there might also be some support from Mishigama; or at least Mishigama provides a precedent that the aid of Native Americans will be rewarded with a homeland. It also means that, in general, the word of the 'white man' might be seen as more trustworthy ITTL.
I'm less sure what the Commonwealth of New England will be doing. They might recognise Louisiana, but I feel they'll be a little more isolationist in terms of supplying any type of physical aid. Plus, logistically speaking, I doubt they'd want to be sailing all the way from Boston to New Orleans to supply what little aid they could.
There also seems to be some anglocentric talk of this timeline being "balkanisation for the sake of balkanisation." However, I imagine that with a strong Mexico, the Americas north of Panama will be less balkanised than IOTL. By that I mean that I expect Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala will all end up part of this greater, more powerful Mexican Empire. Either they'll join willingly or Mexico could see taking the isthmus much how the USA of OTL saw Westward expansion. Especially when it comes to Panama and a canal there. IOTL French attempts to build a canal in Panama began in 1881, however;
"The earliest record related to a canal across the Isthmus of Panama was in 1534, when Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain, ordered a survey for a route through the Americas in order to ease the voyage for ships traveling between Spain and Peru. The Spanish were seeking to gain a military advantage over the Portuguese." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal#Early_proposals_in_Panama)
A Mexican Empire with Californian gold, Texan oil, and the Panama Canal would be a frickin' beast...
Northstar
EDIT: For anyone keen on maps, the last map of North America is on page 13 and the last map of South America is on page 23. I find the maps help better imagine the political situation.
Last edited:
Derek Pullem
Donor
I'm not sure it can keep California but I can see a neo-Bonapartist Empire stretching from the Red River down to Spanish New Granada.
That excludes the Panama canal but no reason why Mexico couldn't help fund it or indeed build the Nicaraguan version.
Lusitania
Donor
The biggest problem for Mexico control of northern territories, Texas and California was population or lack of Spanish speaking population. The best way until railways built is to sponsor Spanish speakers from south to settle in north and easiest is by ship.
If they can do that and maintain a majority Spanish population then they have a chance but still only a chance.
Derek Pullem
Donor
It's dangerous but one tactic would be to try to attract Franco-Spanish immigrants into Texas and turn Mexico into a Franco-Spanish state under the Bonapartes. A lot more attractive for the proto-Pieds Noir than Algeria perhaps?
Last edited:
Sorry for a second lengthy post, but I've had a second thought only tangentially related to my earlier one.
I think it's important here to consider emigration/immigration trends.
Here's the Wikipedia article on immigration to the USA IOTL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_United_States#1790_to_1849
There are a couple of things to consider. The first is that TTL's USA is now broken up into ~4/5 states. It's been in almost constant civil strife, suffering secessions, civil wars, and defeat to the British, for around 50 years. ITTL it's going to have a reputation for being a mess and probably won't be seen as an attractive destination for emigrants. Additionally, it's lost or is losing a lot of the large tracts of land that attracted immigrants. Next, it's got a more powerful and, perhaps more importantly, more Catholic, Mexican Empire on its doorstep.
As immigration picks up, I imagine that Mexico will be seen as the far more attractive option. This will be especially true for Catholic Irish and later Catholic Italian emigrants. We already know that ITTL there seems to be a friendly relationship between Great Britain and the Mexican Empire, so it might even be that the two powers cooperate on sending the Catholics the British don't want to Mexico. And it would be in Mexico's interest to take these immigrants because guess what the Mexicans need? Railroads to connect their northern territories to Mexico City. And guess what the Irish are renowned for building? Railroads. Guess what else the Mexicans might want? A canal in Panama! And guess what else the Irish have a reputation for building? Canals! It's also important to note that the Irish around this period are NOT anglophones:
"It is believed that Irish remained the majority tongue as late as 1800 but became a minority language during the 19th century. It is an important part of Irish nationalist identity, marking a cultural distance between Irish people and the English.
A combination of the introduction of state funded, though predominantly denominationally Church delivered, primary education (the 'National Schools'), from 1831, in which Irish was omitted from the curriculum till 1878, and only then added as a curiosity, to be learnt after English, Latin, Greek and French, and in the absence of an authorised Irish Catholic bible (An Biobla Naofa) before 1981, resulting in instruction primarily in English, or Latin. The National Schools run by the Roman Catholic Church discouraged its use until about 1890.
The Great Famine (An Gorta Mór) hit a disproportionately high number of Irish speakers (who lived in the poorer areas heavily hit by famine deaths and emigration), translated into its rapid decline." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Irish_language)
Any Irish emigrating to Mexico will just learn Spanish as they did English. I also expect that, whilst the new North American states will also want railroads, the sheer greater expanse of Mexico will mean there are far more job opportunities there.
IOTL, Germans went to the Mid West and Texas (see above link to Wikipedia) and I don't really see why this would change ITTL. Again though, Germans are not anglophones and so I don't imagine they would cause any issues in Texas as the anglophones did IOTL. I really think Texas will be fine ITTL.
I also think California will be fine. It looks like there'll be a Native Mishigama and Francophone Louisiana between California and the US nations, so I doubt we'll see an anglophone majority there. The issues regarding language shouldn't matter as much ITTL.
Mexico didn't lose California until 1848 IOTL. One of the causes of the Mexican-American War was Mexican political instability. This seems like it won't be as much a problem ITTL. A second cause was US expansionism. This is likely completely dead in the water ITTL. A third was limited Mexican control over the territory. Again, with a stronger Mexican Empire and easier Irish-built railroads making travel between Mexico City and California easier... well, that's another problem sorted.
Later, this more powerful, more economically prosperous, politically stable Mexico will probably continue to attract migrants. Especially Catholic ones from Italy that would go to New York and Argentina IOTL.
I suppose what I'm saying is that immigration was one of the key ingredients to making OTL's USA the power it is today.
ITTL, I see the butterfly effect driving a lot of that emigration/immigration towards the Mexican Empire. US political instability coupled with British-Mexican cooperation will mean Irish emigrants end up in Veracruz. Veracruz will develop into a prosperous port city and railroads will be built by Irish immigrants between Veracruz and Mexico City. Mexico City and Veracruz will begin industrialising and this will attract further immigrants. Family ties will encourage this even more so. Railroads will then be built between Mexico City and Texas. German immigrants will set up farms in Texas. Railroads towards the Pacific will be built and these will then be extended up to the Californian coast. When gold is discovered in California, migration from Mexico City is easily facilitated by the Mexican railroads - migration from the US's Eastern seaboard is much more complex, with any migrants having to first land in an anglophone nation, then cross Louisianan or Mishigaman territory, then British, then finally Mexican territory - much easier to just land at Veracruz and get the train direct. Mexico City and the Mexican cities in California will grow wealthy and industrialise. Italian immigrants will view stable, wealthy, Catholic Mexico as a much more attractive destination than one of the anglophone nations, especially given that both the climate of Mexico and the Spanish language will seem more familiar to them. Content with their northern territories being secure, the Mexican Empire will look southward; their railroads facilitating trade between the Pacific and the Atlantic are good, but a canal in Panama would be better. It would also be grand to be able to move the Imperial Mexican Navy between the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific without having to sail all the way around South America. Any independent Central American states are encouraged, coopted, and coerced into the Mexican Empire, and the dependents of those first Irish emigrants are called upon for a new project.
The Mexican Melting Pot.
Northstar
I think it's important here to consider emigration/immigration trends.
Here's the Wikipedia article on immigration to the USA IOTL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_United_States#1790_to_1849
There are a couple of things to consider. The first is that TTL's USA is now broken up into ~4/5 states. It's been in almost constant civil strife, suffering secessions, civil wars, and defeat to the British, for around 50 years. ITTL it's going to have a reputation for being a mess and probably won't be seen as an attractive destination for emigrants. Additionally, it's lost or is losing a lot of the large tracts of land that attracted immigrants. Next, it's got a more powerful and, perhaps more importantly, more Catholic, Mexican Empire on its doorstep.
As immigration picks up, I imagine that Mexico will be seen as the far more attractive option. This will be especially true for Catholic Irish and later Catholic Italian emigrants. We already know that ITTL there seems to be a friendly relationship between Great Britain and the Mexican Empire, so it might even be that the two powers cooperate on sending the Catholics the British don't want to Mexico. And it would be in Mexico's interest to take these immigrants because guess what the Mexicans need? Railroads to connect their northern territories to Mexico City. And guess what the Irish are renowned for building? Railroads. Guess what else the Mexicans might want? A canal in Panama! And guess what else the Irish have a reputation for building? Canals! It's also important to note that the Irish around this period are NOT anglophones:
"It is believed that Irish remained the majority tongue as late as 1800 but became a minority language during the 19th century. It is an important part of Irish nationalist identity, marking a cultural distance between Irish people and the English.
A combination of the introduction of state funded, though predominantly denominationally Church delivered, primary education (the 'National Schools'), from 1831, in which Irish was omitted from the curriculum till 1878, and only then added as a curiosity, to be learnt after English, Latin, Greek and French, and in the absence of an authorised Irish Catholic bible (An Biobla Naofa) before 1981, resulting in instruction primarily in English, or Latin. The National Schools run by the Roman Catholic Church discouraged its use until about 1890.
The Great Famine (An Gorta Mór) hit a disproportionately high number of Irish speakers (who lived in the poorer areas heavily hit by famine deaths and emigration), translated into its rapid decline." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Irish_language)
Any Irish emigrating to Mexico will just learn Spanish as they did English. I also expect that, whilst the new North American states will also want railroads, the sheer greater expanse of Mexico will mean there are far more job opportunities there.
IOTL, Germans went to the Mid West and Texas (see above link to Wikipedia) and I don't really see why this would change ITTL. Again though, Germans are not anglophones and so I don't imagine they would cause any issues in Texas as the anglophones did IOTL. I really think Texas will be fine ITTL.
I also think California will be fine. It looks like there'll be a Native Mishigama and Francophone Louisiana between California and the US nations, so I doubt we'll see an anglophone majority there. The issues regarding language shouldn't matter as much ITTL.
Mexico didn't lose California until 1848 IOTL. One of the causes of the Mexican-American War was Mexican political instability. This seems like it won't be as much a problem ITTL. A second cause was US expansionism. This is likely completely dead in the water ITTL. A third was limited Mexican control over the territory. Again, with a stronger Mexican Empire and easier Irish-built railroads making travel between Mexico City and California easier... well, that's another problem sorted.
Later, this more powerful, more economically prosperous, politically stable Mexico will probably continue to attract migrants. Especially Catholic ones from Italy that would go to New York and Argentina IOTL.
I suppose what I'm saying is that immigration was one of the key ingredients to making OTL's USA the power it is today.
ITTL, I see the butterfly effect driving a lot of that emigration/immigration towards the Mexican Empire. US political instability coupled with British-Mexican cooperation will mean Irish emigrants end up in Veracruz. Veracruz will develop into a prosperous port city and railroads will be built by Irish immigrants between Veracruz and Mexico City. Mexico City and Veracruz will begin industrialising and this will attract further immigrants. Family ties will encourage this even more so. Railroads will then be built between Mexico City and Texas. German immigrants will set up farms in Texas. Railroads towards the Pacific will be built and these will then be extended up to the Californian coast. When gold is discovered in California, migration from Mexico City is easily facilitated by the Mexican railroads - migration from the US's Eastern seaboard is much more complex, with any migrants having to first land in an anglophone nation, then cross Louisianan or Mishigaman territory, then British, then finally Mexican territory - much easier to just land at Veracruz and get the train direct. Mexico City and the Mexican cities in California will grow wealthy and industrialise. Italian immigrants will view stable, wealthy, Catholic Mexico as a much more attractive destination than one of the anglophone nations, especially given that both the climate of Mexico and the Spanish language will seem more familiar to them. Content with their northern territories being secure, the Mexican Empire will look southward; their railroads facilitating trade between the Pacific and the Atlantic are good, but a canal in Panama would be better. It would also be grand to be able to move the Imperial Mexican Navy between the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific without having to sail all the way around South America. Any independent Central American states are encouraged, coopted, and coerced into the Mexican Empire, and the dependents of those first Irish emigrants are called upon for a new project.
The Mexican Melting Pot.
Northstar
Last edited:
Lusitania
Donor
The thing is these people are still living in France and Italy. No you have thousands of farmers in south who can go north and establish your claim
Derek Pullem
Donor
Particularly if Louisiana ends up ceding some of the northern territories to the British / Native Americans I can see the British ending up in a war against Mexico for control of California and the entire North West of what we call America. particularly when gold is discovered (see Boer Wars #2)
I'm wondering if the Louisianans are going to do deals with other natives, aside from the Comanche.
Though having done a deal with the Comanche might put some tribes off such an agreement.
Though having done a deal with the Comanche might put some tribes off such an agreement.
Lusitania
Donor
The only way it stay independent would be if north separates from US. That would mean it would have a border with Louisiana.
A French Louisiana would in all likelihood only be able to keep the land upto say north of St. Louis. The rest north of that would in all likelihood be divided between northern US and BNA.
Theoretically the north could reach the pacific but I think it more likely the pacific be outside its jurisdiction or ability to project power.
The US will be contained, think the northern US also reach as the prairies.
West coast that be a story for different day.
What we have not really discussed is migration to the US. The attraction of the US iotl was opportunity and no war. Which from ARW to ACW there was only two small engagements while vast majority were able to live their lives in relative peace. That has been shattered ittl with the multiple wars now ongoing and many people will look for alternatives or stay where they are.
If British support and encourage settlement in BNA it should of had a steady increase in immigrants since war of 1812 and its population be 20-40% higher. A canal system to link Great Lakes should be under construction (in place of Erie Canal).
New England did have an emigration boom but it soon will need to transform to industrial base since its land will be almost used up.
We could see the rest of Americas plus South Africa being some of the early beneficiaries with Australia snd New Zealand also benefiting.
Not really they can have European immigrants do that. Lots of American frontiersmen were from Europe we never had any problems
I think that Sārthākā has already said that there is cooperation between Great Britain and the Mexican Empire ITTL. Or at least I'm fairly certain I read that in a previous chapter. Regardless, the Mexican Empire would almost certainly win a war against Great Britain in California ITTL; how are the British going to get troops there? Will they march them across the entire length of Canada or sail them around South America and up past thousands of kilometres of Mexican coastline? Or will they launch an invasion of Veracruz, march on Mexico City, and then head to California?
On the other hand Mexico, especially if they build railroads as I imagine they would ITTL, 'only' have to get their troops from the heartland to California. In fact, without a big ol' expansionist USA to their north-east, Mexico might already have troops stationed in California as they won't have to commit as many troops to Texas and the north-east border ITTL.
Another question to ask is; what's Russia doing in Fort Ross and Alaska? Will the British also take Alaska? Why are the British so interested in this corner of north-west North America ITTL? IOTL, I'm pretty sure it was mainly trading companies like the Hudson Bay Company that were interested in the area. Yes, the British government might've been involved with drawing up borders, but I don't see why that process would be so much more violent ITTL than IOTL.
Northstar
Aha! Thanks. I probably got carried away and no way could I write a TL as good as this.
Northstar