I created this poll because Texas is really gonna be a hot button issue soon and it could go several ways.
Galloway and the Plan of Union: A Saga of a British America
- Thread starter PGSBHurricane
- Start date
I think the UAC would take everything OTL USA did on the demands of the South for their slavery (ugh).
I doubt Mexico would turn out much differently from OTL. The Spanish never gave any of their colonies self-governance, and the social structure was much more feudal than the U.S. (with the possible ezception of the deep South). Matter of fact, I'm not even sure if the Latin American revolutions would still occur ITTL?
At this point, the only colonies really governed by Spain directly are in the Caribbean or the Pacific Ocean. And Brazil happened more or less like it did OTL. So we may or may not see some revolutions in Latin America.
What did you have in mind specifically? I would like to hear your thoughts.
Mostly "annex some border areas, prop up some kind of small-ish independent California and/or Texas (the bits with more Anglo settlers), Mexico keeps the rest"
Question: would there be plausible support for a permanent, hereditary viceroy, one of the monarch's children, be that viceroy, and possibly later the King of America in a dynastic union with Great Britain? This would have to happen later obviously, but how much later? Something of a peaceful Brazil-Portugal development in regards to their monarchies? Support among North Americans but also support in London, to invest one of the Sovereign's children as a hereditary viceroy to their eldest dominion? It would depend on the child, perhaps if they want the eldest children for wedding off to European monarchies but have the younger children or grandchildren in such a viceregal role? Perhaps if such issue of the Sovereign made a very good impression on North Americans and if London was realizing that a subordinate colonial status as a Dominion for America would not be enough to keep America close in the future of the Empire.
With the Aranda plan in place, more Brazil-Portugal OTL situations develop, where you have an Empire of Mexico and a Kingdom of New Grenada declaring independence but things might go more peaceful and incrementally later down the road rather than violent breaks.
Right now, I don’t plan on having a permanent hereditary Viceroy/Governor-General, but that could change if I decide that should be the case.
That was honestly what I was initially thinking but there's so many ways to go and almost all of them are controversial in-universe and/or fairly implausible out-of-universe. Maybe I will go with this since it's the least implausible seemingly but I want to wait a little longer for the poll to close. I guess it comes down to this question: Would the British want to expand into Texas (and the rest of OTL Mexican cessions)?
Ok Britain will want California, and Texas mainly. The rest of the cession was useless desert so Britain will only take what is strategic for their defence of California and Texas, which tbh is pretty much all of it plus Baja California.
It must be important to remember it won’t be Britain spearheading war efforts but the UAC.
So far, that seems to be the leading choice. It will involve Texas in some capacity but not sure how much of Texas, though.
Chapter Twenty-Eight: An Early Period of Reform
Chapter Twenty-Eight: An Early Period of Reform
At the time that the 1825 UAC Parliamentary elections were won, the Tories had regained power with help from the newly-founded Democratic-Populist Party. It was not clear who the new Prime Minister would be, on the other hand. Out of several possible contenders within the Tory/Democratic-Populist coalition, the favorite for the position of Prime Minister was none other than John C. Calhoun of South Carolina who was rewarded with the position in 1826. He began his political career in 1810 with his election to the House of Commons. He was initially a nationalist, modernizer, and pro-tariffs, but by the time of his tenure as Prime Minister, he became a proponent of states' rights, small government, nullification, and was anti-tariffs. Once Monroe became Prime MInister in 1814, Calhoun was appointed as the Secretary of State for War, who aggressively pushed for the UAC to restore the status quo in Haiti due to him considering slavery a “positive good.” Once Sherwood took over, he focused on state politics until his election into the Senate in 1822, and from there he was on his way to becoming Prime Minister. At the same time, the Democratic-Populist Party was pushing for small government, laissez-faire economics, opposition to the spoilage system, westward settlement and expansion, and, most importantly, expanding the electorate to most white men. While not fully trusting of the movement, Calhoun hoped that his election would bring some relief from Sherwood’s anti-states rights policies.
One of the highlights of his tenure as Prime Minister was his avid expansionism. Given his strong pro-slavery stance, it would make sense for him to want more land for slavery. Even in areas that are unlikely to have slavery in the future, he encouraged westward settlement for increased agricultural production. His biggest success was his hand in the negotiation of the cession of the District of Columbia to the British under the UAC, which was previously owned by Britain and Russia. This was accomplished via the ratification of the Treaty of St. Petersburg in 1826, where Russia ceded all land south of 54°40′N to the British. Settlement in large numbers was encouraged, although this wouldn’t come into fruition until the 1840s with the rise of the Oregon Trail. In 1827, Calhoun authorized (with consent from the King and Governor-General who wanted access to Texan ports) Anglo-American settlers in the east of thinly-settled Spanish Texas. Thus all but ensured re-election for the Tory coalition and Calhoun in 1828. Fiscally, he attacked finance capitalism and saw it as encroachment by government and big business but at the same time did not remove funds from the Bank of the UAC as to not engage in any overreach. As far as universal male suffrage goes, he supported a gradual extension of the vote to all white males. The Reform Act of 1832 from London eased property requirements and the electorate climbed to 1.6 million by 1834.
The United Kingdom itself was undergoing a similar wave of reforms, with a much higher focus on electoral reform. In 1832, Parliament ultimately passed the Great Reform Act meant to reform the British electoral system. This was a response to several decades of criticism, arguing it was unfair the Americans had their own Parliament and had a bigger say there than the British in their own country. For example, there were rotten boroughs constituencies with only a handful of voters that elected up to two Parliamentary MPs. Yet, Manchester had grown exponentially since the mid-1700s yet had no MPs in Parliament. There was a measure in 1797 to extend the vote but this was defeated by 150 votes. It wasn’t until 1819 that momentum picked up again with large rallies in Birmingham and Manchester. The latter saw up to 60,000 people attend. After refusing to disband, eighteen people were killed and several hundred injured in what became known as the Peterloo Massacre. In 1831, the Tories in the House of Lords shot down a Reform Bill passed in the House of Commons, which led to major riots across the country, most notoriously in Bristol. This caused fear of a potential Revolution, with King William IV and the House of Lords eventually agreeing to the Great Reform Act of 1832, removing rotten boroughs and new towns being allowed to elect their MPs. While only men who owned property worth at least £10 could vote, this increased the electorate to 650,000 people.
If reform in Great Britain and the Union of American Commonwealths was hard, imagine how it went down in continental Europe. In 1825, the French Parliament passed an act that punished anyone for profaning the Eucharist with death. Many saw this as pandering to the Catholic Church, which was seen as a violation of freedom of religion guaranteed in 1814. After the death of Louis XVIII, Charles X made it his mission to restore Catholicism as the cornerstone of French society. Additionally, former landowners were reimbursed for the abolition of feudalism at the expense of bondholders. All of this led to an attempted coup in 1830 by supporters of the House of Orleans. After that failed, a liberal coalition was elected into Parliament and ended these issues following an 1832 Paris riot. In the Netherlands, things were much less violent. In 1814, the States General was divided into two chambers, the Eerste Kamer (the Senate) and the Tweede Kamer (House of Commons). But the King emphasized economic progress, founding many trade institutions which fueled great wealth for Dutch directors. Of course, with William himself a strong proponent of the Reformed Church, he mandated that schools throughout the Kingdom instruct students in that particular faith and the Dutch language, angering Catholics and leading to a mass Catholic exodus from the country. As chaotic as all of this may have seemed, this was nothing compared to the whereabouts of Central and Eastern Europe going on at the same time.
Unfortunately Andrew Jackson likely never rises to fame ITTL. But Calhoun will have a rather undignified exit from his tenure as PM, that I will tell you.
Unfortunately? I'm glad. Hopefully he's not as destructive as IOTL.
There are things to celebrate about Andrew Jackson, like his expansion of the franchise to all adult white males, rather than just those who owned property (property restrictions were around in some states).
There are also many things to abhor about him, which I don't feel the need to elaborate on, as they're plainly obvious.
I meant unfortunately for @Jeff Goldplum. As Gabingston said, there’s a lot to dislike about him and I certainly agree with that.