Dominion of Southern America - Updated July 1, 2018

Very interesting so far, and nice and easy to read.

Keep up the good work. One question though concerning the South, is it going to be an actual dominion with self-control over most of its internal matters? If so I'll be interested to read how that turns out with an earlier dominion on the British Empire and how that may affect their views on other future colonies.

I'm also interested to see how the future of the HBC turns out, and lastly how the Southern Dominion will interact with the Spanish to the West of them (especially New Orleans).
 

Glen

Moderator
Very interesting so far, and nice and easy to read. Keep up the good work.

Thank you. I am glad to hear people are able to follow this without difficulty. Will do!

One question though concerning the South, is it going to be an actual dominion with self-control over most of its internal matters?

Well, with a title like 'Dominion of Southern America' I suppose at some point we will have to have some political entity with that name.;)

If so I'll be interested to read how that turns out with an earlier dominion on the British Empire and how that may affect their views on other future colonies.

Stay tuned to see the when and the how.:D

I'm also interested to see how the future of the HBC turns out,

Differently.

and lastly how the Southern Dominion will interact with the Spanish to the West of them (especially New Orleans).

Yes, that will be a very important question. We've some other events to get out of the way before the timeline turns its eyes once more to the West.
 

Glen

Moderator
While a less than smooth process, the Peace of Paris saw separate treaties for the combatants in the war against Britain.

The Treaty with the new United States of America included:
1. Acknowledging the Twelve Colonies to be free, sovereign and independent States, and that the British Crown and all heirs and successors relinquish claims to the Government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof;
2. Establishing the boundaries between the United States and British North America at latitude 36-30;
3. Granting fishing rights to British fishermen in the Grand Banks, off the coast of Newfoundland and in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence;
4. Granting fur trapping rights to the Hudson Bay Company in Prince Rupert's Land until the time of renewal of their charter, with Americans to have equal access to Prince Rupert's Land from this time forward;
5. Recognizing the lawful contracted debts to be paid to creditors on either side;
6. The Congress of the Confederation will "earnestly recommend" to state legislatures to recognize the rightful owners of all confiscated lands "provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties, which have been confiscated belonging to real British subjects [Loyalists]";
7. United States will prevent future confiscations of the property of Loyalists;
8. Prisoners of war on both sides are to be released and all property left by the British army in the United States unmolested (including slaves);
9. Great Britain and the United States were each to be given perpetual access to the Mississippi River;
10. Territories captured by Americans subsequent to treaty will be returned without compensation;
11. Ratification of the treaty was to occur within six months from the signing by the contracting parties.

Treaty_of_Paris_by_Benjamin_West_1783.jpg

Treaty of Paris

The Treaty of France included:
1. Declaration of peace, and forgetfulness of past problems.
2. Confirmation of old treaties between the two nations.
3. Exchange of prisoners and hostages to take place within 6 weeks of ratification; also ships (naval and merchant) captured after hostilities at sea officially cease are to be returned
4. French crown to retain St. Pierre & Miquelon.
5. French crown continues fishing rights between Cape Bonavista and Cape St. John (on the east coast of Newfoundland) and between Cape St. John and Cape Raye (round the west coast of Newfoundland).
6. The French may still fish in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
7. In the West Indies, British crown returns St. Lucia to France subject to guarantees of the rights of British settlers.
8. French crown returns Grenada, St. Vincent, Dominica, St. Christopher's (St. Kitts), Nevis and Montserrat to Britain, subject to guarantees of the right of French settlers in any of those islands.
9. In Africa, British crown surrenders the Senegal river area to France, and returns to France the island of Gorée.
10. French crown guarantees to British crown possession of the Gambia river area and Fort James.
11. British shall have right to carry on the gum trade from the mouth of the River St. John to Portendic Bay, but may not establish permanent settlements there (boundaries of the various African possessions to be determined by commissioners to be chosen within 3 months of ratification).
12. British and French access to other parts of the African coast to continue as customary.
13. In India, British crown returns to France all settlements on the Orixa coast and in Bengal, as at the beginning of the war— with liberty for the French to make a ditch round Chandernagore (for drainage)— and will as far as possible provide security for French trade in the area.
14. British crown also delivers Pondicherry and Karikal to France, with additions to the former at Valanour and Bahour; to the latter at the Magans.
15. Mahé and the factory at Surat also returned to French control, with security provisions as in Article 13.
16. Britain and France will cease to aid their respective Indian allies against each other within four months (ceasefire orders having already been sent to British and French forces in India).
17. British crown abandons restrictions on French use of the port of Dunkirk in France.
18. The two crowns will make new commercial agreements by the end of 1786.
19. All territories conquered by either side since the war began, and not mentioned above, are to be returned to their pre-war owners.
20. The two nations should be able to enter into their respective possessions of St. Pierre & Miquelon, St. Lucia, Gorée, Grenada, the Grenadines, St. Vincent, Dominica, St. Christopher, Nevis & Montserrat, within three months of ratification of the treaty. For Indian towns etc., within 6 months.
21. to 24. Technical details.

The Treaty with Spain included:
1. Declaration of peace, and forgetfulness of past problems.
2. Confirmation of old treaties between the two nations.
3. Exchange of prisoners and hostages to take place within 6 weeks of ratification; also ships (naval and merchant) captured after hostilities at sea officially cease are to be returned.
4. British crown surrenders Minorca to Spain.
5. In "the Spanish continent" [the majority of America south of the United States] British subjects will be permitted to cut and carry away logwood in the district between the Bellize (or Wallis) river and the Rio Hondo (both of which shall be open to navigators from both nations) up to an isthmus formed by a widening of the Bellize river and a widening of the Rio Nuevo (New River), from where the boundary goes straight across the isthmus to the Rio Nuevo, along the Rio Nuevo to where it comes opposite a river [marked on an accompanying map] which flows into the Rio Hondo; then across to that river, downstream to the Rio Hondo, and finally down the Rio Hondo to the sea. Commissioners will mark out places where the British may establish settlements, and all British subjects within the Spanish continent and offshore islands will move to those settlements within 18 months from ratification (with full assistance from the Spanish authorities). No fortifications may be made within this area, and any now existing must be demolished. The British settlers may also fish for their subsistence off the coast of the designated area, and neighbouring islands (but must not make any other use of the said islands).
6. All territories conquered by either side since the war began, and not mentioned above, are to be returned to their pre-war owners.
7. The two crowns will make new commercial agreements by the end of 1786.
8. to 10. Technical details.

The Treaty with the Dutch Republic included:
1. Declaration of peace, and forgetfulness of past problems
2. Respect for each other's flags at sea to be resumed
3. Exchange of prisoners and hostages to take place as soon as possible, without waiting for ratification; also ships (naval and merchant) captured after hostilities at sea officially cease are to be returned
4. In India, the States General of the Republic surrender the town of Negapatnam to the British crown, but may exchange it for some equivalent property if they have such available
5. British crown returns Trinquemale (Trincomalee) to the States General, with all other Dutch towns, forts, harbours and settlements conquered by the British forces (including East India Company forces) during the war
6. The States General promise not to obstruct the navigation of British subjects in the Eastern Seas
7. Commissioners shall be appointed to discuss navigation rights on the African coast, and the subject of Cape Apollonia [in what is now Ghana], which have been the source of disputes between the English African Company and the Dutch West India Company
8. All territories conquered by either side since the war began, and not mentioned above, are to be returned to their pre-war owners
9. to 11. Technical details

In the aftermath of the American Revolutionary War (as it is known in the United States), many Loyalist families fled the newly formed USA for Britain, the Southern Provinces, or even the Caribbean. General Carleton oversaw the evacuation of Loyalists from around the Chesapeake and Delaware areas while General Cornwallis went by sea to evacuate New York under the watchful glare of the Americans.

In 1789, Governor Carleton proposed the creation of a new Honour for Loyalist families, the Unity of Empire. So called United Empire Loyalists and their descendants would be allowed to affix U.E. after their name, and add the Loyalist coronet to their family Coat of Arms. Some families in the South still proudly display the U.E. remembering the loyalty of their ancestors.

Governor Carleton had also suggested to the British Parliament uniting the remaining Southern Colonies under one Governor-General but this was dismissed, though the idea would be revived from time to time in later years.

Britannia opening her arms to the Loyalists:
Reception_of_the_American_Loyalists.jpg
 

Glen

Moderator
In the aftermath of the American Revolutionary War (as it is known in the United States), many Loyalist families fled the newly formed USA for Britain, the Southern Provinces, or even the Caribbean. General Carleton oversaw the evacuation of Loyalists from around the Chesapeake and Delaware areas while General Cornwallis went by sea to evacuate New York under the watchful glare of the Americans.

In 1789, Governor Carleton proposed the creation of a new Honour for Loyalist families, the Unity of Empire. So called United Empire Loyalists and their descendants would be allowed to affix U.E. after their name, and add the Loyalist coronet to their family Coat of Arms. Some families in the South still proudly display the U.E. remembering the loyalty of their ancestors.

Governor Carleton had also suggested to the British Parliament uniting the remaining Southern Colonies under one Governor-General but this was dismissed, though the idea would be revived from time to time in later years.

Britannia opening her arms to the Loyalists:
Reception_of_the_American_Loyalists.jpg

Only a few years after the end of the American Revolutionary War it was becoming obvious to many that the Articles of Confederation were inadequate to the governance of the United States of America as a nation. Eventually representatives of the states met at first to amend the Articles, but later to draft a new document to govern the nation, the Constitution of the United States. The greatest contention was over whether to have equal representation for each state or representation based on a state's entire population excluding Indians not taxed. Eventually a compromise was reached where there would be a bicameral legislature with equal representation in the new Senate (three for each state, one elected every two years to serve for six years) and proportional representation for every 50,000 people (rounded up) in the new Assembly (each Assemblyman to serve for two years).

Ratification was contentious and long in coming. By 1789, a Bill of Rights was added that, among other things, forbade Congress from establishing any official religion or language for the United States.

JamesMadison.jpg

James Madison, Father of the Constitution and Author of the Bill of Rights
 

Glen

Moderator
Only a few years after the end of the American Revolutionary War it was becoming obvious to many that the Articles of Confederation were inadequate to the governance of the United States of America as a nation. Eventually representatives of the states met at first to amend the Articles, but later to draft a new document to govern the nation, the Constitution of the United States. The greatest contention was over whether to have equal representation for each state or representation based on a state's entire population excluding Indians not taxed. Eventually a compromise was reached where there would be a bicameral legislature with equal representation in the new Senate (three for each state, one elected every two years to serve for six years) and proportional representation for every 50,000 people (rounded up) in the new Assembly (each Assemblyman to serve for two years).

Ratification was contentious and long in coming. By 1789, a Bill of Rights was added that, among other things, forbade Congress from establishing any official religion or language for the United States.

JamesMadison.jpg

James Madison, Father of the Constitution and Author of the Bill of Rights

Many celebrate 1789 as the ending of slavery in the United States of America, though in actuality the ban of slavery in the Northwest Territory and later the entire nation were only written into legislation that year, but it wasn't until the early 1790s that the abolition of slavery really began to take effect. While many states of the union allowed slaves at the time, it was felt to be a dying institution, and counter to the spirit of freedom that the new nation wished to foster. Also, blacks had rallied to the American cause and served in the Continental Army in return for freedom, as well as several having fled Loyalist owners, thus there was a small but significant free black population in the new nation. While there was some federal funds voted for recompense for freed slaves, many slave owners chose instead to sell their slaves south to the British colonies, often getting a better price than that offered by Congress, even with the downturn in price by the flooding of the slave market.

Some slave owners migrated to the Southern Colonies with the passage of abolition, but the majority preferred the loss of their slaves to living once more under the rule of the Crown. Even though many slaves were sold from New York, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, a sizable number remained with their previous owners and continued to work the land, typically in return for some share of the crop. Some likened the relation to manorialism, with the plantation owners acting as feudal lords and freed slaves as serfs, while others saw it more like the seigneurial system in the state of Quebec.

The Southern British provinces saw a significant increase in their slave population, just in time for the onset of a massive growth in cotton cultivation with the invention of the Cotton Engine.

SlaveDanceand_Music.jpg

African Life in Rural North America, circa 1790
 
Last edited:
I was expecting a US ending of slavery quickly, but I have to admit I'm very surprised it happened this fast.

As for your comment that you enjoy seeing my questions over what will happen...well I have a lot more, though each update answers another one and a lot of them don't entirely feel worth asking without speculation, and I don't really want to clutter up your thread with so much discussion, especially when it would probably be a monologue on my part and you're tearing through the updates at quite a pace. I don't really want to take over the thread with my speculation. Sufficed to say, though, that my major interest is whether Britain will move to take Louisiana sooner rather than later considering the various factors which should surely accelerate their interest there, and whether two strong American factions, with such (probably) strongly contrasting values and characteristics, will constantly be warring each other for supremacy.
 

Glen

Moderator
I was expecting a US ending of slavery quickly, but I have to admit I'm very surprised it happened this fast.

Understandable, but in fact there were efforts IOTL that almost pulled it off. Without the other major slave states, it goes through. And actually early is better. If they waited too long (ie cotton more profitable), it might start to cause trouble.

As for your comment that you enjoy seeing my questions over what will happen...well I have a lot more, though each update answers another one and a lot of them don't entirely feel worth asking without speculation, and I don't really want to clutter up your thread with so much discussion, especially when it would probably be a monologue on my part

Not really. Some questions actually spark ideas or confirm them, so its all good.

and you're tearing through the updates at quite a pace.

Yep. Trying to keep this one on the front burner and just get it out of my head and onto the thread. Still, comments and questions help fuel the beast, so keep it coming!

I don't really want to take over the thread with my speculation.

You won't.

Sufficed to say, though, that my major interest is whether Britain will move to take Louisiana sooner rather than later considering the various factors which should surely accelerate their interest there,

I think that is a fairly good question and interesting conjecture....

and whether two strong American factions, with such (probably) strongly contrasting values and characteristics, will constantly be warring each other for supremacy.

Another good one, but on that I will just say that time will tell, but ask what you imagine the values and characteristics of the two being?
 
very interesting update, figures that slavery would be banned in America, seeing as how it was only predominant in the South.

Question though is what will happen when the abolitionist movement reaches England, they were one of the first nations to ban slavery I think. So will having the South force them to reconsider, or will it start a southern revolution?
 

Glen

Moderator
Order of Ratification of the Constitution, 1787-9:

  1. Pennsylvania
  2. Delaware
  3. New Jersey
  4. Connecticut
  5. Massachusetts
  6. Maryland
  7. Virginia
  8. Quebec
  9. New Hampshire
  10. New York
  11. Nova Scotia
  12. Rhode Island
 

Glen

Moderator
very interesting update,

Thank you, thank you kindly!

figures that slavery would be banned in America, seeing as how it was only predominant in the South.

Yep, though you might be surprised how many slaves were in New York at the time.

Question though is what will happen when the abolitionist movement reaches England, they were one of the first nations to ban slavery I think.

Quite right, and there are already rumblings, ala OTL.

So will having the South force them to reconsider,

Well, you know how good Whitehall was at taking into account the sensibilities of their overseas colonies....

or will it start a southern revolution?

What? The South rise up? How could you think of such a thing?;) It would be like imaging a rebellion in Canada....:rolleyes:
 

Glen

Moderator
After the twelve original colonies, the next states to join the union in 1790-91 were Newfoundland, Vermont, and then Kentucky (which peacefully separated from Virginia).
 
Well alright then, Glen, but don't say I didn't warn you about my propensity to talk and talk when allowed to do so ;)

Well, there are a number of things defining the two as opposites. Obviously there's the starter in that the US Americans (historically) saw themselves as the guardians of the Americas and believed the British colonists to be ill-suffering brothers in arms who deserve, even require, their protection and ownership. Britain, by contrast, sees its control of the colonies as granting the colonists all the freedom and security they could ever need, and in a lot of ways this wasn't as bigoted a view as it could sound - the British were very good at sticking up for the rights of their colonists in incidents and such. There's the divide now between the US and the colonies in that the one is a slave-free state whereas the other, somewhat regrettably to me, appears that it's going to be heading towards a very plantation-owner, pro-slavery, ultra-conservative state. The US will be dominated by mercantile and business interests whereas the British colonists will represent landed money-making. Again historically, the British (government more than colonists, admittedly) are more likely to advocate treating the Indians with due respect and deference but in this situation do not have such powerful and well-landed tribes to contend with on their western borders whereas the US historically was more willing to simply tell the Indians to get out the way, but now has virtually all of the "Indian question" to deal with themselves. Moreover, in OTL what is now Canada already had virtually all the land it would expand into and Britain only needed resolve the Oregon situation and a few border corrections, whereas now both the US and the British colonies extend about as far west as each other and will be demanding to expand westwards soon, and both are likely to want to cut the other off or at least push north/south to gain more land. All these reasons suggest to me that neither state is going to be happy accepting the other as an equal-strength rival unless decades of war has wearied them to a stand-still, i.e. 20th century Europe. Such wars could drain the UK and put back economic and technological progression in North America for years. Of course, in the early decades, with a far better military jumping point, a higher colonial population and, one would assume, a far higher uptake on locals joining militias to bolster British forces in a war, you'd expect the British to batter the Americans in the early stages, but I still see war as being a very regular affair. Somehow I don't see this TL as allowing one state to gain the upper hand over the other, unless in short order you're planning on making America simply the POD and turning this TL into a world-view of how owning the southern colonies in perpetuity allowed the British Empire to shape totally differently (which of course it would anyway, but at present I get the feeling this is a North American-centric TL).

Which raises another interesting point. With the southern colonies, perhaps the idea of a militia supplementing the regular army will continue in British practice for longer here?

It's probably me just being 'romantic' (I have a bizarre fixation on the ideas of colonies owning territories etc) but perhaps two rival westwards-expanding states would also see interesting differences in how they handle their new land? Whereas the US will surely grant new territories statehood in due time, the more to grant better power to the locals living there and the better to control their country from their capital, perhaps the British colonists will be far happier to extend the practice of controlling territories? After all, evidence suggests that the colonies are going to see far more of a strong landed elite controlling things along the seaboard and thus unlikely to be as interested in either migrating westwards or more importantly granting power away from themselves to the new territories, but more importantly with London the ultimate point of control for the colonies, there isn't nearly as much to be gained from territories becoming equal with the existing colonies in the east anyway. But as I say, I think I'm just seeing what I want to see here. There are plenty of reasons that that wouldn't be the case at all. The idea, for instance, of San Francisco having to report to Savannah, Georgia, for its government is pretty entertaining to me but highly infeasible. On another note, though, if we carried this idea on to its conclusion, perhaps with such long, thin strips of land (see two paragraphs down), the territorial governments will end up having to appoint their own, sub-territorial level, local jurisdictions to control the further-afield lands.

...yeah. I have some weird delusions. Extremely illogical ideas, but vaguely possible. What can I say, I'm the kind of guy who is privately disappointed that the Holy Roman Empire doesn't still exist and that Germany and Italy united. I'll try to stop letting my personal fantasies let my comments get too carried away from now on.

Interesting that the colonies weren't united. Another of my bizarre, and somewhat anti-logical, but in this case somewhat believable, sentiments is the fun idea of the American colonies refusing to unite and existing as entirely separate entities. This ties in with what I was saying above about liking the idea of westward territories not being granted colonial rights - if the colonies aren't united and each eastern seaboard territory has to independently maintain its western possessions (with UK assistance, of course) could we see inter-colonial races westwards, with the colonies eventually turning into incredibly long, thin strips of land from coast to coast? If there's one thing that this point affects, however, it's that it does make it harder to abbreviate the colonies to an easy acronym for easy reference as the USA does for the north. Not that that should affect your TL in any way, of course...

On a totally different note, I found it very curious that Britain retained control of the Hudson's Bay Company territory. I find its position untenable and expect to see the HBC cease to exist within about 30 years and the land to pass to the USA, but I have an affection for the idea of the HBC continuing its existence into the modern day as a kind of less-populated British version of Siberia until recently - a desolate state almost "stuck" centuries in the past in its infrastructure and way of life. But yeah, all in all I found the HBC's continued existence remarkable, and unfortunately I can't see it surviving the next conflict of interests between the USA and the UK.
 
Last edited:

Glen

Moderator
Well alright then, Glen, but don't say I didn't warn you about my propensity to talk and talk when allowed to do so ;)

I am duly warned....

Well, there are a number of things defining the two as opposites. Obviously there's the starter in that the US Americans (historically) saw themselves as the guardians of the Americas and believed the British colonists to be ill-suffering brothers in arms who deserve, even require, their protection and ownership.

Interesting thought....not certain that attitude prevails ITTL....

Britain, by contrast, sees its control of the colonies as granting the colonists all the freedom and security they could ever need, and in a lot of ways this wasn't as bigoted a view as it could sound - the British were very good at sticking up for the rights of their colonists in incidents and such.

True.

There's the divide now between the US and the colonies in that the one is a slave-free state whereas the other, somewhat regrettably to me, appears that it's going to be heading towards a very plantation-owner, pro-slavery, ultra-conservative state.

Well, we'll see about the ultra-conservative, but otherwise, yes, that is exactly where they stand at the close of the 18th century. It should be noted, however, that in the US its not all sunshine and lollipops, though of course they will claim it is....

The US will be dominated by mercantile and business interests whereas the British colonists will represent landed money-making.

Agree to a degree, at least at this point in time.

Again historically, the British (government more than colonists, admittedly) are more likely to advocate treating the Indians with due respect and deference but in this situation do not have such powerful and well-landed tribes to contend with on their western borders

No, they don't do they? Now they have them WITHIN their borders (the Five Civilized Tribes almost fit entirely in the British Southern America now).

whereas the US historically was more willing to simply tell the Indians to get out the way,

Yep, but if you look carefully, Washington was a fan of acculturation rather than relocation.

but now has virtually all of the "Indian question" to deal with themselves.

This is actually incorrect. They have the Indian Tribes in the Northwest Territory to deal with, but the British have to deal with the Five Civilized Tribes in their own provinces.

Moreover, in OTL what is now Canada already had virtually all the land it would expand into and Britain only needed resolve the Oregon situation and a few border corrections, whereas now both the US and the British colonies extend about as far west as each other and will be demanding to expand westwards soon,

True dat!

and both are likely to want to cut the other off or at least push north/south to gain more land.

Maybe, but then again the British could have tried that IOTL with Oregon, but ultimately did not. Of course, time will tell.

All these reasons suggest to me that neither state is going to be happy accepting the other as an equal-strength rival

Want and need are two different things, but you may have a point there.;)

unless decades of war has wearied them to a stand-still, i.e. 20th century Europe. Such wars could drain the UK and put back economic and technological progression in North America for years. Of course, in the early decades, with a far better military jumping point, a higher colonial population and, one would assume, a far higher uptake on locals joining militias to bolster British forces in a war, you'd expect the British to batter the Americans in the early stages, but I still see war as being a very regular affair.

Oh, I don't think it will come to that. Then again, you never know....

Somehow I don't see this TL as allowing one state to gain the upper hand over the other,

Well, given the title of the thread....:)

unless in short order you're planning on making America simply the POD and turning this TL into a world-view of how owning the southern colonies in perpetuity allowed the British Empire to shape totally differently (which of course it would anyway, but at present I get the feeling this is a North American-centric TL).

It will start pretty North American centric, but ripples will spread throughout the world over decades and centuries....

Which raises another interesting point. With the southern colonies, perhaps the idea of a militia supplementing the regular army will continue in British practice for longer here?

Yes, I think you may assume so.

It's probably me just being 'romantic' (I have a bizarre fixation on the ideas of colonies owning territories etc) but perhaps two rival westwards-expanding states would also see interesting differences in how they handle their new land? Whereas the US will surely grant new territories statehood in due time, the more to grant better power to the locals living there and the better to control their country from their capital,

That's about right.

perhaps the British colonists will be far happier to extend the practice of controlling territories?

Please elaborate.

After all, evidence suggests that the colonies are going to see far more of a strong landed elite controlling things along the seaboard

Than OTL South? A bit. Don't forget that the OTL Antebellum South had its own landed elite.

and thus unlikely to be as interested in either migrating westwards or more importantly granting power away from themselves to the new territories,

Oh, I wouldn't say that, necessarily, but perhaps less of a mania for making new provinces.

but more importantly with London the ultimate point of control for the colonies, there isn't nearly as much to be gained from territories becoming equal with the existing colonies in the east anyway.

True, true....

But as I say, I think I'm just seeing what I want to see here.

Don't we all? But it gives a different vision than just the one rattling around in my head, and thus acts as a nice check.

There are plenty of reasons that that wouldn't be the case at all. The idea, for instance, of San Francisco having to report to Savannah, Georgia, for its government is pretty entertaining to me.

Entertaining? Yes. Practical? Not so much.

And perhaps with such long, thin strips of land (see two paragraphs down), the territorial governments will end up having to appoint their own, sub-territorial level, local jurisdictions to control the further-afield lands.

Which if that happens, you'd likely just see them broken up for practicality.

...yeah. I have some weird delusions. Extremely illogical ideas, but vaguely possible. What can I say, I'm the kind of guy who is privately disappointed that the Holy Roman Empire doesn't still exist and that Germany and Italy united.

In other words, like a significant proportion of the AH.com community.:D

I'll try to stop letting my personal fantasies get in the way of my comments from now on.

Just so long as you clearly label which is which, don't worry about it.:cool:

Interesting that the colonies weren't united. Another of my bizarre, and somewhat anti-logical sentiments, is the fun idea of the American colonies refusing to unite and existing as entirely separate entities. This ties in with what I was saying above about liking the idea of westward territories not being granted colonial rights - if the colonies aren't united and each eastern seaboard territory has to independently maintain its western possessions (with UK assistance, of course) could we see inter-colonial races westwards, with the colonies eventually turning into incredibly long, thin strips of land from coast to coast? If there's one thing that this factor affects, it does make it harder to abbreviate the colonies to an easy acronym as the USA is for the north. Not that that should affect your TL in any way, of course...

Yes, at this point they are more separate. Don't know how long that is going to last with those Americans all unifying up North!

On a totally different note, I found it very curious that Britain retained control of the Hudson's Bay Company territory.

Well, the treaty is kinda vague on that point....

I find its position untenable and expect to see the HBC cease to exist within about 30 years and the land to pass to the USA,

That does seem the most probable outcome, doesn't it?

but I have an affection for the idea of the HBC continuing its existence into the modern day as a kind of less-populated British version of Siberia. But yeah, all in all I found the HBC's continued existence remarkable, and unfortunately I can't see it surviving the next conflict of interests between the USA and the UK.

Well, I don't think we'll get British Siberia (but boy, that does sound like part of a dystopic timeline where some evil British Empire contracts with the HBC to take convicts to Prince Rupert's Land....).
 
Top