Dominion of Southern America - Updated July 1, 2018

[President Sam Houston]

Glen, I am really enjoying your TL. I really like the way you pack loads of information into a relatively short update. It makes it easier for those of us with little extra time, to keep up with your prose.

Some interesting things that I note from reading your TL, is the additional immigration that the USA is experiencing in the first decades after independence. I have read in numerous places, that OTLs US had very little little immigration in the first decades following the war. Demographers and historians have basically pegged it at about 6000 new immigrants a year from about 1790 until about 1820. This did not count slaves brought into the US before the slave trade was abolished. However, the dramatic growth in population in the US was due primarily to natural increase. In OTL's British North America, most immigration in the decades before the War of 1812 was from US citizens moving north (IIRC). French immigration to either Quebec or other areas in North America in this time period was also almost non existent. (Louisiana and Quebec's French population had mostly all arrived prior to 1780 - grew from that base by natural increase). So the fact that you have so many additional immigrants coming to North America, and your USA in particular, in the 1790s and early 1800s is a major divergance from actual history. So the implications should be very interesting.

Also, I think the fact that the leading slave state in OTL: Virginia, opted to rebel and become a part of the USA, when their Southern brethern, opted to remain a British possession. In OTL, the Southern states all looked upon Virginia as their leader and generally followed Virginia - in politics, culture, etc. In OTL Virginia had a population of 750,000 in the 1790 census, with more than 35% slaves. While I understand your TL's analysis that many slaveowners in the new US, either moved down South or sold their slaves down South, I am not sure you explained what I believe would have been a wholesale change in the demographics and culture of Virginia as a result. Frankly, I think much of Virginia's landed slaveowning gentry would have moved lock stock and barrell to the Southern Colonies, and this process would have begun soon after it became apparent that Virginia would follow the lead of the US in abolishing slavery - I am sure sometime prior to the writing of the Constitution. This would be the only way, Virginia would have approved the Constitution (much of the slaveowning political powers had left and non slaveowning political powers had taken their place). But with so many thousands of people leaving Virginia in the 1780s and 1790s, places like Georgia, East and West Florida, and colonies in the Caribbean would have grown that much faster. (NC and SC not so much, since they were both already well populated and the good lands already taken). And perhaps more importantly, the Southern colonies become an entrenched slaveocracy that much earlier than OTL (I would argue that in OTL both Georgia and NC were neither slave entrenched societies. Of Geogia became one as the entire Deep South and Mississippi delta regions were colonized). I can see huge implications when Britain looks to start abolishing slavery in a few decades.

 

[fernerdave]

oh, right Adams is the one who wanted us to stay out of war with Britain

he didnt want war with either side,
are Britain and France both attacking American shipping the same ITTL?

 

[Falastur]

Just because the white man has declared them within their borders doesn't mean that they always agree....

A valid point. Touche.

Well, I think both still have to find a way to deal with tribes in their borders, and have to consider the tribes to the West....

The same for this. Touche.

I wouldn't assume either way, except at some point there will be a Dominion....

Hmmm. That was my initial assumption, but then I made the comment so and you suggested that the title of the TL should give an indication as to who will dominate. So...I'm confused I guess I'll just keep watching.

Well, I don't know that I entirely agree with your supposition here. There were plenty of territories in British North America that were not just extensions of already existing colonies.

Perhaps so, and maybe you know better, but wasn't that for forming colonies from territory which had been controlled to some extent for a period already? In Canada, for example, colonies were formed from French colonies for better organisation, or from the breakup of the HBC. In the 13 Colonies, some were formed by uniting smaller, company-controlled units which weren't economically viable or weren't well governed. In any case, I don't know of any precedent for colonies formed from land not previously organised and when already claimed by another British colony. I'm not aware of any examples of colonies being formed inland from land suddenly gained like that. But it's your TL and you sound like you have a better impression than I do. Looking forward to seeing how you handle it.[/QUOTE]

 

[Glen]

Glen, I am really enjoying your TL.

Thank you!

I really like the way you pack loads of information into a relatively short update. It makes it easier for those of us with little extra time, to keep up with your prose.

Thanks for the feedback. When I look at the brevity of my posts compared to some of the other popular timelines, I do occasionally worry about it, but every time I re-read them I realize they say pretty much what I wanted to say, so let it stand. No sense guilding the lilly, as it were. I am glad to hear the brevity is being appreciated and not taking away from your experience of the timeline.

Some interesting things that I note from reading your TL, is the additional immigration that the USA is experiencing in the first decades after independence. I have read in numerous places, that OTLs US had very little little immigration in the first decades following the war. Demographers and historians have basically pegged it at about 6000 new immigrants a year from about 1790 until about 1820.

Yes, it is a bit more. Not dramatically, but enough to start some changes.

This did not count slaves brought into the US before the slave trade was abolished.

Which of course will be absent here. However, that makes immigration to the USA more attractive to free labor.

However, the dramatic growth in population in the US was due primarily to natural increase.

And still will be here, more or less.

In OTL's British North America, most immigration in the decades before the War of 1812 was from US citizens moving north (IIRC). French immigration to either Quebec or other areas in North America in this time period was also almost non existent. (Louisiana and Quebec's French population had mostly all arrived prior to 1780 - grew from that base by natural increase).

Yes, this is a big difference in the pattern of populations. Here we see some more influx of French from revolutionary France since Quebec is the only stable and relatively friendly Francophone destination. Some Anglophone population will still move north into Quebec, and more so Quebeckers will also move a bit more into the Maritimes, New England, and New York areas than OTL (though if you look at descent, the northern parts of those states do have French heritage even IOTL). However, the biggest push will be into the West.

So the fact that you have so many additional immigrants coming to North America, and your USA in particular, in the 1790s and early 1800s is a major divergance from actual history. So the implications should be very interesting.

I agree.

Also, I think the fact that the leading slave state in OTL: Virginia, opted to rebel and become a part of the USA, when their Southern brethern, opted to remain a British possession. In OTL, the Southern states all looked upon Virginia as their leader and generally followed Virginia - in politics, culture, etc. In OTL Virginia had a population of 750,000 in the 1790 census, with more than 35% slaves.

I take your point about the South looking to Viriginia as the leader IOTL. However, recall that IOTL East and West Florida did in fact stay Loyalist, and Georgia almost did. Here we have Governor Carleton getting in a few years early to work on North Carolina, and also getting Parliament to give the South preferential treatment. It just wasn't special enough to turn Virginia around (and let's face it, Virginia is even more so one of the leaders of the revolution!). Carleton didn't really get South Carolina turned around either, but with them surrounded, South Carolina gets neutralized and kept. Basically, Carleton and North Carolina are the wedge separating Virginia from the rest of the South.

While I understand your TL's analysis that many slaveowners in the new US, either moved down South or sold their slaves down South, I am not sure you explained what I believe would have been a wholesale change in the demographics and culture of Virginia as a result. Frankly, I think much of Virginia's landed slaveowning gentry would have moved lock stock and barrell to the Southern Colonies,

Perhaps. First, recall that I am striking at a weak point in the history of slavery, when tobacco plantations weren't as important and cotton wasn't coming to the fore. While still a large part of Virginian culture, slavery is in this timeline at this moment more seen as on the decline and naturally withering in Free America, whereas slavery is associated more with the British system. As Virginia is switching from slave to 'free', think more of a system akin to a combination of sharecropping and manorialism. The Virginians are being influenced a bit by interactions with the Seigneurs of Quebec in how to move from slavery to 'free' labor. However, one wrinkle in this development is that freed slaves and poor whites will directly compete (but also cooperate) to farm on the plantation owner's land, so this system is not exclusively African, just predominantly so initially. As the decades progress, we will see more of the divergence in cultures ITTL vs IOTL in Virginia and elsewhere.

and this process would have begun soon after it became apparent that Virginia would follow the lead of the US in abolishing slavery - I am sure sometime prior to the writing of the Constitution. This would be the only way, Virginia would have approved the Constitution (much of the slaveowning political powers had left and non slaveowning political powers had taken their place).

Some of this is happening, enough to impact the political process, but just as many are being persuaded by abolitionist inclined slave-owning Virginians like Jefferson who is willing to free the slaves....so long as his neighbor is, too.

Also, it will become apparent early on in the process that the slave-owners who stay in the US are, to a degree, getting to have their cake and eat it, too. They are getting some recompensation from Congress for the loss of their property (slaves), but the freed slaves by and large are staying put and still working the land, now for a share of the harvest rather than for food and shelter alone.

Note that to simplify matters, the Constitition is mute on slavery. This is handled through a different federal law so as not to complicate matters.

But with so many thousands of people leaving Virginia in the 1780s and 1790s, places like Georgia, East and West Florida, and colonies in the Caribbean would have grown that much faster. (NC and SC not so much, since they were both already well populated and the good lands already taken). And perhaps more importantly, the Southern colonies become an entrenched slaveocracy that much earlier than OTL (I would argue that in OTL both Georgia and NC were neither slave entrenched societies. Of Geogia became one as the entire Deep South and Mississippi delta regions were colonized).

Yep. Southern America overall definitely takes a boost in population, and this supercharges the growth of the slaveocracy in the Deep South.

I can see huge implications when Britain looks to start abolishing slavery in a few decades.

Yes, one can, can't one....

 

[Glen]

he didnt want war with either side,
are Britain and France both attacking American shipping the same ITTL?

More or less.

 

[Glen]

A valid point. Touche.

The same for this. Touche.

You are gracious, sir!

Hmmm. That was my initial assumption, but then I made the comment so and you suggested that the title of the TL should give an indication as to who will dominate. So...I'm confused I guess I'll just keep watching.

Basically you are confused because in part I am trying to keep everyone guessing so that there is some suspense. And yes, please do keep on watching.

Perhaps so, and maybe you know better, but wasn't that for forming colonies from territory which had been controlled to some extent for a period already? In Canada, for example, colonies were formed from French colonies for better organisation,

Upper Canada?

or from the breakup of the HBC.

Manitoba?

The pattern here appears to be creating colonies based on population and demand for recognition. Then rather uninhabited territory was appended onto these.

In the 13 Colonies, some were formed by uniting smaller, company-controlled units which weren't economically viable or weren't well governed.

Actually, it was somewhat more arbitrary than that, at least as far as I can tell. And extrapolating 17th or even 18th century patterns into the 19th century is probably slightly misleading.

In any case, I don't know of any precedent for colonies formed from land not previously organised and when already claimed by another British colony. I'm not aware of any examples of colonies being formed inland from land suddenly gained like that.

Upper Canada/Ontario.

But it's your TL and you sound like you have a better impression than I do.

Well, calling it better may be a stretch....let us say, rather, a different impression and as it is my timeline it will naturally reflect my impression.

Looking forward to seeing how you handle it.

And that is the most I could ask. Cheers!

 

[Glen]

And we have exceeded 2000 views. Thank you, loyal readers!

 

[Glen]

In the 1790s, as Kentucky was opening up to settlement and eventual statehood, concern grew in Virginia and the United States in general about the boundary between the United States and the British Southern Colonies with regard to the strategically important Cumberland Gap. Because of such concerns, a secret survey was undertaken at the behest of the President of the United States and with the blessings of the Governor of Virginia to assess whether the previous line delineating Virginia from British North Carolina were accurate, and if not, who did they favor with regard to the Gap, and other points of interest. In the end, despite a few close calls with the British, a much more refined survey was made and it was discovered that the Gap did indeed belong on the American side of the border, and in fact that the previous dividing line diverged substantially north of latitude 36-30.

Given this reassuring assessment, the Americans made their survey public and demanded the British acknowledge a strip of land in northernmost North Carolina as actually American. The British took the matter under advisement, but little was done to pursue the matter, much to the consternation of the Americans.

The Strategic Cumberland Gap

The Second Great Awakening began in the ending of the 18th century. As revolutionary fervor died down in the now independent United States of America, a new thirst for innovation in religion arose. It was in this time that the Deist Movements rose to prominance in the United States, with a lesser countermovement being seen in the Primitivist Movements.

Deist belief was rampant among the Founding Fathers of the New United States of America (with the notable exception of Papist Quebec). As these men were the leading political thinkers of the time, so too were they later seen as some of the leading religious thinkers of the age.

The Deist Movement started as a belief that God had created the universe with His natural laws in command, and that no further intervention on God's part was necessary or desired. They appealed to study of nature and science as the truest guides to God's intent in Creation. As many in the Mid-Atlantic States and New England turned away from more traditional establishments like the Anglican Church, Deist congregations arose. Religious services in the Deist Movement emphased study of the Word (Bible) and the World (Science) as evidence of God's Plan, as well as Praise Sessions designed not to win favor of God, but as a communal celebration of the wonder of Creation. Even at this early juncture, the Deist Movement divided into to major movements, the Freedom and Determinist branches of Deism.

Determinist Deism proved most popular in New York and the New England States. Based on the idea that all human action had been preordained by the natural laws that God had set in motion at Creation, this was clearly a further refinement of Puritan thought. The Deist Church of New England especially put emphasis on the idea that Christ had been foreordained at the moment of Creation (as the Word, noted in the Gospel of John), and that one could tell how in accord with God's Plan mortal men were by their success in this life. While Puritan influences were evident, as a Universalist element merged with Determinist Deism, it also borrowed from Catholic doctrine perhaps under French Catholic influence in the north, accepting infant baptism and the idea that those who did not prosper in this life would spend time in Purgatory finalizing their conformation to God's ideal before going on to eternal paradise. It should be noted that as opposed to the Catholic Purgatory, no amount of prayer or intercession would hasten the passage of a soul through the Deist Purgatory.

The Freedom Deists also believed that God's actions in this world had all been manifested in the act of Creation, but they diverged from Determinist Deism in believing that humankind had been left the gift of Free Choice, an ability to join in or reject God's Plan, so that they could be enobled by free acceptance of God's Gift of Creation. While men could reject God, Freedom Deism still emphasized the immutability of God's Laws as revealed by Science, and that all human action were circumscribed by such. The Freedom Deist churches took a rather different view of Christ, as exemplified by the Church of Christ's Choice. They held that Christ had been a man who also had free will to choose or reject the work of God, and that the Temptation of Christ would have been meaningless unless Christ could actually choose to reject his role in God's Plan. Freedom Deism tended to drift into more Unitarian beliefs as Christ was seen more as a man than part of the Trinity. Freedom Deist denominations favored baptism of adult members.

An Example of A Deist Camp Meeting.

Though developed in New England, the Camp Meeting and ecstatic celebration of creation spread more rapidly in the Western regions of the United States. Interestingly enough, Freedom Deists rapidly accepted the Camp Meeting and put it to even greater effect in their mission work to frontiersmen. Many of the frontier regions had no organized church or clergy, and thus the travelling camp meeting was a method to get the word out to the frontier. Deism made only minimal headway in Quebec against entrenched Catholicism, and mostly among the new immigrants from Revolutionary France and to a lesser extent, the Scottish Highlands.

The Camp Meeting was not restricted solely to the Deists. Several of the smaller Primitivist predominant movements of the time also used the Camp Meeting as a device to reach people. While some elements of primitivism were evident in Deism, the two tended to separate on the issue of a personal relation with God and the ability to invoke God's intervention. Small primitivist sects survived the Second Great Awakening but did not proliferate. Some European-based Protestant movements also embraced elements of Primitivism, and the Camp Meeting, most notably the Methodists. Also embracing these elements was the Baptist movement. The primitivist movements and their more mainstream mimics proved especially effective among the African freedman populaiton of the United States, and made inroads into the Appalachians in the British Southern Colonies as well as among British African slaves therein. In the United States these came to be seen as more a form of African religion, and among the Anglican predominant slaveowning aristocracy of the South as subversive heresies. Many slaveowners forbade their slaves to participate in religious services, but serriptitious worship continued.

A Rare Public Baptism of Slaves in the South:

 

[Glen]

The Second Great Awakening began in the ending of the 18th century. As revolutionary fervor died down in the now independent United States of America, a new thirst for innovation in religion arose. It was in this time that the Deist Movements rose to prominance in the United States, with a lesser countermovement being seen in the Primitivist Movements.

Deist belief was rampant among the Founding Fathers of the New United States of America (with the notable exception of Papist Quebec). As these men were the leading political thinkers of the time, so too were they later seen as some of the leading religious thinkers of the age.

The Deist Movement started as a belief that God had created the universe with His natural laws in command, and that no further intervention on God's part was necessary or desired. They appealed to study of nature and science as the truest guides to God's intent in Creation. As many in the Mid-Atlantic States and New England turned away from more traditional establishments like the Anglican Church, Deist congregations arose. Religious services in the Deist Movement emphasized study of the Word (Bible) and the World (Science) as evidence of God's Plan, as well as Praise Sessions designed not to win favor of God, but as a communal celebration of the wonder of Creation. Even at this early juncture, the Deist Movement divided into to major movements, the Freedom and Determinist branches of Deism.

Determinist Deism proved most popular in New York and the New England States. Based on the idea that all human action had been preordained by the natural laws that God had set in motion at Creation, this was clearly a further refinement of Puritan thought. The Deist Church of New England especially put emphasis on the idea that Christ had been foreordained at the moment of Creation (as the Word, noted in the Gospel of John), and that one could tell how in accord with God's Plan mortal men were by their success in this life. While Puritan influences were evident, as a Universalist element merged with Determinist Deism, it also borrowed from Catholic doctrine perhaps under French Catholic influence in the north, accepting infant baptism and the idea that those who did not prosper in this life would spend time in Purgatory finalizing their conformation to God's ideal before going on to eternal paradise. It should be noted that as opposed to the Catholic Purgatory, no amount of prayer or intercession would hasten the passage of a soul through the Deist Purgatory.

The Freedom Deists also believed that God's actions in this world had all been manifested in the act of Creation, but they diverged from Determinist Deism in believing that humankind had been left the gift of Free Choice, an ability to join in or reject God's Plan, so that they could be ennobled by free acceptance of God's Gift of Creation. While men could reject God, Freedom Deism still emphasized the immutability of God's Laws as revealed by Science, and that all human action were circumscribed by such. The Freedom Deist churches took a rather different view of Christ, as exemplified by the Church of Christ's Choice. They held that Christ had been a man who also had free will to choose or reject the work of God, and that the Temptation of Christ would have been meaningless unless Christ could actually choose to reject his role in God's Plan. Freedom Deism tended to drift into more Unitarian beliefs as Christ was seen more as a man than part of the Trinity. Freedom Deist denominations favored baptism of adult members.

An Example of A Deist Camp Meeting.

Though developed in New England, the Camp Meeting and ecstatic celebration of creation spread more rapidly in the Western regions of the United States. Interestingly enough, Freedom Deists rapidly accepted the Camp Meeting and put it to even greater effect in their mission work to frontiersmen. Many of the frontier regions had no organized church or clergy, and thus the traveling camp meeting was a method to get the word out to the frontier. Deism made only minimal headway in Quebec against entrenched Catholicism, and mostly among the new immigrants from Revolutionary France and to a lesser extent, the Scottish Highlands.

The Camp Meeting was not restricted solely to the Deists. Several of the smaller Primitivist predominant movements of the time also used the Camp Meeting as a device to reach people. While some elements of primitivism were evident in Deism, the two tended to separate on the issue of a personal relation with God and the ability to invoke God's intervention. Small primitivist sects survived the Second Great Awakening but did not proliferate. Some European-based Protestant movements also embraced elements of Primitivism, and the Camp Meeting, most notably the Methodists. Also embracing these elements was the Baptist movement. The primitivist movements and their more mainstream mimics proved especially effective among the African freedman population of the United States, and made inroads into the Appalachians in the British Southern Colonies as well as among British African slaves therein. In the United States these came to be seen as more a form of African religion, and among the Anglican predominant slaveowning aristocracy of the South as subversive heresies. Many slaveowners forbade their slaves to participate in religious services, but surreptitious worship continued.

A Rare Public Baptism of Slaves in the South:

The Wars spawned during and after the French Revolutionary Wars led to shifting alliances and shifting control of territory in Europe and sometimes the World.

Spain at first opposed Revolutionary France, but eventually wagered that it was more in its best interests to side with France than against. In the 1790s Spain ceded control of all of Hispaniola to French. Previously France had controlled the western portion of the island, which was one of the most productive islands in the Caribbean. Slaves rose up in the chaos of the revolution, but France meant to reverse that situation after the ascension of Napoleon. This was part of a greater plan on Boneparte's part to restore a French American Empire. In furtherance of that plan, France concluded a secret treaty with Spain that restored Louisiana to the French. Given its secret nature, Spain continued to administer the territory, including the vital port of New Orleans.

New Orleans and Surrounding Louisiana

Eventually, word leaked to the British of the transfer, which was a direct threat to British Southern America. The British devised a plan to neutralize France in the New World, but wanted to secure their vulnerable border with the United States of America. The Federalist Adams Administration was Pro-British, but America had a number of outstanding complaints against the British, including impressment of Americans into the Royal Navy, the lingering border adjustment between the USA and North Carolina, and the status of Prince Rupert's Land, and rescinding of the contentious fishing rights off the North American Coast. All of these the British were willing to cede to the Americans if they would support the war against France, as well as reaffirming the Mississippi as free for navigation and the right of Deposit in New Orleans should they prove victorious. The Anglo-American Convention of 1803 settled these issues, and Adams went to Congress for a declaration of war.

The Americans never joined the Coalition officially, and in fact due to the Washintonian admonishment to avoid entanglement in European wars as well as lingering affection for France among the Democratic-Republicans and the Quebeckers, though this had been eroded by some of the high-handed actions of the French on the high seas. Thus not only was the vote for the declaration of war one of the closest in American history, it was also one of the oddest due to the political sensibilities of the time. Thus did the United States not declare the War of 1804 on France, nor commit to battle anywhere outside the continent, but instead declared it upon "Napoleon in North America".

The British rapidly seized control of New Orleans and Louisiana south of latitude 36-30, while American forces took control of the Mississippi north of there. In addition, American forces took the small islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. In the ensuing peace, France ceded these lands to the United States, as well as releasing their own fishing rights off the North American coast. Britian would hold the vital port of New Orleans as well as the Louisiana region below 36-30.

The British sent forces to seize French Guiana, Martinique and Guadeloupe from France. They also sent forces to Hispaniola in order to seize this island as well, but found themselves embroiled in a multi-sided civil war. Napoleon had sent forces to bring the island back under French control, but they faced a slave army that had taken command of much of the country. The French and rebelling slaves had entered into a vicious spiral of escalating atrocities.

Vicious Fighting in Hispaniola

The British were able to establish control over the eastern half of the island, but the western half was a vipers' nest of carnage and intrigue. Eventually the British ability to cut off sea support for the French, especially after Nelson's victory at the Battle of Toulon, and the British offer of freedom to any black man who joined the British in the fight turned the tide. However, it would be years before the island would return to profitability. In the meantime, France had been excised from the Western Hemisphere.

Battle of Toulon:

 

[Glen]

A map of the world at the end of 1783 after the American Revolutionary War:

Follow the link to see the mildly updated map of 1783.

 

[Glen]

A map of the World circa 1805:

 

[Splatter123]

interesting update, I wonder what will happen when the Mexican American war occurs, will the US attack it or will Britain, or will one attack it and the other will support Mexico?

and what about New Orleans, we originally wanted it because of the farmers of the mid west who used the Mississippi for trade, will we want it from Britain or will we concentrate more on the St. Lawrence and trade in the Great Lakes?

 

[Glen]

interesting update, I wonder what will happen when the Mexican American war occurs, will the US attack it or will Britain, or will one attack it and the other will support Mexico?

Or will they team up, or will there be no Mexico, or will there be no war with Mexico/New Spain at all? We're going to see increasing divergence spreading beyond just the US/Canada region.

and what about New Orleans, we originally wanted it because of the farmers of the mid west who used the Mississippi for trade, will we want it from Britain or will we concentrate more on the St. Lawrence and trade in the Great Lakes?

Well, depends. If the British 'play nice' the US will probably be satisfied, especially with the Great Lakes to Atlantic route available as an alternate. If they don't....

 

[Glen]

The Wars spawned during and after the French Revolutionary Wars led to shifting alliances and shifting control of territory in Europe and sometimes the World.

Spain at first opposed Revolutionary France, but eventually wagered that it was more in its best interests to side with France than against. In the 1790s Spain ceded control of all of Hispaniola to French. Previously France had controlled the western portion of the island, which was one of the most productive islands in the Caribbean. Slaves rose up in the chaos of the revolution, but France meant to reverse that situation after the ascension of Napoleon. This was part of a greater plan on Boneparte's part to restore a French American Empire. In furtherance of that plan, France concluded a secret treaty with Spain that restored Louisiana to the French. Given its secret nature, Spain continued to administer the territory, including the vital port of New Orleans.

New Orleans and Surrounding Louisiana

Eventually, word leaked to the British of the transfer, which was a direct threat to British Southern America. The British devised a plan to neutralize France in the New World, but wanted to secure their vulnerable border with the United States of America. The Federalist Adams Administration was Pro-British, but America had a number of outstanding complaints against the British, including impressment of Americans into the Royal Navy, the lingering border adjustment between the USA and North Carolina, and the status of Prince Rupert's Land, and rescinding of the contentious fishing rights off the North American Coast. All of these the British were willing to cede to the Americans if they would support the war against France, as well as reaffirming the Mississippi as free for navigation and the right of Deposit in New Orleans should they prove victorious. The Anglo-American Convention of 1803 settled these issues, and Adams went to Congress for a declaration of war.

The Americans never joined the Coalition officially, and in fact due to the Washintonian admonishment to avoid entanglement in European wars as well as lingering affection for France among the Democratic-Republicans and the Quebeckers, though this had been eroded by some of the high-handed actions of the French on the high seas. Thus not only was the vote for the declaration of war one of the closest in American history, it was also one of the oddest due to the political sensibilities of the time. Thus did the United States not declare the War of 1804 on France, nor commit to battle anywhere outside the continent, but instead declared it upon "Napoleon in North America".

The British rapidly seized control of New Orleans and Louisiana south of latitude 36-30, while American forces took control of the Mississippi north of there. In addition, American forces took the small islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. In the ensuing peace, France ceded these lands to the United States, as well as releasing their own fishing rights off the North American coast. Britian would hold the vital port of New Orleans as well as the Louisiana region below 36-30.

The British sent forces to seize French Guiana, Martinique and Guadeloupe from France. They also sent forces to Hispaniola in order to seize this island as well, but found themselves embroiled in a multi-sided civil war. Napoleon had sent forces to bring the island back under French control, but they faced a slave army that had taken command of much of the country. The French and rebelling slaves had entered into a vicious spiral of escalating atrocities.

Vicious Fighting in Hispaniola

The British were able to establish control over the eastern half of the island, but the western half was a vipers' nest of carnage and intrigue. Eventually the British ability to cut off sea support for the French, especially after Nelson's victory at the Battle of Toulon, and the British offer of freedom to any black man who joined the British in the fight turned the tide. However, it would be years before the island would return to profitability. In the meantime, France had been excised from the Western Hemisphere.

Battle of Toulon:

The Federalists were victims of their own success and internal infighting during the Presidential Election of 1804. Much anticipation had arisen around whether Adams would run for a third term or honor the example of Washington. As it turned out, Adams did honor Washington's lead and took himself out of the running early. While under the Federalist administration the United States had grown in territory, formalizing control of the Hudson Territory and adding the Missouri Territory (as the American controlled section of French Louisiana came to be called), and secured America's borders, still many Americans were growing tired and wary of the growing power of the Federal government. Also, Hamilton's High Federalists openly broke with the rest of the party over a variety of issues, though some claim the break was more to do with Hamilton's overweening pride and ego. Despite this, the election was the closest in memory, and many attribute the votes of the new state of Ohio to the final victory of the Democratic-Republican's perennial presidential candidate, founding father Thomas Jefferson.

Third President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson:

 

[Falastur]

Will Britain attempt the 1806-7 Buenos Aires landings in this TL?

One thing which plays on my mind. I seem to recall that IOTL the Americans for a while stopped celebrating Christmas after the ARW because it was seen as "too English". Perhaps with a stronger British southern America and later antagonism between the two, we'll see a little curiosity with America unknowingly ascribing to Puritan thought and refusing to celebrate religious holidays in the name of anti-Britishness? Could create interesting (if decidedly tiny) effects considering the massive overcommercialisation of religious holidays IRL, emanating mainly from the USA...

Oh, and one thing Glen. A little request if I may. I'm cool with the quoting of updates to signify new updates, but could you delete the pictures from the quotes? It can take a while to scroll through it and all. Maybe I'm being petty but they just seem to get a little in the way, especially considering they've already been seen recently. Thanks and all.

 

[Glen]

Will Britain attempt the 1806-7 Buenos Aires landings in this TL?

Maybee.....

One thing which plays on my mind. I seem to recall that IOTL the Americans for a while stopped celebrating Christmas after the ARW because it was seen as "too English". Perhaps with a stronger British southern America and later antagonism between the two, we'll see a little curiosity with America unknowingly ascribing to Puritan thought and refusing to celebrate religious holidays in the name of anti-Britishness? Could create interesting (if decidedly tiny) effects considering the massive overcommercialisation of religious holidays IRL, emanating mainly from the USA...

Interesting thoughts. I have been considering the impact of the divergence on holidays in North America. Time will tell.

Oh, and one thing Glen. A little request if I may. I'm cool with the quoting of updates to signify new updates, but could you delete the pictures from the quotes? It can take a while to scroll through it and all. Maybe I'm being petty but they just seem to get a little in the way, especially considering they've already been seen recently. Thanks and all.

I've debated that, but so far I've come down on the side of maintaining them, both because sometimes I do some late revisions which then show up in the quote, and also for the sake of continuity. If others say its more distracting than assisting I'll consider their removal.

 

[Glen]

With the heart of the Missouri Territory explored, the next task Jefferson set his administration to was defining the border with Spain. While the United States border with the British South was relatively well defined at 36-30, the point where it would head north upon reaching Spanish territory was not. Spanish negotiators had a keen interest in keeping that border a reasonable distance from the main city of New Mexico, Santa Fe. On the other hand, having the US close at hand as a counterbalance to the British who also were closer to Santa Fe (though not yet clarified how close) than the Spanish would like. Eventually, the parties decided that the Spanish/American border would start at the 102nd meridian west, heading north to the Arkansas River, thence along the Arkansas River to its source, and North from there to the 40th latitude north.

Here, the Jefferson administration was more successful than they had anticipated. Jefferson had instructed his envoys to negotiate for recognition of an American corridor to the Pacific. The Spanish not only agreed in theory, but for a price were willing to settle on a line as far south as the 40th parallel north. Spain was in significant need of improved finances as a result of their involvement in the Napoleonic Wars. While this was more than President Jefferson had sought, the chance to secure not just a corridor to the Pacific, but one that gave a significant buffer to the main route to the Pacific was too good to pass up. Thus the Transcontinental Treaty of 1806 included the purchase of Spanish rights to the Pacific Northwest as well as settling the border with Spanish North America.

In addition to fighting the French in the Napoleonic Wars, Britain early on had made a bid to sever Spain from its New World posssessions, first in occupying Trinidad successfully, but also made several less successful attempts such as an invasion of Spanish Rio de la Plata in South America and failed expansion from areas like British Honduras and the Mosquito Coast.

Joseph Boneparte, King of Spain

The British refocused on the Caribbean when Napoleon overthrew the Spanish Monarchy and installed his brother, Joseph Boneparte, as a new King of Spain. The Royal Navy under the leadership of Nelson was the strongest asset the British possessed, and thus were able to cut off and occupy such vital Spanish islands as Cuba and Puerto Rico. By 1810 the Spanish Caribbean islands were British territory.

 

[stevep]

Glen

Just come across this and looking interesting. Definitely something different.

One question. How did the British decision to offer freedom to the slaves who sided with them in the battle for Hispaniola go down with the slavocracy? Could this be the 1st sign of discontent between them and Britain. [Which doesn't necessarily mean that it will be unpopular in much of the south as the bulk of the population will be competitors to the great plantations so the latter could find themselves with their support drastically undercut]. Would however probably mean some agreement to deport freed blacks to either the Caribbean islands or possibly back to Africa. However that conflict is likely to be a couple of decades ahead at least.

Just to clarify. That offer of freedom in return for military support. Was that just to slaves on Hispaniola or to slaves in the dominions?

Another thought. With a British empire far more orientated to the Caribbean and Spain still allied to France would it be only the French Caribbean empire under threat? Possibly, supported by local British colonists there might also be attacks on Cuba and a stronger presence in Belize say?

Steve

 

[Glen]

Glen

Just come across this and looking interesting. Definitely something different.

Thanks. Please do continue to follow. I'm going to try and keep updating til this one is done.

One question. How did the British decision to offer freedom to the slaves who sided with them in the battle for Hispaniola go down with the slavocracy?

Poorly, but it was seen as the best of only bad choices. By the time the British are involved, the uprising has advanced to the point that there is no way to clearly distinguish who belongs to whom (not to mention that most of the original owners are dead), and there are too many for the British to pacify alone, but by playing on their internal divisions and turning slave against French and fellow slave, they are able to take the island and prevent full blown abolition, to boot!

Could this be the 1st sign of discontent between them and Britain. [Which doesn't necessarily mean that it will be unpopular in much of the south as the bulk of the population will be competitors to the great plantations so the latter could find themselves with their support drastically undercut].

True and true.

Would however probably mean some agreement to deport freed blacks to either the Caribbean islands or possibly back to Africa.

Yes, that is quite possible.

However that conflict is likely to be a couple of decades ahead at least.

Maybe, maybe....

Just to clarify. That offer of freedom in return for military support. Was that just to slaves on Hispaniola or to slaves in the dominions?

Only on Hispaniola, not any other British colonies.

Another thought. With a British empire far more orientated to the Caribbean and Spain still allied to France would it be only the French Caribbean empire under threat? Possibly, supported by local British colonists there might also be attacks on Cuba and a stronger presence in Belize say?

Steve

Hmmm....maybe........I'm guessing you didn't catch the last update before posting this one!

 

[Falastur]

Presumably all this means that Liberia will only ever be a pipe-dream and nothing more?

Perhaps a gradual settlement of Sierra Leone incorporating the Liberia territory TTL, as the colonies slowly see slavery abolished? With virtually all the American slaves still in British land, could the value (in terms of perceived importance, not economic worth) of Sierra Leone become far more than Sierra Leone and Liberia together IRL? Perhaps a much more concerted effort to create a large colony there since the British have to shoulder the entire burden? Or in contrast, perhaps instead the lack of a rivalry thereabouts will mean that Sierra Leone is left far less populated and instead the freed slaves are better integrated into their territories?

Can you remind me, by the way, please Glen? Has the USA banned slavery entirely, or was it just for certain colonies? If the latter, perhaps the far smaller numbers of Virginian slave-owners will mean that the issue is sufficiently small in the USA that it fails to be a deciding issue in American politics, and actually the Virginian plantations are left untouched for far longer? Though of course, you could just as logically argue that there would comparatively quickly just be a motion made by some congressman or other to end slavery that would pass without a whimper, in order to "tie up loose ends".

I have to admit that my head is swimming trying to calculate how the (eventual) DSA will work out in the end vis a vis freeing slaves. Presumably the institution of slavery cannot, and should not, last forever, but will the abundance of slaves create horrendous ethnic tensions which make the KKK seem like saints? Or by contrast, will a far more abundant free slave population, after the inevitable initial teething period of unrest, actually mean that the two communities spill over into each other far more frequently, leading to a much more integrated, tolerant society?

I guess I'll leave the tough decisions to you