Dominion of Southern America - Updated July 1, 2018

[Glen]

Upon achieving independence in 1815, Mexico sought to settle their border with the British Empire. During the earlier conflicts with Spain, Britain had done well in the islands, but less so on the mainland, which had decreased interest in British Honduras, especially with more ready sources of supplies from the British South to the Caribbean. Of more concern to the British was settling the border between Mexico and British Louisiana. There was a great deal of debate as to where the British lands ended. Eventually, the Mexicans agreed to recognize the Sabine River from the Gulf to its headwaters, and then a line due north to the Red River, which the border would follow west to its source, and then a line due north to the 36-30 border with America. In return for this favorable definition of the Louisiana border, the British agreed to a transfer of the protectorate of the Mosquito Coast and British Honduras to Mexico, but only with the addition of a right of transit to the Pacific along the San Juan River to Lake Nicaragua and then to the sea.

After Napoleon's defeat and death in 1815, the Congress of Vienna saw the final settlement of the Napoleonic Wars.

The former Dauphin of France had been removed from prison as a teenager and made a ward of Napoleon. Affection for the former heir to France grew in Empress Josephine and, some say, even Napoleon, whom the boy came to worship. When it had become clear that Josephine would bear no heir to Napoleon, Boneparte took the step of formally adopting the boy as Louis Charles Boneparte, but never named him his heir, perhaps fearing his own overthrow, until on his deathbed in 1815. The 30 year old Louis Charles Boneparte became Emperor Louis Napoleon I and the Congress accepted him as rightful ruler of France. While France would be reduced from the heights achieved under Napoleon Boneparte, it was not so bad as it could have been, mostly due to the able negotiations of Tallyrand

Tallyrand

Provisions of the Congress of Vienna included:

* Russia was given most of the Duchy of Warsaw (Poland) and was allowed to keep Finland.
* Prussia was given a portion of Saxony, parts of the Duchy of Warsaw (the Grand Duchy of Posen), Danzig, and the Rhineland/Westphalia.
* A German Confederation of almost 40 states was created from the previous 360 of the Holy Roman Empire, under the presidency of the Austrian Emperor. Only portions of the territory of Austria and Prussia were included in the Confederation.
* The Netherlands and the Southern Netherlands were united in a constitutional monarchy, with the House of Orange-Nassau providing the king.
* To compensate for the Orange-Nassau's loss of the Nassau lands to Prussia, the United Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg were to form a personal union under the House of Orange-Nassau.
* Swedish Pomerania, ceded to Denmark a year earlier, was ceded to Prussia.
* The neutrality of Switzerland was guaranteed.
* Hanover gave up the Duchy of Lauenburg to Denmark, but was enlarged by the addition of former territories of the Bishop of Münster and by the formerly Prussian East Frisia, and made a kingdom.
* Most of the territorial gains of Bavaria, Württemberg, Baden, Hesse-Darmstadt, and Nassau under the mediatizations of 1801–1806 were recognized. Bavaria also gained control of the Rhenish Palatinate and parts of the Napoleonic Duchy of Würzburg and Grand Duchy of Frankfurt. Hesse-Darmstadt, in exchange for giving up the Duchy of Westphalia to Prussia, was granted the city of Mainz.
* Austria regained control of the Tirol and Salzburg; of the former Illyrian Provinces; of Tarnopol district (from Russia); received Lombardy-Venetia in Italy and Dubrovnik in Dalmatia. Former Austrian territory in Southwest Germany remained under the control of Württemberg and Baden, and the Austrian Netherlands were also not recovered.
* Habsburg princes were returned to control of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany and the Duchy of Modena.
* The Papal States were under the rule of the pope and restored to their former extent, with the exception of Avignon and the Comtat Venaissin, which remained part of France.
* The United Kingdom was confirmed in control of the Cape Colony in Southern Africa; Dutch Guiana; the Dutch West Indies; and various other colonies in Africa and Asia. Other colonies, most notably Ceylon and the Dutch East Indies, were restored to their previous owners.
* The King of Sardinia was restored in Piedmont, Nice, and Savoy, and was given control of Genoa (putting an end to the brief proclamation of a restored Republic).
* The Kingdom of Naples remained under Joachim Murat, the king installed by Bonaparte.
* The slave trade was condemned.
* Freedom of navigation was guaranteed for many rivers, including the Rhine.

 

[Splatter123]

cool can't wait to see a map.

but still no war like the war of 1812, will this cause friendlier or tenser relations between Britain and America?

 

[Glen]

cool

Thanks!

can't wait to see a map.

Yes, I had to nail down the Congress of Vienna before going on to produce a map! Hopefully get out a UCS compliant world map in the next couple days.

but still no war like the war of 1812,

Nope. Quite frankly, most of the issues were resolved by Adams in his second term.

will this cause friendlier or tenser relations between Britain and America?

At the end of the Adams administration, relations were pretty high. They cool down some with the Jefferson administration as Jefferson tries to patch things up with Napoleon (though not at the price of giving anything back).

At this point in history, relations between the British and America are somewhat better than OTL, and between Britain and France somewhat worse, though improving.

 

[stevep]

Glen

In your alternative Vienna you mentioned some changes in the colonial sphere, with Britain returning Ceylon to the Dutch. What happened with the Spanish colonies in the Caribbean? Most noticeably Cuba and their part of Hispaniola? TTL Britain occupied them but did they return them?

Steve

PS Just thought. You said Britain returned the Dutch Indies, without any additional statements. Does that mean Singapore and Malaya were also returned to the Dutch sphere of influence? That would be a big loss.

 

[Falastur]

PS Just thought. You said Britain returned the Dutch Indies, without any additional statements. Does that mean Singapore and Malaya were also returned to the Dutch sphere of influence? That would be a big loss.

Obviously Glen knows his TL and I'm speculating, but Britain settled both those locations, though it had to trade other locations to secure its ownership of them. There would be no point having traded them back with the rest of the Dutch East Indies because the Dutch never had a claim to controlling those settlements. What Britain did at Vienna was restore control of seized colonies, rather than consigning ownership of a region (which actually it had already done - founding Singapore was a bit of a naughty by the British, since they knew the Dutch claimed the area - and was the reason that the British had to trade other locations away for sovereignty. Still, the point stands that since the Dutch never controlled or owned Singapore, it had no right to claim its return in a peace settlement from a war it essentially lost (in the same way that the French lost WW2 up until 1945). If the Dutch want to seize Singapore, they'd have to take it up privately with Britain outside of the treaty talks.

 

[stevep]

Obviously Glen knows his TL and I'm speculating, but Britain settled both those locations, though it had to trade other locations to secure its ownership of them. There would be no point having traded them back with the rest of the Dutch East Indies because the Dutch never had a claim to controlling those settlements. What Britain did at Vienna was restore control of seized colonies, rather than consigning ownership of a region (which actually it had already done - founding Singapore was a bit of a naughty by the British, since they knew the Dutch claimed the area - and was the reason that the British had to trade other locations away for sovereignty. Still, the point stands that since the Dutch never controlled or owned Singapore, it had no right to claim its return in a peace settlement from a war it essentially lost (in the same way that the French lost WW2 up until 1945). If the Dutch want to seize Singapore, they'd have to take it up privately with Britain outside of the treaty talks.

Falastur

I rather suspect that is the case but since Glen didn't make a clear mention other than returning the Indies to the Dutch and also let them keep Ceylon I thought I better check to clarify.

Steve

 

[DuQuense]

With the earlier US Pacific, The Yankees will be sending Soldiers to establish Forts to Control the territory and solidify their Claim.
Along with the Soldiers will go Colonists.

The US will also need More Ships, as it is now a Two Ocean Navy. Not only doubling the number of Frigates, but building the Proposed 72 SOLs.

 

[Beedok]

Seems good so far. I wonder how things will turn out.

 

[Glen]

Glen

In your alternative Vienna you mentioned some changes in the colonial sphere, with Britain returning Ceylon to the Dutch. What happened with the Spanish colonies in the Caribbean? Most noticeably Cuba and their part of Hispaniola? TTL Britain occupied them but did they return them?

They kept them.

Steve

PS Just thought. You said Britain returned the Dutch Indies, without any additional statements. Does that mean Singapore and Malaya were also returned to the Dutch sphere of influence? That would be a big loss.

Dutch East Indies is as per OTL. The Brits appeared to have started really expanding in Malaya after the Congress, not as a result of it.

 

[Glen]

Obviously Glen knows his TL and I'm speculating, but Britain settled both those locations, though it had to trade other locations to secure its ownership of them. There would be no point having traded them back with the rest of the Dutch East Indies because the Dutch never had a claim to controlling those settlements. What Britain did at Vienna was restore control of seized colonies, rather than consigning ownership of a region (which actually it had already done - founding Singapore was a bit of a naughty by the British, since they knew the Dutch claimed the area - and was the reason that the British had to trade other locations away for sovereignty. Still, the point stands that since the Dutch never controlled or owned Singapore, it had no right to claim its return in a peace settlement from a war it essentially lost (in the same way that the French lost WW2 up until 1945). If the Dutch want to seize Singapore, they'd have to take it up privately with Britain outside of the treaty talks.

What Falastur says above is essentially correct.

 

[Glen]

Falastur

I rather suspect that is the case but since Glen didn't make a clear mention other than returning the Indies to the Dutch and also let them keep Ceylon I thought I better check to clarify.

Steve

Never hurts to check. Glad you all are following along. Now I just need to get to that world map...

 

[Glen]

With the earlier US Pacific, The Yankees will be sending Soldiers to establish Forts to Control the territory and solidify their Claim.
Along with the Soldiers will go Colonists.

An astute and accurate observation....

The US will also need More Ships, as it is now a Two Ocean Navy. Not only doubling the number of Frigates,

Quite likely, yes.

but building the Proposed 72 SOLs.

SOLs? Ships of the Line you mean? And which proposal are you referencing?

 

[Glen]

Seems good so far.

Thanks!

I wonder how things will turn out.

Keep reading and see!

 

[Glen]

And we have broken 5,000 views! Thanks to all reading!!!

 

[DuQuense]

The inauguration of John Adams brought a strong advocate of a first-class Navy to the presidency. Under his administration, an act was passed for the creation of the Navy Department. He wisely appointed Benjamin Stoddert as the first Secretary of the Navy 18 May 1798. At close of the year, Stoddert reported to Congress on naval objectives to insure "protection of our coasts . . . safety of our important commerce, and our future peace ...." He recommended a Navy of at least "12 ships of 74 guns, as many frigates, and 20 or 30 smaller vessels ...." Congress responded with the act of 25 February 1799 which authorized six 74-gun ships and six sloops-of-war. The money appropriated could not finance both classes of warships and only the sloops were built.

Though the 74s were never completed, construction materials were gathered at six seaports and much design work was done by Joshua Humphreys. His son, Samuel, redrew the design which called for a length between perpendiculars of 183 feet, beam of 48 feet, 6 inches; and depth in hold of 19 feet 6 inches. It was planned to make all guns 32-pounders.

Opps It was 74's not 72's

 

[stevep]

DuQuense

More to the point it's 74 guns not 72/74 ships, which is what your 1st post seemed to suggest. That would be highly unlikely I suspect as it would be more than Britain probably maintains in peacetime. Can't see any way the US would have the economic base or political support for such a navy at this period.

I think a larger fleet than OTL, including probably some SOL is likely although more for the situation in the Atlantic than the Pacific as the US is unlikely to have much of an actual presence there, let alone the capacity to support and maintain ships. However with a continued British presence that although smaller geographically is a lot larger demographically and controls the lower Mississippi there could well be some tension. Coupled with the fact that with the end of the Napoleonic Wars Britain has uncontested domination of the world's oceans there could well be concern in the US. [If nothing else I would expect US navalists to play on the point].

Its difficult because, without a 1812 conflict the identity of America and the British loyalist state [Canada OTL and the south TTL] are less clear cut. However with the Napoleonic conflict over there is not the same trigger for war nor the same opportunity for the US with a heavily distracted Britain. Depends on how Glen things things will develop here.

Steve

 

[Glen]

Opps It was 74's not 72's

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, it is somewhat likely that the extra ships get built in the second Adams administration.

 

[Glen]

DuQuense

More to the point it's 74 guns not 72/74 ships, which is what your 1st post seemed to suggest. That would be highly unlikely I suspect as it would be more than Britain probably maintains in peacetime. Can't see any way the US would have the economic base or political support for such a navy at this period.

Yep, clarified.

I think a larger fleet than OTL, including probably some SOL is likely although more for the situation in the Atlantic than the Pacific as the US is unlikely to have much of an actual presence there, let alone the capacity to support and maintain ships.

Yep, also agree with that.

However with a continued British presence that although smaller geographically is a lot larger demographically and controls the lower Mississippi there could well be some tension.

True, that is a possibility.

Coupled with the fact that with the end of the Napoleonic Wars Britain has uncontested domination of the world's oceans there could well be concern in the US. [If nothing else I would expect US navalists to play on the point].

And how is that different from OTL?

Its difficult because, without a 1812 conflict the identity of America and the British loyalist state [Canada OTL and the south TTL] are less clear cut.

Point, there.

However with the Napoleonic conflict over there is not the same trigger for war nor the same opportunity for the US with a heavily distracted Britain.

A good analysis.

Depends on how Glen things things will develop here.

Steve

Stay tuned to find out!

 

[Glen]

Map of the World, circa 1820:

 

[stevep]

Glen

What does the colouring of the full Oregon territory in US colours mean? Is it that others [Britain, Russia, Spain/Mexico] have acknowledged their sole claim to the region or just that they are the people with the strongest presence there? I can't really see any settlement of note by this period because they have so much land far closer.

Does this mean that Vancouver's trips in the 1790's didn't occur or that no settlement followed? [Noticing from Wiki that the initial European settlement came overland from the HBC so that would have been butterflied].

Steve