Eurofed
Banned
Welcome to the party, my friend!
Thankee.
You have written a most interesting variant to the evolution of North America, one that to my shame I was mostly oblivious so far (but no more). In some way, this is a rather more satisfying and "natural" solution to the dualities inherent in BNA than OTL, putting the section with the plantation economy and the one with with a trading-manufacturing and intensive agricultural vocation all in the same political entity. I do not Quebec to keep its seigneural character for long anymore. Industrialization and immigration should hit it with full force soon, now that canals are developing its economic links with the Atlantic states. Of coure, this division shortchanges the southern blacks. The slaveocracy has got its ideal state, without the trouble of a secession, and the blacks have got little hope of emancipation in the foreseeable future. BSA is not going to take British attempts to free the slaves peacefully, even admitting that abolitionism manages to break the lobby wall of Kings Cotton & Sugar. If London tries, it is going to find a second Rebellion on its hands. Of course, this may well be the way slavery might be dealt with, Britain playing the role of the Union, suppressing the rebellion, ending slavery forcibly and conceding Dominion autonomy as compensation. OTOH, if most of the Caribbean goes in BSA, we can expect it to get a much better outcome than OTL.
In many ways, I think that this USA got much the better deal in the change, it has got plenty of valuable land (and under American rule Canadian states shall get much more developed and populous than OTL) without all the problems that the South brought (slavery, ACW, segregation, economic backwardness, religious right...). So I fully expect this USA to become even more of a powerhouse than OTL. OTOH, it ought to develop in some different ways, without the ACW is going to remain more decentralized (without the 14th, much less federal oversight on state powers). And without the conservative South, US political system is going to be much more akin to OTL Canada. By the way, the Deist Awakening is a very welcome touch. At last an America without the fundamentalist loonies, where religion may be friendly to science and social liberalism.
As it concerns the future fate of Texas, personally I'm much in favor of a breakout, with California going in the USA and Texas proper in the BSA. This would fulfill the different geopolitical vocations of both sections. I'm also in favor of some form of Mexican-BSA war allowing the BSA to gain at the least the Rio Grande region. It would be quite a letdown if TTL USA+BSA ends up any smaller than OTL USA+Canada+most Caribbean.
By the way, does BSA own Cuba already ? It seems pretty much an inevitable acquisition.
Last edited:
Glen
Moderator
The relations of the white and red nations of North America were complicated and often bloody.
During the American Revolution, many tribes in the north joined the British who had promised an Indian preserve in what would become the Northwest Territory.
British ally Joseph Brant
However to the south many of the tribes were ambivalent about which side if any to support. The Southern America Act of 1774 would help win over the colonials in the southern provinces, but it had made the Indian tribes feel they had little to choose from between the two sides, and many remained formally neutral. This did not mean that no Indians fought in the south, far from it. Small bands often did choose sides, and some fought as essentially mercenaries for whichever side paid the most, and some took the opportunity to raid both sides.
The Peace of Paris in 1783 left the Indian nations out entirely. The last proposed haven had been handed over to the Americans, and now the British had to make good on their promises to open up the west or possibly lose their hard held provinces to the newborn USA. However, many of the British agents sent to mediate between the onslaught of settlers and the native tribes tried to be honest brokers between the two.
Assimilationist policies were somewhat embraced by both Washington and London, but getting the local people to do so was often impossible. Also, while in many ways dealing with similar issues with the Indians, the British and Americans were early on poorly inclined towards one another, and would support raids on the other's territory. The Kentucky in the US and the Tennessee River area in British North Carolina were particularly hard hit, though British supported bands would raid as far north as the Great Lakes region.
However, within a decade or two, both sides learned that the ally armed today could be the raider turned against you on the morrow, and the practice began to go into disuse. The Anglo-American Accord entered into in 1804 put paid to arming natives. Even before that, many of the more aggressive Indian leaders and tribes had moved towards the shores of the Mississippi where they could find supplemental support from first the Spanish as well as the French after their reacquisition of Louisiana. But this source of needed support dried up in the aftermath of the War of 1804, which pushed their French patrons out of North America once and for all, and cut them off from the Spanish as well for all practical purposes, not to mention the lost battles the natives who fought against Britain and the US suffered.
The Indians in America after 1804 faced a choice between abandoning their traditional lifestyle and taking on European ways, being moved north of the Great Lakes, or west across the Mississippi where they were far enough away from the supply lines of the Americans to still live and fight as they would.
In British Southern America, which had done a bit better in accommodating the so called 'civilized tribes', the tribes as groups tried to conform themselves to the white man's ways without losing their cohesion as nations, to varying degrees of success. One dramatic episode was when, in 1811, the British Indian Agent rather dramatically claimed that the Indians' obstinance to the rule of the Crown was offensive to God and Nature, followed shortly thereafter by the appearance of the Great Comet of 1811 and then the stunning New Madrid Earthquake. This was taken as a sign by many Indians in the south that the tribes should reconcile themselves to British rule.
In the 1810-20s it almost seemed that an equilibrium had been reached between the civilized tribes (mostly west of the Chattahoochee River and Appalachian Mountains) and the white citizens of the colonial south. Many Indians had intermarried with the Scots-Irish who had become a prominent part of the western movement, and prominent tribal leaders often adopted the plantation model, owning slaves and producing cotton, much like their white counterparts.
Then gold was discovered in the traditional lands of the Cherokee....
Glen
Moderator
You are most welcome. Yes, the more 'natural' split did have a certain appeal to it.
And it's quite interesting how similar the history of the early USA can be without the colonies below Virginia (though Virginia itself is vital).A good point. But the Quebeckers are nothing if not obstinant. It may take them a while to fully let go of the 'old ways'.
Except for that nagging group of bleedinghearts in Westminster.....
No, they wouldn't, would they....
That certainly seems like one plausible outcome. Time will tell if it comes to pass ITTL....
Hmmm....an interesting approach to take to people who were just rebelling against your rule. OTOH, look at Canada!
What do you mean by that?
True.
Do you think so? Or will the free ability to move between states without leaving the country encourage more southerly (relatively speaking) settlement and leave the OTL Canadian states depopulated relative to OTL? When looking at population density maps of modern North America, I've always found the crowding next to the American border fascinating....like they were huddling there for warmth!
True those things won't happen to this USA.
In what sense?
OTOOH, the Federalists haven't had the crushing they took IOTL, so the USA is starting out with less of a decentralization movement compared to OTL. But yeah.
In some ways, yes, some ways, no.
By the way, the Deist Awakening is a very welcome touch. At last an America without the fundamentalist loonies, where religion may be friendly to science and social liberalism.
Thanks, I'm rather fond of that one myself. It seemed more 'natural' for a religious movement for this America.
Certainly a possibility.
Well, somewhat at least....
Again, that sort of thing is definitely one possible outcome, and taking in that many Mexican citizens would have an interesting effect on the BSA.
Well, time will tell....
The British took and kept Cuba as part of this world's Napoleonic Wars.
Eurofed
Banned
Sooner or later, it is going to happen. If nothing else, at the drive of immigrants from other states. Moreover, Quebec had important homegrown urban trading elites too, it was not just a landed gentry playground.
Hmmm....an interesting approach to take to people who were just rebelling against your rule. OTOH, look at Canada!
Exactly. If Britain had tried to keep a tight colonial leash on the white settlement colonies, sooner or later it would have faced another row of Revolutions.
Even if the price is some extra decades of slaveocracy, ending in the BSA is going to be a much better deal for the Caribbean than OTL in the long run. It means becoming part of a functional First-World democracy rather than the various OTL Third-World hellholes, cleptocracy dictatorships or communist prisons, etc.
Do you think so? Or will the free ability to move between states without leaving the country encourage more southerly (relatively speaking) settlement and leave the OTL Canadian states depopulated relative to OTL? When looking at population density maps of modern North America, I've always found the crowding next to the American border fascinating....like they were huddling there for warmth!
I'm quite certain that early US-Canadian unity would have led to a more populated Canada, not the other way around. True, it would have essentially concerned the belt between the 50° and 52°-55° Parallels where most of the OTL population is concentrated, but that belt would have become rather more populous than OTL. Those areas are quite valuable economically in many ways, the climate is bearable and not radically different from northern USA, political unity with the USA would encourage economic development and immigration from the other states, and America had much more immigration-friendly policies than the British colonial authorities and the Dominion until late in the last century. Canada was essentially populated by local demographic growth, American immigration, and European immigration, and the PoD would substantially enhance the latter two.
More of an economic powerhouse than OTL, mostly.
Yep, I'm a big fan of the Federalists, especially Hamilton. Apart from their Alien & Sedition blunder, they seemed to have all the right ideas to build up the early USA. Jefferson, OTOH, is terribly overrated as a President. He made one good thing with Louisiana, otherwise he wrecked the American military for the War of 1812, built the ideological basis for the Secession, and enforced his idiotic Embargo in just an autocratic way as the A&S A he decried.
Glen
Moderator
I really need to get caught up on this (and several other TLs), its looking great though Glen.
Thanks, othyrsyde. Hope you catch up soon!
Glen
Moderator
Point taken and I agree that eventually the Quebec version of manorialism will fade.
Yes, but will they be that smart IOTL?
Okay, can't argue with that....Time will tell how much of the Caribbean if any ends up in the future Dominion.
Interesting. Okay, I will keep that in mind. Ontario and Quebec are already showing signs of this.
In the 19th century probably. Hard to be even more of an economic powerhouse in the 20th century than OTL....but then again, there's nothing wrong with overachieving.
Good point! Early development is definitely going faster/better than OTL.
Well, I wouldn't go quite that far, but yeah. OTOH, Jefferson has had to moderate some of his views given the lack of a solid south to support the democrat-republicans.
How tolerant is the USA of Catholics outside of Quebec? Assuming the Potato Famine happens IITL, I'd expect that instead of Irish immigrants heading mainly to the cities in the northeast corridor, a good deal will move to Quebec and Ontario. Especially in Quebec, this probably means they'd end up absorbed into the Francophone community. Ontario could go either way - I expect it's going to ultimately end up like New Brunswick IOTL on a bigger scale though.
This could have knockoff effects further down the road too. If the rest of the U.S. stays more intolerant of Catholics due to less of an Irish presence, probably once the Italians (and Poles, and German Catholics, and whoever else) start immigrating later in the century, more of them will move to Quebec and Ontario as well. In the long run, I'm sure Catholicism will be as accepted as it IOTL, but this would give the region a large population boost early on, making the cities in what we would call Canada perhaps larger than IOTL.
This could have knockoff effects further down the road too. If the rest of the U.S. stays more intolerant of Catholics due to less of an Irish presence, probably once the Italians (and Poles, and German Catholics, and whoever else) start immigrating later in the century, more of them will move to Quebec and Ontario as well. In the long run, I'm sure Catholicism will be as accepted as it IOTL, but this would give the region a large population boost early on, making the cities in what we would call Canada perhaps larger than IOTL.
Eurofed
Banned
Well, with Catholics playing such an important role in the ARW, Catholicism cannot but become more accepted in early America than OTL, that's a near-certainety. OTOH, Catholic immigrants are still more likely to end up in Quebec and Ontario in large numbers simply due to cultural affinity. And ITTL Canadian states are going to become more populous anyway out of the reasons I posted upthread.
Eurofed
Banned
Yes, but will they be that smart IOTL?
Well, using 19th century British attitude to its white settlement colonies and India, I can predict as the most likely development, that Britain shall keep BSA in a thinly disguised colonial status for a good while, basking in the false security created by its Loyalist attitudes. However, the slavery problem is going to sour the relationship just as seriously as it did with the North IOTL, and we are going to see a Second ARW as TTL equivalent of the ACW, the Dixies rising up for independence to build their ideal slaveocracy haven. Since the USA does not like slaveholders, it is not going to help the Dixies (which they would have otherwise done out of American solidarity), nor European powers are going to mess with the British Empire (unless there is something like the Crimean War going on at the time). So Britain is going to crush the rebels with a lot of effort, forcibly abolishing slavery in the process. However, made wiser by the rebellion, they understand that giving autonomy to the WSC is necessary if they want to avoid a third ARW, so some time after order in the BSA is restored, they reluctantly give Dominion autonomy to the colony (and like OTL, this becomes the template for South Africa and ANZUS).
Yep. However, Cuba and Hispaniola are already in the BSA, which means that the Haitian hellhole and *Castrism are surely butterflied away, oh joy. Jamaica, the Guyanas, and Bahamas, too, are quite likely faring better in the long run as a part of USA/BSA. Time will tell, indeed, but the more of Mexico and Central America ends up in the BSA, the better for both parties in the long run.
In the 19th century probably. Hard to be even more of an economic powerhouse in the 20th century than OTL....but then again, there's nothing wrong with overachieving.
Indeed.
Another point about Central America: with such a rival and balanced pair of powerful nations in North America, I totally expect that each would strongly want its own Canal under its own control. It is a butterfly coin's toss whether BSA ends up building the Nicaragua Canal and USA the Panama Canal, or the opposite, but this is going to mean that the USA, too, is going to have a strong interest in Central America. I also expect that Panama gets created for pretty much the same reasons as OTL and Nicaragua and Panama end up annexed by the respective Americas.
A burning curiosity of mine: do you think that the BSA would have been viable enough anyway, and such an early abolition of slavery feasible, if North Carolina, too, and hence Tennessee, had joined the ARW and ended up in the USA ? I have always been curious about a PoD where the CSA/BSA ends up made of the Deep South and Caribbean only, and the USA gets Canada and all the border states. It seems a quite interesting setup, socioeconomically and politically. ITTL, this variant could be easily implemented by putting Carleton as Governor of South Carolina, not North Carolina.
Last edited:
True all of that, though I think you have to factor in that rather than a fervent Christian right, with the Deist conversion of the USA, you now have an extremely strong Christian left. On the other hand, while it may be akin to a parent struggling to hold back a straining child with kiddie reins, the fact that BSA is still linked politically, economically, culturally etc to the motherland means that I don't think the south will be quite as contrary as it has been portrayed from RL. For instance, rather than being a hotbed of the Christian right, the fact that it is still in communion with the Church of England means that the churches of BSA are likely to retain the more British style of slow evangelism and acceptance of non-believers, rather than the intense anti-atheist lobbying we hear about IRL and the propensity for forming break-off or independent church denominations to serve the agenda of a local ultra-evangelist preacher. To take another point, while there's a conservative build-up with the powerful "slaveocracy", IOTL Britain goes through a reformation of its political practices in 1832 with the Reform Act and, as the only sizable white colony of note at this point, it is logical to suggest that BSA will receive some attention too, even if it is less of an inclusion in the Reform Act (which is unlikely) and more a motion by the loyal BSA middle classes and British politicians with financial stakes in BSA to transport over the better of the changes. As Britain slowly lost its overbearing dominion by the landed classes, we could see slow reforms start to change the complexion of the BSA too. For instance, if the colonies' representative government (the Assemblies etc) are given proper recognition by London (N.B. not necessarily equal to being given law-making ability, just recognition of their status a la a town council or some such), then their Houses could be expanded by their Governors to suit their increasing populations, and see the enfranchisement change from a land-ownership basis to a profit margin, like England - i.e. all who make over £1,000 a year can vote or some such. With the expansion of the wealthy middle classes, the increasing trade around the Empire which surely must be rubbing off on BSA etc, this could actually see the merchant middle class start to slot into that enfranchised elite. However, with no interest in slavery, and with the slaveocracy unlikely to welcome in a large group of new monied men trying to muscle in on their wealth, especially with the slave trade banned and thus a finite supply of slaves, this could mean that the influential elite slowly becomes more balanced to the point where an attempt at freeing the slaves meets 50% approval and 50% disapproval or thereabouts from the powerful elite of the BSA. Under such conditions, the potential "second ARW" as the BSA tries to create a slave-owning haven which you (Eurofed) spoke of could actually misfire with a large percent of the population supporting London and the slaveocracy rebels actually forming the minority. In such a conflict, the idea that the British would have to kick the BSA to a pulp to show them what-for and offer Dominionship could be a non-issue, since the majority of the BSA's population could legitimately believe that freeing the slaves and defeating the slaveocrats was their victory, not their defeat.
Of course, that last point is all speculation and I'm sure I will have got some ideas wrong, such as how the Assemblies were viewed by London at the time. I'm aware they existed, and had little legislative power, and thus my point could stand, but I honestly was guessing at what their enfranchisement qualifications were, or even how they elected their members. But you get my point. Just because of how RL turned out with the south doesn't necessarily mean IMO that the south URL will be as independent in their viewpoints and as willing to resist ITTL. I think the constant exposure to mother Britain through politics and the British traders could pacify some of that feeling, and I think the fact that most of the slaveocracy probably proudly displays United Empire Loyalist in their names two generations later means they are likely to at least be amenable to change if it comes from Britain. Let's not forget that up to the ARW, many of the more wealthy "macaroni" city-dwellers of the east coast viewed themselves as little more than Britons abroad, and were willing to follow British fashions and political attitudes because it was both "in vogue" and because they felt a responsibility to given their allegiance. While obviously the developing character of the BSA and merely the passage of time will dull this, I think it would be wrong to assume that this attitude would be gone entirely, and I think it's even possible that a minority of the slaveocracy could even take this attitude of at least viewing British sensibilities with an open mind, if not actually accepting them themselves. Obviously the freeing of the slaves will be a massive issue when it arises, and I'm not suggesting that the slaveocracy will agree to it "because it comes from Britain" but the constant gradual osmosis of British ideas to the colonies will surely at least reduce the difference in opinions and perhaps even make some of the slaveocrats a little more liberal and open to discussion rather than immediately rejecting the idea?
Last edited:
Glen
Moderator
Depends which state you're talking about. In Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Ontario, & Pennsylvania as well as the newer states of the Northwest Territory they are pretty tolerant. In Massachusetts, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and Kentucky less so. Rhode Island and New Jersey are pretty ambivalent. Overall much more tolerant than OTL at this point in history.
Well, don't forget that the 'Northeast Corridor' goes quite a bit more north than OTL.
Won't be absorbed per se, but you may see places like Quebec City and Montreal gaining a brogue.
In what sense like New Brunswick?
More will go to the northern states to be sure, but it won't just be Quebec and Ontario. On the other hand, they will help them get a higher population than OTL.
Glen & all
Some interesting discussions here. What's OTL Canada may end up with a larger population if there is a revival of anti-catholic feeling in the bulk of the US. Possibly due to resentment of Quebec seeking to hang on to its language and religious privileges especially. In that case you might see a higher population in the north as Catholics move into there. Otherwise there is too much richer, warmer and better supplied lands further south, especially with slavery banned as the large demands for lands by slavery are no longer present. [It is notorious how many people encouraged to settle in Canada who fairly quickly moved south to the US and, barring something like religious tension, there will be even less barriers to such moves in TTL] Only other option I could see for a more populous Canada would be if the French Quebeckers are worried enough about their position they breed a bit faster, which is a possibility.
Glen - this is one reason why I think the early occupation of the NW is rather unrealistic. A larger US, with a lower initial population and possibly worried by a more powerful neighbour is less likely to be concentrating assets on territories so far away.
For the BSA, unless there are movements north, there will be a lot of tension over land. In OTL there was a steady stream of people moving north because they couldn't compete economically with the large estates. While there could well be a strong surge into Texas now its open, making it possibly strong British but anti-slavery. Could add to the complications there. However that won't ease all the problems so if the slavocracy grows as its likely to that would mean things come to a head earlier. If things are moving in Britain as well you could see conflict in the issue earlier, possibly as Falastur suggests, with strong local opposition to the slavocracy.
However less confident that when slavery ends the position of the blacks, both in the BSA and British Caribbean lands, will be better. OTL I think there was a steady movement of blacks from the depressed British islands to the US after the ACW, despite the discrimination they faced there because there were more economic opportunities. However don't forget a lot of anti-slavery feeling in the US OTL was because of the desire for 'free land' where white settlers didn't face competition from blacks, either as slaves or free. Also that there were suggestions of deporting all blacks back to Africa, to get them out of the US. In a BSA after slavery is banned you could see similar factors but the problems would be worse for the freed blacks. There's much greater demand for land, unless the white population find another outlet. [Possibly Texas-California, some move into Patagonia/Argentina, although that may be unlikely]. I doubt if blacks would be welcome in the US either and as foreigners they would be easier to exclude. Furthermore the deportation option might seem more likely, either because Britain has a stronger presence in W Africa and much stronger fleet, or because the idea is to move the blacks to the islands. Making places like Cuba and Jamaica dumping grounds. Not saying those factors will come out on top but may be if things go bad. [A dark lining to the silver cloud of an earlier ending to slavery].
One other thing that comes to mind. Presumably Britain is still very much the economic giant, especially in industrial matters. As such what are the views of the US and BSA on tariffs? OTL the US imposition of very high tariffs to exclude British goods was hindered by the opposition of the south who wanted access to cheaper and more efficient British goods. Hence you could see the US imposing tariffs earlier. Possibly this might be early enough and high enough to undermine British moves towards free trade and it keeps its own tariffs, at least for the moment.
Can't remember if this was discussed before. When Britain gave up Newfoundland did it also give up claims to a share of the fisheries. This would probably be highly unlikely because they were so important economically and also as a source of sailors. OTL neither the US, after they failed to take Canada or the French who lost their territories even earlier gave up a share of the fisheries. Hence probably likely that either/both will still have a say in them. However thought I better ask.
Steve
Some interesting discussions here. What's OTL Canada may end up with a larger population if there is a revival of anti-catholic feeling in the bulk of the US. Possibly due to resentment of Quebec seeking to hang on to its language and religious privileges especially. In that case you might see a higher population in the north as Catholics move into there. Otherwise there is too much richer, warmer and better supplied lands further south, especially with slavery banned as the large demands for lands by slavery are no longer present. [It is notorious how many people encouraged to settle in Canada who fairly quickly moved south to the US and, barring something like religious tension, there will be even less barriers to such moves in TTL] Only other option I could see for a more populous Canada would be if the French Quebeckers are worried enough about their position they breed a bit faster, which is a possibility.
Glen - this is one reason why I think the early occupation of the NW is rather unrealistic. A larger US, with a lower initial population and possibly worried by a more powerful neighbour is less likely to be concentrating assets on territories so far away.
For the BSA, unless there are movements north, there will be a lot of tension over land. In OTL there was a steady stream of people moving north because they couldn't compete economically with the large estates. While there could well be a strong surge into Texas now its open, making it possibly strong British but anti-slavery.
Could add to the complications there. However that won't ease all the problems so if the slavocracy grows as its likely to that would mean things come to a head earlier. If things are moving in Britain as well you could see conflict in the issue earlier, possibly as Falastur suggests, with strong local opposition to the slavocracy.However less confident that when slavery ends the position of the blacks, both in the BSA and British Caribbean lands, will be better. OTL I think there was a steady movement of blacks from the depressed British islands to the US after the ACW, despite the discrimination they faced there because there were more economic opportunities. However don't forget a lot of anti-slavery feeling in the US OTL was because of the desire for 'free land' where white settlers didn't face competition from blacks, either as slaves or free. Also that there were suggestions of deporting all blacks back to Africa, to get them out of the US. In a BSA after slavery is banned you could see similar factors but the problems would be worse for the freed blacks. There's much greater demand for land, unless the white population find another outlet. [Possibly Texas-California, some move into Patagonia/Argentina, although that may be unlikely]. I doubt if blacks would be welcome in the US either and as foreigners they would be easier to exclude. Furthermore the deportation option might seem more likely, either because Britain has a stronger presence in W Africa and much stronger fleet, or because the idea is to move the blacks to the islands. Making places like Cuba and Jamaica dumping grounds. Not saying those factors will come out on top but may be if things go bad. [A dark lining to the silver cloud of an earlier ending to slavery].
One other thing that comes to mind. Presumably Britain is still very much the economic giant, especially in industrial matters. As such what are the views of the US and BSA on tariffs? OTL the US imposition of very high tariffs to exclude British goods was hindered by the opposition of the south who wanted access to cheaper and more efficient British goods. Hence you could see the US imposing tariffs earlier. Possibly this might be early enough and high enough to undermine British moves towards free trade and it keeps its own tariffs, at least for the moment.
Can't remember if this was discussed before. When Britain gave up Newfoundland did it also give up claims to a share of the fisheries. This would probably be highly unlikely because they were so important economically and also as a source of sailors. OTL neither the US, after they failed to take Canada or the French who lost their territories even earlier gave up a share of the fisheries. Hence probably likely that either/both will still have a say in them. However thought I better ask.
Steve
Glen
Moderator
Indeed, though that doesn't mean that they are welcomed with open arms, either.
Religious affinity isn't the same as cultural, however. See my previous post. There are more states than those two to go to for Catholics, and Ontario's not majority Catholic even next to Quebec.
Agreed.
Glen
Moderator
That seems a reasonable surmise.
That is certainly one possibility. Maybe even a probability.
Well, in part that depends who is in power in the USA at the time of any such conflict, but it certainly will give them pause. It's funny, but if you think about it, in this scenario the roles are much reversed between the USA and Britain compared to OTL, with the British taking on the role and attitudes of the Union, and the US taking on British feelings about the whole thing (sympathetic but that whole slavery thing is icky).
Timing is everything, I suppose.
Again, a definite possibility.
In the way Nova Scotia and Newfoundland were in the BNA OTL, yes.
You can count on that one.
Doesn't everyone do better under the British Empire?
Maybe, maybe....though it might be more trading one set of problems for another.
Well, Britain currently holds the right to do so on the Nicaragua route....
Hmmm, so how do the Americans get through the British Caribbean?
Probably, but if North Carolina goes, it makes holding South Carolina that much harder.
That's possible, though not as probable as North Carolina.
Glen
Moderator
More classical liberal than leftist, but I digress....
Yes, but there are some non-Anglicans up in the Appalachians....
Maybe, maybe. Or the straying of the home church into 'dangerous reforms' might add to tension in the south with England....
Mayhaps, but on the issue of representation I suspect the provinces are actually ahead of the mother country as social standing is more fluid in the Southern Provinces.
Again the provinces are probably ahead of Westminster on this (even if both are behind the USA).
In the BSA the two groups probably overlap quite a bit. Also, I would caution you that the banning of the slave trade doesn't mean the end of it as there are still smugglers. It also doesn't mean necessarily a decrease in slave numbers as there will be slavers who just shift to breeding more slaves from the current stock.
Depends on when and how that occurs....
Interesting viewpoint, and possible. But then again if there's a lot of native support for the British in the provinces, might they not feel 'owed' responsible government?
Fair enough. And as you say, it will have enough differences from OTL that we don't need to worry about those details.
And British Governors, for good or ill....
On the other hand they may feel that Britain owes them something for their loyalty and any attempt to interfere in their 'peculiar institution' as betrayal by the Mother Country their ancestors stood with in the dark times of the ARW....
You are correct that it is a real possibility.
Possible, possible....and possibily that osmosis goes both ways....
Glen
Moderator
Well, I'll just say that for the near future, I don't think you'll see any huge anti-Catholic movement in the US, so there's a likelihood that more people head south. Then again there just may be more people period, so the north may not be entirely neglected. I've heard people express both opinions on the subject.
Less than the population when the same events occured OTL, but more than when the same year occured OTL, if you understand my meaning. The development of the USA is about 5-15 years ahead of schedule compared to OTL depending on the specific area and event type. So that means that there are probably more people in a given US location for any given year. But if you compare the population in most locations for the same type of event OTL versus TTL, there were probably less people there for that event type.
Here they are moving west, especially to north and west Louisiana (comparable to OTL Arkansas, Oklahoma).
While there could well be a strong surge into Texas now its open, making it possibly strong British but anti-slavery.
Yep, this is happening too as I previouosly commented on. Some British Southerners are moving to Texas to start their own plantations and join the slaveocracy, other British Southerners are going to Texas to avoid the slaveocracy and start there own free farms, but didn't want to go north to the Yankees. And some are just going there because it sounded like the new and exciting place to be.
Yes, it is possible, and future posts should address that possibility....
This is always a possibility, and no matter what direction the timeline goes, will have some impact. Note that in the USA for example, the states tend to get 'whiter' as you go north and west.
Yes, there will be competition for land, and the blacks are more likely to be on the losing end of such competition, but the losing end ITTL may still be better than the same losing end IOTL, if you understand my meaning.
Could be....
I would say that if you saw the freeing of slaves in the British territories, an influx of those freedmen will not be particularly welcome in the USA, even by black Americans (who will also see them as competition)!
There could be some of this, but how successful do you really think such an effort could be?
Cuba's too valuable to make a dumping ground. Jamaica's possible but rather small for that role. Hispaniola already has more freed blacks than most areas in the British New World.
Of course, there's always British Guyana....
As in so many things in life, the trick is in the timing and the execution....
There's more tariffs at this point in the timeline than the same point OTL, but not much more. At some point they are liable to start coming down.
Not in the initial 1783 treaty. They did in the 1804 agreement.
Basically both Britain and France retain fishing rights in the area in the treaties of 1783. In first the British accord with America and then the subsequent peace deal with France after the War of 1804, those fishing rights were surrendered. By that time 20 years later those fishing areas weren't looking as important.
In the BSA the two groups probably overlap quite a bit. Also, I would caution you that the banning of the slave trade doesn't mean the end of it as there are still smugglers. It also doesn't mean necessarily a decrease in slave numbers as there will be slavers who just shift to breeding more slaves from the current stock.
Breeding is of course a factor. I'm not sure about the smuggling though. Yes, there will be some but I'm unsure about how successful it would be. I mean, the Royal Navy had a lot of ships (I believe the figure was around 1050 when NOT involved in a major war), and the vast majority of these - around 800 of them - were sloops or other small class one-deckers designed solely for doing routine patrols, both oceanic and coastal, or commerce raiding. The crucial thing here is that those ships can now base themselves in the very BSA they would need to prevent smugglers in, which gives them a huge advantage. There's also the nightly patrols that British militia made along the coastlines and such. And let's not forget that punishments for slave traders were severe - I can't remember this exactly, but I do believe that anti-slave trade patrolling captains had the authority, the orders even, to hang captains found shipping slaves from their own masts upon capture - no trial, no chance for defense, no amnesty for not being British; if they had slaves, the captains would be executed, hence why captains tended to throw their slaves overboard weighed down with weights when at risk of being caught.
You're right that there will still be smuggling, and the British won't have a 100% success rate. Of course the Americans must also have patrolled for smugglers, etc etc. But the difference is that slave traders are now trading their ill-gotten gains right into the premier colonies of the leading anti-slaving nation, and there's surely going to be the risk of being spotted and snitched upon transporting your slaves through the country. Considering that the initial point here was that I doubted that the merchant middle classes, the ones without their own supplies of slaves, would struggle to stock a new plantation, I think they would find it hard to suddenly acquire illegally transported slaves without someone noticing. A few will manage it, but I think the risks if not the actually being caught will put most of.
Just my opinion of course. You may disagree about the efficiency of the anti-slave patrols.
Entirely possible. Of course, if the British do have support, then giving power to the colonies may not be that bad, especially if the Assemblies reform themselves to kick out those slaveocrats who did the rebelling. But yes, true.
Last edited: