Hey all, I'm back. Good to see the war is just starting to see its first major campaign as I return
. I may be resurrecting some old points, but I'd just like to make a few comments about things I've only just got the chance to respond to, if I may...
That lines doesn't necessarily mean the good guys lose. Swap Northern for British and it still gets used today, including on this board I think.
A fair point. Not being American and not reading that many comparatively late (chronologically) US TLs I'd never really come across the phrase, and wasn't aware of its use, although obviously I am aware that some southerns OTL do still view the US as the occupying power, or perhaps more correctly "the winner who should never have won". However, I'd still point out that - though I can't suggest a better phrase - "War of British Aggression" still suggests more "them versus us" philosophy than "War of Northern Aggression", which is part of what inspired my point. It still suggests that to many BSAers in future, they are going to view the British as someone they aren't and they don't want to be - a bit like "War of Northern Aggression" actually being "War of United States Aggression" and those who use it pointedly refusing to accept Washington as their capital or northerners as their countrymen. Still, I guess in any scenario including this type of sticky situation, you have to expect some perpetual simmering emotion as the cultural legacy of such acts. Perhaps I should merely stop trying to view this TL through British pink-tinted specs where there exists ways to make it so that in the end, 100% of the population are flag-waving, Queen-loving British patriots.
Differences in breakfast in the United States of America versus British Southern America:
USA - Pancakes with maple syrup and a cup of coffee
BSA - Pancakes with powdered sugar and a cup of tea
Just a tidbit before things
really get serious.
And not a crumpet or scone in sight
To lead this new confederation, they chose two Consuls - Andrew Jackson of Texas and
Langdon Cheves of South Carolina.
Hmmm...I have a dislike of Jackson, mainly just because I view him to be a threat instead of one of those nice bad guys who is humorously ineffectual, but I guess in the long term this is a good thing (from my POV). I was slightly worried - entirely without provocation but I'm all about creating enemies out of shadows
- that Jackson was going to turn into a Jack-in-the-Box figure - a man who would recede into obscurity only to reappear when everyone had just forgotten about him. As one of the heads of the new rebel state, he should find himself on the receiving end of a punishment big enough to at least ensure he won't keep reappearing. Incidentally, what happened to the defeated ACW leaders and generals? Were they executed? Pensioned off and kept under surveillance? Did they retire peacefully as if nothing happened?
I guess Cheves certainly won't be going down in TTL as the father of natural selection theories, anyway.
The first flag of the Confederation of Southern America was reminescent of the Union Jack with the Saint George's Cross excised (symbolizing both the Southern British heritage and their break with England). The stars on the flag represented the eight rebel provinces and Texas.
So, entirely accidentally, rather than being based on the Flag of Saint George you instead have the flag of Saint Patrick superimposed on the flag of Saint David
I find this ironic considering your later comments about the Scots-Irish being the loyal ones
Well, hopefully the Confederation of Southern America won't be quite as unpleasant as the other people to use that flag (or that we'll have to read about a RN officer serving on a ship on blockade duty off this CSA who has to use copious quantities of zinc oxide because of excessively pale skin....
)
I'm sure I should get this reference, but I just can't put my finger on it. At risk of looking stupid, can you please enlighten me?
So Texas has chosen to throw its lot with the CSA on its own ? Well, this certainly simplifies things a lot in the Southwest.
London: "If the Texans want to join a colony of Her Majesty in open rebellion, so be it. We cannot but oblige the implicit offer of allegiance. Chiefs of Staff, please expand our plans for reconquest".
Washington: "Fools".
Mexico City: "Uh-oh. We better stay out of this one, lost territories or not".
I have to agree with Eurofed here. While it may not be an implausible move for Texas, especially considering its Anglo population, it's certainly a rash move because it involves them in a war they both could never have need fight (and thus, lose) and also because with the proper diplomatic shuffling, they could have easily waited out the war and then used whatever happened to their advantage without risking any punishment, and potentially without angering either party. That said, the presence of Andrew Jackson always was going to tip the balance (can you tell I don't like him?) The Texans have, in effect, declared independence from a power they were entirely independent from, and now must fight for their freedom. However, from a storytelling point of view this could be interesting. Could we now see a three-way war, albeit one entirely confined to Texas? You've got the Texan military, whatever it consists of, fighting for the rebels, the British who are now obliged to lay a smack-down on Texas and conquer it in order to finish the war with their actual opponents, and surely a third party of US annexationists allied to plain Texan independence supporters who don't want to be subjugated to London, and yet aren't willing to throw in their lot with a slave-owning, US-hating, war-starting load of...well, rebels. A posse of militias who turn on any military, British or DSA (non-Texan), who enter their territory, perhaps, in genuine vigilante hero style?
Consul Jackson chose to head up the Army of Texas on its fateful march to the Mississippi. He arrived just in time to relieve the Siege of New Orleans, and managed to envelope the surrounding British regulars in turn. New Orleans and many other prominant coastal cities of British Southern America had had fortresses built to ward off any attempted American attacks earlier in the century, and now ironically were turned against the ships of the British.
I find myself slightly restless that the British/loyalists do not as yet have a single named leader or 'hero' figure the likes of Pinky or Jackson. However, I guess on the other hand, the British have not yet played their hand, so I'll wait a bit longer.
