Canada Wank (YACW)

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Oh, and I forgot (i.e. couldn't be bothered) to check on where the Louisiana purchase line went. I think the Arkansas white area should probably red. the random white bits on the borders are 'cause I'm lousy at this whole photoshop stuff.

Note the US has NO access to the Gulf Coast now.

 

[stevep]

Oh, and I forgot (i.e. couldn't be bothered) to check on where the Louisiana purchase line went. I think the Arkansas white area should probably red. the random white bits on the borders are 'cause I'm lousy at this whole photoshop stuff.

Note the US has NO access to the Gulf Coast now.

Dathi

Well that the US effectively caged. How well the bars hold, especially in the west and south are to be points of interest. Its still got a pretty small population for its size and changes could mean a decline in immigration but that's still secondary to natural growth for a long time yet. As such it's still the demographic giant of N America, for the foreseeable future.

Not sure if the western border of Louisiana was defined before about 1819 OTL when I think the US and Spain agreed a border - possibly as part of the tidying up of things after the American take over of Florida. Arkansas did come on the US side of the border then. However suspect that there's relatively little European population and contact with the outside world so it could go either way. Probably in favour of Britain because the rivers run that way and after the American conflict Britain probably has more [and better] contact with the local Indian population.

I suspect the big question in the near future is what happens with Spain and its empire. If it holds onto larger sections, especially Mexico and Florida that will have significant effects on development in N America. Historically it didn't and things fell apart fairly quickly. However that could change TTL. Partly because the success in defending Florida could boost Spanish moral. More to the point the conflict means that Britain has an interest in supporting the Spanish retainsion of Florida, to help restain the US and keep it more distant from New Orleans and the gateway to the west. [This could change if relations with Spain deteriote or those with the US improve dramatically]. However barring that Britain could given political/economic/military support to the Spanish attempt to hold their empire or, possibly more likely and significantly, don't oppose attempts by France and other continental powers to help Spain. - Still have Britain's desire for trade with the Spanish empire but might well get no veto on such aid. In that case the US might still try something like the Monroe Doctrine but at the very least it will be ignored and probably mocked by the other major powers.

Steve

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Populating the new lands

Populating the new lands

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]OTL in the aftermath of the victory in Europe, many soldiers were separated from their wives and families, with the soldiers being returned to England and the families left to fend for themselves in a war-torn, hostile Europe. Certainly, most of those marriages were … 'informal', but what mattered was NOT whether the marriage was properly conducted by ordained clergy, say, but whether the men had their Colonel's permission. Only men who had documentation that they had their Colonel's permission to marry were allowed to take their wives and families home. Most of the 'wives' were camp followers who had been picked in the course of the campaigns across Portugal and Spain, some were 'married' to their men in ceremonies official or otherwise, but few had a Colonel's blessing. OTL, one of the great shames was that these women and their children were left to starve or wend their way through hostile France back home, and somehow attempt to survive. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]From the Government's point of view, it made all the sense in the world. Almost all of these women were Roman Catholic, most were Spanish and Portuguese, and it would have been a terrible social shock to settle these women in England. ITTL, however, we have other choices. Britain has a crying need to settle the new land she's just taken. These new lands (Canada and Louisiana) are largely Roman Catholic, and have many non-English speakers already, so the Spanish and Portuguese wives won't be nearly as much of a shock. And taking care of them is the right and proper and moral thing to do. (NB: it is SO much easier to do the ethical thing if it helps you instead of hurting....) [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]One bishop rises up in the House of Lords and harangues the government on their moral responsibilities:[/FONT]

“[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I have a letter in my hand from a Major in my diocese who tells me that the British government is planning on abandoning to starvation the wives and families of all his men. Men who have fought hard, and in some cases given their lives, for their King and Country. Would the Government care to explain the situation, please? I, and the other members of this Chamber, would be MOST interested to hear how a respected officer could be given the impression that the Government could be planning such an Unchristian and Uncharitable Act.” [/FONT]


“[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]So, what you are saying is that His Majesty's Government has decided that some pen-pusher's rule supercedes the Word of God and the commandments of Jesus Christ? Is this the position of His Majesty's Government? That convenience trumps morality?” “What do you mean 'that is not precisely the Government's position'. It sounds to me to be precisely the Government's position. I would be most pleased if you could show me where I am in error.” “His Majesty's Government may try to maintain this position before this august body, but I assure you that on the Judgement Day, they will have a much more unforgiving Judge.” and finally, after others have quietly pointed out the solution of sending them to fill the empty lands in North America and the government changes tack, “I am most glad to hear that His Majesty's Government has seen fit to listen, not to me, but to Him whom we all serve, and change its most uncharitable and misguided policy. Might the Government also consider providing a core of missionary clergy to send with them to care for their souls and rescue those that have fallen into papist error?” [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The first result of the change is policy is that when men are pulled out for the New Orleans attack, their families are allowed to stay in the British camps and are continued to be fed. Then as things settle down, and an armistice (and then peace) with the US are reached, the British army is sorted through. Unmarried men, or men who have wives back in Britain (possibly in addition to their informal 'wife' in camp), [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]are allowed to [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]return home to Britain. Men with Spanish and Portuguese wives are sent to the New World, and given free land. Some 200,000 settlers (probably some 60,000 veterans with wives and children) are sent to Canada, some settling in Indiana (i.e. OTL's Illinois and Indiana) up against the US border, some in Missouri, with scatterings in (what would be in OTL) Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin. (There is also a significant population movement, as many Canadien soldiers from Lower Canada take advantage of the free land (for vets) out west, and other younger sons with little to no land in Lower Canada move out west, too, usually to areas where French speaking soldiers settled or where there was some significant French presence before – like St. Louis, for instance.)[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Note only 1/3 or so of this population movement happens in 1815 – most of the men in Wellington's army are retained as the British contingent of the Army of Occupation for a couple of years, and then many emigrate to Canada. Note, too, that the 60k veterans that end up settling Canada don't all come from Wellington's force in France. Some come from Gibraltar and Malta, as those garrisons are wound down, and some are white regiments from the Caribbean, others are from regiments that have already been sent to Canada. [/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The 10,000 men that attacked New Orleans are given options, and some 7000 stay and have their families sent over, while 3000 are sent 'home'. Of these, most stay in 'Louisiana' (including OTL's Arkansas) but about 1000, almost all of whom had Spanish wives, move to West Florida, which stays under the Spanish crown, to help defend and maintain it. This means that the population of Louisiana (probably some 20k+ white and 25k+ slaves) are increased by about 20k loyal British subjects. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]There are also 10k veterans (about 33k with families) who are settled in the Maritimes. The Maritimes didn't have nearly the need for settlers, or land available, but it was closer, and more friendly to e.g. the German soldiers in British service, and, to some extent, to the Scots.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In addition to this, the RN helps the Spanish government move about 2000 of their veterans to Florida (East and West) with THEIR wives and families, to settle that land. (The Spanish find it a bit harder to find volunteers. While free land is nice, they are already 'home' (at least in their own country), and being uprooted and shipped across the sea to a foreign land is upsetting. Most of the British soldiers, OTOH, have ALREADY been shipped across the sea to a foreign land, and it is fairly obvious that keeping their wives and families depends on many/most of them taking up the New World offers.)[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The British helps all her new settlers with a few simple tools and some seed grain (and potatoes) to get started. Most of the new settlers manage to get enough land planted to feed themselves for the next year with some left over. The fact that they had to start out without much livestock (beyond a horse or ox or mule) means that more grain is left than if they were feeding animals all winter. [/FONT]

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Peace Treaty PS

Added the following to the bottom of the Peace Treaty post:

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]
Edit: The strip of land in northern Ohio along the Maumee is NOT part of the protectorate, it's part of British Michigan. Oops, sorry.

Also, the territorial adjustments in New York (Britain getting the south bank of the St Lawrence and Plattsburg), are all Britain gets in New York. In particular, Fort Niagara is returned, which with the gain of St. Augustine, lets the US spin the treaty as being not nearly as bad as abject surrender, even if there's no possible way to spin it as a 'win'.[/FONT]

 

[foresterab]

Wow....alot more settlers than I would have anticpated. However dumping that many settlers on Canada raises some questions about supporting infrastructure and trade.

Winter gear...that's alot of furs and woolens used to clothe settlers than might normally have been exported and could have drastic impacts upon survival rates of the settlers short term. Although they have been settled further south so climate won't be quite as extreme. Also need time to have sufficent heating fuel reserves built up...going to be alot of land cleared.

What crops are being raised? The Red Marquis wheat hasn't been developed yet so short season, cold hardy wheat is still relatively unknown for the lands settled. Oats and other grains however do exist.

Settlement on lands claimed by native groups. Although the different native groups have assisted Britain they still value land as a common value that can not be traded. So settlement and treaty processes might need to be accelerated especially with the increased exposure native irregulars have on the world in general and european settlement practices. Of interest is that most areas where native groups inhabited were cleaned out of game (for the more nomadic groups) but in the border areas very large animal populations existed due to a lack of hunting pressure. Settling lands between different native groups allows for the Europeans to work as a diplomatic buffer to traditionally warring groups.

What size of land are we talking? I've read accounts that in Ireland during the potato famine it was reckoned that 1-2 acres of land were enough to support a family if all they ate were potatoes. In western Canada most of the lands were homesteaded at 160 acres (one quarter section) in part due to a wheat growing preference for export and size of farm a small team of livestock could easily plow. Could be alot of land settled if you follow either two other north america examples...the french lots (1 rod @ 16.5 feet wide by a mile long perpendicular to water = 2 acres) or the spanish settlement in the southern states where as I understand it you basically claimed what you and your estates stock could graze (if you were a spanish nobleman).

Although clergy are going to be sent to Canada how is administration to work? Police have not been set up yet in much of the country, do military regiments and the milita units formed from veterns in the newly settled lands fullfil these roles? New provinces to form for bringing issues to the Governor?

What is the take of the NWC and HBC regarding the influx of settlers? Are they going to accelerate thier position as a merchant or remain only fur traders and anti-settler?

Infrastructure plan for the new communities means that increased river and road construction is going to take place. Some of this has already occured with the steam boats going but this could be interesting on the Great Lakes as to which way future development goes given the number of potential bays and anchorage available to wait out storms making steam ships more viable earlier than iOTL.

Lots has happened...now that the war is done it really opens up a whole new can of worms.

Either way, excellent work as always,
foresterab

 

[RPW@Cy]

Populating the new lands

I strongly suspect this post is bordeline ASB, given how Britain demobilised veterans OTL, however there is an awful lot of land to secure and somebody needs to come up with creative solutions to secure them, so...

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The 10,000 men that attacked New Orleans are given options, and some 7000 stay and have their families sent over, while 3000 are sent 'home'. Of these, most stay in 'Louisiana' (including OTL's Arkansas) but about 1000, almost all of whom had Spanish wives, move to West Florida, which stays under the Spanish crown, to help defend and maintain it. This means that the population of Louisiana (probably some 20k+ white and 25k+ slaves) are increased by about 20k loyal British subjects. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][/FONT]You've really upset the apple-cart here. A sizeable proportion of the British soldiers at New Orleans were in the West India regiments - black slaves promised freedom in return for enlistment. If a couple of thousand of these are being demobbed in Louisiana and given land I suspect this will be the death sentence for slavery in Louisiana - it's one thing for runaways to have to flee hundreds of miles to safety, quite another if they only have to run as far as the next farm. Slavery in Louisiana will probably collapse within a matter of years. The southern US won't like it much either. (on which point I've PM'd you with some additional thoughts.)

 

[stevep]

Dathi

Would agree with foresterab that that's a hell of a lot more settlers than I would have expected. Don't forget that OTL Wellington's British troops never exceeded about 50k and that included the German Legion. As such not sure there would be that many veterans and foreign wives to settle.

Also while the various clergy in the House of Lords might make a moral point they are Anglican. As such not sure they would be that happy with sizeable numbers of British veterans being encouraged to settle in N American with Catholic wives. At least unless they had some confidence that the latter would convert to Anglicanism, which sounds unlikely.

I think you will get a number of veterans by this method but probably not as many as your suggesting. Would also be best I think to make it open to those with British wives. Should have a decent take-up given the prospect of fairly free land and the depression that would probably be occurring in Britain after the war - given the drastic reduction in economic demand with all the military spending disappearing. Probably get more than a few who would have Indian wives given the length of the war in N American and the degree of interaction with the locals. They would also be very useful in terms of providing links between the two communities.

Also rather concerned that the settlers seem to be being spread over a pretty large area with very little infrastructure and communications, not to mention possible clashes with the local Indians over resources. Especially since many of the latter have been markedly better armed and gained a lot of military experience as well as a demonstration that European powers can be defeated in combat.

Might also be an option for allowing/encouraging settlement from at least some parts of Europe. A lot more difficult than in later decades as communications and transport are a lot more unreliable and expensive. However should be able to attract a few hundred/thousand a year which would help. Especially since settlers in some of the 'urban' centres, providing skilled crafts, merchants etc would help in the general settlement of the region. Plus possibly clash less with the Indians than farmers might.

Steve

 

[Archangel]

TTL Midwest and Louisiana will have an interesting demographic!

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

I strongly suspect this post is bordeline ASB, given how Britain demobilised veterans OTL, however there is an awful lot of land to secure and somebody needs to come up with creative solutions to secure them, so...

Hmm... borderline ASB, eh? well, may need to work on that. I know that, at various times soldiers have been given land grants. Here, the land is free, and needs settling. In particular, needs settling with men who can be called up as militia in the future if needed. If I need to work on this, I can, but the general principle seemed plausible to me.

I did think it needed a couple of prods (hence the Bishop's speech),...

I've got to say that I wanted to right the injustice ever since I ran across those women being abandoned in whichever Sharpe's novel that was. I was horrified and enraged. OTL, I'm not surprised with the decision given the political realities of the situation, and given how poorly press-ganged seamen (for instance) were treated, but I hoped I could make a change iTTL.

You've really upset the apple-cart here. A sizeable proportion of the British soldiers at New Orleans were in the West India regiments - black slaves promised freedom in return for enlistment. If a couple of thousand of these are being demobbed in Louisiana and given land I suspect this will be the death sentence for slavery in Louisiana - it's one thing for runaways to have to flee hundreds of miles to safety, quite another if they only have to run as far as the next farm. Slavery in Louisiana will probably collapse within a matter of years. The southern US won't like it much either. (on which point I've PM'd you with some additional thoughts.)

Hmmm... I was not aware of black regiments present. It makes sense, of course. I do know that OTL, 3000 came with Ross from France, plus <1k picked up at Bermuda (I assumed, possibly wrongly the the Bermuda troops were white). And there comments about more troops sent from Europe, but still the numbers assembled at Jamaica were 10k, and the sources I've seen didn't give any further break down, so I suppose anywhere up to 5k of them could have been black.... I do know that some of the West Indies troops were white - I've seen comments about people ..... Oh, most of those were officers. Duh! of course the officers were white at the time, that doesn't say anything about the men!!!

Still, any links? Given the reaction to the Spanish using black troops in East Florida, I'd have thought I'd've read comments about the British doing the same at Louisiana.


Slavery is indeed on its way out. Transport of slaves into or out of British territory is illegal. A New Orleans slave who slips across the border and back is therefore free. A judge will rule so shortly.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Dathi

Would agree with foresterab that that's a hell of a lot more settlers than I would have expected. Don't forget that OTL Wellington's British troops never exceeded about 50k and that included the German Legion. As such not sure there would be that many veterans and foreign wives to settle.

Never exceeded 50k?

From a thread by Robertp6165
I was just doing some research on this. It seems that between 1815 and 1818, the strength of the British army was being drastically reduced as troops were demobilized. The post-Waterloo occupation of France was winding down, and in the two years that followed the battle of Waterloo the British army saw a drastic reduction in its strength, so much so that in April, 1817, The Times reckoned that the population of Britain, some twenty-five million people, would somehow have to absorb about half a million ex-soldiers. Thousands of British soldiers were being discharged and sent home during this time period, including most of the Peninsular War veterans and veterans of the 1815 campaign.

I may fault Robert on a number of things, including his espousal of the Confederacy, but AFAIK he seems to usually have done decent research and have his facts straight.

I was afraid I wasn't providing for ENOUGH soldiers, not too many.

Anyone have any clue how the 10fold discrepancy resolves?

Also while the various clergy in the House of Lords might make a moral point they are Anglican. As such not sure they would be that happy with sizeable numbers of British veterans being encouraged to settle in N American with Catholic wives. At least unless they had some confidence that the latter would convert to Anglicanism, which sounds unlikely.

This particular bishop is obviously from the evangelical wing, with perhaps Methodist leanings Still, he'd much rather have them shipped off to North America than polluting good old England. Canada at the time was overwhelming Catholic. (And French speaking)

Note, too, how his last appeal is for those very clergy to enlighten the benighted papist wives (in politer words, of course).

I think you will get a number of veterans by this method but probably not as many as your suggesting. Would also be best I think to make it open to those with British wives. Should have a decent take-up given the prospect of fairly free land and the depression that would probably be occurring in Britain after the war - given the drastic reduction in economic demand with all the military spending disappearing. Probably get more than a few who would have Indian wives given the length of the war in N American and the degree of interaction with the locals. They would also be very useful in terms of providing links between the two communities.

Hmph. Here I thought I was providing for TOO FEW soldiers. OK, if the concensus is that I got my numbers way wrong then we can twiddle one way or another.

Also rather concerned that the settlers seem to be being spread over a pretty large area with very little infrastructure and communications, not to mention possible clashes with the local Indians over resources. Especially since many of the latter have been markedly better armed and gained a lot of military experience as well as a demonstration that European powers can be defeated in combat.

Those settlers going to the Indian Protectorate are almost all being settled where the Indians want them, mostly on the new border with the US, to serve as ready militia in case of conflict. Others are going to Michigan and Missouri, both now British (rather than Indian) owned land. (Significant) clashes with the natives is just NOT going to be a problem for the next few years. (10 years down the line, maybe, not now, not in 5 years time)

Might also be an option for allowing/encouraging settlement from at least some parts of Europe. A lot more difficult than in later decades as communications and transport are a lot more unreliable and expensive. However should be able to attract a few hundred/thousand a year which would help. Especially since settlers in some of the 'urban' centres, providing skilled crafts, merchants etc would help in the general settlement of the region. Plus possibly clash less with the Indians than farmers might.

Steve

I'll keep that in mind. Britain is especially going to be recruiting in Protestant Germany and northern Europe....

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Wow....alot more settlers than I would have anticpated. However dumping that many settlers on Canada raises some questions about supporting infrastructure and trade.

Heh. We've got to catch up to the US somehow.... The numbers were as high as I dared (for a couple of reasons). From the other comments, it looks like they may be too high.

Winter gear...that's alot of furs and woolens used to clothe settlers than might normally have been exported and could have drastic impacts upon survival rates of the settlers short term. Although they have been settled further south so climate won't be quite as extreme. Also need time to have sufficent heating fuel reserves built up...going to be alot of land cleared.

Winter gear. Oh. Right. Facepalm. Hmmm.... Let me think about that.

What crops are being raised? The Red Marquis wheat hasn't been developed yet so short season, cold hardy wheat is still relatively unknown for the lands settled. Oats and other grains however do exist.

we're a LOT farther south. Maize grows (normally) in almost all the land being settled, let alone wheat. I've actually got them planting wheat and oats because that's what they know the first year... Oh right, that's later this week.
The paranoid royalist French have a thing about potatoes, so a lot of the new settlers get talked into planting some of them, too.

Settlement on lands claimed by native groups. Although the different native groups have assisted Britain they still value land as a common value that can not be traded. So settlement and treaty processes might need to be accelerated especially with the increased exposure native irregulars have on the world in general and european settlement practices. Of interest is that most areas where native groups inhabited were cleaned out of game (for the more nomadic groups) but in the border areas very large animal populations existed due to a lack of hunting pressure. Settling lands between different native groups allows for the Europeans to work as a diplomatic buffer to traditionally warring groups.

Much of the settlement, is along/near the US border (Protectorate, Missouri). Most of the rest is where there's a fair bit of white settlement already (Michigan, Missouri). Yes, there's a bit of settlement in OTL Iowa and Wisconsin that needs to be negotiated, for instance.

What size of land are we talking? I've read accounts that in Ireland during the potato famine it was reckoned that 1-2 acres of land were enough to support a family if all they ate were potatoes. In western Canada most of the lands were homesteaded at 160 acres (one quarter section) in part due to a wheat growing preference for export and size of farm a small team of livestock could easily plow. Could be alot of land settled if you follow either two other north america examples...the french lots (1 rod @ 16.5 feet wide by a mile long perpendicular to water = 2 acres) or the spanish settlement in the southern states where as I understand it you basically claimed what you and your estates stock could graze (if you were a spanish nobleman).

I'm thinking on the order of the famous '40 acres and a mule'. Possibly a bit more land, depending. It's mostly going to be well watered and fertile, so 40 acres+ should do... 160 acres on the Canadian prairie is dry land farming which is not as productive...

Although clergy are going to be sent to Canada how is administration to work? Police have not been set up yet in much of the country, do military regiments and the milita units formed from veterns in the newly settled lands fullfil these roles? New provinces to form for bringing issues to the Governor?

The new settlers are (ex)-army, and are being given land with the understanding that they're a militia and may need to defend it. I wasn't thinking about formal policing, but I think maybe that groups of settlers will form towns/local governments and handle such matters partly themselves. Hmm... I can see I have more posts to write.

What is the take of the NWC and HBC regarding the influx of settlers? Are they going to accelerate thier position as a merchant or remain only fur traders and anti-settler?

Well, they're way south of the HBC's land, and the NWC didn't have the same official monopoly. However, the NWC (that's the North West Company for anyone who missed it) especially, being more flexible and nimble is likely to leap at the chance to expand their business. I really doubt there much in the way of fur coming out of the land where settlement is currently taking place.

Infrastructure plan for the new communities means that increased river and road construction is going to take place. Some of this has already occured with the steam boats going but this could be interesting on the Great Lakes as to which way future development goes given the number of potential bays and anchorage available to wait out storms making steam ships more viable earlier than iOTL.

Lots has happened...now that the war is done it really opens up a whole new can of worms.

Either way, excellent work as always,
foresterab

Thank you

 

[foresterab]

Couple of thoughts since I had a few hours driving to meetings today.

1) Land grants as an alternative to transport back to England with more land depending on rank. Might allow for alot of enlisted and poor officers to retire to the new world. Plus if you can get those 4th or 5th sons settling down in the New World you might have some proven leaders on side beyond lots of corporals/privates (sergents and above were allowed to officially marry IIRC on campaign. no source though)
2) Enclosure (where lands were amalgameted in England reducing the needed number of tenent farmers) might provide an incentive to relocate some families to the new world.
3) transportation of war brides to Canada upon swearing loyalty to the crown and conversion to the Anglican church.
4) Church sponsered immigration to Canada where unemployed families of good character are sent to Canada by the Anglican church in an effort to reduce swollen lists of charity cases. There is also a relative shortage of European women available in Canada to marry all the new settled veterns so a Church or English version of the french "King's brides" might happen.

Settlement in the maritimes and Quebec is relatively reasonable...I don't think the numbers are out to lunch on those lands. Don't know enough about the US southern states to comment on them. But numbers on the west/north appear high due to how rare a population of 500 people is let alone larger groups...and groups of veterns could quickly form towns that are good for a stratigic value but really mess up things with the natives.

Keep in mind that forest cover was actually less in the 1800's than it is today due to native land mangement (prescribed fire) and grazing pressure. Wood supplies did limit railway construction for instance in Saskatechwan during the building of the transCanada railway.

In many remote communities in the north the HBC post was the postman, translator, merchant, occasionally land administrator, and general go-to guy since they were a trained, semi-educated outsider who could rule on local issues. These factors might be the basis for civil governence short term.

Good catch on the NWC. Spent too much time working in HBC lands and forgot how merchant based the NWC was....of course with the new oportunities and lands presented here you have potentially the XY Company (US owned) and Jacob Astor's Columbia River posts potentially avoided since the montreal money can still be invested in the local trade and doesn't go to New York looking for new oportunities.

Farm size at 40 acres is a good size. Huge farm by British Standards but helps to compensate for lack of crops and markets. If you can clear and farm it...great start for a new groups of farmers.

If you want survival the first year...treat is like an army campaign. Troops march in, construct large common barracks and overwinter in larger camps than isolated homesteads that are tougher to adjust to year 1. By year 2 troops can spread out more and have at least a year to build up firewood. Plus surplus army uniforms should be around...issue 2-3 of those.

Will mess around and see if I can get a map made up of all the settled fur trading posts and major rivers as of 1814 OTL for you...might be a few days though unless the data is really easy to use. Just for comparison sake for where the new settlement is occuring.

 

[RPW@Cy]

Still, any links? Given the reaction to the Spanish using black troops in East Florida, I'd have thought I'd've read comments about the British doing the same at Louisiana.

Well, there's this amongst others -

"Among the British forces were the First and Fifth West India Regiments, made up of about one thousand black soldiers from Jamaica, Barbados, and the Bahamas. Some of these units recruited and trained American slaves who escaped to British lines, attracted by the promise of freedom."

I would add that a thousand is probably a tad on the low side. But in any case if you wanted a larger British force at New Orleans there would be more black troops involved, for the simple reason that (a) there were plenty of them (IIRC the West India regiments maxed out at something like 17,000 men) and they were local; and (b) with the ending of the war in Europe many of the units garrisonning captured French islands (the capture and holding of which was their main job OTL as the West Indians were much more resistant to malaria and yellow fever than European troops) would be released for active service. You could easily double or triple the number of West Indians at New Orleans in the ATL without straining plausibility, IMHO.

The story of the West India regiments is a fascinating one, that has sadly received very little attention over the years. Much of the above BTW is based on my memories of reading the relevant chapters of Fortescue's "History of the British Army" which sadly is not available on line to my knowledge, although you can buy it.

 

[RPW@Cy]

Anyone have any clue how the 10fold discrepancy resolves?

The 50K is about right for the number of British (and Irish) troops in the peninsular army (Wellington's army maxed out at about 80K once Portuguese, germans and Spanish were included). There were substantial contingents on duty in other theatres such as the Mediterranean, West Indies, India, etc. which with the units based at home (including the Irish garrison) would mean the regular army maxed out at something like 200,000 men. You'd have to add in the Navy (also being radically downsized) and various militia and fencible units to get anything like half a million - basically everybody who wore some sort of uniform. I doubt the Times of 1817 particularly bothered researching the precise figure - half a million sounds a suspiciously round number to me.

That said, I think the difficult part of this is getting the sort of scheme you're proposing started. The numbers themselves are probably not unreasonable once that hurdle is crossed, especially if you include some civilian recruitment to top up the numbers - a call for settlers for South Africa in 1821 produced something like 90,000 volunteers after all (though only about 4,000 were eventually sent IIRC), I doubt Louisiana and the Mississippi would be less atttractive.

 

[stevep]

RPW@Cy, Dathi

As RPW@Cy says I was referring to the forces that were British and under Wellington's command in the peninsula. [Since we were talking about troops with Catholic wives 'obtained' while on duty]. The total forces were a lot larger, although how many mercanaries that included I don't know. Remember reading figures of about 400k for Britain in the 1805 invasion scare, which included the euivalent of what are nowadays Territorials. Also I think Britain, along with the other major allies committed themselves to each maintaining an army of 150k in case France had another Napoleonic revival. Hence there was a lot of troops available although the 500k figure mentioned by the Times probably includes foreign troops and the navy.

If the people settled in the eastern part of the new territories are being done on land bordering the US territories then that may well be not only acceptable but welcomed by the Indians and since those lands have been disrupted by raids and wars for quite a while their probably very thinly settled currently.

Just to check. Not sure from your map. Is the border along the Ohio, i.e. the American bottom region has also been gained by Britain, or is that still in US hands? The river makes a more natural border but would mean the US conceding some fairly well settled territory they still hold. If the Americans continue to hold the bottom then settlement of neighbouring lands by British settlers would be more difficult, both getting them there and supplying them.

On black troops I think a lot of the forces stationed in the region were white, from reports of disease losses. Would be logical to use black troops but with the nature of slavery on the plantations I wonder how many there would be and what the planters would think of them? Thinking that the blacks who served with the British army in the revolutionary war were settled in Nova Scotia rather than the nearer islands and then moved to Sierra Leone so not sure if there would have been that many feed blacks available. Also remember hearing of various guerullia groups resisting British control, in the interior of Jamaica I wonder if local black troops in any sizeable numbers might be highly suspect. [Going from gut feeling here on some snippets of info so could be way off. Know that there were a number of blacks in the navy for instance and a mention of one captain. Hence its not a case of a total bar expect in cases of war against someone such as the states who have their own slaves to turn]. However would expect that a sizeable number would have been recruited in the war itself and as said could expect a number of escapees to continue to occur. With French and Iberian Catholics, Indians and blacks as settlers along with the British there should be a fair bit more acceptance of mixed race communities, especially with the continued threats from across the Mississippi.

One other point to consider in terms of settlers. The majority of the white settlers of Upper Canada were supposed to be from New England, coming across in the last couple of decades. Most of them seemed to have stayed loyal in the OTL 1812 conflict - can't remember reading anything about unrest. Despite this after the conflict much tighter restrictions on settlement from the US were applied after the conflict. Given a slightly longer and much bloodier conflict this time and continued ill-feeling on both sides I would expect that to occur again. However presuming that New England does become independent that restriction may well not apply to them. Given the friendly relations and close economic and blood links between Canada and New England I could see this continue to be a major source of settlers for the near future. Especially since a number at least in the US will probably view [and declare] the New Englanders as traitors so settlers from that region might find themselves less than welcome in the US.

Coupled with steadily growing settlement from Britain as the economy of the area develops and technology improves while various Catholic elements will be more significant I could see them being swamped in the later periods by Protestants from Britain, New England and possibly parts of Europe. [Although Ireland, especially presuming you still get a collapse like OTL 1840's, could well be a significant factor as well].

Steve

The 50K is about right for the number of British (and Irish) troops in the peninsular army (Wellington's army maxed out at about 80K once Portuguese, germans and Spanish were included). There were substantial contingents on duty in other theatres such as the Mediterranean, West Indies, India, etc. which with the units based at home (including the Irish garrison) would mean the regular army maxed out at something like 200,000 men. You'd have to add in the Navy (also being radically downsized) and various militia and fencible units to get anything like half a million - basically everybody who wore some sort of uniform. I doubt the Times of 1817 particularly bothered researching the precise figure - half a million sounds a suspiciously round number to me.

That said, I think the difficult part of this is getting the sort of scheme you're proposing started. The numbers themselves are probably not unreasonable once that hurdle is crossed, especially if you include some civilian recruitment to top up the numbers - a call for settlers for South Africa in 1821 produced something like 90,000 volunteers after all (though only about 4,000 were eventually sent IIRC), I doubt Louisiana and the Mississippi would be less atttractive.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Just to check. Not sure from your map. Is the border along the Ohio, i.e. the American bottom region has also been gained by Britain, or is that still in US hands? The river makes a more natural border but would mean the US conceding some fairly well settled territory they still hold. If the Americans continue to hold the bottom then settlement of neighbouring lands by British settlers would be more difficult, both getting them there and supplying them.
...

Steve

Blue is US controlled, Red is British per se, and Orange is the Protectorate. Note (unlike something I said earlier) that the area north of the Maumee is British, not Protectorate. The Brits also claimed the south shore of Lake Michigan.

The Americans have the southern 1/3? of Indiana, and most of Illinois south of St. Louis. The US actually got more of Indiana than they might have, although they don't see it that way....

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Aftermath of the War

Aftermath of the War



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Gulf Coast[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The entire Gulf coast reverts to Spanish rule (except for the British in Louisiana), and the British help run Mobile, Pensacola, and control New Orleans. Any goods exported from what is now the south west and west of the United States has to pass through a British or Spanish run port.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]For guaranteeing Spain's possession of 'Florida', and for providing most of the administration for the collecting of customs and export duties, Britain gets to keep 1/3 as her share of the tariffs from the Florida ports, not that that amounts to terribly much at the moment, as there isn't a LOT of commercial agriculture on those watersheds. Similarly, New Orleans and 'Louisiana' territory (essentially OTL's Louisiana and Arkansas) are now owned run by Britain – but in this case she takes 2/3 of customs and export duties and Spain gets 1/3, as payment for the territory. (This 1/3 cut of duties for a specified time (and protection of Florida) are the 'future considerations' for which Spain sold Louisiana to the British. After all, it's not like she held it, or could hold it anyway). [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Many blacks and anti-US Indians come south to the Spanish territory of Florida, where they are welcomed and supported as an anti-US bulwark.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]United States[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]As a result of losing the war, and especially once the terms of the peace treaty come out in the spring of 1815, there is massive unrest in the United States. Riots happen in many cities, and 'Federalists' and 'foreigners' are singled out and mobbed, occasionally even killed. This results in tens of thousands of people fleeing for their own safety, mostly to New England and the Maritimes. What Federalists are left quickly abjure their membership in the party, and try to take a low profile. General Pinckney, being in overall charge of the only successful US gain of territory is lionized, and his Federalist past is quietly forgotten. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The mood in the US is irredentist, revanchist, and nativist. They can't satisfy their desires about the first two, but they can about the last. Already you had to be a resident of the US for 14 years before you could apply for citizenship. Now there are added tests. In somewhat of an irony, one of the New London amendments is actually implemented – namely the requirement that all Federal officers be native born Americans. Also, while the Constitutional guarantees on freedom of religion still hold, in practice it becomes difficult for Roman Catholics to be treated equally. In fact, some states disenfranchise Catholics. These laws are taken to the Supreme Court, which points out that the Federal guarantee is just that – Federal, and doesn't affect the individual states. They point out that e.g. Massachusetts has an officially established church [OTL only disestablished in 1833], and no one complained, so states can make their own laws in this area. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Meanwhile, the rage against 'traitors in our midst' brings the New England crisis to a head. The Federal government not only refuses to consider the amendments proposed by the New London Convention, but makes unacceptable demands on those states. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]For instance, every government official, including the Governors, who agreed to the British neutrality arrangements was to appear in Washington, DC to stand trial. Since the New Englanders believed this would be a kangaroo court, and they'd all be shot for treason, they understandably refused. The official US position was that these would be fair trials, and some, at least, believed that many officials would be exonerated by the trials, and reduce the temperature of the crisis. Since they never happened, it's not at all obvious what the results would have been. The refusals only increased the crisis.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Finally, the New Englanders realize that accommodation with the rest of the US is impossible, and declare their independence on July 4, a date chosen with considered intent. They adopt a modified version of the US Constitution with minimal changes (some of their New London demands, and all of the Bill of Rights are in the main document, also amendments XI and XII and a prohibition on slavery).[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Until elections can be held, the various US congressmen and Senators hold the equivalent positions in the New England Congress. And Timothy Pickering is chosen to be the first President, until the first New England elections are held. While he was about to turn 70, he was in reasonable health, living until 1829, and he only served out the partial term.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The US army lines up on the New York of the border, while the various New England militias line up on the other. However, New England and Britain quickly sign a treaty of alliance and the US has to back down.[/FONT]






[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]PS. Still working on the 'population' issue. I've got some data to look at, and will revise or repost that bit in a few days.
[/FONT]

 

[stevep]

Blue is US controlled, Red is British per se, and Orange is the Protectorate. Note (unlike something I said earlier) that the area north of the Maumee is British, not Protectorate. The Brits also claimed the south shore of Lake Michigan.

The Americans have the southern 1/3? of Indiana, and most of Illinois south of St. Louis. The US actually got more of Indiana than they might have, although they don't see it that way....

Dathi

Thanks for clarifying.

Steve

 

[stevep]

Aftermath of the War

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]....
[/FONT]

This sounds like pretty unpleasant times in the US. If its going so anti-Catholic and also will have hostility to British, New Englanders, Spanish, Indians and blacks [i.e. all neighbours and two internal groups the US will have problems with trade and internal investment. Possibly not too important now but will hurt development and get worse if it continues.

Also going to be interesting to see their internal developments. What sort of military forces will they maintain in those changed circumstances. Probably markedly larger, which will be a drain on the economy although possibly not large, and will have social impacts. Also will now have a majority of slave states. Going to be the matter of the national debt and the loss of the rich and merchantile New England states, which will make the agricultural section even larger.

Steve

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Didn't Jared already write about what happens next?