Canada Wank (YACW)

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Colonial Relations

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Colonial Relations[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In 1819, some 4 years after the end of the war, as tempers cool a bit, Britain signs a new commercial treaty with the United States. This doesn't get rid of all the barriers (either legal or of prejudice) impeding commerce between the two countries, but it does improve (at least commercial) relations between the two nations significantly. This makes the British merchant community (which has a lot of clout) quite happy. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]However, it makes the New Englanders, the Maritimers and Canadians quite unhappy. For a handful of years, they had had preferential access to Britain and British markets/capital/etc., and better access to the US than England did. The treaty was not a complete surprise, but it was an unpleasant one. All these governments complain to London. London can easily dismiss New England's complaints – they aren't part of the Empire[1], they already have treaties with Britain, but those treaties are in no way exclusive, and thus they have no grounds if Britain makes trade treaties with others. The New Englanders have to agree with the logic, however much they hate it. They do suddenly realize that their status is somewhat more precarious than they had realized (they had had almost all the benefits of being inside the Empire, without any of the responsibilities.) Some start wondering if there might be benefits to joining the Empire, although the counterarguments are too strong for now.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]However, the Canadians and Maritimers have a better complaint. They had no say in the decision. They weren't even officially told about it until after it was signed. And yet, the new rules affect them quite a bit. (Redirecting trade from a route through Canada/the Maritimes to direct with Britain; changing income from tariffs, etc., etc.) And they ARE in the Empire which is supposed to benefit them, not just English merchants. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]A movement to 'do something' starts. Just what is to be done, or could be done, is very much up in the air. The initial proposals suggest that some sort of Parliamentary kludge might be possible, using the example of the Confederacy presence in the Canadian Parliament, when they aren't officially/entirely part of Canada. Could the various colonies have representation at Westminster, possibly refraining from voting when purely internal matters come up? New Englanders who are interested in joining the Empire (a small minority at the moment) also agree that some sort of representation would be absolutely necessary if they were even to consider the possibility of rejoining the Empire. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]These proposals take the British government rather aback. They had thought things were just fine the way they were, and opening this can of worms for the colonies would re-open the Act of Union with Ireland (at least), and possibly even Scotland. However, as much as they'd just like to just shove everything back under the carpet, the issue has now come into the open, and will have to be addressed. As the Cabinet feared, Irish (and even a few Scots) nationalists use this as an excuse to try to re-open the Acts of Union. (At the moment, however, the Irish are ignorable and the Scots few in number, so its more an irritant than a real problem.)[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Nothing much happens at this point, but several bodies, both official and unofficial, start exploring possibilities. In the meantime, there are some Canadians, a Maritimer or so, and a Indian (Shawnee) from the Confederacy appointed to the Privy Council[2], and put on a committee dealing with colonial relations. Also, better communications between London and the colonies are arranged for issues that might affect colonial matters - like discussions with foreign powers that would impact them.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Parliament is still clearly in charge, and there is no question of colonies having any veto or even a vote, really, in the running of the Empire, but they are now being listened to and considered (some).[/FONT]


–


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]1 the use of the word Empire in this text is an anachronism, as the British Empire was not formally established under that name until rather later. It was, however, a term coming into informal use, and is too useful a term to ignore.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]2 at this time, the Privy Council wasn't so much a specific body that met as was an umbrella sort of body, various of whose committees were important. It had a history of being formerly the King's Privy (i.e. private) Council, and in a different timeline, it could have evolved into what today's Cabinet is (as a group of the King's ministers who make governmental decisions). In fact, technically, the Cabinet is one of those committees of the Privy Council. So, the semi-governmental aura associated with it allows a sop to be thrown to the colonies that doesn't necessarily carry any official weight. Thus it forms a good kludge to improve relations at the moment. [Note that the current OTL Privy Council in Canada, e.g., is a purely honorary body that people are appointed to for prestige purposes, as much as anything. Apparently the PC hasn't degenerated that much even in Britain today, and certainly hadn't in the early 1800s.][/FONT]

 

[stevep]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Colonial Relations[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In 1819, some 4 years after the end of the war, as tempers cool a bit, Britain signs a new commercial treaty with the United States. This doesn't get rid of all the barriers (either legal or of prejudice) impeding commerce between the two countries, but it does improve (at least commercial) relations between the two nations significantly. This makes the British merchant community (which has a lot of clout) quite happy. [/FONT]

Dathi

Could I ask for a clarification here please? I thought that until Britain went free trade in ~1950 it was strongly protectionist, like every other state. That the Navigation Acts for instance stayed until ~1848. Under those, while colonies didn't have any direct say in Parliament - although the west indies plantation owners had some clout - there was a clear distinction between empire and non-empire. That Britain and its colonies would be on one side of tariff barriers and everybody else was on the other? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

As such, while there might be bi-laterial deals with trade partners on some areas there were clear boundaries between 'British' and non-British. [Although this might be rather porious in some cases, such as the Canadian/NEC border, where both sides had interests in not having customs dues collected]. Therefore there would be relatively little reason for the Canadians to complain.

Also be interested in why the Americans are so eager. They could benefit from trade with Britain but, especially with the bad feeling on the war and the loss of the NEC I would have expected them to be even more protectionist than OTL. Especially with the British presence to the west and south [de-facto in Florida] meaning that the southern states will probably be more willing to have a national solution for industrial development rather than rely on the recent enemy.

Does this trade deal affect the situation in the south where Britain and Spain are gaining funds by tariffs on US trade through New Orleans and Florida? If so might worsen relations with Spain if it thinks its been left hanging and lost some of its income stream, especially with the fight for its empire coming to a head at this point.

Thanks

Steve

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Yes! The British have begun to realize the evil they have done and to repent for their sins!

Soon further actions of remorse will be taken!

New England shall hang its head in shame and crawl back to the nation they betrayed.

The outraged British colonies shall fall out with London, then among themselves, leaving themselves easy prey to be swallowed the resurgent United States one by one!

Florida too shall fall! And Texas! And Mexico! And Tierra del Fuego!

The United States shall stretch from the North Pole to the South Pole! From Spain to China!

All shall be American!

muahahahahahaha...nyarghargarg




suddenly stops his victory dance and looks at the monitor

​

This was NOT turned off? This was going out?


I...uh...uhm...I...think fast, Grimm...uh...I

HI THERE!​

 

[stevep]

Grimm

Good one.

Not that I ever thought you were a xenophobic meglomaniac.

Steve

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Hmm... I may have to add some commentary, if it was taken so wrong.

Basically, from the end of the war to the new treaty/agreement, Britain was close to shut out of American markets/trade. The new treaty basically just opens the market back up to British goods and merchants, and removes some nasty practices that I haven't figured out yet, but probably involved inspecting ever single item on a ship for contraband (for the few ships that did make port). Such nasty practices weren't universal - some ports/customs officers hated the New Englanders more than the British. The treaty probably also allowed for, I don't know, customs bonding, and access to finance and other stuff. We aren't talking about any sort of 'free trade' agreement in terms of zero tariffs, we're talking 'free trade' as in, I get to sail my ships into your harbour and trade. There were probably similar nasty practices on the British side, too.

The point is that from 1815 to 1819, Canadian (well, more often Maritime) ships had much better access and New Englander ships had better access to US ports than Britain did, and they did very nicely in the business.

Similarly, with the US being obnoxious about British financiers, the New Englanders did well, and even people like Molson and the NWC who had money could loan it to, say, New Yorkers.

The terms of the agreement were also a touch ambiguous - several American customs officials read 'British' as 'English' or 'English/Scots', and Canadians and Maritimers lost some business as a result until the whole thing got straightened out.

Anyone who has a streak of good fortune tends to expect it will last. What REALLY upset the colonists was being blindsided, they didn't even know the negotiations were seriously happening, let alone that a trade agreement was about to be signed. At this point, it's LESS that they think they could or should have been able to change the SUBSTANCE of the agreement, but there were local issues [no, I don't know what, but there always are] that could, and should have been in as minor points, and making sure the wording or understanding was clear as to who was 'British', etc. And, again, knowing that the agreement was in the wind would have helped. Some prominent people in the colonies were embarrassed by the sudden change (either financially or because they had loudly pontificated on the subject recently).

Does that make sense?

It's not really a huge deal at the moment, but it does make people realize that the next time, it could be a lot worse, and that London is far more out for England's interest than Canada's or Nova Scotia's. It's a wake-up call.

I mean, how many times has Britain negotiated on Canada's behalf in OTL, and given the US rather more favourable terms than she ought to have, because trade with the US is worth far more to Britain than Canada's goodwill... Here, iTTL the *Canadians have just wrangled a jury-rigged parliamentary structure they think might work, whereas OTL, there wasn't a good trigger at a good time, and no visible mechanism for rectifying the problem.


How's that? Help? Am I going to have to figure out how to stuff this explanation into the previous post? Do I need to do something else entirely?

Dathi

Could I ask for a clarification here please? I thought that until Britain went free trade in ~1950 it was strongly protectionist, like every other state. That the Navigation Acts for instance stayed until ~1848. Under those, while colonies didn't have any direct say in Parliament - although the west indies plantation owners had some clout - there was a clear distinction between empire and non-empire. That Britain and its colonies would be on one side of tariff barriers and everybody else was on the other? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

As such, while there might be bi-laterial deals with trade partners on some areas there were clear boundaries between 'British' and non-British. [Although this might be rather porious in some cases, such as the Canadian/NEC border, where both sides had interests in not having customs dues collected]. Therefore there would be relatively little reason for the Canadians to complain.

Also be interested in why the Americans are so eager. They could benefit from trade with Britain but, especially with the bad feeling on the war and the loss of the NEC I would have expected them to be even more protectionist than OTL. Especially with the British presence to the west and south [de-facto in Florida] meaning that the southern states will probably be more willing to have a national solution for industrial development rather than rely on the recent enemy.

Does this trade deal affect the situation in the south where Britain and Spain are gaining funds by tariffs on US trade through New Orleans and Florida? If so might worsen relations with Spain if it thinks its been left hanging and lost some of its income stream, especially with the fight for its empire coming to a head at this point.

Thanks

Steve

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Specific responses

Dathi

Could I ask for a clarification here please?
Also be interested in why the Americans are so eager. They could benefit from trade with Britain but, especially with the bad feeling on the war and the loss of the NEC I would have expected them to be even more protectionist than OTL.

Oh, they are. Just not as even more prejudicially protectionist as they were in the preceding years.

Especially with the British presence to the west and south [de-facto in Florida] meaning that the southern states will probably be more willing to have a national solution for industrial development rather than rely on the recent enemy.

Does this trade deal affect the situation in the south where Britain and Spain are gaining funds by tariffs on US trade through New Orleans and Florida? If so might worsen relations with Spain if it thinks its been left hanging and lost some of its income stream, especially with the fight for its empire coming to a head at this point.

Trade deal wouldn't affect the trade through Spanish ports. It might well affect the (relatively punitive) tariffs on US goods through Louisiana. It probably settled the New England bank debt (to the southern plantation owners/states) on terms that the New Englanders wouldn't have agreed to. But since the Brits were garnisheeing US trade on the Mississippi to pay it off, the New Englanders have to take what Britain negotiates for them.

It's not canon, I don't want to be committed to it, but I suspect that the tariffs on 'allied' goods is ~5% (nice revenue stream, not enough to impede trade hardly at all), whereas it got up to ~40% on American goods. The base rate for American goods is probably ~10%, maybe 15% (at least when the two sides are talking).

 

[Grimm Reaper]

stevep, you never thought that about me?


I'm losing my touch.

 

[Dan1988]

Well, I guess every alliance has a price of some form. Another good update, Daði!

Just a question: how will this affect New England's relationship with Britain?

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Well, I guess every alliance has a price of some form. Another good update, Daði!

Just a question: how will this affect New England's relationship with Britain?

Thanks

Basically, we've gone from a honeymoon period to a real relationship. As it were. Both sides now realize that they have slightly divergent interests. Better, I think, that things come out over a relatively minor affair like this, than over something major where people end up feeling actually betrayed.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Mexico and Texas

OK, guys, here's the post some of you have been waiting for...




Mexico and Texas



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Among the various rebellious Spanish colonies is Mexico, which after a long rebellion is finally granted her independence in 1821. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]This new country has poor relations with both Spain and Britain, and so cultivates an alliance with the United States, as being the only obvious strong ally in the neighbourhood.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Their problem with Spain is obvious. The problems with Britain are a bit less so. Mexico believes that Spain had no right to negotiate the boundaries of THEIR territory (in the treaty signed just 3 years before Spain recognized their independence). And Mexico is very unhappy with 1) the British colony (British Honduras) on the Yucatan, and 2) her trading and support with the United Provinces of Central America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Republic_of_Central_America) which Mexico believes are hers. OTOH, Mexico neither wants, nor can afford, active hostilities with either, so relations are 'civil' and 'correct', but not 'warm'.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]On the other hand, Mexico and the US have a lot in common. While they don't share a border any more, that actually means that they have fewer conflicts of interest. Relations there are definitely 'warm'. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]To strengthen the nation, and especially to protect her northern boundaries (which have a very sparse population), the new Mexican government invites settlement in Texas (actually Coahuila y Tejas) as long as the settlers are 1) Catholic, 2) prepared to accept the Mexican authority and 3) have no slaves. [This is as OTL.] As the US no longer shares a border with Texas/Mexico, rather fewer of the settlers are American (although some are), and rather more are British subjects, especially from Louisiana (although some of those are former Americans). There is also slightly more settlement of e.g. German Catholics and Irish. While the US is happy to have her citizens move to Texas, partly to help support an ally, partly to provide new land for settlement now that the old northwest and west are closed, any American settlers have either leave from Atlantic coast ports, or transit through Spanish ports (Florida) or a British one (New Orleans), and neither of those authorities are very interested in the US helping Mexico. (Since, of those American settlers, most would be Catholic this also decreases the Catholic population of the US, which is seen as a good thing by many.) Mexico would have liked more American settlers, to strengthen their ties, but takes whom she can get.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]For a few decades, the Mexican settlement policy works reasonably well. However, in 1835, the ruler of Mexico, Santa Anna (Francisco de Assisi[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] [/FONT]María Severino López de Santa Anna y Pérez de Lebrón) [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]replaces the earlier federalist constitution with a centralist one, and peripheral areas such as Texas rise in revolt. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Britain, while not officially supporting the armed rebellion does stand up for the rights of her citizens in the area. Firstly, and officially, she strongly supports them diplomatically, asking that the central government of Mexico either return to the old constitution, or make better provisions in the new one. Secondly, and unofficially, there is a lot of smuggling of arms and other support to which Britain and the government of Louisiana turn a blind eye. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Now, the population of Tejas iTTL has fewer (republican) Americans, more (royalist) Brits, and more Europeans. Even the local Mexicans are used to royal rule (first from Spain, then from the temporary Empire of Mexico). So, when Texas declares its independence, it is not automatically a republic as many had expected. After some debate and deliberation, they actually declare themselves a Duchy and appoint Charles Wittelsbach (a younger son of the King of Bavaria,sent out as a young man to 'see the world' (officially), 'grow up' (unofficially) [ATL, born after the PoD, analog to Karl Theodore]) as their new Duke. This is a largely figurehead post, and the Texas legislature has the real power. Many Texians/Tejanos wanted to be at least a kingdom, but their new monarch put his foot down. His dad was a real KING of a real kingdom, Texas just wasn't big enough to be a kingdom, yet.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The new Duchy is quickly recognized by Britain, and they sign a treaty of alliance.[/FONT]

 

[Archangel]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The new Duchy is quickly recognized by Britain, and they sign a treaty of alliance.[/FONT]

A Texan Duchy!

 

[Grimm Reaper]

gasps

Only a duke! A mortal insult to the Texans!​

 

[stevep]

Hmm... I may have to add some commentary, if it was taken so wrong.

Basically, from the end of the war to the new treaty/agreement, Britain was close to shut out of American markets/trade. The new treaty basically just opens the market back up to British goods and merchants, and removes some nasty practices that I haven't figured out yet, but probably involved inspecting ever single item on a ship for contraband (for the few ships that did make port). Such nasty practices weren't universal - some ports/customs officers hated the New Englanders more than the British. The treaty probably also allowed for, I don't know, customs bonding, and access to finance and other stuff. We aren't talking about any sort of 'free trade' agreement in terms of zero tariffs, we're talking 'free trade' as in, I get to sail my ships into your harbour and trade. There were probably similar nasty practices on the British side, too.

The point is that from 1815 to 1819, Canadian (well, more often Maritime) ships had much better access and New Englander ships had better access to US ports than Britain did, and they did very nicely in the business.

Similarly, with the US being obnoxious about British financiers, the New Englanders did well, and even people like Molson and the NWC who had money could loan it to, say, New Yorkers.

The terms of the agreement were also a touch ambiguous - several American customs officials read 'British' as 'English' or 'English/Scots', and Canadians and Maritimers lost some business as a result until the whole thing got straightened out.

Anyone who has a streak of good fortune tends to expect it will last. What REALLY upset the colonists was being blindsided, they didn't even know the negotiations were seriously happening, let alone that a trade agreement was about to be signed. At this point, it's LESS that they think they could or should have been able to change the SUBSTANCE of the agreement, but there were local issues [no, I don't know what, but there always are] that could, and should have been in as minor points, and making sure the wording or understanding was clear as to who was 'British', etc. And, again, knowing that the agreement was in the wind would have helped. Some prominent people in the colonies were embarrassed by the sudden change (either financially or because they had loudly pontificated on the subject recently).

Does that make sense?

It's not really a huge deal at the moment, but it does make people realize that the next time, it could be a lot worse, and that London is far more out for England's interest than Canada's or Nova Scotia's. It's a wake-up call.

I mean, how many times has Britain negotiated on Canada's behalf in OTL, and given the US rather more favourable terms than she ought to have, because trade with the US is worth far more to Britain than Canada's goodwill... Here, iTTL the *Canadians have just wrangled a jury-rigged parliamentary structure they think might work, whereas OTL, there wasn't a good trigger at a good time, and no visible mechanism for rectifying the problem.


How's that? Help? Am I going to have to figure out how to stuff this explanation into the previous post? Do I need to do something else entirely?

Dathi

OK, many thanks. That answers my queries.

Also makes me think there might be some sort of imperial federation being suggested. Or the early feelings towards such.

Stevep

 

[Dan1988]

Hmm, an interesting way of describing the beginnings of independent Texas. Whoever's in charge of Mexico at this time is going to be thoroughly discredited unless he gets Texas back - even if it means acceding to British conditions and restoring the federalist constitution.

 

[stevep]

Dathi

Interesting developments in Texas. Sounds like the Mexican government was more successful in getting the sort of settlers they wanted, i.e. more Catholics and banning slavery, but it didn't help them in the longer terms. [Presuming by the sound of it there wasn't any significant slavery in Texas].

Would there still be problem as OTL in terms of the borders of Texas? A lot might depend on how things go in Mexico after the defeat by the rebels and probably other battles that I think occurred in other outlying areas at this time in OTL.

Steve

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Dathi

Interesting developments in Texas. Sounds like the Mexican government was more successful in getting the sort of settlers they wanted, i.e. more Catholics and banning slavery, but it didn't help them in the longer terms. [Presuming by the sound of it there wasn't any significant slavery in Texas].

Yup, that's it.

Would there still be problem as OTL in terms of the borders of Texas? A lot might depend on how things go in Mexico after the defeat by the rebels and probably other battles that I think occurred in other outlying areas at this time in OTL.

Steve

Ya, there's the dispute between the ?Nueces? and the Rio Grande. At the moment, it's doesn't matter much as the disputed territory, as OTL, is not heavily populated. But yes, there will be war. Are you watching the alliances?

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Hmm, an interesting way of describing the beginnings of independent Texas. Whoever's in charge of Mexico at this time is going to be thoroughly discredited unless he gets Texas back - even if it means acceding to British conditions and restoring the federalist constitution.

Do you think it's any worse than OTL? The revolution happens at about the same time for about the same causes. The Mexican leader is (a trivially different) Santa Anna...

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

gasps

Only a duke! A mortal insult to the Texans!​

1) Texas egos hadn't grown QUITE so Texas-sized.
2) They had a genyoowine Royal to head the country, who was willing - but absolutely positively refused to acknowledge that this new ex-ex-colony was anything like a REAL kingdom. His dad's a real king, remember.
3) ANY piece of paper that the Duke doesn't see/have to sign refers to Texas as the Grand Duchy of Texas. (Duke Charles bangs his head a lot over that).


(Yes, I know you're (mostly) tongue-in-cheek, but it still wants a response, IMO.)

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Texas addendum

Grimm Reaper. This post is just for you. I was inspired by your complaint.



Texas addendum

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The Texans had assumed that their new country would be a Kingdom, and asked Charles Wittelsbach to be their king. He was happy to be their monarch – but a Texas as a Kingdom!? His father was a REAL king of a real kingdom, and as much as he loves this upstart Texas of his, it's nothing like a real kingdom. “A kingdom has more people than we have, a kingdom has culture – has universities and ballet companies. No, I would be happy, more than happy proud and overjoyed, to be your Duke. And when Texas can properly be called a Kingdom, I, or my descendants would gladly be your King.”[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]He's their chosen monarch, so they accept his 'whimsy' and proclaim Texas as a Duchy. However, any paperwork that the Duke didn't have to sign referred to Texas as “The Grand Duchy of Texas”. Duke Charles bangs his head on his desk and remonstrates with his officials “We're a Duchy, not a Grand Duchy!!” “Yes, Your Grace but isn't Texas grand?” “Yes, but it … is … not … a … GRAND DUCHY! Understand?” “Yes, Your Grace”. But the paperwork continues to say “Grand Duchy”. Charles bangs his head some more.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]So, in 1837 a University was founded in San Antonio, and in 1838 a ballet company was started in Nacogdoches. Charles thinks “Good, great, but My God, what have I done now?” and bangs his head some more.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Charles' secretary brings in some workmen and they carefully pad one corner of the desk. When the Duke arrives – he sees it, wants to bang his head on the desk, realizes what the padding is for... Stops. Refuses to cry. Gives in and pounds his head some more.[/FONT]

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Hilarious.

I shall attempt to further inspire you.