No, I think not, because travel across land the entire width of OTL Mississippi is likely to be prohibitive. No, I think the Alabamans are going to have settle for access through Spanish territory (paying a tariff) for supplies. Most of their settlers are coming from elsewhere in the States and so coming down south from Tennessee or west from Georgia in any case. Mississippi can get settlers coming south down the Mississippi from most anywhere (for the west part of the state).
Canada Wank (YACW)
- Thread starter Dathi THorfinnsson
- Start date
- Status
Might. Or might be a totally constitutional monarchical Kingdom, or might be 'Realm' or something. Too bad they're not German, "Reich" covers a multitude of possibilities. (Or Scandinavian, IIRC) Not happening in the next couple of decades, anyway.
Actually I have an idea, have the territory split along the Tombigbee river and have a much earlier Tennessee Tombigbee Waterway planned, to connect the two states with the Tennessee and Ohio watersystems with the aim of having goods exported north into America and both states having equal access to the new planned system. You'd also have a reaching finger of Mississippi to touch the Tennessee river, now the most important American transport resource.
Whilst hugely expensive, an early Tenn-Tom Canal would still be less than 40% of the costs of the Erie (based on distance and elevation, pushed upwards due to less healthy construction environment).
Lovely idea, but
http://www.tenntom.org/about/ttwconstruction.htm said:
1.5x the dirt moving of the Panama canal, and a 175' deep cut is just not feasible in the 1820s, let alone for less than the price of the Erie.
Note that every lock on the waterway is not just a lock but a "lock and dam".
So, no I don't think it would work. Sorry.
Although making a river a boundary is a very period thing to do, even if they have to build some roads/rail as portage. Rail, obviously a bit later.
mine/resource map
Green near Sault Ste. Marie is Copper (Jichib mine)
Big red area in northern (OTL) Minnesota is the Iron Range
red spot eastern Lake Ontario is Marmora Iron foundry
red spot between Montreal and Quebec is Forges St. Maurices near Trois Rivières
black smudges in New Brunswick, Cape Breton (big island at the end of Nova Scotia) and in Illinois are all coal
grey dot near Can/US border north of Superior is Silver Mountain.
purple dot in NW corner of Illinois is the Galena lead mine
All locations very approximate.
Green near Sault Ste. Marie is Copper (Jichib mine)
Big red area in northern (OTL) Minnesota is the Iron Range
red spot eastern Lake Ontario is Marmora Iron foundry
red spot between Montreal and Quebec is Forges St. Maurices near Trois Rivières
black smudges in New Brunswick, Cape Breton (big island at the end of Nova Scotia) and in Illinois are all coal
grey dot near Can/US border north of Superior is Silver Mountain.
purple dot in NW corner of Illinois is the Galena lead mine
All locations very approximate.
Last edited:
Dang, should read more than the wikipedia 
.
Edit: I do stand by Mississippi asking for and getting better access to the Tennessee.
Also what happened to the rump American Illionis and Indiana territories? Rolled into Ohio? Kentucky? Made into their own little statelet? Still a territory?
. Edit: I do stand by Mississippi asking for and getting better access to the Tennessee.
Also what happened to the rump American Illionis and Indiana territories? Rolled into Ohio? Kentucky? Made into their own little statelet? Still a territory?
Last edited:
Mississippi does have about ten miles of Tennesee river bank. more if you count the now flooded Bear and Yellow(TennTom) creeks . And the TennTom project was the most expensive thing the US Corps of Engineers ever did. http://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/Tenn-Tom-Canal-Turns-20/5407/
Eastern half of ex-Indiana becomes part of Ohio, the rest, and southern Illinois is now part of Kentucky.Dang, should read more than the wikipedia
Edit: I do stand by Mississippi asking for and getting better access to the Tennessee.
Also what happened to the rump American Illionis and Indiana territories? Rolled into Ohio? Kentucky? Made into their own little statelet? Still a territory?
Technically, I believe they use the phrase 'administered by' as the US doesn't recognize the validity of the Protectorate. But, de facto, they've been rolled into the existing two states. Those states are the primary source for manning the US border forts, patrolling the land in between, etc, so, in part, it sort of just happened.
Thande
Donor
Dang, should read more than the wikipedia
"The" Wikipedia?
Sorry, but you sound like Ian Hislop with his "The Youtube" and "The Facebook"
minor miscellany
Two more minor tidbits involving New England
Anthem
The New England nation[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]al anthem is a modified variant of [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]"Let tyrants shake their iron rod"[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]
http://www.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Chester_(William_Billings)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Whaling[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]New England is already the world's leader in whaling, and will remain so as long as the industry survives. With the separation from the US and the need to find new/more products, the industry expands faster. In particular they build a part-time base in the Falklands. So when an Argentinian expedition arrives in 1820 [/FONT]to (re)claim the Malvinas, they find a(n intermittently manned) New England whaling base there flying both the New England flag and the Union Jack.
Not wanting to annoy two friendly nations, they let the matter lie for the time being. However, they do protest to the New England government, and the next year the base flew THREE flags. The year after, however, the Royal Navy came in and established a permanently manned (very small and lonely) base on the islands. At first at Port Louis, then at Port Stanley with its fine deep harbour.
Two more minor tidbits involving New England
Anthem
The New England nation[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]al anthem is a modified variant of [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]"Let tyrants shake their iron rod"[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]
http://www.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Chester_(William_Billings)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Whaling[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]New England is already the world's leader in whaling, and will remain so as long as the industry survives. With the separation from the US and the need to find new/more products, the industry expands faster. In particular they build a part-time base in the Falklands. So when an Argentinian expedition arrives in 1820 [/FONT]to (re)claim the Malvinas, they find a(n intermittently manned) New England whaling base there flying both the New England flag and the Union Jack.
Not wanting to annoy two friendly nations, they let the matter lie for the time being. However, they do protest to the New England government, and the next year the base flew THREE flags. The year after, however, the Royal Navy came in and established a permanently manned (very small and lonely) base on the islands. At first at Port Louis, then at Port Stanley with its fine deep harbour.
"The" Wikipedia?
Sorry, but you sound like Ian Hislop with his "The Youtube" and "The Facebook"
From context it was clear I meant 'the wikipedia article on the subject of discussion' rather than wikipedia in general
.Though I do sound like Ian Hislop sometimes, when I repeat what someones said in an exaspirated voice.
(water) transport system
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif](water) transport system[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Canals[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]OTL the building of the Erie canal before the St. Lawrence system cut Montreal's hinterland in half (at best). The St. Lawrence canal system was worked on in fits and starts and in a very uncoordinated manner. Upper Canada wanted the new canals to increase traffic and decrease costs, but, in general, the Québec population was against the canals as they would increase Anglo settlement and the Québecers they did benefit were the Montreal commercial class – which again was mostly Anglo. At this time, Upper and Lower Canada were separate provinces, and while the Upper Canada government was willing (and eager) to improve navigation, funding or guaranteeing funding for the canals on her own territory, it wasn't able to do anything about the canals needed in Lower Canada. In particular, some of those minor canals weren't finished until 1843 (e.g. Beauharnois canal), by which time the Second Welland canal was already being worked on on the Niagara peninsula, and it wasn't until 1848 that a standardized set of locks and canals was available to allow traffic from the upper lakes to Montréal. It may be significant that these dates are AFTER the 1841 Union of Upper and Lower Canada into a single political entity.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Because there is no through shipping earlier than the 1840s, the canals in Upper Canada are not nearly as useful, and the US Erie Canal captures much of the traffic that should have flowed through Canada. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]ITTL, the St. Lawrence system is finished before Erie, and thus it captures the upstate/Ohio market even more thoroughly than it had. Once you have through shipping, the Canadian canals are even cheaper than the Erie. In fact, iOTL, it was cheaper to ship goods from Lake Erie through the Welland canal, over to Oswego and up the Oswego canal (one of the major spurs of the Erie system) to Syracuse, than it was to ship direct from Buffalo along the Erie all the way there. Obviously, for goods travelling to all the way to the Atlantic benefit even more than good going to e.g. New York City. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Why can the St. Lawrence Canal System be finished so much faster than OTL? Several reasons. 1) there is Imperial and Viceregal backing. Canada is more important to the Empire, and the hassles of supplying an army up the existing system was... tough. Also, the peace treaty gives Canada the entire length of the St. Lawrence (no US Ogdensburg to potentially cut traffic). 2) the Québec commercial class is rather more French, (they are less 'them' and more 'us') 3) we have the French Catholic royalists in Upper Canada, and Canadiens (mostly younger sons) flowing west. So, again, it's more 'us' and less 'them'. 4) the canal building really needed coordination between the various bits which, OTL, were in two different provinces/colonies, which didn't like each other that much. Here the two colonies are recently united, and much of the push is federal/viceregal/imperial. The coordination that happens iTTL and not iOTL means that each individual canal is far more useful as part of a system than it would be by itself. This, in turn, means that it's a LOT easier to generate financing (which is a good thing, considering how MUCH funding is needed to do it all at once). [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Another reason that the proto-Seaway was delayed so much iOTL, is that British authorities were very worried about security of communication/supply, and hence backed the non-commercial Rideau canal. This canal allowed shipping to go up the Ottawa River to Bytown (modern Ottawa, named after the engineer in charge of the canal), and then down the Rideau canal to Kingston. Because the canal was meant for military purposes, several decisions were made that rendered the canal less than useful for commercial shipping. To generate adequate water levels, the rivers were dammed and the resultant flooding meant no tow paths were possible. This meant steam tugs were required, but the canal was only 5ft deep, so large tugs weren't possible, nor were ships that could fit through e.g. the Welland canal. Moreover, because the British government spent so much money on this (useless for commercial purposes) canal, they didn't have the money to spend on canals that would be commercially useful, nor could they tap commercial markets to help the canal they did want.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]ITTL, the St. Lawrence is more secure, so the urgency the Brits feel is more for a 'good' canal than a 'secure' one. The Rideau is surveyed, and is eventually built, but it is very much a back-up, and doesn't disrupt the initial construction of the useful canals. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Shipping[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Montréal was Canada's major port, but iOTL it lagged massively behind ports like Boston and New York. It is true that Montréal is only open about half the year, and that careful piloting can be required to get up the St. Lawrence to Montréal, and even then the very largest ships at the time couldn't make it. Still. The main reason that shipping costs were much higher from Montreal to Liverpool than from New York to Liverpool iOTL was that New York captured the trade, so there were more ships, so more commerce, so more ships, in a virtuous cycle. With the BRITISH canals finished first iTTL, the initial effect pushes Montreal, not New York. Also, the US depressed economy doesn't help New York any. Now, New York still is the main port of entry for goods arriving for anywhere in the eastern half of the US, so, even with discrimination against British goods and a damaged US economy, New York is still going to be a major port. It's just that it is A major port iTTL, not THE major port as iOTL. Montréal is well aware of her lacks as a port and there are plans afoot to deal with them. One way to do it is to take the lakers all the way to Québec City, where there is an excellent harbour, which can take the largest vessels. (OK, so that doesn't help Montréal. It does help the transport moguls who expand east, and it certainly helps Canada.) Another is to build rail (once that's possible) to an all year port. (I keep wanting to say 'warm-water' port, but Halifax, Portland, Portsmouth and Boston, the obvious candidates, are none of them particularly 'warm'!). [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Road/early Rail[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Road, even decent road, is hardly competitive with most any water-borne transport (until you get to paved roads and reliable IC engines). Still, short stretches to portage around rapids, and to connect watersheds can strengthen the river/lake/canal connectivity, and strongly increase their reach and effect. Rail, once it is available, is even better at the job, and is viable over rather longer distances. As rail extends and improves (better rail and engines, e.g.), they will take over from most canals, but even in the early days they offer advantages.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The other advantage that road and rail have over water transport is availability in the middle of winter. This, too, will have some importance later. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Network/System[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]One of the important things to remember about a transport system is that it is a SYSTEM. If you have a Welland Canal that can take ocean going ships – but they can't get up the St. Lawrence to Lake Ontario, it's not going to do you much good. If you don't have connections between watersheds (be they canal, road, or rail), you have isolated islands that have to stand or fall on their own (commercially or militarily). If you get to Montréal, and there is no shipping, all the most wonderful improvements in the world inland won't help much.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Similarly, you can grow all the wheat in the world – but if you don't have transport to get it to market, and a market to get it to, it's useless. While, on the other hand, if you have the best transport system in the world, and no goods to carry, it, too, is useless. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Fortunately, a little thought and oversight works wonders. Once the basics are in place, it is worthwhile for people to invest in improvements in any area that is shown to be weak. Then flow increases until some other part comes under strain, and that part is then upgraded. As flows increase and infrastructure improves and economies of scale happen, it all builds on itself and you get a growing virtuous cycle of growth. Better transport means more settlers, who grow more wheat, which means more business for the transport companies, etc. Even politics in England are affected. Cheapish wheat from a secure British source allows manufacturers to build things more cheaply. Factory workers who don't have to spend quite so much on food, can spend more on the manufactured goods those factories produce, boosting demand. Thus manufacturers and shippers and boosters of Imperial Britain, all have common cause to increase Canada's agricultural and transportation systems.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Unfortunately, iOTL, those crucial initial pieces never fell into place. Thus Britain essentially handed the US a gift, a step up on the path to economic superpower.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif](water) transport system[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Canals[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]OTL the building of the Erie canal before the St. Lawrence system cut Montreal's hinterland in half (at best). The St. Lawrence canal system was worked on in fits and starts and in a very uncoordinated manner. Upper Canada wanted the new canals to increase traffic and decrease costs, but, in general, the Québec population was against the canals as they would increase Anglo settlement and the Québecers they did benefit were the Montreal commercial class – which again was mostly Anglo. At this time, Upper and Lower Canada were separate provinces, and while the Upper Canada government was willing (and eager) to improve navigation, funding or guaranteeing funding for the canals on her own territory, it wasn't able to do anything about the canals needed in Lower Canada. In particular, some of those minor canals weren't finished until 1843 (e.g. Beauharnois canal), by which time the Second Welland canal was already being worked on on the Niagara peninsula, and it wasn't until 1848 that a standardized set of locks and canals was available to allow traffic from the upper lakes to Montréal. It may be significant that these dates are AFTER the 1841 Union of Upper and Lower Canada into a single political entity.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Because there is no through shipping earlier than the 1840s, the canals in Upper Canada are not nearly as useful, and the US Erie Canal captures much of the traffic that should have flowed through Canada. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]ITTL, the St. Lawrence system is finished before Erie, and thus it captures the upstate/Ohio market even more thoroughly than it had. Once you have through shipping, the Canadian canals are even cheaper than the Erie. In fact, iOTL, it was cheaper to ship goods from Lake Erie through the Welland canal, over to Oswego and up the Oswego canal (one of the major spurs of the Erie system) to Syracuse, than it was to ship direct from Buffalo along the Erie all the way there. Obviously, for goods travelling to all the way to the Atlantic benefit even more than good going to e.g. New York City. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Why can the St. Lawrence Canal System be finished so much faster than OTL? Several reasons. 1) there is Imperial and Viceregal backing. Canada is more important to the Empire, and the hassles of supplying an army up the existing system was... tough. Also, the peace treaty gives Canada the entire length of the St. Lawrence (no US Ogdensburg to potentially cut traffic). 2) the Québec commercial class is rather more French, (they are less 'them' and more 'us') 3) we have the French Catholic royalists in Upper Canada, and Canadiens (mostly younger sons) flowing west. So, again, it's more 'us' and less 'them'. 4) the canal building really needed coordination between the various bits which, OTL, were in two different provinces/colonies, which didn't like each other that much. Here the two colonies are recently united, and much of the push is federal/viceregal/imperial. The coordination that happens iTTL and not iOTL means that each individual canal is far more useful as part of a system than it would be by itself. This, in turn, means that it's a LOT easier to generate financing (which is a good thing, considering how MUCH funding is needed to do it all at once). [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Another reason that the proto-Seaway was delayed so much iOTL, is that British authorities were very worried about security of communication/supply, and hence backed the non-commercial Rideau canal. This canal allowed shipping to go up the Ottawa River to Bytown (modern Ottawa, named after the engineer in charge of the canal), and then down the Rideau canal to Kingston. Because the canal was meant for military purposes, several decisions were made that rendered the canal less than useful for commercial shipping. To generate adequate water levels, the rivers were dammed and the resultant flooding meant no tow paths were possible. This meant steam tugs were required, but the canal was only 5ft deep, so large tugs weren't possible, nor were ships that could fit through e.g. the Welland canal. Moreover, because the British government spent so much money on this (useless for commercial purposes) canal, they didn't have the money to spend on canals that would be commercially useful, nor could they tap commercial markets to help the canal they did want.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]ITTL, the St. Lawrence is more secure, so the urgency the Brits feel is more for a 'good' canal than a 'secure' one. The Rideau is surveyed, and is eventually built, but it is very much a back-up, and doesn't disrupt the initial construction of the useful canals. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Shipping[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Montréal was Canada's major port, but iOTL it lagged massively behind ports like Boston and New York. It is true that Montréal is only open about half the year, and that careful piloting can be required to get up the St. Lawrence to Montréal, and even then the very largest ships at the time couldn't make it. Still. The main reason that shipping costs were much higher from Montreal to Liverpool than from New York to Liverpool iOTL was that New York captured the trade, so there were more ships, so more commerce, so more ships, in a virtuous cycle. With the BRITISH canals finished first iTTL, the initial effect pushes Montreal, not New York. Also, the US depressed economy doesn't help New York any. Now, New York still is the main port of entry for goods arriving for anywhere in the eastern half of the US, so, even with discrimination against British goods and a damaged US economy, New York is still going to be a major port. It's just that it is A major port iTTL, not THE major port as iOTL. Montréal is well aware of her lacks as a port and there are plans afoot to deal with them. One way to do it is to take the lakers all the way to Québec City, where there is an excellent harbour, which can take the largest vessels. (OK, so that doesn't help Montréal. It does help the transport moguls who expand east, and it certainly helps Canada.) Another is to build rail (once that's possible) to an all year port. (I keep wanting to say 'warm-water' port, but Halifax, Portland, Portsmouth and Boston, the obvious candidates, are none of them particularly 'warm'!). [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Road/early Rail[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Road, even decent road, is hardly competitive with most any water-borne transport (until you get to paved roads and reliable IC engines). Still, short stretches to portage around rapids, and to connect watersheds can strengthen the river/lake/canal connectivity, and strongly increase their reach and effect. Rail, once it is available, is even better at the job, and is viable over rather longer distances. As rail extends and improves (better rail and engines, e.g.), they will take over from most canals, but even in the early days they offer advantages.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The other advantage that road and rail have over water transport is availability in the middle of winter. This, too, will have some importance later. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Network/System[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]One of the important things to remember about a transport system is that it is a SYSTEM. If you have a Welland Canal that can take ocean going ships – but they can't get up the St. Lawrence to Lake Ontario, it's not going to do you much good. If you don't have connections between watersheds (be they canal, road, or rail), you have isolated islands that have to stand or fall on their own (commercially or militarily). If you get to Montréal, and there is no shipping, all the most wonderful improvements in the world inland won't help much.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Similarly, you can grow all the wheat in the world – but if you don't have transport to get it to market, and a market to get it to, it's useless. While, on the other hand, if you have the best transport system in the world, and no goods to carry, it, too, is useless. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Fortunately, a little thought and oversight works wonders. Once the basics are in place, it is worthwhile for people to invest in improvements in any area that is shown to be weak. Then flow increases until some other part comes under strain, and that part is then upgraded. As flows increase and infrastructure improves and economies of scale happen, it all builds on itself and you get a growing virtuous cycle of growth. Better transport means more settlers, who grow more wheat, which means more business for the transport companies, etc. Even politics in England are affected. Cheapish wheat from a secure British source allows manufacturers to build things more cheaply. Factory workers who don't have to spend quite so much on food, can spend more on the manufactured goods those factories produce, boosting demand. Thus manufacturers and shippers and boosters of Imperial Britain, all have common cause to increase Canada's agricultural and transportation systems.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Unfortunately, iOTL, those crucial initial pieces never fell into place. Thus Britain essentially handed the US a gift, a step up on the path to economic superpower.[/FONT]
Canadian Political system
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Canadian Political system[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Each province has its own bicameral legislature, with an Assembly or lower house, and a House of Notables as an upper house. Similarly, the federal Parliament is composed of a House of Commons and a House of Notables.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Lower Houses[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The lower houses act much as you would expect from a modern Parliamentary system. They're even relatively familiar to an American eye. The biggest difference is that there are some multi-member constituencies (common in England at the time), and they are not necessarily territorial (think English University constituencies). So, e.g. the Six Nations in Upper Canada have their own constituency, in which their people can vote, even if they should live elsewhere. Michigan has multiple constituencies for different native nations. [No, I'm not going to go to the effort of figuring out which nations are shoved together with which others, and which are disenfranchised.] Voting qualifications for the ordinary constituencies are regularized, so e.g. any householder who owns 40 acres of cultivated land, or real property worth a certain amount [10£?], other property worth rather more [100£?], or has a certain level of income is eligible to vote, with the same requirements for each province.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Universal manhood suffrage is not even visible in the future. OTOH, it hasn't arrived in the 'democratic' United States yet, and won't for sometime, either. You may note that these provisions bear some distinct resemblance to the provisions that would pass in England in the Reform Bill of 1832, but appear much earlier here. Some of these thoughts are already circulating, the frontier is a place for the common man, and the democratizing influence of the US is right next door, leading to rather more liberal provisions here than in the home country.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]As you would expect, bills, especially money bills, originate in the lower house, and have to pass both, and receive the governor's assent. Moreover, even if a lieutenant-governor assents to a bill, the Viceroy can veto it. More likely, if the Viceroy is doubtful, he might put the bill on hold and send to London for instructions.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Upper Houses[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Britain would have liked to created a close equivalent to a 'House of Lords', but there just aren't many nobility in the Canadas. However, the changes in society do allow for some approximation of it [a rather closer approximation than OTL]. Anyone knighted by the Viceroy for services to the country is automatically eligible to be a member of the provincial Houses of Notables, and anyone who's at least a baronet can be in the federal one, at the beginning. Bishops of the Anglican and Catholic churches are 'Notable', and can sit in both the provincial and federal houses. Chiefs/Sachems of a specified (and negotiated) level of importance are guaranteed a seat. (Probably something like the 6 Nations get a representative each in the Upper Canada house, but only one for the whole League in the Federal house.) In particular, the Confederacy has a block of seats in the Federal house, in addition to the local nations. And prominent members of the community are also invited. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The nations that are still hunter-gatherers don't have any representation initially. Firstly, because they don't have a 'government' that can negotiate deals, secondly because they aren't thought as 'civilized' as Tecumseh's people, thirdly because they did not, as a group, contribute to the war the way Tecumseh's Confederacy or the 6 Nations did, and fourthly because the majority of them are in territories, not provinces. My best guess is that as treaties are specifically signed with various groups, part of the deal will involve some sort of representation.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The Governor (Lieutenant-governor for provinces and Governor-General for Federal) appoints about half the members of the respective houses, at least to start with. This is partly a vestige of the origin of the upper house as the Governor's Council. It is also a way the British can ensure 'loyal' support. The portion appointed drops over time, as the governmental system evolves. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Precisely how the 'prominent members of the community' are invited varies over time and from one jurisdiction to another. Methods can include 1) the governor handing out the appropriate honour (e.g. knighthood), 2) the lower house electing them, 3) some sufficiently influential community electing one, 4) the governor picking someone as one of his appointees, or 5) simply the governor issuing an invitation. (As an example of an 'influential community', at one point the equivalent of the Montréal Chamber of Commerce got to choose their own man for the Québec House of Notables.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]As for clergy, there will be a major problem someday – but for now, Anglican bishops have prestige, the Roman Catholic bishops have the power (with their flock), and both are easily identifiable. Presbyterians, by definition, don't have as authoritative a hierarchy, so they don't have anyone 'equivalent'. And, of course, the native religions 'don't count'. So 'Anglican and Roman Catholic bishops' works now.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Do note that the appointment of Bishops to the upper houses does NOT constitute an 'Established Church' (well, not exactly, anyway). Firstly, because you have two such churches, and secondly because there is no governmental financial support for any church, and thirdly because there are no rules about having to belong to a specific church to hold any government office. On the other hand, Canada (OTL or TTL) has never believed in 'separation of Church and State' in the way that the US does (currently). (Do note, however, that that constitutional guarantee only applies to the US Federal government. Massachusetts, OTL, had an established church until 1833.) Schools are very normally run by one of the churches (here the Presbyterians ARE strongly in the running), for instance. On the third hand, the Dominion of Canada iTTL has a legally entrenched 'freedom of religion' clause that protects anyone's personal belief and practice. Admittedly, this was done largely to reassure Roman Catholics that a Protestant influx would never overwhelm them; Protestants, that the current RC massive majority wouldn't overwhelm them; Presbyterians (and others), that neither of the 'not exactly official' churches would overwhelm them; and the Confederacy, that Christianity wouldn't be forced down their throat. One of those things easy to pass – not because of peace and brotherly love, but because everybody thinks the other guys are out to get them![/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Premiers/Prime Minister[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]They are appointed by the appropriate level of governor, but have to maintain the confidence of the house. As in Britain at the time, if the monarch ('s representative) wants John Smith can do the job, he can appoint John Smith, even if he doesn't have a big following. OTOH, of course, if John Smith can't get his legislation passed, then someone else needs to be appointed. NORMALLY, the obvious choice (leader of the biggest party) is chosen, to avoid gridlock.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Governors[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Governors (the Viceroy, the Governor-general, the various lieutenant governors) are appointed by Britain. In practice, lieutenant-governors are sometimes/even often appointed by the Viceroy, as the man on the spot, especially if there is a sudden vacancy. But at least as often they, too, are appointed by Britain. OTOH, if the Viceroy is sufficiently displeased, he can remove a lieutenant-governor, and most certainly can make his life miserable. So London tries to send people the Viceroy can accept.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Remember that the Viceroy of British North America is usually the same person as the Governor General of Canada, but that doesn't have to be the case.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Governors have rather more power than we're used to. They have perceptible amounts of executive power above and beyond what the Parliament/Legislature has, and they can introduce legislation to be voted on. OTOH, the legislatures hold the purse strings, and over time, the legislatures gain more and more power away from the governors (de facto, if not de jure). But, still the governors hold far more power than modern governors. In particular, if a governor vetoes a piece of legislation, there is no way for the legislature to override it. It can, however, be appealed to the next level – province to Federal, federal to London, for instance.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Canadian Political system[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Each province has its own bicameral legislature, with an Assembly or lower house, and a House of Notables as an upper house. Similarly, the federal Parliament is composed of a House of Commons and a House of Notables.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Lower Houses[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The lower houses act much as you would expect from a modern Parliamentary system. They're even relatively familiar to an American eye. The biggest difference is that there are some multi-member constituencies (common in England at the time), and they are not necessarily territorial (think English University constituencies). So, e.g. the Six Nations in Upper Canada have their own constituency, in which their people can vote, even if they should live elsewhere. Michigan has multiple constituencies for different native nations. [No, I'm not going to go to the effort of figuring out which nations are shoved together with which others, and which are disenfranchised.] Voting qualifications for the ordinary constituencies are regularized, so e.g. any householder who owns 40 acres of cultivated land, or real property worth a certain amount [10£?], other property worth rather more [100£?], or has a certain level of income is eligible to vote, with the same requirements for each province.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Universal manhood suffrage is not even visible in the future. OTOH, it hasn't arrived in the 'democratic' United States yet, and won't for sometime, either. You may note that these provisions bear some distinct resemblance to the provisions that would pass in England in the Reform Bill of 1832, but appear much earlier here. Some of these thoughts are already circulating, the frontier is a place for the common man, and the democratizing influence of the US is right next door, leading to rather more liberal provisions here than in the home country.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]As you would expect, bills, especially money bills, originate in the lower house, and have to pass both, and receive the governor's assent. Moreover, even if a lieutenant-governor assents to a bill, the Viceroy can veto it. More likely, if the Viceroy is doubtful, he might put the bill on hold and send to London for instructions.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Upper Houses[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Britain would have liked to created a close equivalent to a 'House of Lords', but there just aren't many nobility in the Canadas. However, the changes in society do allow for some approximation of it [a rather closer approximation than OTL]. Anyone knighted by the Viceroy for services to the country is automatically eligible to be a member of the provincial Houses of Notables, and anyone who's at least a baronet can be in the federal one, at the beginning. Bishops of the Anglican and Catholic churches are 'Notable', and can sit in both the provincial and federal houses. Chiefs/Sachems of a specified (and negotiated) level of importance are guaranteed a seat. (Probably something like the 6 Nations get a representative each in the Upper Canada house, but only one for the whole League in the Federal house.) In particular, the Confederacy has a block of seats in the Federal house, in addition to the local nations. And prominent members of the community are also invited. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The nations that are still hunter-gatherers don't have any representation initially. Firstly, because they don't have a 'government' that can negotiate deals, secondly because they aren't thought as 'civilized' as Tecumseh's people, thirdly because they did not, as a group, contribute to the war the way Tecumseh's Confederacy or the 6 Nations did, and fourthly because the majority of them are in territories, not provinces. My best guess is that as treaties are specifically signed with various groups, part of the deal will involve some sort of representation.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The Governor (Lieutenant-governor for provinces and Governor-General for Federal) appoints about half the members of the respective houses, at least to start with. This is partly a vestige of the origin of the upper house as the Governor's Council. It is also a way the British can ensure 'loyal' support. The portion appointed drops over time, as the governmental system evolves. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Precisely how the 'prominent members of the community' are invited varies over time and from one jurisdiction to another. Methods can include 1) the governor handing out the appropriate honour (e.g. knighthood), 2) the lower house electing them, 3) some sufficiently influential community electing one, 4) the governor picking someone as one of his appointees, or 5) simply the governor issuing an invitation. (As an example of an 'influential community', at one point the equivalent of the Montréal Chamber of Commerce got to choose their own man for the Québec House of Notables.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]As for clergy, there will be a major problem someday – but for now, Anglican bishops have prestige, the Roman Catholic bishops have the power (with their flock), and both are easily identifiable. Presbyterians, by definition, don't have as authoritative a hierarchy, so they don't have anyone 'equivalent'. And, of course, the native religions 'don't count'. So 'Anglican and Roman Catholic bishops' works now.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Do note that the appointment of Bishops to the upper houses does NOT constitute an 'Established Church' (well, not exactly, anyway). Firstly, because you have two such churches, and secondly because there is no governmental financial support for any church, and thirdly because there are no rules about having to belong to a specific church to hold any government office. On the other hand, Canada (OTL or TTL) has never believed in 'separation of Church and State' in the way that the US does (currently). (Do note, however, that that constitutional guarantee only applies to the US Federal government. Massachusetts, OTL, had an established church until 1833.) Schools are very normally run by one of the churches (here the Presbyterians ARE strongly in the running), for instance. On the third hand, the Dominion of Canada iTTL has a legally entrenched 'freedom of religion' clause that protects anyone's personal belief and practice. Admittedly, this was done largely to reassure Roman Catholics that a Protestant influx would never overwhelm them; Protestants, that the current RC massive majority wouldn't overwhelm them; Presbyterians (and others), that neither of the 'not exactly official' churches would overwhelm them; and the Confederacy, that Christianity wouldn't be forced down their throat. One of those things easy to pass – not because of peace and brotherly love, but because everybody thinks the other guys are out to get them![/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Premiers/Prime Minister[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]They are appointed by the appropriate level of governor, but have to maintain the confidence of the house. As in Britain at the time, if the monarch ('s representative) wants John Smith can do the job, he can appoint John Smith, even if he doesn't have a big following. OTOH, of course, if John Smith can't get his legislation passed, then someone else needs to be appointed. NORMALLY, the obvious choice (leader of the biggest party) is chosen, to avoid gridlock.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Governors[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Governors (the Viceroy, the Governor-general, the various lieutenant governors) are appointed by Britain. In practice, lieutenant-governors are sometimes/even often appointed by the Viceroy, as the man on the spot, especially if there is a sudden vacancy. But at least as often they, too, are appointed by Britain. OTOH, if the Viceroy is sufficiently displeased, he can remove a lieutenant-governor, and most certainly can make his life miserable. So London tries to send people the Viceroy can accept.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Remember that the Viceroy of British North America is usually the same person as the Governor General of Canada, but that doesn't have to be the case.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Governors have rather more power than we're used to. They have perceptible amounts of executive power above and beyond what the Parliament/Legislature has, and they can introduce legislation to be voted on. OTOH, the legislatures hold the purse strings, and over time, the legislatures gain more and more power away from the governors (de facto, if not de jure). But, still the governors hold far more power than modern governors. In particular, if a governor vetoes a piece of legislation, there is no way for the legislature to override it. It can, however, be appealed to the next level – province to Federal, federal to London, for instance.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The Confederacy's linguistic problem
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][See note at the bottom of the page about my assumptions. It's skipable if you wish. What, me a language geek? Never!][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The Confederacy is in an interesting place in many ways. They need to learn enough of whiteman's ways to survive in whiteman's world, which it is obvious this is now, while keeping their own culture. They need to pull together in an organized fashion, and act coherently. Their Council is the first step – but even that poses problems. The Confederacy is a grouping of several nations – Shawnee, Potawatomie, Miami, Kickapoo, Ottawa, Sauk, etc. If they hold council, how do they talk to each other? They don't all share any single common language. They could all learn English – many of them speak it, to some extent, already – but not all of them do. Especially some of the western bands learned French as their European language to speak to traders, not English. Again, while the various groups honour and admire Tecumseh, and in a different way his late brother, Tenkswatawa, they don't particularly with to replace American domination by Shawnee. Fortunately, most of the nations speak languages in the southern Algonquian language group, and those that don't, have a neighbouring group or two who do belong. While the languages differ significantly, if you know a couple or three, understanding a 4th is possible if everybody speaks slowly and avoids idioms that are unique to their own language. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]What emerges is a clumsy solution, but one which works for now. Each speaker/chief in the Council has an multilingual aide to help, if necessary. Each speaker speaks in the language of his choice. The aide repeats the speech in a commonish language. If the chief doesn't understand another chief's 'commonish' version, his aide then whispers a translation into his ear. In practice, the aide renders the speech in either Shawnee (or the simplified version of it developing) or in Potawatomi, which two languages MOST people in the group can make out. Any Hochunk/Winnebagos (Siouans) or Wyandot/Huron/Wendat (Iroquoian) simply have to learn Shawnee (or the simplified form developed therefrom).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]All decisions of the council are recorded in multiple languages – French and English for reports to the Viceroy; Shawnee, because, well, that's Tecumseh's nation, and the core on which the Confederacy was founded; and at least one other language – usually the language of the person who proposed the idea (if different from Shawnee, otherwise in Potawatomi). In actual conversation, in the council and as members (and others) travel around the Confederacy (teaching, learning, serving in the border forts, whatever), there develops an informal simplified (not quite pidginized) 'Confederate' language, with common denominator grammar and vocabulary, based largely on Shawnee, but with usages from all the other languages of the Confederacy. (People being people, the profanity is borrowed from ALL the languages, including things like Cherokee which have very little currency in the Confederacy. As one wag pointed out, the Indians have a lot to swear at these days.) After a couple of years, as the pidgin starts to be established, the Council appoints several elders from the various nations to formalize it. The new language is called Wancioyatomowin[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, sans-serif][1][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]. (The speech of the one people.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Once the language is regularized, then all speeches in the Council are given (either by the chief or his aide) in the new language. And that language replaces Shawnee in the recording of decisions. Part of the process of formalizing the new language involves establishing an orthography (standardized spelling) for the language.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Making a record of the decisions in the early days is a task in and of itself. None of these languages yet has a written form. Initial records are made by the clerk spelling the languages however he felt, which leads to occasional misunderstandings. Once Wancioyatomowin has a standard orthography, most of the other languages borrow it, with appropriate modifications. (Kickapoo tones are a pain.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]St. Matthew's Gospel is translated into Wancioyatomowin in 1832[/FONT], with the rest of the Gospels, followed by the New Testament, followed by the whole Bible being translated and printed over the coming decades.
–
1 Yes this is a nod to "British Imperialism of the 19th century", but what the hey.
--
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Note: the dilemma that the Confederacy faces here is somewhat similar to what India faced when she gained independence after WWII. While they didn't want to speak English, and while Hindi (or at least Hindi+Urdu) was an overwhelming plurality, it was viewed with even more suspicion by e.g. Bengalis in the east or the Dravidians in the south. The solution to the problem is rather different, though. The solution is vaguely like the British Army use of “Hindustani”, essentially a refusal to accept that Hindi and Urdu are two different languages. <grin> But the resulting language is more simplified than that.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Note: The Algonquian languages are close enough that “Big River” is “Misi-sipi” from northern Saskatchewan to the Ottawa River to Illinois, with variants like “Michi-” for the first bit. “Wapiti(yi)” means white tail in Saskatchewan Cree and in Shawnee. Of course, one is a big deer and the other a rabbit.... And note that Cree is northern while Shawnee is southern, so the differences are smaller within the Confederacy. However, in the future, the simplified creole that develops will be relatively easy to learn anywhere an Algonquian language is spoken.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Large note explaining my reasoning for this post.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Some of this is rather speculative, as I can't find much on the Web about the degree of mutual intelligibility of the various Algonquian languages in the area. Sauk/Fox and Kickapoo are closely related, Shawnee seems to be close. Ottawa is often considered a dialect of Ojibwa, and Potawatomi is related to those two. Now. The fact is that Tecumseh and Tenkswatawa were great speakers and very convincing to the various nations that they gathered into the Confederacy, so they were obviously understandable by many. This may be because Tecumseh was an incredible linguist, and it is obvious that he spoke English, Shawnee and Cherokee fluently, so that is a possibility. However, the settlement at Prophetstown, was composed of people of several different nations. And when the Prophet (Tenkswatawa) orated at them, there is certainly not indication he stopped and repeated himself in several languages.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]It is a fact, too, that masses of Indian warriors banded together in the War of 1812, and information was passed to various war bands of different nations. The settlement at Prophetstown, too, was composed of people of several different nations. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]And I simply can't believe that the inter-nation conversions happened in English. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]On the other hand, I have heard a Slovak and a Pole having a perfectly ordinary conversation, each speaking his own language; a Romanian girl I knew claimed Italian was perfectly comprehensible to her; and my Russian professor way back when claimed that a Ukrainian and a Russian peasant could discuss farming easily. So... I am postulating that, at least the southern Algonquian languages are reasonably mutually intelligible if the speaker avoids specific wierdnesses of his own language, and the listener gets exposure to several other tongues in the area. And that a simplified, boiled down version is possible. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]http://www.native-languages.org/famalg.htm[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]lists all the languages of interest as “Central Algonquian”.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Note: The orthography is in Roman letters, even if it perhaps shouldn't be. While Sequoyah came up with HIS syllabary in 1827, it was specifically invented for Cherokee (Tsalagi), and probably isn't any more appropriate for Shawnee and company than the Latin alphabet. James Evans (in OTL Manitoba) has invented a syllabary (used, with modifications, all over Canada) for Ojibwa in 1830s – but that is too late for the Confederacy's use. People are already writing down the language as best they can, and the records keeping purpose suggests switching horses in mid stream is a bad idea.[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][See note at the bottom of the page about my assumptions. It's skipable if you wish. What, me a language geek? Never!
][/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The Confederacy is in an interesting place in many ways. They need to learn enough of whiteman's ways to survive in whiteman's world, which it is obvious this is now, while keeping their own culture. They need to pull together in an organized fashion, and act coherently. Their Council is the first step – but even that poses problems. The Confederacy is a grouping of several nations – Shawnee, Potawatomie, Miami, Kickapoo, Ottawa, Sauk, etc. If they hold council, how do they talk to each other? They don't all share any single common language. They could all learn English – many of them speak it, to some extent, already – but not all of them do. Especially some of the western bands learned French as their European language to speak to traders, not English. Again, while the various groups honour and admire Tecumseh, and in a different way his late brother, Tenkswatawa, they don't particularly with to replace American domination by Shawnee. Fortunately, most of the nations speak languages in the southern Algonquian language group, and those that don't, have a neighbouring group or two who do belong. While the languages differ significantly, if you know a couple or three, understanding a 4th is possible if everybody speaks slowly and avoids idioms that are unique to their own language. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]What emerges is a clumsy solution, but one which works for now. Each speaker/chief in the Council has an multilingual aide to help, if necessary. Each speaker speaks in the language of his choice. The aide repeats the speech in a commonish language. If the chief doesn't understand another chief's 'commonish' version, his aide then whispers a translation into his ear. In practice, the aide renders the speech in either Shawnee (or the simplified version of it developing) or in Potawatomi, which two languages MOST people in the group can make out. Any Hochunk/Winnebagos (Siouans) or Wyandot/Huron/Wendat (Iroquoian) simply have to learn Shawnee (or the simplified form developed therefrom).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]All decisions of the council are recorded in multiple languages – French and English for reports to the Viceroy; Shawnee, because, well, that's Tecumseh's nation, and the core on which the Confederacy was founded; and at least one other language – usually the language of the person who proposed the idea (if different from Shawnee, otherwise in Potawatomi). In actual conversation, in the council and as members (and others) travel around the Confederacy (teaching, learning, serving in the border forts, whatever), there develops an informal simplified (not quite pidginized) 'Confederate' language, with common denominator grammar and vocabulary, based largely on Shawnee, but with usages from all the other languages of the Confederacy. (People being people, the profanity is borrowed from ALL the languages, including things like Cherokee which have very little currency in the Confederacy. As one wag pointed out, the Indians have a lot to swear at these days.) After a couple of years, as the pidgin starts to be established, the Council appoints several elders from the various nations to formalize it. The new language is called Wancioyatomowin[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, sans-serif][1][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]. (The speech of the one people.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Once the language is regularized, then all speeches in the Council are given (either by the chief or his aide) in the new language. And that language replaces Shawnee in the recording of decisions. Part of the process of formalizing the new language involves establishing an orthography (standardized spelling) for the language.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Making a record of the decisions in the early days is a task in and of itself. None of these languages yet has a written form. Initial records are made by the clerk spelling the languages however he felt, which leads to occasional misunderstandings. Once Wancioyatomowin has a standard orthography, most of the other languages borrow it, with appropriate modifications. (Kickapoo tones are a pain.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]St. Matthew's Gospel is translated into Wancioyatomowin in 1832[/FONT], with the rest of the Gospels, followed by the New Testament, followed by the whole Bible being translated and printed over the coming decades.
–
1 Yes this is a nod to "British Imperialism of the 19th century", but what the hey.
--
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Note: the dilemma that the Confederacy faces here is somewhat similar to what India faced when she gained independence after WWII. While they didn't want to speak English, and while Hindi (or at least Hindi+Urdu) was an overwhelming plurality, it was viewed with even more suspicion by e.g. Bengalis in the east or the Dravidians in the south. The solution to the problem is rather different, though. The solution is vaguely like the British Army use of “Hindustani”, essentially a refusal to accept that Hindi and Urdu are two different languages. <grin> But the resulting language is more simplified than that.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Note: The Algonquian languages are close enough that “Big River” is “Misi-sipi” from northern Saskatchewan to the Ottawa River to Illinois, with variants like “Michi-” for the first bit. “Wapiti(yi)” means white tail in Saskatchewan Cree and in Shawnee. Of course, one is a big deer and the other a rabbit.... And note that Cree is northern while Shawnee is southern, so the differences are smaller within the Confederacy. However, in the future, the simplified creole that develops will be relatively easy to learn anywhere an Algonquian language is spoken.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Large note explaining my reasoning for this post.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Some of this is rather speculative, as I can't find much on the Web about the degree of mutual intelligibility of the various Algonquian languages in the area. Sauk/Fox and Kickapoo are closely related, Shawnee seems to be close. Ottawa is often considered a dialect of Ojibwa, and Potawatomi is related to those two. Now. The fact is that Tecumseh and Tenkswatawa were great speakers and very convincing to the various nations that they gathered into the Confederacy, so they were obviously understandable by many. This may be because Tecumseh was an incredible linguist, and it is obvious that he spoke English, Shawnee and Cherokee fluently, so that is a possibility. However, the settlement at Prophetstown, was composed of people of several different nations. And when the Prophet (Tenkswatawa) orated at them, there is certainly not indication he stopped and repeated himself in several languages.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]It is a fact, too, that masses of Indian warriors banded together in the War of 1812, and information was passed to various war bands of different nations. The settlement at Prophetstown, too, was composed of people of several different nations. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]And I simply can't believe that the inter-nation conversions happened in English. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]On the other hand, I have heard a Slovak and a Pole having a perfectly ordinary conversation, each speaking his own language; a Romanian girl I knew claimed Italian was perfectly comprehensible to her; and my Russian professor way back when claimed that a Ukrainian and a Russian peasant could discuss farming easily. So... I am postulating that, at least the southern Algonquian languages are reasonably mutually intelligible if the speaker avoids specific wierdnesses of his own language, and the listener gets exposure to several other tongues in the area. And that a simplified, boiled down version is possible. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]http://www.native-languages.org/famalg.htm[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]lists all the languages of interest as “Central Algonquian”.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Note: The orthography is in Roman letters, even if it perhaps shouldn't be. While Sequoyah came up with HIS syllabary in 1827, it was specifically invented for Cherokee (Tsalagi), and probably isn't any more appropriate for Shawnee and company than the Latin alphabet. James Evans (in OTL Manitoba) has invented a syllabary (used, with modifications, all over Canada) for Ojibwa in 1830s – but that is too late for the Confederacy's use. People are already writing down the language as best they can, and the records keeping purpose suggests switching horses in mid stream is a bad idea.[/FONT]
You could have James Evans invent syllabics earlier than in OTL if he arrives in the area earlier. Originally, he wanted to do a Roman orthography for Ojibwe, but that proved to be too cumbersome so he abandoned it - so syllabics were originally invented for Cree. If he invented syllabics for Ojibwe (and earlier - say, he arives in the 1820s instead of the 1830s), that could be interesting to see the results.
Plus, I don't know if the Algonquinian languages were that mutually intelligible (a native Míkmaq speaker and a native Cree speaker might find it very difficult to communicate, for example) - but hey, I guess your idea could work.
Plus, I don't know if the Algonquinian languages were that mutually intelligible (a native Míkmaq speaker and a native Cree speaker might find it very difficult to communicate, for example) - but hey, I guess your idea could work.
1)
I read that as him having produced it for Ojibwa first, but it apparently didn't catch on until later.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cree_syllabics#History said:
2) Cherokee syllabics were only invented in 1827, so we can't push it back much further
3) you notice that all the people who use Evans' syllabic system are well north of the Confederacy.
It would be cool to do something like syllabics, but I don't think it works in this time frame.
As for mutual intelligibility - 1) what was the Prophet haranguing people in?
2) Mikmaq (wherever the apostrophe goes) is Eastern Algonquian, all the languages that Tecumseh is dealing with are Central. Also, I'm assuming that Ottawa/Potawatomi/Ojibwa have aides to deal with the 'Shawnee' the simplified version thereof. The simplified version is going to be easier to learn, too, than the full version.
3) I'm not sure at all, either, but what else do we do? Make them learn English? The Confederacy is going to fight very hard to avoid that. Make them all learn pure Shawnee? That's better than nothing, but not great.
That was because his system for Ojibwe used the Latin alphabet in a complex and extremely complicated manner, so much so that it would have taken forever to be literate in Ojibwe. His system for Cree, by contrast, was much simpler. If something like the Cree syllabics was invented for Ojibwe at that time instead of his extremely complicated Latin alphabet-based syllabary, that would've made a huge difference.
Well, it would be worth a try - you could even go all fancy and try that plus characters from the syllabics for Na-Dené.
True, but what did the Brotherstown people preach in in OTL? In English.
(and by the way, the official Míkmaq uses an acute accent, not an apostrophe - the apostrophe was a work-around for those systems that didn't have it.)
Other than that, I understand the problem - it's like dealing with the Turkic languages, where if you go in a line from Turkey to Siberia you'd could understand each language as they go along ("chains of dialects", as I once read), but at the extremes a Siberian would have a hard time having a conversation with a native Turkish-speaker.
I get your point.
- Status