Canada Wank (YACW)
- Thread starter Dathi THorfinnsson
- Start date
- Status
Catherine of Braganza predates the Act of Settlement disucssed upthread though and is therefore not a good precedent. There is no question but that Antonia would have to convert for William to inherit.
Who there is a lot of discussion this conversion! It'd probably still generate contraversy today, not because people have soemthing against the catholics, but because the royal family tremendious prerequistes are based on them putting the nation before themselves.
Also if he's packed off somewhere a Duke of Louisiana is more likily IMO - he's pissed off enough people in the political establishment that they're not going to give him a royal dignity, and Louisiana is closer to Britain in communication turnaround, and could do with some stronger formal claims against the enroaching Americans.
Also if he's packed off somewhere a Duke of Louisiana is more likily IMO - he's pissed off enough people in the political establishment that they're not going to give him a royal dignity, and Louisiana is closer to Britain in communication turnaround, and could do with some stronger formal claims against the enroaching Americans.
I hate to be a party pooper, especially in my first post on this timeline (that took me the whole weekend to read from start to finish) but wouldn't a political match between the PoW and a Catholic princess be out of the question in the first place? Even if it wasn't officially prohibited providing she converts, the British surely won't be happy with the idea.
Now, a completely different issue, what did happen in Europe after the Napoleonic wars? It isn't exactly clear if Prussia got the Southern Netherlands or not f.e. (BTW, I am from Belgium) Also, if they did, would they manage to keep it?
Now, a completely different issue, what did happen in Europe after the Napoleonic wars? It isn't exactly clear if Prussia got the Southern Netherlands or not f.e. (BTW, I am from Belgium) Also, if they did, would they manage to keep it?
Lots of princes/esses married someone across the faith lines, as long as the imported one converted. It's not terribly common, but it certainly did happen. In this case, Portugal is Britain's biggest continental ally, and marriages to cement alliances are the prime cause of that kind of marriage.
Of course, most of princes/princesses bowed to the will of expediency, and followed the politically prescribed religious practices (at least in public) and relatively behaved themselves (that way at least). As for an actual Protestant monarch converting, you've got Queen Christina of Sweden, although that's ~1650.
Edit: thanks for the input and welcome to the TL!
I know, but I don't think the English/British ever did such a thing OTL, which might mean they would have more issues with it, or did they?
BTW, what I forgot to say in my previous post: Great TL, keep going!
Well, they did, sort of. Catherine of Braganza (Charles II?) was mentioned, Henrietta Marie (French, married Charles I).I know, but I don't think the English/British ever did such a thing OTL, which might mean they would have more issues with it, or did they?
BTW, what I forgot to say in my previous post: Great TL, keep going!
Both were disasters. Many of the Stuart kings' grasp on Anglicanism was pretty feeble, anyway.
It was a slightly chancy political arrangement that the negotiators obviously were worried about far more than I was when I came up with the scheme
)), but it apparently seemed worthwhile. It just blew up in their faces - in a way they didn't even see coming. No doubt they had contingencies for if Antonia's behaviour....Whatever happens, and that hasn't been finally decided yet, William and any possible progeny will NOT be monarchs of Britain.
William ROUGH DRAFT
What follows is a ROUGH DRAFT of the consequences of William's decision.
May I please have feedback. RPW@CY, are you there?
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]William's conversion, proposal[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In 1839 (or so) announces to his mom what he's planning. She's horrified. She tries to talk him out of it. She gets his dad to try to talk him out of it. Then the PM. The Archbishop (Canterbury). The Portuguese Ambassador (who is horrified, as it is the first HE's heard of it, too). Dr. Thomas Griffiths (Vicar Apostolic for London) who communicates hurriedly with Rome, and then joins the chorus … Note sent to Antonia in Portugal. She is initially thrilled and proud, but her father 'talks' to her, and she realizes the impossibility of the situation. She writes William, and adds her voice. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Griffiths message to him is on the general order of “Converting is the right thing for you as a person to do, but it will set back the cause of Catholicism in Britain, and is a political disaster. God knows what you believe, can't you let that be enough? Think of the advantages of having a Catholic friendly king on the throne.” (The Ambassador's and Antonia's are similar, with different emphases.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]William holds firm.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Some politicians want to shut him up in an asylum or a deep dungeon and keep him from so much as talking with anyone. Others point out that the story would eventually get out and make him a martyr. Moreover, the Queen won't put up with it.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In the interim, they get William to agree to be quiet and appoint him to the Quartermaster General's staff, tallying up barrels of salt beef sent to point X and numbers of rifles sent to point Y. Once he has learned some of the basics, he is shipped off to Canada in the spring of 1840, appointed a deputy assistant quartermaster, and made to deal with the logistics of the increasing military state in Canada.[1] It is made clear to his boss that at least during office hours and for business purposes, William is to be addressed as “William Renfrew”, (Lord or Baron Renfrew if seems appropriate), using one of his minor titles. While there are occasions when he may need to put on his “Prince of Wales” hat, it is also suggested to William that keeping semi-incognito, and being low profile will help his cause.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The wedding with Antonia (details of which are being negotiated, but no formal date set) is put on hold. The Portuguese government sends Antonia to a convent (not as a nun, but as a lay sister or “for an extended period of prayer of the people of the Kingdom” or some such). [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The plan is that this grunt work and living as 'mere baron', or merely the passage of time, might make him reconsider his conversion plans. Failing that, they plan to 1) remove him from the Line of Succession, 2) strip him of all royal titles (no longer HRH, for instance – Victoria's legislation that the Edward VIII had to skirt was not yet in place), 3) strip him of all but one of his secondary titles (such as Duke of Cornwall, Earl of Chester, etc.), leaving him only Baron Renfrew in the British Lords; and 4) raise him to the status Duke of Montreal (in a CANADIAN peerage, at the same level as Irish peers). Depending on his behaviour, and how his conversion was taken, he might 5) then serve a term as Lt. Gov. of (province of) Quebec. Again, if his behaviour is reasonable, and if Antonia and the Portuguese government are still interested, she can be sent out to marry him in Canada.[/FONT]
Note: he is going to stick to his course.
–
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]1 Note: can't send him to Sandhurst or Britannia College (which isn't in Dartmouth yet), as those are for young teenagers. He may have already been there, anyway?[/FONT]
What follows is a ROUGH DRAFT of the consequences of William's decision.
May I please have feedback. RPW@CY, are you there?
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]William's conversion, proposal[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In 1839 (or so) announces to his mom what he's planning. She's horrified. She tries to talk him out of it. She gets his dad to try to talk him out of it. Then the PM. The Archbishop (Canterbury). The Portuguese Ambassador (who is horrified, as it is the first HE's heard of it, too). Dr. Thomas Griffiths (Vicar Apostolic for London) who communicates hurriedly with Rome, and then joins the chorus … Note sent to Antonia in Portugal. She is initially thrilled and proud, but her father 'talks' to her, and she realizes the impossibility of the situation. She writes William, and adds her voice. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Griffiths message to him is on the general order of “Converting is the right thing for you as a person to do, but it will set back the cause of Catholicism in Britain, and is a political disaster. God knows what you believe, can't you let that be enough? Think of the advantages of having a Catholic friendly king on the throne.” (The Ambassador's and Antonia's are similar, with different emphases.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]William holds firm.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Some politicians want to shut him up in an asylum or a deep dungeon and keep him from so much as talking with anyone. Others point out that the story would eventually get out and make him a martyr. Moreover, the Queen won't put up with it.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In the interim, they get William to agree to be quiet and appoint him to the Quartermaster General's staff, tallying up barrels of salt beef sent to point X and numbers of rifles sent to point Y. Once he has learned some of the basics, he is shipped off to Canada in the spring of 1840, appointed a deputy assistant quartermaster, and made to deal with the logistics of the increasing military state in Canada.[1] It is made clear to his boss that at least during office hours and for business purposes, William is to be addressed as “William Renfrew”, (Lord or Baron Renfrew if seems appropriate), using one of his minor titles. While there are occasions when he may need to put on his “Prince of Wales” hat, it is also suggested to William that keeping semi-incognito, and being low profile will help his cause.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The wedding with Antonia (details of which are being negotiated, but no formal date set) is put on hold. The Portuguese government sends Antonia to a convent (not as a nun, but as a lay sister or “for an extended period of prayer of the people of the Kingdom” or some such). [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The plan is that this grunt work and living as 'mere baron', or merely the passage of time, might make him reconsider his conversion plans. Failing that, they plan to 1) remove him from the Line of Succession, 2) strip him of all royal titles (no longer HRH, for instance – Victoria's legislation that the Edward VIII had to skirt was not yet in place), 3) strip him of all but one of his secondary titles (such as Duke of Cornwall, Earl of Chester, etc.), leaving him only Baron Renfrew in the British Lords; and 4) raise him to the status Duke of Montreal (in a CANADIAN peerage, at the same level as Irish peers). Depending on his behaviour, and how his conversion was taken, he might 5) then serve a term as Lt. Gov. of (province of) Quebec. Again, if his behaviour is reasonable, and if Antonia and the Portuguese government are still interested, she can be sent out to marry him in Canada.[/FONT]
Note: he is going to stick to his course.
–
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]1 Note: can't send him to Sandhurst or Britannia College (which isn't in Dartmouth yet), as those are for young teenagers. He may have already been there, anyway?[/FONT]
Dathi
Sounds like a reasonably likely reaction of all the authorities involved to William's decision. The down side of it is how are they going to explain his exile, especially as the months turn into years? Going to be obvious that he's made himself very unpopular with the establishment about something. Admittedly their thinking he will change his mind in a short period but even if their assuming that there will be some concern about the sudden change even if its only for a short period.
Just had this thought. If he disappears off to the wilds of Canada [as it will be viewed in Britain] at a point when there is probably at least rumours about a marriage being arranged, then compounds it by staying there for years then people will start jumping to conclusions. Can see some starting to think that he has some dirty secret and hence has been exiled to keep him at a safe distance. I.e. that he might be gay, have some secret lover he's refusing to give up, has been found to performing unnatural acts with animals or something. If reports of those rumours get back to William he's likely to get mad and come out with his side of the story. Depending on the circumstances just about anything could happen then.
Steve
Sounds like a reasonably likely reaction of all the authorities involved to William's decision. The down side of it is how are they going to explain his exile, especially as the months turn into years? Going to be obvious that he's made himself very unpopular with the establishment about something. Admittedly their thinking he will change his mind in a short period but even if their assuming that there will be some concern about the sudden change even if its only for a short period.
Just had this thought. If he disappears off to the wilds of Canada [as it will be viewed in Britain] at a point when there is probably at least rumours about a marriage being arranged, then compounds it by staying there for years then people will start jumping to conclusions. Can see some starting to think that he has some dirty secret and hence has been exiled to keep him at a safe distance. I.e. that he might be gay, have some secret lover he's refusing to give up, has been found to performing unnatural acts with animals or something.
If reports of those rumours get back to William he's likely to get mad and come out with his side of the story. Depending on the circumstances just about anything could happen then.Steve
My guess is that the first year, he is just doing 'royal' service in the army, although it may be obvious that someone is unhappy with him. Rumours will come out, and people will start guessing, and there will be protests, no doubt. But the government probably gets at least a year when plausible deniability works well. Given that the government can then leak confidentially 'we're really hoping the foolish boy comes to his senses', that might give them some more time.Dathi
Sounds like a reasonably likely reaction of all the authorities involved to William's decision. The down side of it is how are they going to explain his exile, especially as the months turn into years? Going to be obvious that he's made himself very unpopular with the establishment about something. Admittedly their thinking he will change his mind in a short period but even if their assuming that there will be some concern about the sudden change even if its only for a short period.
Just had this thought. If he disappears off to the wilds of Canada [as it will be viewed in Britain] at a point when there is probably at least rumours about a marriage being arranged, then compounds it by staying there for years then people will start jumping to conclusions. Can see some starting to think that he has some dirty secret and hence has been exiled to keep him at a safe distance. I.e. that he might be gay, have some secret lover he's refusing to give up, has been found to performing unnatural acts with animals or something.
Steve
By the time he actually announces his conversion, he'll have been off in Canada being 'punished' for a while, and he's going to stay there. Given the stuff that's about to hit the fan, there may be other things to worry about.
I think all that may keep the unrest manageable. I hope.Naval/maritime matters
Here's today's post. The other was just a draft, for advise.
Naval/maritime matters
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]US shipbuilding in the last decade.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]When New England split off from the United States, it took about half of the US commercial shipping and even more of the maritime focus with her. Certainly, there were shipping lines based out of New York, Philadelphia and even Virginia, and there were several ship yards in those places. However, much of the capital originated in New England (and Britain), and many of the markets were British, too. With the incredibly bad relations in the first years after the war, the remaining US shipping firms had problems finding routes and markets on which they could make money. Remember, too, that the entire Gulf Coast (including Louisiana) is in enemy hands, so there is no US shipping out of e.g. New Orleans. While many of the existing shippers and ships managed to keep going, with smaller profit, or under new ownership when the original owners went bankrupt, there was little demand for NEW ships. This, in turn, caused some of the existing ship yards to go under, and the remaining ones to let go of many of their skilled workers. With the new commercial treaty with Britain in 1819, things get better, but the US never regains the markets she had before, the slack being taken by Britain, New England, and other shipping nations.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Then in the 1830s, with the treaties that lead up to the formation of the Neo-Delian league, the US finds her ships are having to pay extra port duties and export surtaxes any time they use a British port, then a British or New England port, then a British, New England or Portuguese port, then... And trade falls off, again. Meanwhile, shipbuilders in New England and the Maritimes are booming, and hiring any laid off US shipyard worker who wants to move north. Other laid off US shipyard workers change industries or move west to farm.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]During the Federalist years of Monroe, the navy does keep building a few new ships, but starting under Clinton (when funding for Federal projects gets tight), and increasingly under the Democrats, naval building dries up and even that source of income for the yards goes away.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]US Naval moves[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Calhoun's sabre rattling initially has little effect except to ratchet tensions up. The US is not prepared to take anyone on at this point, and they know it and their opponents know it. In 1838, a US mission goes to France to buy some Paixhans cannon, and to buy a licence to make their own. While France hasn't done very much with the design since Paixhans' tests over a decade before, they dust off the designs and cast a set of 10 for the US, to be delivered starting in 1839. It also occurs to them that if this upstart colonial nation is going to use these guns, maybe they'd better make some for themselves. Thus the next (larger) run of guns is for the French navy, and they don't have much spare capacity for a second run for the US until that run is done, by which time Britain applies pressure on France to back off on supplying the US. However, before that the French also made copies of the designs and licensed them to the US. It takes a while to get the cannon into production in the US, as the US navy has been fairly much wound down in the preceding years, and (naval) cannon production had slowed to a trickle. While there were army cannon being cast during the inter-war years, they were rather smaller and used different facilities. The rather different shape of the Paixhans guns (MUCH thicker at the base – Coke bottle shape) meant that old casting methods had to be tweaked to make a usable cannon, and that took time.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Moreover, there hasn't been a large warship produced in the last decade. So new ships to put them on are a problem, too. One could simply put them in the existing warships, and that did happen, but that was suboptimal. In late 1839, four of the first batch of Paixhans guns are put on the USS United States (one of the 44 gun superfrigates from the last war), and tests are made. The next guns are placed in Fort McHenry and tested as coastal defence guns.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]To take better advantage of the new guns, Calhoun gets Congress to order the construction of the Fulton II (basically a copy of Fulton's original Demologos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demologos) in 1839. With a reduced shipbuilding capacity and lack of wartime urgency, the ship isn't ready until 1841, by which time 4 more sister ships have been ordered, and a supply of lighter sloops and brigs. So, the remaining ship yards have orders for new ships, and they start hiring again, but mostly have to train new workers from scratch, as the old, skilled workers that had been laid off years ago have gone elsewhere. Congress also orders 4 sidewheeler steam frigates to be built. It seems clear that the advantage of (at least part time) steam in making the weather gauge irrelevant in battle outweighs the disadvantages, at least for the US.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Similarly, cannon makers find that the orders for new guns for new ships and fortifications is rather more than what they can actually make. Some old foundries are taken out of mothballs, but again numbers of skilled workers that the industry used to have are gone. So the US has to try to massively increase production with less skilled labour. Even general iron founding skills are down, with the availability of cheap British iron, and the lack of a Federal subsidy during the Democrat years.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]British naval reaction[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The British react to the American moves. Now, they haven't been actually equipping their ships with such guns, because they know that that this will obsolete their existing fleet, and don't want to do anything that would cause other navies to use them. Fortunately, the Royal Ordnance have been working with designs and casting a few experimental pieces, since it did seem likely that someday they'd need them. With worsening relations with the US, the RN decides that 'someday' has arrived, and they need to start production and deployment, and do it NOW. One result is that once production starts, the US will have only the 8” gun (France's original design), and a not fully optimized casting process, whereas the British will have several sizes of guns and will know how to put them into full production much more quickly. While the US licensed France's Paixhans gun, the British developed their own, similar design, that was not actually called a 'Paixhans'. [However, for the sake of simplicity, I will refer to both designs as Paixhans.][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]British reactions to the development of steamships has partly been posted already, and more will come later.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Note that while the US will be struggling to make ~100 guns over the next couple of years, Britain's vastly larger industry – and faster ramp up time – mean that Britain will have ~1000. Not as many as she'd like, no doubt, but far, far more than the US.[/FONT]
Here's today's post. The other was just a draft, for advise.
Naval/maritime matters
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]US shipbuilding in the last decade.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]When New England split off from the United States, it took about half of the US commercial shipping and even more of the maritime focus with her. Certainly, there were shipping lines based out of New York, Philadelphia and even Virginia, and there were several ship yards in those places. However, much of the capital originated in New England (and Britain), and many of the markets were British, too. With the incredibly bad relations in the first years after the war, the remaining US shipping firms had problems finding routes and markets on which they could make money. Remember, too, that the entire Gulf Coast (including Louisiana) is in enemy hands, so there is no US shipping out of e.g. New Orleans. While many of the existing shippers and ships managed to keep going, with smaller profit, or under new ownership when the original owners went bankrupt, there was little demand for NEW ships. This, in turn, caused some of the existing ship yards to go under, and the remaining ones to let go of many of their skilled workers. With the new commercial treaty with Britain in 1819, things get better, but the US never regains the markets she had before, the slack being taken by Britain, New England, and other shipping nations.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Then in the 1830s, with the treaties that lead up to the formation of the Neo-Delian league, the US finds her ships are having to pay extra port duties and export surtaxes any time they use a British port, then a British or New England port, then a British, New England or Portuguese port, then... And trade falls off, again. Meanwhile, shipbuilders in New England and the Maritimes are booming, and hiring any laid off US shipyard worker who wants to move north. Other laid off US shipyard workers change industries or move west to farm.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]During the Federalist years of Monroe, the navy does keep building a few new ships, but starting under Clinton (when funding for Federal projects gets tight), and increasingly under the Democrats, naval building dries up and even that source of income for the yards goes away.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]US Naval moves[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Calhoun's sabre rattling initially has little effect except to ratchet tensions up. The US is not prepared to take anyone on at this point, and they know it and their opponents know it. In 1838, a US mission goes to France to buy some Paixhans cannon, and to buy a licence to make their own. While France hasn't done very much with the design since Paixhans' tests over a decade before, they dust off the designs and cast a set of 10 for the US, to be delivered starting in 1839. It also occurs to them that if this upstart colonial nation is going to use these guns, maybe they'd better make some for themselves. Thus the next (larger) run of guns is for the French navy, and they don't have much spare capacity for a second run for the US until that run is done, by which time Britain applies pressure on France to back off on supplying the US. However, before that the French also made copies of the designs and licensed them to the US. It takes a while to get the cannon into production in the US, as the US navy has been fairly much wound down in the preceding years, and (naval) cannon production had slowed to a trickle. While there were army cannon being cast during the inter-war years, they were rather smaller and used different facilities. The rather different shape of the Paixhans guns (MUCH thicker at the base – Coke bottle shape) meant that old casting methods had to be tweaked to make a usable cannon, and that took time.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Moreover, there hasn't been a large warship produced in the last decade. So new ships to put them on are a problem, too. One could simply put them in the existing warships, and that did happen, but that was suboptimal. In late 1839, four of the first batch of Paixhans guns are put on the USS United States (one of the 44 gun superfrigates from the last war), and tests are made. The next guns are placed in Fort McHenry and tested as coastal defence guns.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]To take better advantage of the new guns, Calhoun gets Congress to order the construction of the Fulton II (basically a copy of Fulton's original Demologos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demologos) in 1839. With a reduced shipbuilding capacity and lack of wartime urgency, the ship isn't ready until 1841, by which time 4 more sister ships have been ordered, and a supply of lighter sloops and brigs. So, the remaining ship yards have orders for new ships, and they start hiring again, but mostly have to train new workers from scratch, as the old, skilled workers that had been laid off years ago have gone elsewhere. Congress also orders 4 sidewheeler steam frigates to be built. It seems clear that the advantage of (at least part time) steam in making the weather gauge irrelevant in battle outweighs the disadvantages, at least for the US.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Similarly, cannon makers find that the orders for new guns for new ships and fortifications is rather more than what they can actually make. Some old foundries are taken out of mothballs, but again numbers of skilled workers that the industry used to have are gone. So the US has to try to massively increase production with less skilled labour. Even general iron founding skills are down, with the availability of cheap British iron, and the lack of a Federal subsidy during the Democrat years.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]British naval reaction[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The British react to the American moves. Now, they haven't been actually equipping their ships with such guns, because they know that that this will obsolete their existing fleet, and don't want to do anything that would cause other navies to use them. Fortunately, the Royal Ordnance have been working with designs and casting a few experimental pieces, since it did seem likely that someday they'd need them. With worsening relations with the US, the RN decides that 'someday' has arrived, and they need to start production and deployment, and do it NOW. One result is that once production starts, the US will have only the 8” gun (France's original design), and a not fully optimized casting process, whereas the British will have several sizes of guns and will know how to put them into full production much more quickly. While the US licensed France's Paixhans gun, the British developed their own, similar design, that was not actually called a 'Paixhans'. [However, for the sake of simplicity, I will refer to both designs as Paixhans.][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]British reactions to the development of steamships has partly been posted already, and more will come later.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Note that while the US will be struggling to make ~100 guns over the next couple of years, Britain's vastly larger industry – and faster ramp up time – mean that Britain will have ~1000. Not as many as she'd like, no doubt, but far, far more than the US.[/FONT]
Continuing developments
Continuing developments
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]More US politics[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]After Calhoun's term, the US is ready for a change. Calhoun's sabre-rattling strikes a chord with the US public, but few believe he's entirely serious. However, Henry Clay of the Nationals runs on a very nationalistic, even jingoistic platform of “Take back what's ours!!” and “Restore the United States to her place in the Sun!”, and he is believed. The proposed creation of monarchies in the British colonies also makes great political slogans “Free our Neighbors from the Tyrannical Jackboots of Monarchy”. Some of these slogans are so effective that many Americans (especially in the South) forget that the 'neighbors' referred to are just BNA – that New Englanders have a more functional democracy than their own (no slaves, e.g., and less yellow press), and have come to believe somehow that New England is a monarchy. Or under the British one. Or something. Anyway, we need to “free” them from their “oppression”. Canada, of course, has always been perceived as needing “liberation”, but the rhetoric mounts. The idea that a descendant of the hated George III will sit on a throne in Canada causes some people to foam at the mouth.[1] This is another propaganda coup for the Clay campaign.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Henry Clay wins the election in 1840 (taking office in '41), and his party takes Congress, too. Once in office he ratchets up the rhetoric even more. Except now it is more than just rhetoric - he raises tariffs and other taxes and starts serious work on rebuilding the army and navy. His task is made somewhat easier by the starts that Calhoun's administration had made, but there is still a LOT of work left to be done. Note that, unlike Monroe or Clinton, Clay's emphasis is on power – 'America's place in the sun', not simply infrastructure. His slogan “take back what's ours” represents actual intent pretty well. Obviously, he needs some infrastructure improvements to do this, but his primary goal is a US that is stronger militarily, not one that's stronger economically. (One of his economic problems is that, initially, he and the Nationals require gold/gold backed currency for all land purchases and tax payments. This is a reaction to the incipient inflation from loose money under Calhoun, but it does create a credit crunch which, in turn, makes it harder (and slower) to rebuild the army, navy and industries needed. )[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]British Response[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Since Clay campaigned and was elected on a slogan of “Take back what's ours!!”, the British are well aware of his intent. Unlike Calhoun, who MIGHT have been rattling sabres just to quiet domestic opinion, it is quite clear in the minds of Britain, New England and the British Northamerican colonies that Clay means it. All massively ratchet up THEIR military preparedness (militia training, ordering new cannon, stocking border forts, etc., etc.) …. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]One political response is to raise export tariffs on US cotton (and other goods) flowing out through British ports – mainly the port of New Orleans, but other goods flow down the St. Lawrence through Montreal. Here, Britain tries to negotiate coordinated action with the Spanish in Florida (including Mobile), but it doesn't work because the Spanish wish to keep a low profile and not anger the US. Thus some US cotton can still be exported at reasonable prices, and the US is still able to earn external currency. ( A minor side effect is that goods coming south through (West) Florida and the ports at e.g. Mobile and Pensacola are temporarily much more profitable, which creates a mini-boom in those parts of Alabama and Mississippi.) The extra money raised by these tariffs helps the British war effort and hinders the Americans'. In particular, foreign suppliers (like the French for Paixhans guns) start worrying about American credit and start wanting payment in gold or goods.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Another response is to try to impede US access to war-making materials. I've already mentioned British pressure on France to slow Paixhans gun sales to the US. She also encourages her various allies not to help the US, but since the US is self-sufficient in most basic goods that has little effect. The one SERIOUS exception is saltpetre, used for the manufacture of gunpowder. Britain puts a serious effort into impeding saltpetre flow to the US. Firstly, she buys most of available supply (she realises that HER gunpowder demand is going to go through the roof shortly, so it's a good idea anyway). Although she can't quite corner the entire market, this slows inflow to the US, and raises the price. Moreover, since most saltpetre was from India and Chile at this point, and is carried on British ships, Britain can fairly easily redirect most of the worlds production to itself. Also, as the crisis escalates, she gets the Neo-Delians to refuse to transport it to the US once Clay is elected. So now US has to buy from e.g. France or Spain, largely from their supplies, and they are reluctant to part with much, as the new supplies are becoming much dearer with the increased demand. This of course, slows inflow and raises the price even more. There is no formal embargo on the US at this point, nor blockade of their ports, as that would be an act of war, and Britain wants to 1) get ready first and 2) not be the attacker. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]US Iron [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]One prime example of US infrastructure that has been neglected and needs to be updated is the US iron and founding industries. (Another is shipyards, but we already covered that). US foundries and iron mills are in sad shape, as lack of support under the Democrats and competition with cheaper British materials means that the industry is much weaker than OTL. The push to rebuild military might means there is a sudden demand to produce hundreds of miles of rail (to Florida border, firstly, then into Alabama - doable, as SOME rail was being produced), cast hundreds of Paixhans guns (harder – little demand for at least naval cannon lately), tens of thousands of rifles (not so much metal, so doable), and all the implements an army needs from knives to shovels to tent-pole fastenings to ironmongery needed for wagons for transportation. Actually, supplying iron to do any ONE of those things would be easy – doing all at once is hard. Really hard, even impossible. Old, abandoned equipment is brought back into service, new workers are hired and given sketchy training, and iron production leaps. Unfortunately, the reuse of old, decrepit equipment and the greenness of many of the workers, and the overwork of the experienced ones, means that quality goes down, accidents go way up and so does cost. The American public, however, prepared to pay that price to get their own back.[/FONT]
–
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]1 The original plan was for Canada to be called a Kingdom, and Queen Charlotte to be Queen of Canada as well of the UK, so there would very rarely, in fact, be an actual occupant sitting in a throne in Canada. That doesn't stop the politicking and wilder parts of the press. [Compare the US 'birther' hysteria lately. Facts don't matter if it makes good politics.][/FONT]
Continuing developments
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]More US politics[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]After Calhoun's term, the US is ready for a change. Calhoun's sabre-rattling strikes a chord with the US public, but few believe he's entirely serious. However, Henry Clay of the Nationals runs on a very nationalistic, even jingoistic platform of “Take back what's ours!!” and “Restore the United States to her place in the Sun!”, and he is believed. The proposed creation of monarchies in the British colonies also makes great political slogans “Free our Neighbors from the Tyrannical Jackboots of Monarchy”. Some of these slogans are so effective that many Americans (especially in the South) forget that the 'neighbors' referred to are just BNA – that New Englanders have a more functional democracy than their own (no slaves, e.g., and less yellow press), and have come to believe somehow that New England is a monarchy. Or under the British one. Or something. Anyway, we need to “free” them from their “oppression”. Canada, of course, has always been perceived as needing “liberation”, but the rhetoric mounts. The idea that a descendant of the hated George III will sit on a throne in Canada causes some people to foam at the mouth.[1] This is another propaganda coup for the Clay campaign.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Henry Clay wins the election in 1840 (taking office in '41), and his party takes Congress, too. Once in office he ratchets up the rhetoric even more. Except now it is more than just rhetoric - he raises tariffs and other taxes and starts serious work on rebuilding the army and navy. His task is made somewhat easier by the starts that Calhoun's administration had made, but there is still a LOT of work left to be done. Note that, unlike Monroe or Clinton, Clay's emphasis is on power – 'America's place in the sun', not simply infrastructure. His slogan “take back what's ours” represents actual intent pretty well. Obviously, he needs some infrastructure improvements to do this, but his primary goal is a US that is stronger militarily, not one that's stronger economically. (One of his economic problems is that, initially, he and the Nationals require gold/gold backed currency for all land purchases and tax payments. This is a reaction to the incipient inflation from loose money under Calhoun, but it does create a credit crunch which, in turn, makes it harder (and slower) to rebuild the army, navy and industries needed. )[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]British Response[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Since Clay campaigned and was elected on a slogan of “Take back what's ours!!”, the British are well aware of his intent. Unlike Calhoun, who MIGHT have been rattling sabres just to quiet domestic opinion, it is quite clear in the minds of Britain, New England and the British Northamerican colonies that Clay means it. All massively ratchet up THEIR military preparedness (militia training, ordering new cannon, stocking border forts, etc., etc.) …. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]One political response is to raise export tariffs on US cotton (and other goods) flowing out through British ports – mainly the port of New Orleans, but other goods flow down the St. Lawrence through Montreal. Here, Britain tries to negotiate coordinated action with the Spanish in Florida (including Mobile), but it doesn't work because the Spanish wish to keep a low profile and not anger the US. Thus some US cotton can still be exported at reasonable prices, and the US is still able to earn external currency. ( A minor side effect is that goods coming south through (West) Florida and the ports at e.g. Mobile and Pensacola are temporarily much more profitable, which creates a mini-boom in those parts of Alabama and Mississippi.) The extra money raised by these tariffs helps the British war effort and hinders the Americans'. In particular, foreign suppliers (like the French for Paixhans guns) start worrying about American credit and start wanting payment in gold or goods.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Another response is to try to impede US access to war-making materials. I've already mentioned British pressure on France to slow Paixhans gun sales to the US. She also encourages her various allies not to help the US, but since the US is self-sufficient in most basic goods that has little effect. The one SERIOUS exception is saltpetre, used for the manufacture of gunpowder. Britain puts a serious effort into impeding saltpetre flow to the US. Firstly, she buys most of available supply (she realises that HER gunpowder demand is going to go through the roof shortly, so it's a good idea anyway). Although she can't quite corner the entire market, this slows inflow to the US, and raises the price. Moreover, since most saltpetre was from India and Chile at this point, and is carried on British ships, Britain can fairly easily redirect most of the worlds production to itself. Also, as the crisis escalates, she gets the Neo-Delians to refuse to transport it to the US once Clay is elected. So now US has to buy from e.g. France or Spain, largely from their supplies, and they are reluctant to part with much, as the new supplies are becoming much dearer with the increased demand. This of course, slows inflow and raises the price even more. There is no formal embargo on the US at this point, nor blockade of their ports, as that would be an act of war, and Britain wants to 1) get ready first and 2) not be the attacker. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]US Iron [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]One prime example of US infrastructure that has been neglected and needs to be updated is the US iron and founding industries. (Another is shipyards, but we already covered that). US foundries and iron mills are in sad shape, as lack of support under the Democrats and competition with cheaper British materials means that the industry is much weaker than OTL. The push to rebuild military might means there is a sudden demand to produce hundreds of miles of rail (to Florida border, firstly, then into Alabama - doable, as SOME rail was being produced), cast hundreds of Paixhans guns (harder – little demand for at least naval cannon lately), tens of thousands of rifles (not so much metal, so doable), and all the implements an army needs from knives to shovels to tent-pole fastenings to ironmongery needed for wagons for transportation. Actually, supplying iron to do any ONE of those things would be easy – doing all at once is hard. Really hard, even impossible. Old, abandoned equipment is brought back into service, new workers are hired and given sketchy training, and iron production leaps. Unfortunately, the reuse of old, decrepit equipment and the greenness of many of the workers, and the overwork of the experienced ones, means that quality goes down, accidents go way up and so does cost. The American public, however, prepared to pay that price to get their own back.[/FONT]
–
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]1 The original plan was for Canada to be called a Kingdom, and Queen Charlotte to be Queen of Canada as well of the UK, so there would very rarely, in fact, be an actual occupant sitting in a throne in Canada. That doesn't stop the politicking and wilder parts of the press. [Compare the US 'birther' hysteria lately. Facts don't matter if it makes good politics.][/FONT]
Dathi
Is Clay actually that stupid? Picking a fight with Britain at this point OTL would be pretty suicidal. TTL there is a much weaker US, territorially, economically and militarily and a much stronger Britain, not to mention the allies it can expect. Unless Britain is distracted by a major problem elsewhere the US is on a hiding to nothing. I could see him stoking up national feeling to generate funds for increasing the dilapidated US military and industrial infrastructure but actually expecting to go to war with any chance of not getting totally stomped is little short of insanity. Especially since the general tennor of the US propaganda means that Britain will be able to rely on support from New England and the various Indians and black populations that know what sort of life awaits them if the US was somehow successful. I could see sense in mobilising opinion to build up the industrial base so that in a generation or so's time possibly a challenge could be made but this sounds too outlandish for even a hidebound and insular leader. [Although thinking about some of the outlandish ideas in OTL possibly not too wild]. However would have thought that there would probably be a significant peace party who are thinking 'this is insane, we need to stop it'.
I could see that the US would be open to new ideas to circumvent Britain's massive superiority in current weaponry. The Paixhans are an example of that although with its far superior industrial base Britain can respond far more rapidly. With the Demologos design I did read in a Conway's book a few years back that the British commanders of the time were fairly confident they could take it out with red-hot shot. Hence, unless the US has managed to armour plate the new design, which is probably unlikely with their shortfalls in metallurgy, their likely to have a fairly short life. Especially since not too long before the screw propeller makes the design redundant.
Historically late comers have some advantages so possibly the US could get a few new steel plants say, making use of local resources and building new capacity from scratch to make them more efficient. Even if British manufacturers are unwilling to help them French, Belgium and German producers might be able by this time to provide substantial advice and aid, for a suitable fee of course. [The down side of this approach, as well as the need make sure you train your own people full to operate it, is that a paradigm shift in production can render your work redundant. For instance when Bessemer Converters came along pretty much all previous plants became redundant I think.
Anyway interesting to get back to the main plot of Anglo-American [bad]-relations. However think most of those with any knowledge of the wider world in the US will realise that Clay is putting the US on a very dangerous course. Unless they manage to find allies in Europe.
Wondering it Britain would actually do that much to seek to deny the US resources? Apart from anything else it could be seen as provocative while I can see many arguing that Clay it making those statements for internal consumption and not stupid enough to actually start a war, at least against Britain.
If it does come to a punch up, apart from the other problems of Britain's vastly greater resources, as you say the Americans will be very short of saltpetre. Especially once the war starts and a blockage comes into play. [Since also any American living on the coast will be very concerned that their local coastal forts have adequate guns and powder to defend them, which would be a huge undertaking. [I think its something the US never actually achieved OTL in the 19thC with a lot of plans rarely getting anywhere near completion].
Anyway, rabbitted enough. Looking interesting but doesn't sound good for anyone in N Amercia but especially the US.
Steve
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][/FONT]
Is Clay actually that stupid? Picking a fight with Britain at this point OTL would be pretty suicidal. TTL there is a much weaker US, territorially, economically and militarily and a much stronger Britain, not to mention the allies it can expect. Unless Britain is distracted by a major problem elsewhere the US is on a hiding to nothing. I could see him stoking up national feeling to generate funds for increasing the dilapidated US military and industrial infrastructure but actually expecting to go to war with any chance of not getting totally stomped is little short of insanity. Especially since the general tennor of the US propaganda means that Britain will be able to rely on support from New England and the various Indians and black populations that know what sort of life awaits them if the US was somehow successful. I could see sense in mobilising opinion to build up the industrial base so that in a generation or so's time possibly a challenge could be made but this sounds too outlandish for even a hidebound and insular leader. [Although thinking about some of the outlandish ideas in OTL possibly not too wild]. However would have thought that there would probably be a significant peace party who are thinking 'this is insane, we need to stop it'.
I could see that the US would be open to new ideas to circumvent Britain's massive superiority in current weaponry. The Paixhans are an example of that although with its far superior industrial base Britain can respond far more rapidly. With the Demologos design I did read in a Conway's book a few years back that the British commanders of the time were fairly confident they could take it out with red-hot shot. Hence, unless the US has managed to armour plate the new design, which is probably unlikely with their shortfalls in metallurgy, their likely to have a fairly short life. Especially since not too long before the screw propeller makes the design redundant.
Historically late comers have some advantages so possibly the US could get a few new steel plants say, making use of local resources and building new capacity from scratch to make them more efficient. Even if British manufacturers are unwilling to help them French, Belgium and German producers might be able by this time to provide substantial advice and aid, for a suitable fee of course. [The down side of this approach, as well as the need make sure you train your own people full to operate it, is that a paradigm shift in production can render your work redundant. For instance when Bessemer Converters came along pretty much all previous plants became redundant I think.
Anyway interesting to get back to the main plot of Anglo-American [bad]-relations.
However think most of those with any knowledge of the wider world in the US will realise that Clay is putting the US on a very dangerous course. Unless they manage to find allies in Europe.Wondering it Britain would actually do that much to seek to deny the US resources? Apart from anything else it could be seen as provocative while I can see many arguing that Clay it making those statements for internal consumption and not stupid enough to actually start a war, at least against Britain.
If it does come to a punch up, apart from the other problems of Britain's vastly greater resources, as you say the Americans will be very short of saltpetre. Especially once the war starts and a blockage comes into play. [Since also any American living on the coast will be very concerned that their local coastal forts have adequate guns and powder to defend them, which would be a huge undertaking. [I think its something the US never actually achieved OTL in the 19thC with a lot of plans rarely getting anywhere near completion].
Anyway, rabbitted enough. Looking interesting but doesn't sound good for anyone in N Amercia but especially the US.
Steve
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][/FONT]
Yet again Daði, another great update - and pretty taking an idea that I had designed for Kuando el Rey Nimrod and giving it flesh and bone.
Not speaking for Daði, but I'm thinking this is just pure politicking at this point. I'm sure that eventually things might start cooling down.
Not speaking for Daði, but I'm thinking this is just pure politicking at this point. I'm sure that eventually things might start cooling down.
Umm... The US knows it lost the last war.
-However, they never gave up on the idea of 'reclaiming what is theirs'.
-They have a large State militia which is supposed to be quite functional, and which they believe is rather more functional than it is in fact.
-They have interior lines of communication, they have built roads and (some) rail so between water and road there will be none of the slog through mud of the last war, and they think they can prevent the Lakes being used as a supply route, they can win overwhelmingly. They know the Brits/Canadians are working on a rail connection, but it's not done yet, and they want to attack before it IS done.
- They expect the Brits to not believe the political sloganing. They expect to have strategic surprise.
- They haven't quite understood how much Canada has grown, or how the militia will turn out.
- they overestimate how enthusiastic the US militia will be. They have taken steps to fix the problems from the last war.
- they will have more troops than the Brits can possibly pull together in time. US forces ON THE ATTACK will be over 100,000 men.
- they can attack when and where they want. The Brits/Canadians have to defend the entire border, whereas the US can pick a point and put a huge concentration of force there.
- in fact, the British/Canadian/Allied lines WILL break under overwhelming force.
- the US has convinced itself that if they deal a knockout blow, they can force the British to the table and get the Indian protectorate back, at a minimum. They are prepared for a longer war, if they have to, but they HOPE to win quickly before the Brits can re-inforce. They also believe that the US public has more staying power than the British public, that the Brits will tire of the war faster, so if it DOES drag out, the US can still win.
- the US has also missed the significance of a few of Britain's preparations. The border forts are going to be a LOT tougher than they expect for various reasons.
- and like Germany in WWI, they can see their enemy getting stronger every year. They believe they have a window of military superiority, and if they don't do it now, they may never have another chance.
Yes, the US will lose. This is a Canadawank, after all. However, the US has sufficient time to raise the forces they want, and forward place supplies. They learned a LOT from the last war, and if this WERE the last war, they'd just walk all over the Brits. They are not the only people to be perfectly prepared to fight the last war. Nor are the only people in history to read into situations what they want to see, not what's there.
The British are well aware of the power of the US, and fully hope and expect to win the coming war, but they do know they are going get hurt, and hurt badly - especially if the US does everything right.
Dathi
Makes it sound rather like a case of 'I want therefore it is' which you tend to see too often in history. Going to be bloody but they definitely don't know Britain, or Canada is they think the US will have more willpower to continue than Britain/Canada after a US attack. Could well as you say be pretty long and bloody.
As you say its a Canada wank so no doubt of the outcome. However it would need some fairly spectacular American genius or British stupidity for anything different to be likely.
The big question is how much damage will be done to various areas. Suspect the Indian territory is the most vulnerable as it has relatively limited population, land and resources compared to the other combatants so it needs to avoid winning a Pyrrhic victory, with too much devastation of their heartland to recover and respond to social changes.
Anyway, looking to find out the details.
Steve
Makes it sound rather like a case of 'I want therefore it is' which you tend to see too often in history.
Going to be bloody but they definitely don't know Britain, or Canada is they think the US will have more willpower to continue than Britain/Canada after a US attack. Could well as you say be pretty long and bloody.As you say its a Canada wank so no doubt of the outcome.
However it would need some fairly spectacular American genius or British stupidity for anything different to be likely.The big question is how much damage will be done to various areas. Suspect the Indian territory is the most vulnerable as it has relatively limited population, land and resources compared to the other combatants so it needs to avoid winning a Pyrrhic victory, with too much devastation of their heartland to recover and respond to social changes.
Anyway, looking to find out the details.
Steve
Last edited:
There's some nice forts there, but a) a concentrated attack vs dispersed defenders give the US advantage, and b) going around the forts is 'easy' (as easy as anything is militarily, c) the border doesn't involve crossing water. Yep, the Protectorate is in for a world of hurt.
- Status