Canada Wank (YACW)
- Thread starter Dathi THorfinnsson
- Start date
- Status
Peace Negotiations
Peace Negotiations
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Recognizing that the military situation was deteriorating, President Clay offered a peace deal in mid-June, after the relief of Liverpool. However, this 'deal' assumed that that the US would get back much of *Illinois and all of Long Island, and went from there; so it wasn't very realistic. By that point Canada and the British knew they can do better. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]By fall, he offered 'Status Quo Ante Bellum' to both the Brits and the Spanish, but, again, advances in the field rendered that impractical.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]By late fall/early winter, soldiers, who were being paid with worthless notes, were barely being fed, and poorly clothed, deserted – slowly at first, and then in significant numbers. This, together with the British advance up the Ohio and (effective) retaking of *Illinois, meant that the US position was … miserable. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Meanwhile, the storm of bad news generated fury in the US population. As the value of US money evaporated, and US military effort collapsed, the anger broke out in riots and violence. Newspapers started calling this “Mr. Clay's War”[1] and call for Clay's head, quite conveniently forgetting that most of them had been baying for British blood (well, or at least Canadian land) at the beginning of the war. With the collapse of the value of any available currencies, New York city became almost deserted (city dwellers weren't producing much that farmers will barter for)[2], and several other eastern cities were afraid they'll follow suit.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Clay is impeached on treason charges, and executed. The grounds were that leading the US to such a disastrous defeat constituted treason; although since he did it in good faith and was overwhelmingly supported by Congress at the time, it's really difficult to see how that constituted treason. On the other hand, the Constitution doesn't define 'treason'... [3][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Vice President Pinckney (from the famous political clan, a political non-entity chosen for his name only), ascended to the highest position in the land as Acting President[4], and was told “to make peace, quickly, and with honor”. Pinckney made peace offers to both Britain and Spain. Spain, whose war in Florida is over, and which was the minor enemy, came to terms fairly quickly. Spain gets all of Florida back (i.e. what it currently holds, including St. Augustine), and a large indemnity. Spain and the US signed on January 10, and the treaty was ratified by both countries.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Negotiations with Britain and Canada, and New England were much tougher[5]. The US negotiators kept insisting that they held large chunks of *Illinois, and that they should get to keep some – or gain some positive border adjustments elsewhere. They also demanded that New England evacuate Long Island. The US intransigence was really annoying. They had clearly lost the war, their forces were melting away, and they were still acting like they have the upper hand. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Finally, the Allies made it clear that if the US didn't wise up fast, the terms will be ALL of former Indiana and Illinois, and a large chunk of northern New York, and that other terms will be even tougher. The British were going to be nicer (like letting them have their old borders), but the Canadians and New Englanders insisted that the US lose land due to their mule-headedness.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Finally the US negotiators caved in.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The US agreed to cede to New England the portion of Long Island the latter held; to Canada, the strip she holds in northern New York[6], and 7 miles in western Indiana (i.e. the border between the Wabash and the White Rivers moved from 39 degrees 7 minutes to 39 degrees even).[7] These are fairly token adjustments, but are kept so the Canadians can claim they won some land from the war. (The border west stayed at 38.5 from the Wabash to the Mississippi, and east continued to follow the White River, as before.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The nastier bits were [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]that the US is to maintain no military fort or base within 20 miles of the border, in perpetuity ( in particular, nothing on the Mississippi River). Only customs and law enforcement establishments will be allowed.[8][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]the US is to pay a reasonable indemnity (compensation for civilians in Indiana, and for the expenses Britain paid for transporting and equipping and supplying various Allied troops). The war expenses of Britain, New England, Canada and Portugal are NOT covered here.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]And the US is to admit responsibility for starting the war.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Given the disastrous position that the US found itself in, this could have been a lot worse, but the furore when the draft treaty was presented to the Senate for ratification could be heard all the way to Canada. The Allies pointed out that if the treaty wasn't ratified, and the offensive resumed, the Allies will take and keep Vincennes and the American Bottom. “You've got 30 days, folks.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The well publicized arrival of the second contingent of 20,000 Irish troops helped the US focus.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Several fist fights, and many, many shouting matches on the floor of the Senate later, together with some back-room dealing, and quiet negotiations with the Brits led to the treaty finally being ratified by the US Senate, two days before the deadline. The US attached a codicil, stating that the phrase “US was responsible for starting the war” was to be understood as “Mr. Clay, who happened to be US president at the time was responsible for starting the war.” The Canadians and New Englanders threatened to carry on, but the British admitted that they'd agreed to that weaselling out.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Note, this treaty is the first formal document to refer to the US by the adjective “Usan” rather than “American”. The New Englanders insisted upon it.[/FONT]
–
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]1 the War of 1812 was known as “Mr. Madison's War” by some. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]2 There are several reasons New York City does so badly and Philadelphia does a little better. They start from the Allied blockade and attack. The most obvious is that New York is regularly bombarded and largely burnt out by now. Manhattan [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]and the Bronx still have food supply connexions up the Hudson, but Queens and Brooklyn (on Long Island) and Staten Island are blockaded by Allied forces, which adds to their misery.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]3 Article I, section 3 “[/FONT]Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
Article II, section 4 “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
The Impeachment itself just removed him from office, then other charges were laid that carried the death penalty.
4 quite clearly, he's an Acting President, his handlers won't let him be more. This establishes the precedent that the 'Acting President' is not 'the President', unlike the case OTL with 'his accidency' John Tyler.
Article II, Section 1 “In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.”
5 Actually, Portugal is represented, too, but their ambassador lets the Anglophones do all the heavy lifting.
6 That border moved south in the first month of the war, see “Lakes Theatre (1)” post 893.
7 old border was approximately “Hutsonville-Worthington”, new border “Robinson-Bloomfield”
8 What, precisely 'customs' and 'law enforcement' require in the way of equipment is left undefined. The Kentucky River Patrol eventually ends up with a couple of Territory class armoured boats. Sort of like OTL's Japanese “Self Defence Force”, which is a military by any other name.
Peace Negotiations
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Recognizing that the military situation was deteriorating, President Clay offered a peace deal in mid-June, after the relief of Liverpool. However, this 'deal' assumed that that the US would get back much of *Illinois and all of Long Island, and went from there; so it wasn't very realistic. By that point Canada and the British knew they can do better. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]By fall, he offered 'Status Quo Ante Bellum' to both the Brits and the Spanish, but, again, advances in the field rendered that impractical.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]By late fall/early winter, soldiers, who were being paid with worthless notes, were barely being fed, and poorly clothed, deserted – slowly at first, and then in significant numbers. This, together with the British advance up the Ohio and (effective) retaking of *Illinois, meant that the US position was … miserable. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Meanwhile, the storm of bad news generated fury in the US population. As the value of US money evaporated, and US military effort collapsed, the anger broke out in riots and violence. Newspapers started calling this “Mr. Clay's War”[1] and call for Clay's head, quite conveniently forgetting that most of them had been baying for British blood (well, or at least Canadian land) at the beginning of the war. With the collapse of the value of any available currencies, New York city became almost deserted (city dwellers weren't producing much that farmers will barter for)[2], and several other eastern cities were afraid they'll follow suit.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Clay is impeached on treason charges, and executed. The grounds were that leading the US to such a disastrous defeat constituted treason; although since he did it in good faith and was overwhelmingly supported by Congress at the time, it's really difficult to see how that constituted treason. On the other hand, the Constitution doesn't define 'treason'... [3][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Vice President Pinckney (from the famous political clan, a political non-entity chosen for his name only), ascended to the highest position in the land as Acting President[4], and was told “to make peace, quickly, and with honor”. Pinckney made peace offers to both Britain and Spain. Spain, whose war in Florida is over, and which was the minor enemy, came to terms fairly quickly. Spain gets all of Florida back (i.e. what it currently holds, including St. Augustine), and a large indemnity. Spain and the US signed on January 10, and the treaty was ratified by both countries.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Negotiations with Britain and Canada, and New England were much tougher[5]. The US negotiators kept insisting that they held large chunks of *Illinois, and that they should get to keep some – or gain some positive border adjustments elsewhere. They also demanded that New England evacuate Long Island. The US intransigence was really annoying. They had clearly lost the war, their forces were melting away, and they were still acting like they have the upper hand. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Finally, the Allies made it clear that if the US didn't wise up fast, the terms will be ALL of former Indiana and Illinois, and a large chunk of northern New York, and that other terms will be even tougher. The British were going to be nicer (like letting them have their old borders), but the Canadians and New Englanders insisted that the US lose land due to their mule-headedness.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Finally the US negotiators caved in.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The US agreed to cede to New England the portion of Long Island the latter held; to Canada, the strip she holds in northern New York[6], and 7 miles in western Indiana (i.e. the border between the Wabash and the White Rivers moved from 39 degrees 7 minutes to 39 degrees even).[7] These are fairly token adjustments, but are kept so the Canadians can claim they won some land from the war. (The border west stayed at 38.5 from the Wabash to the Mississippi, and east continued to follow the White River, as before.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The nastier bits were [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]that the US is to maintain no military fort or base within 20 miles of the border, in perpetuity ( in particular, nothing on the Mississippi River). Only customs and law enforcement establishments will be allowed.[8][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]the US is to pay a reasonable indemnity (compensation for civilians in Indiana, and for the expenses Britain paid for transporting and equipping and supplying various Allied troops). The war expenses of Britain, New England, Canada and Portugal are NOT covered here.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]And the US is to admit responsibility for starting the war.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Given the disastrous position that the US found itself in, this could have been a lot worse, but the furore when the draft treaty was presented to the Senate for ratification could be heard all the way to Canada. The Allies pointed out that if the treaty wasn't ratified, and the offensive resumed, the Allies will take and keep Vincennes and the American Bottom. “You've got 30 days, folks.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The well publicized arrival of the second contingent of 20,000 Irish troops helped the US focus.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Several fist fights, and many, many shouting matches on the floor of the Senate later, together with some back-room dealing, and quiet negotiations with the Brits led to the treaty finally being ratified by the US Senate, two days before the deadline. The US attached a codicil, stating that the phrase “US was responsible for starting the war” was to be understood as “Mr. Clay, who happened to be US president at the time was responsible for starting the war.” The Canadians and New Englanders threatened to carry on, but the British admitted that they'd agreed to that weaselling out.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Note, this treaty is the first formal document to refer to the US by the adjective “Usan” rather than “American”. The New Englanders insisted upon it.[/FONT]
–
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]1 the War of 1812 was known as “Mr. Madison's War” by some. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]2 There are several reasons New York City does so badly and Philadelphia does a little better. They start from the Allied blockade and attack. The most obvious is that New York is regularly bombarded and largely burnt out by now. Manhattan [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]and the Bronx still have food supply connexions up the Hudson, but Queens and Brooklyn (on Long Island) and Staten Island are blockaded by Allied forces, which adds to their misery.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]3 Article I, section 3 “[/FONT]Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
Article II, section 4 “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
The Impeachment itself just removed him from office, then other charges were laid that carried the death penalty.
4 quite clearly, he's an Acting President, his handlers won't let him be more. This establishes the precedent that the 'Acting President' is not 'the President', unlike the case OTL with 'his accidency' John Tyler.
Article II, Section 1 “In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.”
5 Actually, Portugal is represented, too, but their ambassador lets the Anglophones do all the heavy lifting.
6 That border moved south in the first month of the war, see “Lakes Theatre (1)” post 893.
7 old border was approximately “Hutsonville-Worthington”, new border “Robinson-Bloomfield”
8 What, precisely 'customs' and 'law enforcement' require in the way of equipment is left undefined. The Kentucky River Patrol eventually ends up with a couple of Territory class armoured boats. Sort of like OTL's Japanese “Self Defence Force”, which is a military by any other name.
Last edited:
To be honest, I'm not precisely sure what will happen in 20-30 years. I can say it'll take 20 years absolute minimum for the US to have any chance.
I can also say that "Never attack the British Empire" (later modified to "Never attack the British Empire alone") becomes proverbial in the US like "Never fight a land war in Asia" is OTL.
Of course, as others have pointed out, if the Coalition goes full alliance, the US would hardly be alone. I had expected the US to try to stay out of any future European war (and it might depend on when it happens), but hmm... some of the commentary makes a lot of sense.
OTOH. The US wanted, iOTL, empty land it could settle, mostly. It wasn't a major colonial power. Heck, they gave up Cuba to the locals (even if not Puerto Rico). (they even eventually gave up the Philippines) By the time that the US is READY for a rematch, all the Canadian territory would be so thickly settled that taking it would involve ethnic cleansing, really. This is one reason with the British never even tried for Ohio, and stopped short of the American Bottom and Vincennes this war. (Too much forced removal would be required unless the US was stupid enough to force the issue, which they weren't at the last minute.)
What the US might try going for some day would be Florida (and treat it like a colony), but that would require the Spanish to line up with the Brits, which is (I think) unlikely but possible, depending on how things go in Europe.
An interesting thing is that the rump US will probably be hitting its industrial and financial stride about the same time the Scramble for Africa (due to railroad improvements, shipping improvements, and medicinal improvement) becomes a major option.
Also footnote 2 in the last post ends a bit suddenly
.
Also footnote 2 in the last post ends a bit suddenly
.Excellent timeline Dathi! It is one of my favourites.
I gotta say, America taking part in the scramble for Africa would be pretty cool.
An interesting thing is that the rump US will probably be hitting its industrial and financial stride about the same time the Scramble for Africa (due to railroad improvements, shipping improvements, and medicinal improvement) becomes a major option.
Also footnote 2 in the last post ends a bit suddenly
I gotta say, America taking part in the scramble for Africa would be pretty cool.
Dathi
Well that ended rather quicker than I expected. Although at least it makes some good sense that the defeated power saw the writing on the wall and didn't drag it out longer.
The terms are actually fairly generous to the US territorially, with only really New York losing badly. However the reparations could be a problem given the mess the economy is in. What's really going to take some time sorting out is the social/cultural ramifications.
The idea of American exceptionism is dead in all but the most fanatical. This could be the basis for a more lasting peace as the US is unlikely to have another bout of wild belief in its right to expand from sea to sea and impose its will on everybody else. In the next couple of decades at least there might still be a fair number who want 'revenge' but also a lot of others who will seek to sit on them quickly. By the time the US is in the shape to pose a threat again as you say Louisiana especially will have a much higher population and level of development. Still a lot less than the US but the majority will probably be along the west bank of the Mississippi, i.e. in prime position to oppose any new attack.
There will be tension over slavery and also US access to external markets for its western and southern territories as they need pass either down the Mississippi or through Spanish Florida. They might get the latter by purchase if/when the Spanish empire implodes.
What could be more difficult for the US to resolve will be the blame game and settling of scores. Rather surprised that Clay gets handled so roughly and so quickly. It also sets a possibly dangerous precedent for future President and other high officers, although it will tend to make those in the post more cautious in case it happens to them.
Not sure of the implications of Pinckney's position as 'acting President' rather than assuming the full role. That could potentially mean something of a vacuum in government when future such cases occur.
Steve
Well that ended rather quicker than I expected. Although at least it makes some good sense that the defeated power saw the writing on the wall and didn't drag it out longer.
The terms are actually fairly generous to the US territorially, with only really New York losing badly. However the reparations could be a problem given the mess the economy is in. What's really going to take some time sorting out is the social/cultural ramifications.
The idea of American exceptionism is dead in all but the most fanatical. This could be the basis for a more lasting peace as the US is unlikely to have another bout of wild belief in its right to expand from sea to sea and impose its will on everybody else. In the next couple of decades at least there might still be a fair number who want 'revenge' but also a lot of others who will seek to sit on them quickly. By the time the US is in the shape to pose a threat again as you say Louisiana especially will have a much higher population and level of development. Still a lot less than the US but the majority will probably be along the west bank of the Mississippi, i.e. in prime position to oppose any new attack.
There will be tension over slavery and also US access to external markets for its western and southern territories as they need pass either down the Mississippi or through Spanish Florida. They might get the latter by purchase if/when the Spanish empire implodes.
What could be more difficult for the US to resolve will be the blame game and settling of scores. Rather surprised that Clay gets handled so roughly and so quickly. It also sets a possibly dangerous precedent for future President and other high officers, although it will tend to make those in the post more cautious in case it happens to them.
Not sure of the implications of Pinckney's position as 'acting President' rather than assuming the full role. That could potentially mean something of a vacuum in government when future such cases occur.
Steve
Hmm...
Oops. Sort of fixed. Apparently that post was even more rushed than I thought it was.Also footnote 2 in the last post ends a bit suddenly
I'm not sure, either. But Tyler was widely expected to be only 'acting', and he refused to fit those expectations, setting the precedent that he WAS President, not just filling the duties and responsibilities of the office. This Pinckney is more pliable, and so sets a different precedent.
Note that it is '44 already, so he's only going to serve one year anyway. The wording in the Constitution is until "a President shall be elected". I THINK that the precedent is now going to be that the VP acts as President until an election is called (probably at the usual time in November), at which point a new President is elected and takes office on March 4 next.
Edit: Pinckney is such a non-entity that I had no clue what his name was until a few days ago.
That may well mean that the Presidential cycle gets out of synch with the House and Senate elections, at least until someone comes up with a new amendment. And possibly not then.
OTL, in the War of 1812, the US dollar was strained - the Feds had to rush bullion out to Kentucky, or people would have stopped providing food and services. Here, bullion (coin) is a lot rarer, so by Gresham's law you never see it. Which means that paper money issued by local banks is what is 'money', with the occasional Tbill. Given the situation, the collapse of Federal money (i.e. small Tbills) is fairly inevitable, I think. And once the Federal government runs out of money anyone will actually take... They CAN'T continue.
I hadn't really realized how bad and sudden it was going to be until I wrote it and realized what the cascading consequences would be.
Well... It seems to me that there's going to be a search for a scapegoat. Since Clay was, indeed, the primary architect of the war (albeit with widespread support), he's the obvious one. People really, REALLY don't like to admit how stupid they were, so 'he duped me' is a meme that spread really fast. As I said, at least it stops the scapegoating of Jews or some other fairly random minority. I was actually trying to make the resolution as easy for the US as possible. Place all the blame on Clay, get rid of him, and get on with the healing process.
Yes, it sets a dangerous precedent. Especially if 'We demanded you fight a war, you lost it, so we impeach you' happens again
OTOH, the Constitution doesn't say what 'treason' or 'high crimes' are. At least they impeached him for destroying the US economy and losing a war badly, not because he had sex with a staffer or because he dismissed a Cabinet officer. (How anyone figured either of those was 'treason' or 'high crime', I'm sure I don't know.)
...
Well... It seems to me that there's going to be a search for a scapegoat. Since Clay was, indeed, the primary architect of the war (albeit with widespread support), he's the obvious one. People really, REALLY don't like to admit how stupid they were, so 'he duped me' is a meme that spread really fast. As I said, at least it stops the scapegoating of Jews or some other fairly random minority. I was actually trying to make the resolution as easy for the US as possible. Place all the blame on Clay, get rid of him, and get on with the healing process.
Yes, it sets a dangerous precedent. Especially if 'We demanded you fight a war, you lost it, so we impeach you' happens again
OTOH, the Constitution doesn't say what 'treason' or 'high crimes' are. At least they impeached him for destroying the US economy and losing a war badly, not because he had sex with a staffer or because he dismissed a Cabinet officer. (How anyone figured either of those was 'treason' or 'high crime', I'm sure I don't know.)
Regarding the recent farce you allude to, right there with you.
Of course the text does also say "...and Misdemeanors," which can be interpreted as technical legal misdemeanors, or more reasonably as "anything that embarrasses the USA and doesn't look good."
It's been starkly demonstrated to our generation that impeachment is a political process.
Impeachment seemed entirely appropriate. Subsequently charging Clay with death-penalty enumerated "high crimes," specifically including treason, that carried the death penalty, and reaching a guilty verdict and executing the man in a matter of weeks--that was kind of shocking.
On one hand, it might be just the shock therapy the USA needs to administer to itself to get off the deadly downward spiral I alluded to above. On the other hand, doing by such--stark--means sets a hell of a precedent.
Yes, I can believe the USA would be in a mood for a blood sacrifice and there is a lot to be said for holding the Chief Executive accountable first and not making some low-level flunky the fall guy.
Rather than prophesy either doom or salvation, I will watch the remnant of this USA with some anxiety, like a doctor with a patient with a severe disease that is in crisis.
Now, personally, I, like I'd guess most American (Usaian, that is!) fans of this timeline am deeply doubly butterflied away here. I gather you, Dathi, are one of the more forthright proponents of the Strong Butterfly View, that holds that by now, just about every corner of humanity on Earth is "butterflied." I mainly would hold myself bound (if I ever had the creativity to write a timeline!
) to respect systematic contradictions that make this or that thing of OTL simply impossible. Well, even by the latter "weak butterfly, strong right of carrying over stuff from OTL" approach, I'm well and truly pre-empted. Some of my ancestors came over from Britain right around this very time period (just before this war, which was not of course this war OTL) and settled in OTL Wisconsin. Well, that's Canadian now, and was before the war, and the USA's debacle means the battle never even comes near it. Others immigrated in the 20th century, and wound up in Los Angeles. Which is neither US nor Canadian but Mexican still though clearly that might shift. For various reasons I kind of hope LA remains Mexican but gets a heavy dose of Canadian-version Anglo-French and who knows what all else by then culture--that the border between British and Mexican California stabilizes and becomes rather porous the way OTL US/Canada border is. And that Mexico evolves into the kind of state and society that can tolerate that sort of divergence from the core culture without fearing it will lose lower California too, and that Mexican/BNA relations are such that Mexico can be confident the Empire or filibustering revolutionaries operating on their own hook from the British Pacific territories won't try to take it.
My point here is, my personal stake in what's left of the USA is just about nil.
If I were to indulge my notion of "anti-butterflies" to an extreme, an analogy of me could well exist--as a bi-national by descent joint British subject and citizen of Mexico; the very few years of my childhood I spent in ITTL remnant USA could be accounted for by the same mechanisms I'm vaguely imagining allow a Canadian Air Force officer to marry a Los Angeles woman born of English and Italian immigrants to Mexican LA and yet serve a career based mainly but not entirely on ITTL Canadian (or say rather, greater BNA) soil. To keep the analogy going, a big part of that career would be centered on a base in Spanish West Florida, which I'm musing would not be formally British at all. To account for the handful of years I spent in Virginia and Alabama, I'm imagining that the USA has taken a pro-British path at least by the middle of the 20th century and my alt-Dad was serving as some kind of exchange officer at a couple Usaian bases. And the Florida base was part of a long-established cooperative alliance between Spain (or conceivably a seceded Florida but one with deep Spanish roots still, not part of Canada or BNA generally) and the Empire, and a similarly cozy relation between Empire/BNA and Mexico as of the second half of the 20th century accounts for a Canadian family (from OTL Wisconsin, is all that called Michigan ITTL?) residing in LA but still maintaining status as British subjects, and their son joining the Greater Canada forces rather than Mexican, yet still regarding Los Angeles as his family home.
To patch all that together to account for alt-me, I am picturing one very big happy multilingual alt-North America at peace with itself at last. (But Canada has a big expensive Air Force with supersonic interceptor fighters analogous to the OTL F-106; my Dad loved that plane--I don't think he'd be happy with a Super Arrow.)
Of course to really complete the analogy the British Empire would have to get involved in a nasty, ill-conceived war in Southeast Asia in the mid-to-late 60s...
Not to mention something analogous to WWII a couple decades before, one where all the north American nations mentioned above were on the same side. That might account for the de facto federation, or very close alliances, between nations nominally in the Empire and not, and something analogous to the OTL aerospace industry of Southern California operating in NW Mexico making delta-wing interceptors some decades later, not to mention establishing LA as a cosmopolitan city where all these nations come together to collaborate.Far-fetched nonsense like this is why you'll be sticking to the strong butterflies I guess.
But it was a sobering shock to realize that all but a bare handful of my years have been spent well outside the truncated bounds of the USA as of 1844 here. Neither Texas where I was born, nor Florida where I lived the larger part of my childhood years, nor Maine, nor Southern nor Northern California are now Usaian and any move on the USA's part to change that would be the sort of descent into madness I wept at upthread, and would not regain those territories. Nope, the best shot at a North America I can recognize as looking somewhat like home is for the USA to gradually evolve into a relationship with Britain more like New England's.
So when I weep at the possible dark destiny of this USA, it is not for hometowns or family I am sad for; I mourn the failure of the ideal of the USA, the radical vision of "government of by and for the people," the bold revolutionary spirit of '76. Which we OTL USAians betray quite often enough on our own with our dark side, to be sure.
What is dead here is the positive side of that characteristic USA dream. Something else as positive, something more sensible and Canadian, could well take its place. I can hope.
But the road to there is kind of rocky from here. Even if the USA does avoid a collision course with the Empire territories and its best allies in the future, I think the likeliest pattern is one of rather sullen and strained relations indefinitely. To get the geographical fabric of my life down for some analog of me, I had to imagine some future shock that at last shifts the USA into a more cozy relation with the BNA and its allies that surrounds it.
Regarding Spanish Florida--is it inconceivable, to people who know a lot more of the intimate details of 19th century Spanish history than I do, that going forward from this Spain possessing this Florida, that they can either hang on to it while losing all else, or even that with the sort of colonial possession Florida will be, that it can revive and transmute the nature of Spain itself so that the Spanish manage a more active economic role and a system for their colonies that allows them to hold them in a Hispanic Commonwealth?
Here, instead of a very thinly populated afterthought of a territory, Spanish Florida has been fought for and held by Spain, with a lot of British help, twice. It presumably has a much greater population of escaped slaves and other flotsam and jetsam of the USA than OTL, if for no other reason than that escaping slaves have had another couple of decades to go there. Presumably even the desultory Spanish regime has invested rather more treasure in both defending and building up Florida. A lot of the populace is English-speaking, but having no love for the USA. Even with peace with the USA, tensions over sheltering escaped slaves and the bitter experiences of a century not yet half over involving two invasions from the north must point to continuing to build up their strength there or losing it completely; being committed to spend money there presumably there will be more attention to it being a going concern. Thus Spain has, in addition to Cuba and Puerto Rico, another major territory in the Americas, one that demands a lot of attention but, being in the constellation of the BNA sphere, offers opportunities for profitable development too. Without bleeding the Floridian development white I suspect reasonable tax remittances and the enhanced opportunities for Spanish business could indeed have a salutary and catalyzing effect on Spain itself, and perhaps point the way to approaches of governing territories like the Philippines and Cuba that help integrate them into a Spanish system that works a lot better than OTL; this might ground out revolutionary impulses there.
So that's why I suggested that into the 1970s and beyond, Florida might still be Spanish. But with lots of Anglophones--particularly African-American anglophones.
I'm in the middle of downloading Google Earth; looking on Google Maps until I have that I've been trying to get a sense of just what Britain and Mexico have in California respectively.
British CA is everything north of 35 degrees, and west of 118, at least until the previous border of British Oregon country, correct?
Trying to imagine my alt-life in CanadaWankVerse, I was motivated in part to see just who would get OTL Rodgers Dry Lake, aka Muroc, aka Edwards AFB. (ITTL it will have none of those names; "Rodgers," says Wikipedia, is an Anglicization of the former Spanish name of Rodriguez. "Muroc" was a settler family name spelled backwards; Edwards of course was a USAF test pilot killed trying to make the Flying Wing bomber work.)
Great Zombie Jesus, 35 N, 118 W is right next to the NW border of OTL modern Edwards AFB! Moreover, other major sites known to us aeronautical geek types who happen to also be military brats--such as the Navy's China Lake site, for instance--are also marginally but firmly on the Mexican side of the line.
I presume that unless British California expands its boundaries south and east (and I rather hope it doesn't) that lake bed goes on being called "Rodriguez."
These desert features won't be of much interest to most people until the air age gets into full swing. For now, the zones of real interest will be the more arable parts.
In those terms, the mountains separating Los Angeles from the Central Valley hold Mexico's new NW border; 35 degrees hits the coast between Santa Maria and San Luis Obispo. (Mexico has Lompoc too.) Not all Spanish names in modern OTL California are authentic to the Mexican period but I believe Santa Maria and SLO were both actual missions, so they'd be so named on the map already.
It's not a terrible division; Mexico retains what is known OTL as "Southern California," including all the Wile E. Coyote/Acme country (I think the Coyote of Warner Brothers is an allusion, perhaps archtypical or unconscious, to the OTL SoCal aerospace/nuclear wizardry of the postwar era.) In this era of course it retains Los Angeles and San Diego, which were considerably more developed than the Bay Area was pre-Gold Rush, though perhaps less so than Monterey. And it is land that has a lot of potential, though they will lack access to the massive water diversions of OTL, those sources are mostly west of the British border I think. They can do what they like with the Colorado River of course!
All of California's major oil fields are on the Mexican side, I think. I don't remember noticing any wells up in the north. Certainly the big famous fields are down south.
(For Buffyverse fans, Mexico retains the site of the Hellmouth too, somewhere between Ventura and Santa Barbara...)
But Britain gets essentially all of the Central Valley, the Bay of course, the gold fields. And the eastern border is considerably to the east of the OTL's state border in the north; all the more habitable parts of Northern Nevada--Washoe and the counties near Carson City--are firmly on the British side too.
At this time, Mexico will feel well and truly screwed in CA, but assuming Mexico can support the sort of industrial development in its part of California comparable to OTL, come the mid-20th century Los Angeles and hinterland can be quite an asset.
I can see how in a Grand Alliance in some mid-century war, NW Mexico could indeed wind up being a major aeronautical center as OTL, and Canada/the Empire even in the habit of procuring some aircraft from Mexico, if the relationship between the Empire's sphere and Mexico is close enough by then.
How is Wile E. Coyote named in Spanish-language versions of the Warner Roadrunner cartoons?
British CA is everything north of 35 degrees, and west of 118, at least until the previous border of British Oregon country, correct?
Trying to imagine my alt-life in CanadaWankVerse, I was motivated in part to see just who would get OTL Rodgers Dry Lake, aka Muroc, aka Edwards AFB. (ITTL it will have none of those names; "Rodgers," says Wikipedia, is an Anglicization of the former Spanish name of Rodriguez. "Muroc" was a settler family name spelled backwards; Edwards of course was a USAF test pilot killed trying to make the Flying Wing bomber work.)
Great Zombie Jesus, 35 N, 118 W is right next to the NW border of OTL modern Edwards AFB! Moreover, other major sites known to us aeronautical geek types who happen to also be military brats--such as the Navy's China Lake site, for instance--are also marginally but firmly on the Mexican side of the line.
I presume that unless British California expands its boundaries south and east (and I rather hope it doesn't) that lake bed goes on being called "Rodriguez."
These desert features won't be of much interest to most people until the air age gets into full swing. For now, the zones of real interest will be the more arable parts.
In those terms, the mountains separating Los Angeles from the Central Valley hold Mexico's new NW border; 35 degrees hits the coast between Santa Maria and San Luis Obispo. (Mexico has Lompoc too.) Not all Spanish names in modern OTL California are authentic to the Mexican period but I believe Santa Maria and SLO were both actual missions, so they'd be so named on the map already.
It's not a terrible division; Mexico retains what is known OTL as "Southern California," including all the Wile E. Coyote/Acme country (I think the Coyote of Warner Brothers is an allusion, perhaps archtypical or unconscious, to the OTL SoCal aerospace/nuclear wizardry of the postwar era.) In this era of course it retains Los Angeles and San Diego, which were considerably more developed than the Bay Area was pre-Gold Rush, though perhaps less so than Monterey. And it is land that has a lot of potential, though they will lack access to the massive water diversions of OTL, those sources are mostly west of the British border I think. They can do what they like with the Colorado River of course!
All of California's major oil fields are on the Mexican side, I think. I don't remember noticing any wells up in the north. Certainly the big famous fields are down south.
(For Buffyverse fans, Mexico retains the site of the Hellmouth too, somewhere between Ventura and Santa Barbara...
)But Britain gets essentially all of the Central Valley, the Bay of course, the gold fields. And the eastern border is considerably to the east of the OTL's state border in the north; all the more habitable parts of Northern Nevada--Washoe and the counties near Carson City--are firmly on the British side too.
At this time, Mexico will feel well and truly screwed in CA, but assuming Mexico can support the sort of industrial development in its part of California comparable to OTL, come the mid-20th century Los Angeles and hinterland can be quite an asset.
I can see how in a Grand Alliance in some mid-century war, NW Mexico could indeed wind up being a major aeronautical center as OTL, and Canada/the Empire even in the habit of procuring some aircraft from Mexico, if the relationship between the Empire's sphere and Mexico is close enough by then.
How is Wile E. Coyote named in Spanish-language versions of the Warner Roadrunner cartoons?
Yes it is on the exact corner of Edwards AFB, which being on a border probably won't be an air force base.
I don't actually think that LA will be a particularly important area beyond its agriculture and oil. It's on the border of two very peripheral territories for their respective nations - the Canadian continental railroad will run through Oregon and California will be the southern extension with little reason go much further than San Francisco for a long time. For Mexico the major route will be from ports in the Gulf of California running up via Sonora, and the Colorado water won't be going to Californias but rather to the more politically powerful Sonora and Sinhala , and any left over work can be done by the port of San Diego. The border itself is a bunch of useless desert hills.
The Serra Nevada water diversions went to the Central valley for the most part, most of the ones that went to LA are still on the Mexican side, though I rather doubt they will be going to some hick agricultural town. Why on earth would an aeronautics industry be built there by Mexico. The US wanted a pacific air presence near their major terminus (LA) and where there was lots of cheap land. Neither Canada or Mexico would have those factors at all.
A good deal of the Nevada silver is still on the Mexican side and half the Colorado Mineral Belt and its gold is in the Mexican side as well.
I don't actually think that LA will be a particularly important area beyond its agriculture and oil. It's on the border of two very peripheral territories for their respective nations - the Canadian continental railroad will run through Oregon and California will be the southern extension with little reason go much further than San Francisco for a long time. For Mexico the major route will be from ports in the Gulf of California running up via Sonora, and the Colorado water won't be going to Californias but rather to the more politically powerful Sonora and Sinhala , and any left over work can be done by the port of San Diego. The border itself is a bunch of useless desert hills.
The Serra Nevada water diversions went to the Central valley for the most part, most of the ones that went to LA are still on the Mexican side, though I rather doubt they will be going to some hick agricultural town. Why on earth would an aeronautics industry be built there by Mexico. The US wanted a pacific air presence near their major terminus (LA) and where there was lots of cheap land. Neither Canada or Mexico would have those factors at all.
A good deal of the Nevada silver is still on the Mexican side and half the Colorado Mineral Belt and its gold is in the Mexican side as well.
Shevek23
Quite a lot of thought gone into those last two posts and some interesting ideas.
What it possibly needs is some trigger for the two powers to view each other as friends rather than threats. Difficult to see this before the 20thC and the US is more likely to be on the opposing side to Britain/Canada if there was another big war with the European coalition that might emerge.
However what might change matters, albeit at some further cost to the US might be a civil war triggered over slavery. If that developed similar to OTL [although politically I think with so many northern states lost to NE especially the slave states might have a majority in the senate] then it would be virtually impossible not to have the empire dragged in. Possibly if forces from the empire, largely native Canadians probably, helped quickly quash the slaver states, ending the war quickly and relatively bloodlessly, then withdrew it might make for a change in the way the powers see each other.
Possibly latter on the European bloc seeks to recruit the US but for whatever reason - possibly the bloc is going very dark politically, clumsy diplomacy, the US deciding they would be hung out to die in any such war as the Europeans couldn't support them this falls through and a strong response from the bloc means that the US establishing closer economic and possibly later political links with the empire.
One other thing that could bring the two together is possible population movements. Blacks, both escaped and then later freed slaves and other minorities will probably be welcome in Canada. The US still has a large area to settle, especially since it probably won't get the same level of immigration, although probably still quite a lot. However other, WASP USans might well move to Canada in reasonable numbers and there will be some trade and family links established. Coupled with a common base culture and the fact the majority language in both will be English there is probably room, in a generation or so, for a good degree of intermixing, which should help improve relations.
Steve
Quite a lot of thought gone into those last two posts and some interesting ideas.
What it possibly needs is some trigger for the two powers to view each other as friends rather than threats. Difficult to see this before the 20thC and the US is more likely to be on the opposing side to Britain/Canada if there was another big war with the European coalition that might emerge.
However what might change matters, albeit at some further cost to the US might be a civil war triggered over slavery. If that developed similar to OTL [although politically I think with so many northern states lost to NE especially the slave states might have a majority in the senate] then it would be virtually impossible not to have the empire dragged in. Possibly if forces from the empire, largely native Canadians probably, helped quickly quash the slaver states, ending the war quickly and relatively bloodlessly, then withdrew it might make for a change in the way the powers see each other.
Possibly latter on the European bloc seeks to recruit the US but for whatever reason - possibly the bloc is going very dark politically, clumsy diplomacy, the US deciding they would be hung out to die in any such war as the Europeans couldn't support them this falls through and a strong response from the bloc means that the US establishing closer economic and possibly later political links with the empire.
One other thing that could bring the two together is possible population movements. Blacks, both escaped and then later freed slaves and other minorities will probably be welcome in Canada. The US still has a large area to settle, especially since it probably won't get the same level of immigration, although probably still quite a lot. However other, WASP USans might well move to Canada in reasonable numbers and there will be some trade and family links established. Coupled with a common base culture and the fact the majority language in both will be English there is probably room, in a generation or so, for a good degree of intermixing, which should help improve relations.
Steve
Not really "thought," it was emotion-based rationalization triggered by the stunning realization that I, who OTL has always been thoroughly a Usaian, always thought of myself as such and has spent a cumulative total of less than six months outside the country in a lifetime getting depressingly close to half a century
, if I had an analogue in this timeline at all, I'd have spent hardly any of that life anywhere in TTL USA. And that come to think of it, the big city I spent my childhood thinking of as "home" though I rarely lived there would not be even in the British sphere but in Mexico. So how could I possibly exist? Only with this very far-fetched fantasy era of good feeling North America, that's how. Nugax is right, the growth of Los Angeles is highly improbable here. I do love that vast tawdry megaplex, and when the time comes to develop mid-20th century levels of tech the otherwise useless desert land northeast of it would come in very handy indeed for development and testing, and it almost seemed a shame the British wouldn't have it too. But I wanted to cut Mexico a break and what seems characteristically "Canadian" about this evolving BNA is the conservation of Canadian decency; they won't just steal away another chunk of Mexico just because they can. Although if Mexico were once again on the wrong side of an anti-British alliance the annexation of more of NW Mexico would be very much in the cards. But as I say Mexico deserves a break and the idea of the lovable Frankenstein's Monster that is Los Angeles as we know it OTL arising under the Mexican flag appealed to me, plus providing my alt-self with a place for his family to come from.
It could only happen if the border between Mexico and Greater Canada or the BNA or whatever it is seen as is an open, friendly one and lots of Anglos, and Franco-Canadians, and Bavariano-Tejanos, and wayward formerly Mexican Latinos from Rio Bravo, and bicoastalites direct from Britain, and so on for the world-representing megalapolis I know and love which is the second-largest Korean city after Seoul and the second-largest Iranian city after Teheran and so on, all wound up settling there and turning it into Mexico's second city, precisely because it is on the border with British California but not technically British.
There are I suppose other sites comparable to Rodriguez Dry Lakes, other places for the British Empire to do nuclear testing, other places for even Mexico to do so if they are that developed.
I was just going over the top, OK? I'll be quite pleased I'm sure to see what sorts of big cities and high-tech complexes develop naturally ITTL.
I was going to suggest that actually the first intercontinental RR would make for San Francisco, because the Gold Rush is pretty sure to start any time now. But of course a direct course from the Canadian developments around the Great Lakes to SF would run through Mexican territory, even if things get comfortable later it's much too early for that now, so yes, even the Gold Rush will rather stimulate a line that skirts that border to the north, thus headed straight for OTL Portland.
I forget if whatever town may exist on the confluence of the Williamette and Columbia rivers still has that name or if Portland ever had a chance to be founded in the first place--come to think of it it's probably "Vancouver," located where OTL Vancouver Washington is, or even on the site of OTL Portland--Van Wash, I believe, was the original HQ of the Hudson's Bay Company in the Northwest, and located across the Columbia from the Yankee Portland, then later when British co-ownership of the Oregon Country was in doubt the HBC relocated to the current site across from Vancouver Island, leaving an American town with a British name behind. ITTL with American enterprise to the far NW probably pre-empted completely in the aftermath of 1812, there'd have been nothing to stop HBC from locating where Portland is OTL, and nothing to ever force them to move, so Vancouver at Portland's site is probably where that railroad will terminate.
Then as Nugax says, a spur line built probably much as the US Interstate 5 now runs, or alternatively down the coast analogous to US Hwy 101, to the OTL Sacramento area--making the line run all the way to SF would be difficult and superfluous since the line can just run to the Bay and its feeding river systems, which make Sacramento an actual seaport OTL! Sacramento might not exist, the lines might run farther west to Benecia or Vallejo.
OK, I have no analog, I'm butterflied away like everyone else in this timeline, the elaborate intertwining of nominally separate nations that would allow an interceptor pilot of the RCAF to have the career my Dad did is ridiculous I guess.
But if I were shifted sideways in time, I'd be in British California still, because the habitable parts of OTL "Northern Nevada"--Reno, for instance--are British. I'll take that as small consolation.
Of course Nugax is sure to point out that the Washoe area of British California will probably have no development to speak of, due to not being in this timeline a border town in a state that legalizes gambling precisely to tap into Californians whose state does not. Nor on a major RR line as such a line would have to cut across Mexican territory to the east.
Well there's still the big silver lodes, the ranching, and the water to be redirected to the Central Valley. Plus its now an important border to be secured rather than deep inside the controlling nation.
Finally the urbanites of the Canadian Cascadia Metroplex will probably be looking for cheap summer homes come the 20th century once the California coast gets expensive.
Probably not half a million residents though
.US Politics and Society in the aftermath of the war
I couldn't figure out why you guys were missing the whole Clay as scapegoat theme. Then, I realised that it was in THIS post. Oops.
US Politics and Society in the aftermath of the war
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Politics[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The aggressive warlike policies of Clay and his National Party had been thoroughly discredited by the disastrous results of the war. So too, by association, was his American System of high tariffs and support for US manufacturing, and centralization policies. Not only was there little taste for the Federal Government to do much, but there was little ability. The break-down of the US financial system and the shattering of the dollar into a dozen de facto local currencies meant that taxation was rendered much more difficult. Not impossible, but difficult – especially until mechanisms for dealing with all those currencies were in place.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In addition to the National Party policies, even the office of President was discredited, to some extent. It didn't help that Pinckney, his replacement, had been a non-entity, and not allowed to do or say much by his handlers.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]So, once again, the political situation shattered. Here, however, all the blame was placed on Clay and the Nationals, who were almost totally destroyed in the next election. While several replacement parties sprang up, they only managed to win a handful of seats in the next Congress. (Unlike the previous war, it is only the ruling party that is totally discredited and shattered – the Democrats take the White House and both Houses of Congress.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The Democrat Party embraced (partly out of necessity) its States Rights anti-federal wing, and controlled Congress for most of the next decade and the Presidency longer.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Of the splinter groups that formed from the corpse of the Nationals, the American Party (a coalition and then merger of the Union, Liberty, Sound Dollar, and Development parties), slowly clawed its way back into respectability and, ultimately, power. They managed to win the most seats in the House in '52, and control of it in '54,[1] and finally got their candidate elected President again in '56. By that point the Democrats had abused their (then) total control of the political system and were thrown out of office. Besides, by this point it was quite clear that the pendulum had swung far too far towards States Rights, and a new Federalizing trend was inevitable.[2][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]US Flag[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In the aftermath of the War of 1812, there was much discussion about how to proceed. Since each star on the flag represented a state, and the US had just lost all of New England, Louisiana and (most of) Florida, the number of stars should have been reduced to 11. Some people suggested going back to the original 13 star flag of the Revolutionary War (the 'Betsy Ross flag'), and pretending that they are recreating 'the original flag', rather than actually recognising the loss of states. Inertia meant that the flag stayed the same until Mississippi and Alabama entered as states, at which point stars 18 and 20 were added. Now, dropping the lost states would result in 13, which would make the Betsy Ross flag even more appropriate. On the other hand, it would also be seen by many as a direct acknowledgement of the loss of those states. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The debate continued for over a decade, and finally Congress reached a compromise. They dropped the number of stars to 18 – recognising that New England was lost (losing 5 stars), but they didn't admit the loss of Florida or Louisiana, and in addition, they added stars for Illinois, Indiana and Missouri. This, then, was the status at the beginning of the war.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The peace treaty of 1844 required that the US admit the loss of Louisiana and Florida, so they really should have adjusted the number of stars down by 2 or more. However no one in Congress dared seriously suggest that. There was enough frustration and anger in the US at that point that any such suggestion would have drawn violent reaction.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]However, from the point of view of Britain and Canada, or Spain, those stars meant that the US had not, in actual fact, given up her claims, whatever they said in words in a treaty. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Society[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The one good thing about the ending of the war, that eased tensions to a bearable level was the use of Clay as a scapegoat, which allowed much of the condemnation to be placed on a now absent figure, and not some random minority, like Quakers or Indians.[3] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Still, 'foreigners' were not welcomed (with interesting and varying definitions of the word 'foreigner'). Politics in all parties went nativist. The government (and most parties) CLAIMED they wanted immigration to boost the US population and strength, but somehow most new immigrants who did show were less than welcomed. Only 'people like us' were really welcomed, which rather narrowed the possibilities (!). Calvinist Scots-Irish were welcomed in many areas, but other than that, the only significant immigration was some Dutch to New York State, and some Germans (especially Anabaptists) to Pennsylvania. And the US economic mess for the years following the war made the country unattractive to many, anyway. Interestingly, the religious tolerance of Canada meant that some Orange Lodge types[4], who couldn't impose their anti-Catholicism in Canada start thinking about moving south. Similarly, new emigrants from Northern Ireland or Scotland with those views found that Canada was less congenial than it had been, so some went to the US, and others to e.g. South Africa (where they fit in religiously with the Boers[5]), or even Australia.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Amish and other Germans remained significant in and near Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, where they were of long standing and respected. However, in other parts of the country, they too were seen as 'foreign' and made unwelcome. Some who had moved to other parts of the country returned to Pennsylvania (where the area of German minorities did expand), while others moved to Canada. Similarly with Jews and Catholics. They were never officially discriminated against, and in certain areas they were just considered 'strange', but in most areas they were seen as 'foreign', and therefore unwelcome. Some left the country, some just bore the prejudice, and others tried to find some place that would accept them - often Philadelphia, which was (and is) the most cosmopolitan (or least parochial, perhaps) of US cities.[6][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Slavery and Blacks[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Slavery and the status of Negroes[7] was a very complicated issue in this time period. On the one hand, the revolts and armed struggle by many increased the fear and hatred, which led to an increasing of the oppressive yoke under which they struggled. On the other hand, other factors mitigated that trend. Firstly, the fact that Negroes felt they were forced to rebel said to some that the yoke was too harsh; secondly, the fact they were sometimes serious foes meant they earned some respect, in addition to the hatred; thirdly, the fact that so many treacherously[8] fled south and west to Florida and Canada, meant that the supply of slaves dropped markedly, increasing the demand and their price. Once slaves were that valuable, they had to be treated better, or an owner would lose his investment.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Together with depressed prices[9] for cotton, this increased price for slaves made slavery gradually less and less economical, which led to the changes to be discussed in the next chapter.[10][/FONT]
–
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]1 in '52 there were still a few splinter parties that elected a member or two, plus a couple of regional parties. This allowed the Democrats to pass most of the legislation they really wanted, by getting some of the smaller parties on their side – by bribery or pork-barrel, often.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]2 or so the historians iTTL say. Nothing is so 'inevitable' as what actually happened <g>.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]3 interesting parallels to 20th Century OTL Germany. The use of Clay as a scapegoat means that the 'Dolchstoßlegende” equivalent is mostly centred on him, rather than on 'Jews' 'socialists' or what have you. The US was thoroughly defeated militarily. That's clear. But conspiracy theorists mostly get attracted to the idea that it was Clay and his immediate circle who 'sold the country out'. This is less unhealthy than many of the other possibilities. The other parallel is post war, the number of people who admitted they had been National Party members dropped like those who OTL 'forgot' they had been Nazis. Or claimed that 'I SAID I supported the National Party, because you had to in those days, but I really voted Democrat', or whatever. Note, too, that when the TTL author is trying to think of people who MIGHT have been demonized, he doesn't even think of Jews. This is partly because the Jews are a smaller minority ITTL in the US than in Europe, partly because they tend to be richer than many, and partly because there was no special animus towards Jews. Sure, they were often thought 'foreign' and made to feel unwelcome, but not like the Gaelic Irish or freed blacks, say.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]4 OTL, the Orange Lodge was a major political force in Canada, and much of the unpleasantness of the (first) Riel Rebellion in Manitoba had to do with Orange Lodge / Catholic issues. ITTL, they are still a force, just a much smaller one. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]5 or so it looks to an English, Anglican eye. The Boers (and Ulstermen) might disagree.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]6 think New York City iOTL. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]7 this author is a politically correct Usan of his time. “Negro” is the polite word to use in this context, like it was iTTL in the early '60s.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]8 Did I mention this guy was Usan? (from Mississippi, even, which bore the greatest burden of black flight).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]9 depressed prices to the plantation owner, due to the extra export duties, etc., charged by the Spanish and Canadian authorities, some of which were specifically to pay off the US indemnities.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]10 Ummm... that's the “next chapter” of this guy's book. I have no clue right now what those changes will be, so it's certainly not going to be MY next chapter. I will say that free blacks are not going to be welcome most anywhere, at least for the foreseeable future. I will also say that say that by the time of this guy's book, very few Usans will admit/believe that there had ever been as many as 2 million blacks in the US (the approximate number before the war). (No, this does not involve Nazi-esque extermination camps.) I THINK that the fact that this alt-US partly defines itself as not-British means that they will want to and will hang onto slavery longer (NOT a point that the above author will admit). OTOH, the scarcity of slave labour may well lead to an amelioration of the slaves' condition to the point where an 'emancipation' of slaves into debt-peonage some time in the future might be more of a change of name than of condition. Note, too, that one of the reasons that the number of Negroes goes down is that many who can run away and 'pass' as white somewhere else will. TTL's US has an awful lot of people with “Cherokee”, “Spanish” and “Black Irish” ancestry. Again, something that the author of the book doesn't want to admit. Polite people don't, you know.[/FONT]
I couldn't figure out why you guys were missing the whole Clay as scapegoat theme. Then, I realised that it was in THIS post. Oops.
US Politics and Society in the aftermath of the war
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Politics[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The aggressive warlike policies of Clay and his National Party had been thoroughly discredited by the disastrous results of the war. So too, by association, was his American System of high tariffs and support for US manufacturing, and centralization policies. Not only was there little taste for the Federal Government to do much, but there was little ability. The break-down of the US financial system and the shattering of the dollar into a dozen de facto local currencies meant that taxation was rendered much more difficult. Not impossible, but difficult – especially until mechanisms for dealing with all those currencies were in place.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In addition to the National Party policies, even the office of President was discredited, to some extent. It didn't help that Pinckney, his replacement, had been a non-entity, and not allowed to do or say much by his handlers.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]So, once again, the political situation shattered. Here, however, all the blame was placed on Clay and the Nationals, who were almost totally destroyed in the next election. While several replacement parties sprang up, they only managed to win a handful of seats in the next Congress. (Unlike the previous war, it is only the ruling party that is totally discredited and shattered – the Democrats take the White House and both Houses of Congress.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The Democrat Party embraced (partly out of necessity) its States Rights anti-federal wing, and controlled Congress for most of the next decade and the Presidency longer.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Of the splinter groups that formed from the corpse of the Nationals, the American Party (a coalition and then merger of the Union, Liberty, Sound Dollar, and Development parties), slowly clawed its way back into respectability and, ultimately, power. They managed to win the most seats in the House in '52, and control of it in '54,[1] and finally got their candidate elected President again in '56. By that point the Democrats had abused their (then) total control of the political system and were thrown out of office. Besides, by this point it was quite clear that the pendulum had swung far too far towards States Rights, and a new Federalizing trend was inevitable.[2][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]US Flag[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In the aftermath of the War of 1812, there was much discussion about how to proceed. Since each star on the flag represented a state, and the US had just lost all of New England, Louisiana and (most of) Florida, the number of stars should have been reduced to 11. Some people suggested going back to the original 13 star flag of the Revolutionary War (the 'Betsy Ross flag'), and pretending that they are recreating 'the original flag', rather than actually recognising the loss of states. Inertia meant that the flag stayed the same until Mississippi and Alabama entered as states, at which point stars 18 and 20 were added. Now, dropping the lost states would result in 13, which would make the Betsy Ross flag even more appropriate. On the other hand, it would also be seen by many as a direct acknowledgement of the loss of those states. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The debate continued for over a decade, and finally Congress reached a compromise. They dropped the number of stars to 18 – recognising that New England was lost (losing 5 stars), but they didn't admit the loss of Florida or Louisiana, and in addition, they added stars for Illinois, Indiana and Missouri. This, then, was the status at the beginning of the war.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The peace treaty of 1844 required that the US admit the loss of Louisiana and Florida, so they really should have adjusted the number of stars down by 2 or more. However no one in Congress dared seriously suggest that. There was enough frustration and anger in the US at that point that any such suggestion would have drawn violent reaction.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]However, from the point of view of Britain and Canada, or Spain, those stars meant that the US had not, in actual fact, given up her claims, whatever they said in words in a treaty. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Society[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The one good thing about the ending of the war, that eased tensions to a bearable level was the use of Clay as a scapegoat, which allowed much of the condemnation to be placed on a now absent figure, and not some random minority, like Quakers or Indians.[3] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Still, 'foreigners' were not welcomed (with interesting and varying definitions of the word 'foreigner'). Politics in all parties went nativist. The government (and most parties) CLAIMED they wanted immigration to boost the US population and strength, but somehow most new immigrants who did show were less than welcomed. Only 'people like us' were really welcomed, which rather narrowed the possibilities (!). Calvinist Scots-Irish were welcomed in many areas, but other than that, the only significant immigration was some Dutch to New York State, and some Germans (especially Anabaptists) to Pennsylvania. And the US economic mess for the years following the war made the country unattractive to many, anyway. Interestingly, the religious tolerance of Canada meant that some Orange Lodge types[4], who couldn't impose their anti-Catholicism in Canada start thinking about moving south. Similarly, new emigrants from Northern Ireland or Scotland with those views found that Canada was less congenial than it had been, so some went to the US, and others to e.g. South Africa (where they fit in religiously with the Boers[5]), or even Australia.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Amish and other Germans remained significant in and near Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, where they were of long standing and respected. However, in other parts of the country, they too were seen as 'foreign' and made unwelcome. Some who had moved to other parts of the country returned to Pennsylvania (where the area of German minorities did expand), while others moved to Canada. Similarly with Jews and Catholics. They were never officially discriminated against, and in certain areas they were just considered 'strange', but in most areas they were seen as 'foreign', and therefore unwelcome. Some left the country, some just bore the prejudice, and others tried to find some place that would accept them - often Philadelphia, which was (and is) the most cosmopolitan (or least parochial, perhaps) of US cities.[6][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Slavery and Blacks[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Slavery and the status of Negroes[7] was a very complicated issue in this time period. On the one hand, the revolts and armed struggle by many increased the fear and hatred, which led to an increasing of the oppressive yoke under which they struggled. On the other hand, other factors mitigated that trend. Firstly, the fact that Negroes felt they were forced to rebel said to some that the yoke was too harsh; secondly, the fact they were sometimes serious foes meant they earned some respect, in addition to the hatred; thirdly, the fact that so many treacherously[8] fled south and west to Florida and Canada, meant that the supply of slaves dropped markedly, increasing the demand and their price. Once slaves were that valuable, they had to be treated better, or an owner would lose his investment.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Together with depressed prices[9] for cotton, this increased price for slaves made slavery gradually less and less economical, which led to the changes to be discussed in the next chapter.[10][/FONT]
–
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]1 in '52 there were still a few splinter parties that elected a member or two, plus a couple of regional parties. This allowed the Democrats to pass most of the legislation they really wanted, by getting some of the smaller parties on their side – by bribery or pork-barrel, often.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]2 or so the historians iTTL say. Nothing is so 'inevitable' as what actually happened <g>.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]3 interesting parallels to 20th Century OTL Germany. The use of Clay as a scapegoat means that the 'Dolchstoßlegende” equivalent is mostly centred on him, rather than on 'Jews' 'socialists' or what have you. The US was thoroughly defeated militarily. That's clear. But conspiracy theorists mostly get attracted to the idea that it was Clay and his immediate circle who 'sold the country out'. This is less unhealthy than many of the other possibilities. The other parallel is post war, the number of people who admitted they had been National Party members dropped like those who OTL 'forgot' they had been Nazis. Or claimed that 'I SAID I supported the National Party, because you had to in those days, but I really voted Democrat', or whatever. Note, too, that when the TTL author is trying to think of people who MIGHT have been demonized, he doesn't even think of Jews. This is partly because the Jews are a smaller minority ITTL in the US than in Europe, partly because they tend to be richer than many, and partly because there was no special animus towards Jews. Sure, they were often thought 'foreign' and made to feel unwelcome, but not like the Gaelic Irish or freed blacks, say.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]4 OTL, the Orange Lodge was a major political force in Canada, and much of the unpleasantness of the (first) Riel Rebellion in Manitoba had to do with Orange Lodge / Catholic issues. ITTL, they are still a force, just a much smaller one. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]5 or so it looks to an English, Anglican eye. The Boers (and Ulstermen) might disagree.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]6 think New York City iOTL. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]7 this author is a politically correct Usan of his time. “Negro” is the polite word to use in this context, like it was iTTL in the early '60s.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]8 Did I mention this guy was Usan? (from Mississippi, even, which bore the greatest burden of black flight).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]9 depressed prices to the plantation owner, due to the extra export duties, etc., charged by the Spanish and Canadian authorities, some of which were specifically to pay off the US indemnities.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]10 Ummm... that's the “next chapter” of this guy's book. I have no clue right now what those changes will be, so it's certainly not going to be MY next chapter. I will say that free blacks are not going to be welcome most anywhere, at least for the foreseeable future. I will also say that say that by the time of this guy's book, very few Usans will admit/believe that there had ever been as many as 2 million blacks in the US (the approximate number before the war). (No, this does not involve Nazi-esque extermination camps.) I THINK that the fact that this alt-US partly defines itself as not-British means that they will want to and will hang onto slavery longer (NOT a point that the above author will admit). OTOH, the scarcity of slave labour may well lead to an amelioration of the slaves' condition to the point where an 'emancipation' of slaves into debt-peonage some time in the future might be more of a change of name than of condition. Note, too, that one of the reasons that the number of Negroes goes down is that many who can run away and 'pass' as white somewhere else will. TTL's US has an awful lot of people with “Cherokee”, “Spanish” and “Black Irish” ancestry. Again, something that the author of the book doesn't want to admit. Polite people don't, you know.[/FONT]
So what are the territorial changes in the US and Mexico? It is clear that Canada will get Oregon country but will they get California? How much far is the Canadian-US and US-Spanish border pushed? Could we get a map? So where do those immigrants go if not to the US? I supose Canada has the land for them but i forsee a population bume for Argentina, Uruguay and Brasilia.
bolhabela
See post 1214, a couple of pages back. It covers the peace settlement with Mexico and resultant border changes. A later one deals with the settlement with the US and what Spain gains in Florida.
In terms of immigrants I suspect a lot will still go to Canada, especially since it is markedly more welcoming to Catholics and other racial/religious groups than OTL N America. However expect at least some extra people will go to other places including the southern cone region. Possibly also Mexico, if it becomes more stable, and also Spanish Florida.
Steve
Dathi
Ugh! This doesn't bode well for the US if a modern, I assume, USan author has those views about foreigners, defining themselves as 'non British' and also their history with their black population. I was hoping a more reformist element would win out and it would realise it needed to attract more settlers and develop its own lands rather than lust after those of others. Sounds like its going to become a dumping ground for the religiously intolerant Protestant northern Europeans.
The flag is going to continue to be a problem. Both in that it means a considerable number are denying their defeat and in that it means their neighbours still feel they can't trust them.
The period before the American party revives the central government is going to be a difficult one. Both with all the economic problems and with the stronger position of the states. That will mean less chance for co-ordinated economic development, or even fiscal recovery as the states are more likely to be looking out for their own short term interest than the broader good of establishing stability and a reliable currency.
Also lower tariffs and a weak central government will mean more imports as infant US industries will struggle to compete with more developed European rivals. [Since the most powerful and efficient of those is Britain how many Usans will pay a higher price for goods from elsewhere or choke down their distaste and buy from the enemy?]. As tariffs formed the vast majority of the US revenue and also strong states will mean opposition to central taxation I can see the US having seriously problems with funding just about anything. Wondering how they will actually pay the reparations? [It could be that the need to do this and met funds for internal needs, even if a desire to rearm, could be a prompter for the revived central power, as that has happened before].
All in all it sounds like Shevek23's fears are going to be confirmed and there will be at least one more round of conflict before the US accepts Canada's existence. Although with the states having gained more power for a while and tension over slavery and other issues probably coming to a head, it might end in a civil conflict to resolve some of those factors.
Given how weak in comparison the US is now I also suspect that another war, unless someone really stupid is in charge of the US, would mean that Britain is distracted by major problems elsewhere so it could be a really big and costly conflict.
Steve
Ugh!
This doesn't bode well for the US if a modern, I assume, USan author has those views about foreigners, defining themselves as 'non British' and also their history with their black population. I was hoping a more reformist element would win out and it would realise it needed to attract more settlers and develop its own lands rather than lust after those of others. Sounds like its going to become a dumping ground for the religiously intolerant Protestant northern Europeans.The flag is going to continue to be a problem. Both in that it means a considerable number are denying their defeat and in that it means their neighbours still feel they can't trust them.
The period before the American party revives the central government is going to be a difficult one. Both with all the economic problems and with the stronger position of the states. That will mean less chance for co-ordinated economic development, or even fiscal recovery as the states are more likely to be looking out for their own short term interest than the broader good of establishing stability and a reliable currency.
Also lower tariffs and a weak central government will mean more imports as infant US industries will struggle to compete with more developed European rivals. [Since the most powerful and efficient of those is Britain how many Usans will pay a higher price for goods from elsewhere or choke down their distaste and buy from the enemy?
]. As tariffs formed the vast majority of the US revenue and also strong states will mean opposition to central taxation I can see the US having seriously problems with funding just about anything. Wondering how they will actually pay the reparations? [It could be that the need to do this and met funds for internal needs, even if a desire to rearm, could be a prompter for the revived central power, as that has happened before].All in all it sounds like Shevek23's fears are going to be confirmed and there will be at least one more round of conflict before the US accepts Canada's existence.
Although with the states having gained more power for a while and tension over slavery and other issues probably coming to a head, it might end in a civil conflict to resolve some of those factors.Given how weak in comparison the US is now I also suspect that another war, unless someone really stupid is in charge of the US, would mean that Britain is distracted by major problems elsewhere so it could be a really big and costly conflict.
Steve
- Status