Canada Wank (YACW)

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Very cool, like how you used the same basemap and style as for your LTTW map...the setup in Dathi's TL is certainly constitutionally complex and inconsistent enough to seem plausible as something set up by the British government

Ja, that's on purpose. Certainly, I was planning on a more federal/unified Canada, but the arguments (especially Nugax, but not just him) convinced me an assymmetrical union would be more plausible.

And, ja, British descended polities/constitutions grow like Topsy, not nicely theorized and elegantly designed like ab novo republics.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

First of all I do feel my assumption that Montreal will be the Big Maple of North America is reinforced. It's the obvious terminus of seaborne trade going up the Saint Lawrence itself of course.

Only partly. The Saint Lawrence Seaway equivalent has been in place for decades now, upgraded once, about to be upgraded again. It's not big enough for the biggest ocean going ships, but is big enough for some. In many ways the terminus is actually Chicago, which is important already, and is in process of booming further.

Now consider New England. It's a member of the Delian League. I figure the League must from time to time facilitate adjustments meant to deliberately throw opportunities the way of members that otherwise might, in a straight and simple competition, lose out, otherwise the loser members might reconsider their membership.

If you don't like the League, you're welcome to leave. But the benefits of being a member for a maritime power are very significant.

Little trade is routed through New England, it would be very costly. By the end of the war, rail has reached Quebec City, so even the rationale of needing a 'warm' water port isn't there any more.

As for manufacturing, New England's doing OK, and supplies some stuff to e.g. New Brunswick, but Canada's got its own industry going and Peterborough and Chicago have iron mills closer to the Canadian centres of consumption, and England can still produce stuff cheaper.

New England's going to do OK, but they won't get bones thrown to them.

New York state, I suspect, and still more NYC, is in for eclipse. We've already been told Philadelphia revives as the financial center; to me that implies it will be a center of a lot of other stuff too, and on the Yankee side Pennsylvania in general will be the leading industrial state.

Upstate New York will be fine, relatively, selling agricultural produce across the lake, for instance.

NYC got hammered in the war, most of its population fled, and no one wants a financial centre right on the border. Oh, it will recover, but it will never again be the largest city. Or the centre of the economy. Note, that one of the reasons that NYC rose to prominence OTL is the Erie Canal - shipping stuff from the Great Lakes to the Atlantic. iTTL, the Seaway went in first, with ocean going ships. So it was cheaper to ship from Buffalo to NYC through the seaway and around the Atlantic than to send it on barges down the Erie. So NYC was never as big iTTL as it was iOTL.

OTOH NYC is too good a location to not be a major city. It just won't be #1. Economically, think OTL's Chicago, or maybe LA. Important hubs, just not THE hub.

Sea traffic bound for the USA is going to be diverted past NY to the Chesapeake, much of it headed right up to the headwaters meaning near Philly, but Washington DC may redeem the hopes of George Washington and others and become a major commercial and industrial center in its own right as well as being the national capital. Meanwhile, I daresay the entire Chesapeake region will commercialize and industrialize beyond OTL levels, unless the general stagnation of the USA keeps that as modest or even less developed than OTL--but if it does, the whole country will be mired very deeply indeed in depression, and I expect the Chesapeake to be second only to Pennsylvania, at however high or low a level that is. So basically Virginia and Maryland will be among the industrial core states along with Penn.

Interesting analysis. Depends on your industry, of course. Eastern and Western Pennsylvania (e.g. Bethlehem and Pittsburgh) have both iron ore and coal handy. That helps immensely. The Chesapeake would have to have coal shipped in. Which isn't insurmountable. It's certainly got good sea access.

Actually, *Birmingham Alabama will be a major centre, too, and there will be more, scattered, manufacturing in many places.

The question of just what would happen to the deep South and the slavery issue is a very wide open one that it's up to Dathi to resolve. Consider though that while the world (especially Britain but also France and other European markets) is hungry for cotton, in addition to alternative sources to Dixie Britain and the rest of Europe had access to OTL, such as Egypt, BNA has for some time included Louisiana, Spanish Florida might be able to supply some of the demand, and so might Tejas and perhaps Rio Bravo. Of all these regions only Louisiana overlaps the traditional "cotton belt" I believe, but I daresay crops can be grown outside of that belt. Britain's anti-slavery stance as of midcentury of OTL can only be made firmer by the various commitments in North America made ITTL--to forbid enslavement of Louisianan Africans and to watch out for the interests of refugee ex-slaves in Florida, thus recruiting the exodus from slavery into de facto (and often, official) militias to defend the borders of the realm. If nevertheless the Delian League countenances the purchase and traffic in slave-grown US cotton, that trade must funnel through either Louisiana or Florida, or be expensively hauled over the mountains to ports on the Chesapeake. (Well, in Georgia and Alabama and the Carolinas, the option does exist to ship it directly from Atlantic ports there too--Alabama's having to be hauled by RR east, the more natural trade route for that state, and of course Mississippi, being down to the Gulf, across the rival borders. Alabama could only consider the eastern route for overriding political reasons and at great cost and I think it would be just out of the question for Mississippi to do it no matter how strong political feelings run.) Either Britain or Spain will thus get a cut in what profits there are to be had in selling Dixie cotton (or other products the South might propose to sell on the world market), the planters will get less, the northeastern (ie OTL Middle Atlantic states) merchant elite will get a shrunken share or be cut out the deal completely. Even if Britain and thus the Delian members generally were oblivious to the moral issues of buying US plantation products (as long as slavery is legal) the basic geopolitics of the marketplaces and routes cuts sharply into the OTL role of "King Cotton" in the USA. Since I don't expect the British to be oblivious, especially not local officials more or less answerable to local settlements of recently escaped slaves and their children and grandchildren, (a diaspora that fought creditably for the Empire in fighting for themselves, twice now in living memory) some land that ecologically speaking is prime land for such exports as cotton will simply languish uncultivated (Mississippian in particular) or crops that are not notoriously grown by slaves will take over because these can be sold over the borders--if the British are diligent, they'll make sure that they aren't in fact slave-grown.

The League hasn't even managed to outlaw slavery in its own domains yet, it's still going on in Portuguese Africa and maybe Brazil (need to check into that). The "moral" argument is ATM mostly British, the Portuguese recognize the problem, they don't fully buy into it in the same way. This will be a problem in a couple of decades, but not yet.

So, no, there is no problem (yet) in buying 'slave-grown' cotton. Note, too, that Egyptian cotton was a rather later phenomenon. OTL, the huge growth in Egyptian cotton was a result of the US civil war, and a massive promotion of the industry by the Khedive, IIRC.

There is some Egyptian cotton, but the US cotton is easiest ATM.

You know, Douglas Adams once characterized the personalities of various nations, and he compared the USA (of his lifetime, OTL, mind) to a sullen teenager. Here, it's a sullen, very angry teenager still smarting from a few recent beatings. I share in hopes it may snap out of it yet, but in the meantime, I would not dare to predict the trajectory of race relations in the USA of this timeline. Only that the subject is charged up to a very high voltage.

I'm not sure where it's going either. Yet. Slavery will get outlawed eventually, but I'm not sure when, or what the result will look like.

NB: you make a couple of references to "Dixie". Note that etymologically, that would have to include Louisiana, which is gone.

I think, in view of the very strained relations between the races there, often slaves will be freed and then encouraged to emigrate--not back to Africa, but right over the border to Florida or Louisiana. Perhaps quite a few will stay anyway, perhaps Southern society will transition over through tolerance to acceptance to inclusion of descendants of slaves as core Americans.

Makes sense. Haiti will get a bunch, probably, and Liberia may be even bigger that OTL, but ja.

Turning to the other side of the border I've been talking about though, I'm pretty optimistic about both Louisiana and Florida, as I've already indicated at considerable length above and don't need to repeat here! Again a map-focused observation is, both Louisiana and Florida break up into obvious regions where the African diaspora will tend to concentrate. In Florida it will be West Florida, which OTL and even in this timeline is only weakly garrisoned by Spaniards, but is the obvious stopping place for slaves who have just made it over the border. It's land of a type that slaves local to the Spanish border area would be familiar with, and if the Spanish are even halfway astute and have some confidence of retaining the effective loyalty of these refugees and their children, they will encourage them to settle right there along the US border. Train them into militias, arm them, authorize them to protect themselves and to fall in with orders if things blow up with the USA again. And meanwhile there they are, the people whose physical work created the wealth the Cotton Kings claimed, knowing how to farm, how to build, and hungry and ambitious for the prospects of dignity and respect freedom brings them.

Nope, we just might not get a lot of white settlers in West Florida--and we won't miss them, we have these fine African-Americans to build a country of their own with no overseer looking over their shoulder but the stark necessity of protecting and caring for themselves.

Pretty much. And who will be loyal subjects of the Spanish Crown to protect themselves from the US to the north!

I think I'd better post these comments before I lose the window and all my responses.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

This rail talk, with very good reason, is making me wonder whether Canada is going to purchase the top strip of Mexican territory - the OTL Union/Central Pacific line - at some point.

Not going to happen.

The NP and SP routes are better. OTOH, there will likely be rail from Sacramento to the silver mines at Carson City and area, and that rail might eventually get extended east. But it'll be a while.

When people start talking about building transcontinental railways and surveying routes, they're certainly going to have motivation to do so. What's more, California is eventually going to really want a more direct route to eastern Canada than would be built through OTL Oregon and Idaho.

There are, of course, two other routes I can see:
* Mexico refuses to sell, but is willing to build an international railroad. Mexico and Canada are drawn closer together.
* California declares independence, or otherwise grows away from Canada as an independent British colony.

the former, I think. In the meantime, rail runs from SF to Portland.
Edit: or, rather, Portland to SF

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

What's the likelyhood of a *Seattle to San Francisco railway during this period?

At the very least, there can be a regular ferry service along the Pacific coast from *Seattle to San Francisco.

Once the Transcontinental arrives at (OTL Portland, which may or may not be Vancouver iTTL) in 1853, rail will quickly head north to Puget Sound and south to the Bay area, at least.

Rail will later head from *Seattle to Spokane somewhat later.

Rail heading east from Sacramento will have to wait.

 

[Nugax]

A number of the western political units are both thinly populated and pretty large. OTL as such territories were settled and became states they were often split into smaller units. This might well happen with Iowa and Missouri especially, although I note that the latter is already a province rather than a territory. However with Louisiana and possibly Tejas this may be politically more difficult as they are a principality and a duchy.

Not really, the US split the western states into smaller units due to a) packing the senate and organizing the house of representatives and b) they had a strong idea for the 'ideal' size of a US state (5 degrees EW, 3 NS) based on Pennsylvania and the average of the original original 13 and pushed the western shapes into that.

Neither of which applies here - the portions are as big as the Eastern Canadian provinces and they make considerable sense based on communications, since everything in the geographical region of *Missouri is going to be tied together to Canada proper at St Louis anyway why not just have it as one province. Canada's provinces ain't nice and neat - they are the size they are to fit the area and the culture, which is why PEI, Quebec, and British Columbia are all good provincial arrangements in their own way.

 

[Evan]

the former, I think. In the meantime, rail runs from SF to Portland.
Edit: or, rather, Portland to SF

Well, yes, I was sort of guessing you were planning it that way. They'll have a ways to go, of course, what with the Rio Bravo Republic and all.

 

[Nugax]

One possible thing I thought of on the railroad - the Winchester government is possibly going to roll their eyes and tell California to shove it if they ask for preferential treatment because unlike the OTL US they have a huge strategic railroad network needing the public funds and only limited rail production. In addition to the transcontinental they need to do:

a) the Military frontier with the US needs to be properly set up and supplied.
b) the West of the Ozarks needs to be set up to connect Texas with the North without relying on the single strategically vulnerable thread that is the Mississippi river. This line will also want to run south to Monterrey
c) A Gulf line to connect New Orleans with Rio Bravo to shift war material back and forth in the event of new wars with either neighbour, stopping New Orleans from being the 'eggs in one basket' of the Canadian gulf presence.

While all those run across pretty much flat terrain, that's an enormous amount of iron and government resources to have to expend.

American Pittsburgh might see a boom time even as the rest of the US frays from all the Canadian government demand for rails (which native Canadian ironworks are possibly insufficient to supply at this time).

 

[Shevek23]

To clarify my comment above lets look at a map of the 1870 railnet with the new borders superimposed

Thank you for this other map, it is a wonderful complement to your fine territorial map. Here we can see some of the terrain issues that at best could only be inferred from the river courses on your main one, and seeing how the rail lines developed OTL is a useful guideline too.

-The dotted black line is the Idaho spur of the union pacific, not built until the late 1880s.
-Cyan dotted lines are what Shevek is talking about, skirting the border to the north, however the red patches are very significant mountain ranges and plateaus that no one every tried to drive a rail through in the OTL, and may indeed be impassable at the current technological expertise (especially the Wind River Range and Wyoming Range mountains in Wyoming).
-Blue line is the OTL North Pacific Route completed in 1883.

OK, I think this point of yours is pretty well proven then. Sigh.

Are you in a position to compare the ruggedness of your pink zones with the range that divides the valleys of southern Oregon from the California Central Valley? In my experience driving along US Interstate 5 there, it's rather hairy in certain spots--notably on both the northern and southern edge of the mountain belt, which is where the real drama of driving it shows up. The ascent from Ashland Oregon to the California border is pretty hair-raising. But it's only a few miles, between a couple miles south of that border (the same border as in this timeline!) and maybe 20 or 30 miles north of Redding, California, it's sort of highland plateau that is pretty easy going.

I'd much rather try to run a RR that way than down the coast or through the coast ranges. North of the border range, Oregon's valleys themselves struck me as moderately challenging driving--twisty, with lots of higher passes. South of Redding CA, of course, the Central Valley is a big flat plain practically made for high-speed transit! (Well, it can get dangerously foggy.)

Given that the one big rail line that can easily be pushed through the Rockies is indeed going more or less straight to the OTL Portland site, that might tend to pin down the Columbia/Williamette river system as the major locus of overland Canadian settlement in the coast area, the rail nexus outweighing the positive draw of Puget Sound northward. Indeed looking at your rail map, the Williamette river system rather dwarfs the Sound in sheer area. To be sure, I've seen the upper reaches of that; much of it is as I say twisty, hilly mountain country. Also the Sound is a much superior port area. Though the Columbia mouth might be adequate for quite a lot.

Given that it will take time to build the I-5 paralleling north-south railway to the San Francisco Bay Area, clearly for a very long time California will be mainly settled by sea, and it may well take quite a bit of political assertion from Canada and indeed from London to herd them into the Canadian fold. So perhaps this north-south line is no high priority, until and unless someone conceives it as military necessity. But I suppose by the time the west coast has developed enough to countenance it Canada will feel pretty secure, at least in the West. (Assuming of course things don't get ugly with Mexico, I'd rather hope for the opposite).

Regarding what else the rail lines tell us--I suspect that the Canadian Midwest (or whatever they will call it, the region southwest of the Great Lakes I mean) will look at least impressionistically like this. Because of military necessity as well as a likely policy of deliberately creating rail links to foster both development and unity, I expect that there will be an additional major rail line along the west side of the Mississippi river, to Shreveport and thence down to New Orleans, with spurs going off to provide at least some core trunk service in Tejas and Rio Bravo. A later spur will probably run up the northwest reach of Louisiana.

I again throw my hands up at imagining just what direction the USA goes in, and this means I don't have much of a clue how to revision the US parts of the rail map. Striking on that map is the heavy development of the region southeast of the Lakes, from Upstate NY through Ohio. If things don't get really bad for the USA, I suppose most of that will be there ITTL too. The South on the other hand has a ridiculously paltry excuse for a non-networking "network" in place! 1870 is just shortly after the Civil War (OTL) of course. Trying to guess what that regions roads will look like is trying to guess what course the USA takes, and I leave that to Dathi!

If the Spanish have their act together as I hope they will, they will want, indeed need, a line running through West Florida; it ought to link right up to New Orleans. Again it is both for economic purposes but also a military necessity; it's exposed to determined Yankee attack, but if the Americans concentrate forces at one place, such a rail line can bring in militia forces from both east and west, and if they spread out their attack they will be facing fairly determined (and hopefully well armed, trained, and disciplined) militias with reduced numbers in any one place. And the sort of Spain I am imagining will have good relations with Britain and so that tripwire effect should be much of their protection, but I imagine the British will urge, as a quid pro quo, some infrastructural development so Spanish Florida is not tempting easy-looking pickings.

It occurs to me one reason one sees so very little rail development as late as 1870 OTL along the Mississippi is that the river itself is the major transport artery, but of course OTL it was not a border; here it's one that might be hotly contested again, hence the railroad.

Similarly Spain might reason that they don't need a railroad, which unlike one on the west bank of the Mississippi in Louisiana would be unprotected by a major river crossing, and so very vulnerable therefore that it would be militarily useless and a pointless investment; both for commercial purposes and military they might prefer to rely on coastwise seaborne traffic. OTL we have built up the "Intracoastal Waterway" by reinforcing barrier dune islands and cutting channels to connect natural lagoons and estuaries. If they don't want the railroad I hope they at least undertake that instead, and to provide some convincing military flexibility to deter Yankee invasion, also take a lead in developing fast boats to navigate them with troops and supplies. If they have the waterway developed they can operate, albeit in a restricted fashion, even in stormy weather--which is common enough there!

I really like this Afro-Spanish Florida as a major player in the economy and regional society, you see.

Also I can almost see it because the largest number of childhood years I accumulated in any one place was in Bay County, Florida, living near (but never on) Tyndall AFB. The people who live there would be quite different, but I can visualize the places pretty well. On the map, West Florida does not look like it has much strategic depth, and I guess it doesn't, but even with modern highways it takes a significant chunk of time to get from the coast where I lived to the Alabama border.

This rail talk, with very good reason, is making me wonder whether Canada is going to purchase the top strip of Mexican territory - the OTL Union/Central Pacific line - at some point. When people start talking about building transcontinental railways and surveying routes, they're certainly going to have motivation to do so. What's more, California is eventually going to really want a more direct route to eastern Canada than would be built through OTL Oregon and Idaho.

There are, of course, two other routes I can see:
* Mexico refuses to sell, but is willing to build an international railroad. Mexico and Canada are drawn closer together.

That's a very exciting suggestion, I think! It's the sort of cross-border cooperation I was hoping to see eventually arise to make OTL Southern California (ITTL Mexico's far northwest coastal area) a vibrant major center.

I think Nugax has reasonable objections to the Mexican government selling the land, or even leasing it to Canadian control, but a joint project with Mexico clearly master in its own house but benefiting along with Canada by the project might be much more politically palatable.

Mexico is currently smarting from its defeat by Britain right now, but they are probably at least as angry at the Yankees, who lured them into this harebrained scheme of a war and left them in the lurch. (Of course Usans are saying the same bitter things about the Mexicans, but in a sober and fair-minded mood the Yankees would have to admit the Mexicans didn't plan the war, they just agreed to go along with a US scheme). The USA has nothing to offer Mexico any more, but Britain does.

* California declares independence, or otherwise grows away from Canada as an independent British colony.

Well, I hope not. Nugax is probably right that California will be shadowed and dwarfed relative to OTL as far as direct ties via emigration via central Canada go; its non-Californio, non-Native populace will mushroom, as OTL, as a polyglot motley crew of goldrushers from all over the world. Including lots of Britons, a fair amount of them from BNA's far-flung dominions. But also some Yankees--not nearly as many as OTL but still a whole lot

The flip side of British California being an awkward appendix and an afterthought seen from the perspective of Great Lakes Canada is, if they are going to have access to all kinds of modern stuff there, they are going to have to start building it themselves. So California might be more industrial than Nugax supposes. But probably not the powerhouse it has been OTL. Insofar as I hope for that, I'm hoping it's a result of synergistic interactions with Mexican California, that various business and perhaps intergovernmental schemes find it advantageous to set up aspects of their operations in the other's territory. That's how I'm hoping for a Mexican Los Angeles aerospace boom for instance. But that's just my delirious dream of course!

 

[Shevek23]

The above post was before I saw Dathi's reply to me. Telling me Birmingham will develop is saying something, for instance. (t says that the South doesn't spiral down into a hopeless mess. It could still be a very grim situation of course! Saying slavery will be abolished puts some limit on how grim, but that still leaves a lot of latitude for very ugly repression at one pole and an absurd optimism at the other.

I guess California is the least "Canadian" province in its shape; unlike the natural layouts he attributes to other provinces. Though I think we see some sign of that sort of Usan arbitrariness aiming at "ideal unit states" in the shape and size of Alberta and Saskatchwan, OTL, but it could be really that there were two centers of settlement whose "natural" hinterlands are a subset of their rectilinear bounded provinces, and the arbitrary borders run through no-mans-land?

Anyway the only border British California has that can be said to emerge from the pressures of natural spheres of influence is the southern one, with the British having seized the Bay Area and being in a position to claim its hinterland, which is the Central Valley, so basically they seem to have picked a point that defines a box that fully includes that valley and said, we are taking everything north and west of that point. So they get the whole valley, and by the way a lot of desert-scrub land that OTL is part of Nevada, and the southern border runs through the Tehachapi range because that range defines the southern reach of the Central Valley.

The eastern border runs through land that is little known and not at all developed yet. We know that there are minerals to be mined there, on both sides of it, mostly still on the Mexican side though.

And the northern border was determined long before, when the claims of Spain and Britain were arbitrarily worked out at some distant conference table in Europe; again it happens to run through the mountain range that defines the northern reach of the Central Valley, but I don't know if the treaty makers who did that (presumably before the POD and hence OTL as well as here) had any clue they were doing that. I guess the Spanish had by then explored the interior of the Valley, and noted the latitude of its northern extremities, and claimed a bit more to give it a margin.

Actually considering how very close Ashland is to the California border OTl, they pushed it almost right into the habitable valleys of Oregon.

So it's sort of natural, being centered on the Central Valley, but the margins are arbitrary. And to be sure only of importance when the mining gets going in earnest. But with California being filled by a sudden gold rush, I suspect that will start happening quite soon.

Given the motivations of wildcat miners versus the very straitened resources of the Mexican government I suspect that soon enough, miners out of British California will start operating on Mexican territory without asking anyone's permission.

To be sure, one limiting factor to consider--California itself doesn't have a lot of iron anywhere, and if the foundries in the east are swamped with orders for Canada's strategic rail system surrounding the US and Mexican borders (on the Rio Bravo front--though come to think of it, if BNA authorities think conflicts could be serious with Mexico again soon, they'd better give some thought to not only the southern border but the one with Nuevo Mexico! That region is much more settled than a lot of the other border zones!) then there certainly won't be much iron for a spur line up the Donner pass to the Washoe area, which strikes me as the natural funnel for British California's eastern mining regions down to the settlements and ports. Without a railroad there, mining won't amount to much. For that reason, there won't be all that much wildcat British-subject mining without permission in the Mexican lands, but what there is might go unnoticed, unchecked, and lay down trails for more serious rushes later if Washoe is connected to the Central Valley in the future.

A possible conflict then is British Californian miners stealing metal from Mexican territory; if it gets serious I suppose the British authorities will crack down in return for setting up legal frameworks whereby British-subject enterprise can mine, with the Mexican government getting its due cut.

Because I don't think there are any established trails in the Great Basin for mining trade to run more "naturally" to Mexican centers; Nuevo Mexican centers are on the wrong side of the Rockies. Huge reaches of the far north of Californias are going to be annexed, de facto economically if not politically, to BritCal.

Again I can see it turning into conflict but if that can be turned around into mutually fair arrangements, yet another link binding northern Mexico to BNA and thus either ripping it loose (which is what the central authorities in Mexico City will fear) or, if arrangements can be made to assure that these lands will remain Mexican in perpetuity and that Mexico as a whole will profit, draw all of Mexico in turn closer to Britain.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Structure of the New Canada

woof. Took a while, sorry.


Structure of the New Canada



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Introduction[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In the lead up to the war, military operations were placed under the aegis of the Viceroyalty of British North America, in the persons of their Canadian Majesties Peter and Sophia. And there was a general understanding that, after the war, there would be a regularizing of political affairs, I.e. more colonies folded into (or at least associated with, somehow) a larger Canada. However, talks on the final form and structure, while continuing, took a back-seat to the war effort, since that was more important – and more time critical. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The push toward a larger Canada came most strongly from the British Government in London, but the idea had varying amounts of support throughout British North America. Firstly, an expanded Canada would be able to more effictively handle her own defence, with more people, more resources, and an more efficient centralized command structure. This was given some urgency with the pre-war rhetoric out of Washington, which, of course, culminated with the US actually invading. Benjamin Franklin's quote “we must hang together or assuredly we will hang separately” seemed à propos.[1] Secondly, a bigger Canada would be a bigger market and have access to greater amounts of capital and so forth. From London's point of view, this would mean that the North American dependencies would be a lesser burden, and from the other side, it meant that various improvements and financing could be done locally, not having to go, cap in hand, to London. And thirdly, the British government liked the idea of having only one contact point to deal with, instead of half a dozen or more, while the new Canadians liked the idea of having more clout when they did have to deal with London. So for these reasons, and more, the London government was very interested in pushing for the largest possible Union, while the Canadians were pleased. People in Nova Scotia, for instance, weren't so happy, but recognized the use of the union, and its inevitability.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The push from London, of course, culminated in the infamous (in some circles), Treaty of Matamoros, the Peace treaty between Britain and Mexico, which, as one of its articles made Rio Bravo a province of Canada.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Up to this point, there had been a growing consensus that Nova Scotia and the other Maritime provinces would likely end up in a greater Canada, and that Louisiana would be associated somehow. Once the fighting in Tejas started, Tejas would clearly have been associated, too, again “somehow”. However, until the Treaty of Matamoros, it wasn't obvious that they would be necessarily have been 'provinces of Canada', rather than autonomous areas possibly under the Viceroyalty, or in some other looser association. Neither Louisiana nor Tejas was thrilled by the idea of becoming simply 'another province'. Nova Scotia hadn't been thrilled with the idea, but had been prepared to play along, but given any other option would likely choose it.[/FONT]




[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Federal Structure[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In order to address the concerns of these new, somewhat reluctant provinces, while still making an efficient, powerful Kingdom, the negotiators had to find balance between federalism and centralism, rights of provinces vs efficient government, and internal needs vs British demands. The end result was an asymmetrical, awkward governmental structure.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The old term 'Dominion' (up until recently used for the old Canada) was revived. The old (or core) Canada was to become the Dominion of Canada (DoC) within the Kingdom of Canada (KoC), while Louisiana, Tejas, Rio Bravo, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were all individual Dominions. In addition, Nova Scotia and Louisiana were granted the status of Principality within the Kingdom, and Tejas and New Brunswick were recognized as Duchies.[2],[3] [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]This made life easier for a couple of reasons. Firstly the names 'Dominion' and 'Principality/Duchy' indicated that the new provinces weren't just ordinary provinces like the others, but something more. Secondly, there was now a term that applied to all the autonomous entities. One could now talk of 'the Dominions', rather than 'core Canada, the Principalities and Duchies' or any other awkward phrase. Thirdly, it allowed everyone else to avoid referring to Rio Bravo as a 'republic'. All Federal legislation and correspondence referred to the “Dominion of Rio Bravo”. This still allowed Rio Bravo to call itself whatever it wanted, internally.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Note, too, that the old Protectorate managed to win the right to be its own Dominion, rather than a simple province. The name was changed, too, to reduce confusion with the old US territory of “Indiana”, and would henceforth be called “Indiania”.[4][/FONT]




[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Exceptions[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The British Parliament had tried to convince (=force) Bermuda and Newfoundland into the new Canada, as well as the various territories like Rupertsland, Oregon and California. They ended up not being entirely successful.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Bermuda pointed out that one of the major reasons for Confederation was defence against the US. Well, Bermuda sits out in the middle of the Atlantic, and Canada (a largely land power) could do nothing to help if she was attacked, and vice versa. If she absolutely HAD to join anyone, New England would make more sense – they saw far more New Englanders than Canadians. But they'd rather stay directly under London. The powers that be hemmed and hawed, and finally agreed. That proposal made too much sense.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Newfoundland (and Prince Edward Island) tried the same arguments. Newfoundland raised enough fuss they were allowed to avoid technically being in the Kingdom of Canada, although they did have to be under the Viceroyalty (i.e. they report to Peter and Sophia – but as Charlotte's Viceroys, not as King and Queen of Canada). PEI just lost out. They weren't important enough to treat differently, and geographically, PEI is nestled in the arms of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick anyway. They were basically given the option – join Canada, or we'll make you part of Nova Scotia.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]And, again, the territories were far enough away from Winchester, and the lines of communication were extended enough, that they remained functionally under London's control, although they were formally attached to Canada (again, nominally as part of the Viceroyalty). But the intent was that that would change as infrastructure expanded and Winchester became closer than London.[/FONT]




[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Parliamentary Accommodations[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]There would be one, single Parliament in Winchester, serving all of Canada. However, rather than trying to build a 3 level (or 4, counting imperial), there wouldn't be a separate Legislature/Parliament for the Dominion of Canada, parallel to the Legislatures in the other Dominions. (And note that the other Dominions weren't allowed to (formally) call their assemblies 'Parliament's.) Instead, Parliament served both functions. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Every piece of legislation presented to Parliament stated which Dominions it was to cover. Often, this would simply be the Dominion of Canada (DoC); often it would be all the Dominions in the Kingdom of Canada (KoC); and occasionally it would be a modification of one of the two – with individual Dominions opting in (to what would otherwise be a Dominion of Canada law) or opting out (of what would otherwise be a Kingdom wide law). Rarely, there'd be a law that affected multiple Dominions, but NOT the Dominion of Canada, but those were exceedingly rare. (In the dichotomy above, those would be technically KoC bills.)[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Basically, once the set of Dominions affected by the proposed bill (the 'jurisdiction of the bill') was established, debate and voting only involved members from those particular Dominions. This would, of course, get messy, as a given day's debate might involve several bills with several differing jurisdictions. So, a member might not bother to leave during a debate he was not involved with, if it were between 2 debates he was. This occasionally led to members speaking to (or even trying to vote on) bills that they weren't, technically, eligible for.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Language of Debate[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Before the expansion of Canada, the Parliament had already been evolving in the direction of bilingualism - members had established the rights to be able to make speeches in either language, for instance. The sudden, unexpected addition of Rio Bravo really threw a spanner[5] into the works. It could have been legitimately hoped that (most) members might end up being bilingual – but with the addition of Hispanophone members from Rio Bravo and Tejas, expecting trilingual abilities was less practical. Moreover, the Indian MPs, who had quietly backed off demands for full use of Wancioyatomowin as impractical, now started demanding its use, if Spanish was to be used. This would make four languages, one of which wasn't even vaguely related to the other three.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]On the other hand, Francophones were almost as common as Anglophones in the DoC, and felt threatened by the reduction in status of their language.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The end result was the usual constitutional zerloozung.[6] If the primary jurisdiction of the bill was the Dominion of Canada (plus or minus) then both English and French had equal status. If the jurisdiction was the Kingdom of Canada (plus or minus) then English was to be the official language, and that the other languages became secondary, not equal. This strongly annoyed the Francophones, in particular, but there really wasn't any other practical possibility at the time. While speeches could be made in any of the official languages, translations into English (KoC bills) or English and French (DoC bills) were required to be available.[7] In practice, even English speeches were soon translated into (French and) Wancioyatomowin and/or Spanish. This, of course, impeded the spontaneity and give and take of debate, but the ramshackle nature of new Parliament made spontaneity more difficult, particularly at the Kingdom level.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Hansard[8] was to be translated into all 4 languages.[/FONT]




[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Tri-Cameral parliament.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The new Parliament of the Kingdom of Canada was Tri-Cameral, composed of the House of Commons, the House of Provinces and the House of Lords.[9][/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The House of Commons was much like the British Commons[10], with many constituencies having 2 members. There was no distinction between County and Borough seats, and thus there were no rotten boroughs; but extending the University seat concept, there were a few more special purpose seats – mostly those are for Indians outside of Indiania.[11][/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The House of Lords was much like the British one, modified for circumstances. Anyone with a British or Canadian rank of Baron or higher is a member, as were bishops (Anglican and Roman Catholic). A slightly later revision allowed equivalent representation from Presbyterians, Methodists and Baptists, even if they didn't have 'bishops' in the same way.[12] The membership was formally capped at a maximum of 300, but obviously that cap wouldn't be reached for a long time.[13][/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]House of Provinces: The smaller prospective provinces absolutely refused to join Canada if representation were to be strictly by population, as they'd be swamped. Their first effort was to get a US-style Senate (billed as a New England-style Senate, of course), but the association with the US (among other reasons) caused that to fall flat on its face. The usual half baked compromise was worked out – each of the organized territories got 1 member; each province was guaranteed 2 (PEI, Tejas); if a province had 100,000 population (Indiania), they got 3; 200k (the most numerous category, it included Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Michigan Wisconsin, Missouri, Louisiana, and Rio Bravo), 4; 400k (no one at the moment, although Michigan will reach that level next readjustment), 5; 800k (Ontario and Quebec), 6. Thus the larger provinces did get more representation, but it was a logarithmic increase rather than a linear one. Note that Ontario's population only just barely squeaked over the 800k mark by the time of the opening of the new Parliament, and some suspect the census results might have been tweaked upwards to make it equal in representation to Quebec.[/FONT]




–
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]1 if a little ironic[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]2 PEI is rather left out of this discussion. Partly it's because it doesn't fit into the nice parallel structure the author is trying to build here, and partly it's because PEI tried standing in a corner holding its breath, hoping the big bad unification project would go away and ignore it. It didn't work. They had to live with a structure they had refused to help build. Note that OTL, PEI didn't get around to joining Confederation until 1873, AFTER Manitoba and BC![/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Note, too, that the 'parallel structure' the author presents isn't so very parallel. As previously discussed, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick got their status in the process in which Canada was raised to a Kingdom. Originally, it was going to be like Ireland – which got the Empress as their Queen, say, a subsidiary, subordinate title which was meant to demonstrate separation as much as remove it. While Louisiana was a colony without any sort of title, at all; and Tejas was a self-proclaimed Duchy (or Grand Duchy, depending), that wasn't even part of BNA.[/FONT]




[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]3 this asymmetry is mostly the result of Nugax's prodding....[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]4 Actually, I'm not sure whether that spelling on the map was a misspelling on Nugax's part or deliberate. But it is now canon.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]5 Monkey wrench, for US readers. The term Monkey wrench never takes off even in the US, iTTL. It's strictly a New Englander term.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]6 iOTL, we'd say “kludge”. The “oo” is pronounced like “look” not “tooth”. It is legendarily attributed to Duke Charles, when he was presented with the constitutional results of the negotiations. OTOH, that attribution only appeared in print 40 years later, so it is a bit doubtful. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]7 OTL, the use of written speeches was strongly discouraged in Canada's parliament. Here, it almost becomes necessary. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]8 Hansard – the proceedings/record of debate of Parliament. TTL's Canada, like OTL's uses the British name.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]9 Commons is very like OTL's Commons (either Canadian or British); Lords is like the British Lords; Provinces is like the US Senate. Sort of. Maybe like having both the Canadian and Aussie senates...[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]10 The constituencies for the British House of Commons were rather different then (iTTL and iOTL) than they are now. 2 member constituencies, distinctions between County and Borough seats, etc. Thanks to Thande's LTTW for reminding me of all this.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]11 Indians in one of the recognized tribes in Indiana (formerly the Protectorate), are essentially represented through the regular process. However, Indians in Michigan, for instance, or Wisconsin, weren't necessarily concentrated enough to make elect their own representatives in a purely geographical constituency. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]12 Canada iTTL doesn't have an 'established religion', but, if nothing else, they need more bums in seats. <g> There IS a concept of a 'recognized' religion, one that behaves itself and contributes to the building up of society. That can, for instance, be trusted to run schools, and/or administer such social programs as exist (not much at this point). Allowing Presbyterians, Methodists and Baptists into Lords formalizes what had been a rather informal understanding. This kind of recognition also puts pressure on the Presbyterians, for instance, not to schism, as they have to play nicely together to appoint their member in Lords. This is, again, something that rather ticks of the wilder Orange Lodge types – or in modern terms, Ian Paisley types. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]13 temporarily, and again to increase the numbers, UK baronets are seated as are Portuguese and other Allied Barons. The dichotomy between the English (essentially) peers in London and the 'other' (Irish, Scots and Canadian) peers, leads to some tensions and suggestions that there should be an “English” peerage and an “Imperial” one, with the English ones not having particular rights in the other Kingdoms, as Irish and Canadian ones don't in England. (Scotland is kind-of in between here, as often). Nothing happens, of course, but it is another push that gets people thinking about the formal evolution of the Empire.[/FONT]

 

[stevep]

Dathi

On the languages does this mean that while the duke [or Grand Duke] for Tajas is Bavaria and some of his people have also emigrated its still overwhelmingly Spanish. I.e. that German has no formal role as a language in Tajas?

If I read this rightly British peers can vote in the Canadian Lords? Presumably not many would both going that far from home but it could cause some potential problems.

Also does the Canadian Lords have the same degree of power as the British version had at the time? Thinking primarily of their ability to block legislation from the lower house(s) passing. That could be a bit unpopular with many if so.

Going to be away for a couple of weeks or so but looking forward to catching up when I get back.

Steve

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Dathi
On the languages does this mean that while the duke [or Grand Duke] for Tajas is Bavaria and some of his people have also emigrated its still overwhelmingly Spanish. I.e. that German has no formal role as a language in Tajas?

Quite, more of the population actually speaks English than Spanish, but it's only the Duke and some of his associates that are German. The Duke is multilingual as many educated Europeans were (and are). At a guess he was competent in German (of course), Bavarian dialect, French (the language of diplomacy and often learning), Latin, English (not so hard once you have German and French), and picked up Spanish once he got to Tejas.

If I read this rightly British peers can vote in the Canadian Lords? Presumably not many would both going that far from home but it could cause some potential problems.

Also does the Canadian Lords have the same degree of power as the British version had at the time? Thinking primarily of their ability to block legislation from the lower house(s) passing. That could be a bit unpopular with many if so.

Umm... I haven't decided on exactly how things work. If there isn't yet, there will be a residency requirement. If you RESIDE in Canada and you have an English title, you count. OTOH, there aren't a whole lot of Barons moving across the Atlantic.

Basically, the native born nobility is tiny, many of the titles granted in the two wars. They want to do 'better' than the 'house of notables' that the previous incarnation had, and they don't have a lot to work with.


Yes. There WILL be a clash 'shortly'. The first Parliament or two, the Lords is going to be reasonable, 'cause they know they're a bit precarious. But eventually, hmmm.. 10 years down the line? ?? they're going to get obnoxious about something. It's the nature of the beast. I have no clue what the trigger will be, and I may not even bother specifying.

What is going to happen then is that they lose the right to a final veto. It's going be more like the modern Canadian Senate, or the UK Lords, where essentially they can delay things, try to get the other houses to reconsider and tweak the legislation, but won't be able to actually stop anything. Our American friends can think of a Presidential veto - which can be overridden by a 60% vote.

"House of sober second thought" (like OTL's Canadian Senate) will be a reasonable epithet applied to this chamber.

Functionally, it's going be more important as social club, really, than a House of Parliament, but I suspect that it will remain the latter for a considerable period, possibly until modern times. I don't have that mapped out.

 

[Archangel]

Nice touch with the tricameral parliament, Dathi! It is a good compromise between NE and British tradition.

 

[Shevek23]

...In the lead up to the war, military operations were placed under the aegis of the Viceroyalty of British North America, in the persons of their Canadian Majesties Peter and Sophia. ...

These persons reside in Montreal, right? So Viceroyal business, which is conceptually the voice of the Empire as a whole as it applies to BNA as a whole (or direction coming from London to anywhere within BNA, as long as the Viceroyality is given some discretionary role in modifying said direction) can be said to be colloquially either from "Their majesties of America" (guessing here the tradition started with Peter & Sophia gets carried to their successors, the royal We being a We of both partners in the marriage) or "from/in Montreal." Montreal is the royal city of all that might ever be called "Canada," broadly equivalent to British North America, including Bermuda, Jamaica, Belize (known as British Honduras of course!)

Or am I confused and is Montreal just some place that happens to have a couple cathedrals named after Their Plural Majesties, and is Winchester their seat for BNA Viceregal hat business too?

The old term 'Dominion' (up until recently used for the old Canada) was revived. The old (or core) Canada was to become the Dominion of Canada (DoC) within the Kingdom of Canada (KoC), while Louisiana, Tejas, Rio Bravo, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were all individual Dominions. In addition, Nova Scotia and Louisiana were granted the status of Principality within the Kingdom, and Tejas and New Brunswick were recognized as Duchies.......

...Bermuda pointed out that one of the major reasons for Confederation was defence against the US. Well, Bermuda sits out in the middle of the Atlantic, and Canada (a largely land power) could do nothing to help if she was attacked, and vice versa. If she absolutely HAD to join anyone, New England would make more sense – they saw far more New Englanders than Canadians. But they'd rather stay directly under London. The powers that be hemmed and hawed, and finally agreed. That proposal made too much sense.

However, in case of war, while what effective help that comes to Bermuda is more likely to come from Boston than Winchester, or even Montreal, New England because of its geographical situation is going to be routinely dealing with the British Empire as a whole mainly via either the Kingdom of Canada or the Viceroyality of North America, is it not? That is, their business with the Empire boils down to 1) local trade and landward defense policy, clearly the bailiwick of either the Kingdom or the Viceroyality; 2) trade policy with respect to Britain and the other possessions of the Empire--Ireland, all the various Mediterranean, African, Indian Ocean and other Asian, Australian/Pacific holdings of whatever eclectic level, which will mostly be set in London where not handed down as policies of the Delian League, which I presume meets in London, often if not always; 3) defense policy as it relates to the Royal Navy, coming from whatever direction.

If New England could jealously insist that all policies regarding her had to be decided in London, Bermuda's demand to deal solely with London would make that much more sense. However as a practical matter it would be silly for NE to insist on that unwieldy, time-consuming channel; it makes a lot more sense to delegate a lot of London's authority (whatever would normally be left to the discretion of the Prime Minister there without having to run it past a formal Parliamentary vote) to the Viceroys in I presume Montreal; Peter & Sophia or rather their staff, agreed upon by some clumsy informal process between themselves, the Imperial monarch, and Parliament via the Prime Minister, will speak for the Empire routinely, meaning for instance the Admiralty. So the New England Navy will take its cues as to Imperial naval policy as it coordinates with theirs from Montreal, most of the time; if there is a conflict due to miscommunications or clashing personalities, they in Boston might know about it via some arriving RN ship sooner than Montreal does. Or maybe both know about it simultaneously because a ship bearing such bad news makes port in Halifax first and telegraphic messages go from there to both Montreal (hence on to Winchester) and Boston via the presumptive NE consulate there. But normally one hopes that the BNA Viceroyality and policy makers in London at least are quite familiar with each other's positions and Montreal is rarely if ever out of step with London? So the New Englanders will most of the time be able to get clear word from Montreal, and their operations in support of Imperial policy will be guided by that relationship. Whereas Bermuda is getting its news direct from London most of the time. But they will need to coordinate with both whatever forces Canada does send (not so much in these last two wars but more in the future, I trust) plus the New Englanders.

Word from London trumps everything in Imperial matters of course. But the New England relationship does suggest a stronger role for the North American Viceroyality than Bermudans are currently considering!

...Before the expansion of Canada, the Parliament had already been evolving in the direction of bilingualism - members had established the rights to be able to make speeches in either language, for instance. The sudden, unexpected addition of Rio Bravo really threw a spanner[5] into the works. It could have been legitimately hoped that (most) members might end up being bilingual – but with the addition of Hispanophone members from Rio Bravo and Tejas, expecting trilingual abilities was less practical. Moreover, the Indian MPs, who had quietly backed off demands for full use of Wancioyatomowin as impractical, now started demanding its use, if Spanish was to be used. This would make four languages, one of which wasn't even vaguely related to the other three.


On the other hand, Francophones were almost as common as Anglophones in the DoC, and felt threatened by the reduction in status of their language.

The end result was the usual constitutional zerloozung.[6] If the primary jurisdiction of the bill was the Dominion of Canada (plus or minus) then both English and French had equal status. If the jurisdiction was the Kingdom of Canada (plus or minus) then English was to be the official language, and that the other languages became secondary, not equal. This strongly annoyed the Francophones, in particular, but there really wasn't any other practical possibility at the time. While speeches could be made in any of the official languages, translations into English (KoC bills) or English and French (DoC bills) were required to be available.[7] In practice, even English speeches were soon translated into (French and) Wancioyatomowin and/or Spanish. This, of course, impeded the spontaneity and give and take of debate, but the ramshackle nature of new Parliament made spontaneity more difficult, particularly at the Kingdom level.

Hansard[8] was to be translated into all 4 languages.

You have no idea how alarmed I was at trying to remember when some North Germanic trade language had established itself on a level with French, or at least Wancioyatomowin, as a major BNA tongue in some district, until you reminded me "Hansard" is the British analog of the Congressional Record!

I would think though that at the Dominion level, formal bi-or-trilingualism would hold sway, with the first among them often not being English at all. In Indiania for instance, Wancioyatomowin would be at least equivalent to English for business, as would French I suppose. But not Spanish or German. In Rio Bravo I suppose Spanish is the de facto primary language, with English being scrupulously maintained as an "equivalent" but de facto second language, and French clearly a second and optional language. Louisiana ought to be like the core dominion of Canada's provinces, English and French practically as well as officially equal, but given geographic proximities the local authorities, not to mention Dominion government, would look bad if they don't stand ready to deal in Spanish, Wancioyatomowin, and perhaps German too.

And with all this practice in translation I think it's inevitable that third, fourth and fifth languages creep in. Various Native American languages for peoples who aren't historically anywhere near Indiania, as will be increasingly common in the western reaches of Louisiana and Tejas, the Canadian Dominion's western territories and provinces, and southern and western Rio Bravo. Indian languages--I mean here South Asian--in neighborhoods where demobilized soldiers from the Raj and their relatives and friends cluster. Eventually all manner of Scandinavian dialects as settlers come over from there, presumably settling mostly in the northwest and along the Great Lakes as OTL. There might be odd packets of various kinds of Russians and other Eastern Europeans settling both north and south, perhaps lots and lots of Poles for instance. And what about Portuguese, what with Portugal being such a good ally and all?

Oh, and Gaelic, here and there, though I suppose now that the Irish have their own Kingdom Gaelicism as a movement might die and be replaced by emphasis on the peculiar Irish dialect of English!

For formality and absolute assurance of the best regarding of their rights, custom and even law might indicate definitive and binding translation into one of the core languages, and I'd think on the whole English would tend to prevail as the most common denominator. But French will be very jealously close behind most places, or alternatively some locally dominant major language--usually Spanish, sometimes Wancioyatomowin, might trump or be at least equivalent to French. I'd think anywhere in the kingdom, and by courtesy and custom anywhere in the Viceregal domain, a document in any of English, French, Wancioyatomowin, or Spanish would be fully legal and translators will be ready to hand in case it happens to be uncommon there. But the smartest thing to do would be to have it in both one's favored language and English, and a document that's just in English should need no translation anywhere.

[/quote]

4 Actually, I'm not sure whether that spelling on the map was a misspelling on Nugax's part or deliberate. But it is now canon.

Right, when I saw that on the map I was embarrassed to be unsure whether it was some recent innovation, a mistake on Nugax's part, or the way it had always been spelled and pronounced and it's just that we Yankee fans of yours mindlessly reduced it to our familiar state name! Indiania it is henceforth!

...
12 Canada iTTL doesn't have an 'established religion', but, if nothing else, they need more bums in seats. <g> There IS a concept of a 'recognized' religion, one that behaves itself and contributes to the building up of society. That can, for instance, be trusted to run schools, and/or administer such social programs as exist (not much at this point). Allowing Presbyterians, Methodists and Baptists into Lords formalizes what had been a rather informal understanding. This kind of recognition also puts pressure on the Presbyterians, for instance, not to schism, as they have to play nicely together to appoint their member in Lords. This is, again, something that rather ticks of the wilder Orange Lodge types – or in modern terms, Ian Paisley types. ...

Well the Paisley types can go pound sand as far as Catholicism goes in this Kingdom!

I wonder if the Unitarians or Universalists in any of their branches ever show up as "recognized" on any scale in the Kingdom anywhere. OTL, the state of Massachusetts went through a phase where it still had an "established" religion, but the people of the state got to vote on which denomination that would be, and the Unitarians won! They could well be butterflied away here, perhaps the hegemony of that denomination had much to do with the "republican" spirit that ITTL is so rudely quashed. Then again I believe the modern consolidated UU denomination is pretty strong (on the scale UU is accustomed to be "strong," that is as a vanishing percentage of the populace as a whole but rather more present among more influential social strata!) in Britain itself; dunno how they've done in Canada. ITTL I'd expect them to be disfavored in the USA due to their association with New England, but stronger in New England, perhaps to the point of being among the top denominations there, and thus quite respectable in the KoC. Perhaps not to the point of receiving "recognition," though if they are marginally close to that level and strong in NE, I'd expect they would as a courtesy, assuming relations with NE remain good.

Of course it could be that the core Unitarian denomination, being more powerful than OTL in secular society, remains closer to the Christian mainstream in doctrine and dogma, and it is only fringe elements who cluster around the Universalists who form the free-form "non-denomination" I liked so much when I lived in Santa Rosa, California. They'd probably fall below the threshold of "recognized" everywhere.
-----
It rather troubles me that not only newly-won California but Oregon as well are sitting apparently completely outside the Canadian circle. I expect that at least formally they are still grouped under the Viceroy(s) of North America just based on geography. Sure, overland communications to the alt-Portland and still more to Monterey or San Francisco or wherever the Californian seat is established from core Canada are poor and slow, and in fact the fastest channel between them and London will probably be via Central America by ship direct from Britain, with communications coming all the way via Asia and the Raj running a close second and overland couriers from Montreal coming in third. Of course Montreal can send messages by ship through Central America just as well as London can.

But surely the overland trails to Oregon, thence south to California, are being blazed, surely a railroad on the northern route is high on the to-do list, and with the railroad, or somewhat preceding it, will come telegraph lines. Very shortly with the telegraph including at least Oregon as practically as well as formally in the Viceregal bailiwick will be obvious; from there is it a long step to including them in Parliament at Winchester?

California will take longer and cost more to link to overland, and the Gold Rush will draw in settlers from many places, the British Dominions possibly not the origin of the majority of them. This however would seem to place a premium on including them firmly in some British territorial scheme formally, with Oregon the closest place to get reliable troops to put down insurrections. I'd think that among non-Empire settlers, New Englanders would be most welcome and most likely to help keep it British. Also more Indians from the Raj might be brought over in short order!

One thing that might keep them out of Canada indefinitely would be, if in the emergency of the Gold Rush situation, it is decided California needs its own Viceroy, who is sent there along with quite a lot of troops, paid for by anticipated revenues from the gold fields.

The troops would have to be well-paid themselves to keep them from running off to the fields! Perhaps policy should be to put them on detached duty on half-pay upon arrival, sworn to uphold the Crown and order (and paid full wages when formally called upon to do so in an organized fashion, or as an award for notable spontaneous services along these lines) and free to rush off to mine gold or trade as they like, subject to emergency call-up of course! That puts Crown agents right among the miners, and infuses a lot of Britons straight into California. It might well also defer the question of incorporation into Canada forever, with California having the status of a separate Crown colony on a level with Australia. It would be smart to eventually get rid of any separate California viceroy, and move them under the BNA one in Montreal, but that would be the extent of it. Assuming no major geopolitical revisions, and given the sparsely inhabited, mountainous nature of the Oregon border in both timelines, it makes sense to leave California on its own hook I guess. I was going to make a sad face but I'm not honestly sure how I feel about that!

 

[Nugax]

On the Bermuda issue, its still in the era of sail, and the island is as close (time wise) to Bristol as it is to North America depending on the weather. There isn't much point having things about it decided in North America.

I never make spelling mistakes!
<_<
>_>
never!

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

On the Bermuda issue, its still in the era of sail, and the island is as close (time wise) to Bristol as it is to North America depending on the weather. There isn't much point having things about it decided in North America.

A lot of pressure for unification is coming from London. But, ja, that's why Bermuda gets off the hook.

The "if we have to join someone, we'd rather join New England" is certainly true - but their first preference is to stay under London. They just weren't sure how hard London was pushing. Also, 'we'd rather join someone else (even if allied)' is a good tactic to get London to back off its pressure.

I tried to be deliberately vague about exactly where the meetings were being held. I could easily imagine that most of the meetings were in e.g. Winchester, when the news arrives from London that the Bermudans had convinced the British government to let them out of Canada. Not saying it happened that way. Not saying it didn't.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Query: The UPCA is changing its name. It never really liked 'provinces', and now they're going to go Kingdom

Does "[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Reino Federal de América Central" work? (Federal Kingdom of Central America; using Google translate and assuming it got the adjective order wrong....)
Anyone out there speak Spanish?
[/FONT]

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Reigning Nobility

Reigning Nobility

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Great Britain, Ireland and Empire[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Charlotte, Empress of Britain, Queen of Great Britain, Queen of Ireland. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif](A[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]TL sister)[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]

Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Saale, Prince Consort.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saksen-Koburg_Leopold.jpg (born 1790, so OTL)[/FONT]






[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Canada[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Peter and Sophia, King and Queen of the Kingdom of Canada, already discussed. Married 1837, crowned co-monarchs on 1 February 1843.

Peter: (ATL brother)[/FONT]




[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Nova Scotia[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]George, Prince of Nova Scotia, eldest son of Peter and Sophia. Born 1840, installed as Prince of Nova Scotia in 1 March 1844. Not actually reigning: “Prince of Wales” equivalent[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]New Brunswick[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]William, Duke of New Brunswick, second son of Peter and Sophia. Born 1842, installed 1 April 1844. Not actually reigning: “Duke of York” equivalent.[/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Missouri[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Charlotte Sophia, daughter and eldest child of Peter and Sophia, Duchess of Missouri. Born 1838, installed June 1844. (Not actually reigning: this will be a royal ducal title, like Britain's Gloucester, Cambridge, etc.)[/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Tejas[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Charles Theodore, Duke. Acclaimed Duke 1836, recognized as Duke of the Province/Dominion/Duchy of Tejas August 1844 (ATL brother)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Heir: Theodore Maximilian, count Brazos. Born 1816[/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Louisiana[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Caroline Sophia von Wittelsbach (daughter and second child of Duke Charles of Tejas, born 1822), installed July 1844; and Alexandre Fortier (a prominent member of a one of the major Creole planter families of Louisiana, born 1816), Prince Consort.[/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Portugal[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]King Francisco [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Heir: João born 1818[/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Brazil [/FONT]
“[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Emperor” Pedro I (Brazil calls him an Emperor, no one else does)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Heir: João born 1822[/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Central America[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]with all the royalty/reigning nobility being elevated around them, the UPCA (PUAC in Spanish) modifies its constitution slightly to introduce a low-impact King. They thus change their name to “RFAC” (=Reino Federal de América Central )[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Antonio (born 1824), crowned 1845, second son of Pedro of Brazil. Yes, he's awfully young, but they like the idea of an American monarchy, and stuffy monarchs from Europe might expect to rule, not just reign. Marries Franziska Maria of Tejas earlier in the year.[/FONT]


–
Charles has 3 kids
Theodore Maximilian, born 1816 (heir)
Caroline Sophia born 1822 (becomes Princess of Louisiana)
Franziska Maria born 1825 (becomes Queen (consort) of the RFAC)



Peter and Sophia have 4 kids
Charlotte Sophia born 1838 (Duchess of Missouri)
George …. born 1840 (Prince of Nova Scotia)
William … born 1842 (Duke of New Brunswick)
Elizabeth born 1848



Peter also has 2 illegitimate children born later in the mid 1840s: it wasn't a love match and they have an heir and a spare.



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Francisco (of Portugal) has a son João in 1818 (crown prince); a daughter Maria Antonia (called Antonia) in December 1820 who marries William (of England); a second son Pedro in January? 1822; and daughter Isabel in August 1823[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Pedro (of Brazil) marries a local Brazilian beauty in 1821, has kids João 1822 (Crown Prince), Antonio 1824 (later King of the RFAC), Maria 1826, Afonso 1827, Ana 1830, Pedro 1833[/FONT]

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Europe 1830-1

I'm afraid I'm going to have to retcon most of this post. Too many details aren't quite going to work.
Europe 1830-1

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]First, some back history. There were several major events in 1830 in Europe.[/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Great Britain[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]George IV died, succeeded by Queen Charlotte, as we have already discussed.[/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Hannover[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]William ascended to the throne of Hannover, as, by Salic Law, Charlotte wasn't eligible. He would rule until his death in 1837.[1][/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]France[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The “quatre glorieuses” [2] or July Revolution happened in France in 1830, deposing Charles X and installing Louis-Phillippe, of the Orléanist branch of the Bourbons. Which gave rise to constitutional democracy.[/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Belgium[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The Belgians, too, revolted in 1830, although the riots were put down that year. However the catholic Belgians are particularly unhappy with Protestant Prussian rule, so while the initial riots are put down, rebellion continues. After a while, the Netherlands provides some military support, and Hannover some logistical support. King Frederick William IV of Prussia[3] can't get soldiers in easily (the other German nations, especially Hannover and Hesse, weren't happy about allowing him to march soldiers overland), and Belgium gets its independence in '31, guaranteed by the UK and France. Prince Frederick of the Netherlands (younger son of King William) was made King of Belgium.[/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Poland[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The Russo-Turkish war of 1828-31[4] absorbed the attention of the Russian Empire and army, so when the Poles revolted in November1830 due to the Russian imposition of autocratic rule in violation of the liberal Polish constitution, the Russians were unable to concentrate enough forces to suppress the uprising. Prussia aided Russia (clandestinely), hoping, in part, to gain Silesia back from Austria later with Russian help, and because Russia had sent some (token) troops to help quell the Belgian Revolt. Prussia had planned to send in an army in aid, but the Austrians got word and threatened to intervene openly themselves if they did. (However, to match the Prussians, the Austrians started helping the Poles under the table.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Due to the Russians being distracted, General [/FONT]Józef Chłopicki has a hope that Polish independence might be achieved or at least autonomy regained. Loyalists, led by Prince Czartoryski still hoped to come to an agreement with Grand Duke Constantine (who was viceroy in Poland) or Tsar Nicholas. Radicals pushed for an armed uprising, and the moderates allowed (and encouraged) Constantine to retreat out of Poland. Hoping that the Tsar would disavow his brother (either because he hadn't known what he was up to, or to make peace), the moderates sent an envoy to St. Petersburg to negotiate with him. In the meantime, General Chłopicki was raising and training troops,[5] arguing that if a peaceful resolution can be found, they can be used to support Russia or at least loyalist Russo-Polish forces. But because he's trying to straddle the fence politically he didn't dare attack Russian forces, e.g. in Lithuania. The Tsar, however, adamantly refused any concessions, rather demanding complete and total surrender by the Poles, and sent the largest army he could field into Poland. Fifty thousand Poles, many of them newly recruited and hastily trained troops, but defending their homeland and with good leadership met a similar sized Russian force composed mostly of veterans, but war-weary and not so well led.[6] After a day's heavy fighting in the Battle of Siedlce, the Russians withdrew.
By now, outpourings of support from further west have yielded fruit. Volunteers, money and arms were beginning to arrive through Austria, as the romantic image of plucky Poles defending their liberties resonated with many in places like England and France and even the US. While no government officially supported these movements (France was trying to form an alliance with Russia, and Britain didn't want to upset the applecart), there was also no hindrance placed on private efforts. While these true volunteers didn't much help the effort (being linguistically isolated, and low in numbers) they did provide both needed resources (e.g. money and arms), and almost more importantly morale.[7]
Russia reinforced her armies and attacked again, with even worse result, as the Polish forces had been reinforced, too, and now were better seasoned and knew they could win.
Russia tried to make peace with the Ottomans, based on their successes so far, but they, seeing the Russians massively overstretched and already pulling out troops, thought they might push the Russians back and get a better deal. So they negotiated – but slowly, keeping Russian forces tied down in that theatre.
And now, a different class of 'volunteers', suspiciously well organized and mostly German speaking, arrived to help to the Polish resistance forces. Apparently entire companies of soldiers 'retired' en masse from 3 German states (including Austria), and joined the volunteer forces fighting for Polish freedom. Also, the Pulaski Brigade of American volunteers arrived in Hamburg and started marching overland to join the fight.
Faced with increasing resistance and increasing problems supporting ever growing armies, the Russians settled for a face saving measure. Poland was to stay under Russian suzerainty – but they regain their lost autonomy and get to keep their liberal constitution. To guarantee that these rights won't be lost again, and to demonstrate Austrian support, they got a Habsburg prince (Archduke Charles, Duke of Teschen[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]). [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]As for the Ottoman conflict, the freeing of troops from Poland brought the Sultan to the table quickly. Moldavia and Wallachia get autonomy, guaranteed by multiple European powers, Serbia gets her promised independence, Russia gets forts at the mouth of the Danube, the Georgian provinces they had received from Persia, and parts of Armenia.[8][/FONT]



Germany
1830 was also the year of the founding of the Mitteldeutschen Handelsverein, which later became the Steuerverein. Several German states created a trade and tax union, based on Hannover, Brunswick and Hesse. Other members, over the years, included Oldenburg. This was in competition with Prussia, who also tried to set up a customs union (Zollverein) of its own. Although Prussia was the strongest and largest single majority German state (the Austrian Empire was larger, but was less than half German), she was threatening rather than friendly, and her position seemed to be waning, rather than waxing.[9]



–
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]1 OTL, William ascended to the throne of England and did NOT go Hannover. Here he does, and his Whiggish ideas are welcome there. Ernst Augustus still ascended the throne in 1837, but because a reigning, ruling, resident king had supported the liberal constitution, he couldn't simply dispose of it in the same way.[/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]2 OTL “trois glorieuses”, it takes one more day, due to butterflies[/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]3 Thande and Susano figured out that TTL Belgium would have been given to Prussia in the Council of Vienna. I didn't understand it then, or now, but that's what's happened. OTL Belgium was under Dutch rule, and rebelled against them. Here, they're under Prussian rule and have Dutch support. OTL, they got Leopold (since Charlotte had died, and he was available). Here, the welcome Dutch support means the Belgians are happy with a Dutch monarch – as long as it's clear there is no personal unions involved. [/FONT]
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?p=2856326&highlight=susano#post2856326
Susano's map



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]4 OTL Prussia got Poznan, and Russia got Congess Poland. Here, it seems, according to Susano's map, that Russia got both. Partly because Silesia is now in Austria Hungary, [/FONT]Hans Karl von Diebitsch [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]is employed by the Austrians, not the Russians. Because he's not in Russia, his vigorous handling of the Russo-Turkish War aren't there, which means that Russia does more poorly, so the two empires are still at war when the Poles revolt. So, not only are Russian forces split between two theatres, but 'Poland' is bigger and has more [/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]5 up 'til now the Polish actions in the Polish revolt have gone pretty much as OTL, at least at this level of detail. OTL Chłopicki did not dare raise or train troops. (Externally, the differences are Russia is still preoccupied with the Ottomans, and that OTL neither Prussia nor Austria intervened, instead both maintaining a pro-Russian neutrality.) Here it starts changing. OTL the radicals had a stronger presence, led by Mochnacki. Since he was born after the PoD, he doesn't exist in the same way. The slower descent into revolt means the moderates keep more control, there is less fear that other European nations will view this as a radical revolt, and the radicals and moderates manage to agree on limited land reforms, which keeps the peasants supporting the revolt. The change in attitude of Austria means that support raised in the rest of Europe can be funnelled through Austria (unlike OTL). [/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]6 More Poles, better led and supported, fewer Russians (due to the Ottoman conflict), with a less brilliant general.[/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]7 OTL, there was lots of support among the populace for Poland, as iTTL, but they had no way of doing anything, since Austria and Prussia blocked any help. Here Austria is supporting and even encouraging the volunteers. [/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]8 The Russian gains are very much as OTL, it just took them twice as long to get them. Primary difference is that the Ottomans aren't forced to pay a heavy indemnity, and thus Russia doesn't occupy the Romanian principalities. Also, that Russia had been fighting a war on Romanian land, so the Romanians are even less happy with them.[/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]9 ITTL, Prussia had received Belgium (largely in place of Silesia), and has just lost it. Also, she was (unofficially) on the losing side of the Polish revolt. While she does convince (basically bully) a few other states into her Customs Union, several of the others dare stick together and stay outside it. OTL, she managed to 'convince' Hesse to jump ship in 1834, I believe (the information on this is all in German, which I'm not wonderful at). Here, Prussia's less successful and the Steuerverein continues as a viable alternative. [/FONT]

 

[Archangel]

Keep it up, Dathi!