American Colonial Wank

1629 New France conquered by Kirke Brothers

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=62507

New Scotland founded 1629

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Nova_Scotia

Carolana colony founded 1698

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolana

So there we have it by 1700 everywhere from the Mississippi to the St. Lawrence to the Atlantic coast is under British rule(with the possible exception of Florida).

So what happens next. Do the Americans fight for independence earlier, later or what?
 
Someone else knew of Carolana! YES! :D

I must admit with those areas anglicized to their respective regional sections quicker it could go both ways. They'll be in tune with New England and Dixie's regional needs but there will be more troops needed to defend the colonies, in turn that may suppress rebellious thought...

Perhaps some new viceroyalty creation ala New Spain/Brazil/Peru/etc?

Further, England may have to grant more concessions to allow each colony to thrive and also due to by their nature their demands for a representive/local assembly as per all Englishmans' rights. On such a wide scale they'd have to to keep anything from going out of hand.

Just to help dan's thread here, since I'd like to see it thrive, here're some tidbits on potential names under English rule:

Carolana map: http://library.wustl.edu/units/spec/exhibits/terra/images/coxe2.gif

Notice I was wrong in my own Carolana topic. 'Isle of Nassaw' is equivalent to the 'Isle d'Orleans' that New Orleans is situated on, so TTL city of New Orleans would apparently be called Nassaw and not 'Pembrooke' as I assumed. Yes, spelling error is intentional. Witness 'Hartford' supposed to be named in honor of 'Hertford' or the mispellings of 'Milwaukee', 'Moncton', and 'Cleveland' in OTL. :p

And Quebec anglicized as Cabeck: http://books.google.com/books?id=4Z...X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA358,M1

Makes sense, since 'Quebec' is a Frenchified Amerindian name. The English would merely anglicize the name in the vein of 'Cansez' becoming 'Kansas', 'Ouabash' becoming 'Wabash', and 'Oushita' becoming 'Wichita' in some midwestern examples.

Anglicization-Man, AWAY!!! :rolleyes:;)

EDIT: Added in England being forced to be more generous by default.
 
Umbric Man said:
Someone else knew of Carolana! YES! :D

Only cause I read your thread;)

Umbric Man said:
I must admit with those areas anglicized to their respective regional sections quicker it could go both ways. They'll be in tune with New England and Dixie's regional needs but there will be more troops needed to defend the colonies, in turn that may suppress rebellious thought...

True but those areas may turn out to be rebellious themselves thus tying down any additional troops. Or perhaps the British realize there is no point in trying to restrict the colonists movements thus butterflying away a major reason for rebelling.

Umbric Man said:
Perhaps some new viceroyalty creation ala New Spain/Brazil/Peru/etc?

Like Franklin's plan of union?

Umbric Man said:
Further, England may have to grant more concessions to allow each colony to thrive and also due to by their nature their demands for a representive/local assembly as per all Englishmans' rights. On such a wide scale they'd have to to keep anything from going out of hand.

Yeah it all depends on the tax issue I guess. Though I think the cost of defending the colonies will actually be less as the RN can defend the eastern seaboard per OTL and the Spanish don't really have much presence in Texas. Really Florida is the only immediate threat that I can see.

Umbric Man said:
Just to help dan's thread here, since I'd like to see it thrive, here're some tidbits on potential names under English rule:

cool info thanks a lot:):)

Umbric Man said:
Carolana map: http://library.wustl.edu/units/spec/exhibits/terra/images/coxe2.gif

Notice I was wrong in my own Carolana topic. 'Isle of Nassaw' is equivalent to the 'Isle d'Orleans' that New Orleans is situated on, so TTL city of New Orleans would apparently be called Nassaw and not 'Pembrooke' as I assumed. Yes, spelling error is intentional. Witness 'Hartford' supposed to be named in honor of 'Hertford' or the mispellings of 'Milwaukee', 'Moncton', and 'Cleveland' in OTL. :p

And Quebec anglicized as Cabeck: http://books.google.com/books?id=4Z...X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA358,M1

Makes sense, since 'Quebec' is a Frenchified Amerindian name. The English would merely anglicize the name in the vein of 'Cansez' becoming 'Kansas', 'Ouabash' becoming 'Wabash', and 'Oushita' becoming 'Wichita' in some midwestern examples.

Anglicization-Man, AWAY!!! :rolleyes:;)

EDIT: Added in England being forced to be more generous by default.
 
Hmm...

To be fair, there would be a decent chance of some confederation or union of the individual colonies happening eventually. The Albany Plan of Union, yes, as there was Galloway's plan of Union, and even the Dominion of New England. So by the nature of a greater amount of land under control we'll see a union's chances being even greater considering all the proposals in OTL involving just Cisappalachia...the question is if whether we have one giant one or multiple ones for different regions (New England, Carolina, etc...)

As for rebellion, must one even happen? As you noted, Britain will have an even more difficult time restricting colonial movement. The Carolinas will be moving west, Carolaners moving north and east into the Mississippi Valley, TTL Quebeckers and New Englanders moving into Ontario, and everyone else plain west. Those additional lands earlier on will be settled earlier, before Britain even considered restricting movement in OTL. They'll thus have to be nicer to the far greater amount of people to keep profits coming in.

I suspect a highly aristocratic dominion-esque government in the far, far future, since the Enlightment hasn't happened yet to cause 'human rights' to be fashionable yet. Yes, still more free than Europe, but...
 
Umbric Man said:
Hmm...

To be fair, there would be a decent chance of some confederation or union of the individual colonies happening eventually. The Albany Plan of Union, yes, as there was Galloway's plan of Union, and even the Dominion of New England. So by the nature of a greater amount of land under control we'll see a union's chances being even greater considering all the proposals in OTL involving just Cisappalachia...the question is if whether we have one giant one or multiple ones for different regions (New England, Carolina, etc...)

It'll probably depend on what the union if for. Enforcement of the Navigation Acts and on Indians Affairs I'd say a single large union would be preferrable. Regional unions may fit the colonists better.


Umbric Man said:
As for rebellion, must one even happen? As you noted, Britain will have an even more difficult time restricting colonial movement. The Carolinas will be moving west, Carolaners moving north and east into the Mississippi Valley, TTL Quebeckers and New Englanders moving into Ontario, and everyone else plain west. Those additional lands earlier on will be settled earlier, before Britain even considered restricting movement in OTL. They'll thus have to be nicer to the far greater amount of people to keep profits coming in.

Yeah I'm guessing that taxation of all the wealth generated will be the issue that could blow up.

Umbric Man said:
I suspect a highly aristocratic dominion-esque government in the far, far future, since the Enlightment hasn't happened yet to cause 'human rights' to be fashionable yet. Yes, still more free than Europe, but...

Maybe a more liberal revolution, if we have one that is. But I guess it depends on when the movement for Dominion takes place... and if it holds. The Dominion of New England only came about in 1686 and was very unpopular, so unpopular it triggered a minor rebellion.
 
Hmm...
To be fair, there would be a decent chance of some confederation or union of the individual colonies happening eventually. The Albany Plan of Union, yes, as there was Galloway's plan of Union, and even the Dominion of New England. So by the nature of a greater amount of land under control we'll see a union's chances being even greater considering all the proposals in OTL involving just Cisappalachia...the question is if whether we have one giant one or multiple ones for different regions (New England, Carolina, etc...)
I'm not sure if you'll have multiple colonies; the impetus for such seems significantly smaller here, because the colonies have no real threat.
 
Okay, so before I starting speculating about how this BNA is governed, let's consider the wider picture of BNA.

Now, there's something of a problem, IMO, with the POD since we have to wonder what France does for all this time, a period when French power was at something of a zenith (Louis XIV) and English/British something of a nadir (British Civil War). I could easily see the French try to focus more on LA, which would be cool in its own right, but for the sake of the TL let's say that France gets involved in European conquest, being at some point in time marginally more successful than it was OTL.

The next pre-requisite is that we figure out what happens to New Amsterdam. I don't have a problem assuming the English take it, but that was in the context of the Anglo-Dutch wars which means that we still need to know what's going on in Europe. I could easily go with some sort of scenario that sees the Dutch threaten by France and perhaps conquered leaving New Amsterdam almost by default to the English/British.

Next, consider the state of affairs as it appears to the native residents of the New World: while in OTL they could take some comfort from their ability to play the British, French and Spanish off one another, in TTL they have no hope of doing so. This will make them much more likely to resist colonial encroachment. Alternatively, though, because of the likelihood of more continuous conflict, the colonials may change their attitude. Here, contests with natives are not likely to be proxies for European struggles. Attempting to be more upright in dealing with them may prove fruitful, particularly as Britain is not likely to offer much help in dealing with the Indians in the first place.

And this brings us to another important consideration: Britain has little to no need to station troops in the colonies to defend them from other colonial powers. This means that if the colonists get taxed at all, they are liable to resent it. Furthermore, the colonists will not have the expereince of working together during conflicts with European powers to gain a sense of a wider identity: without the Seven Years' War and the need to organize aganst the French, there's no Albany Conference. However, it does seem likely to me that European powers may try to descend on the American continent during any war with Britain, which may mean the some kind of naval protection is more necessary than it was OTL. This could provide a source for huge unity as American colonial sailors mix with British ones. Perhaps the attitudes of the Royal Navy will prove different than the interactions of OTL's British Army and Colonial militia, if only because TTL's naval service is more likely to be integrated than OTL's army/militia.

It seems to me that if the colonists do form any cooperation plans, they're going to be regional. Indeed, the Albany Plan of Union is rather incorrectly remembered as a truly continental plan because no colonies south of MD attended. Indeed, the reason they didn't is because many were at a conference in Viriginia spnsored by Gov. Dinwiddie. The reason for the divergence is simple: the southern colonies dealt with different Indian tribes than the northern ones did. Massachussetts had no interest in settling squabbles between the Carolinas and Catawbas just as Virginia had very little interest in the dealings between New York and the Iroquois/Haudenosaunee. And then of course there's the huge distances involved and little intra-colonial comunication (OTL postal connections weren't coordinated until the 1750s, when Franklin was appointed Postmaster). I wont say too much more, because I go off on the topic of regional unions everytime we talk about colonial America.

Suffice to say that TTL's British North Americans will not lack reasons to revolt, since they probably won't get too much attention from Britain (or that might help, since nothing was better for the colonial relationship than Britain not trying to run them, at least until things got so bad the colonists begged for it). However, I see a lot which may make them less likely to band together and more likely to fragment into smaller groupings if they ever acheive indepedence.

Nevertheless, the first question in my mind is the need to figure out just what Britain is up to through this 17th century. A continued Stuart dynasty would be far different from Cromwell or William & Mary. Prince Henry surviving would be a far different ruler than his brother Charles. And then there's the issue of ATL children to throw things for a loop, to say nothing of wars in Europe.
 
Nicomacheus said:
Okay, so before I starting speculating about how this BNA is governed, let's consider the wider picture of BNA.

Nicomacheus said:
Now, there's something of a problem, IMO, with the POD since we have to wonder what France does for all this time, a period when French power was at something of a zenith (Louis XIV) and English/British something of a nadir (British Civil War). I could easily see the French try to focus more on LA, which would be cool in its own right, but for the sake of the TL let's say that France gets involved in European conquest, being at some point in time marginally more successful than it was OTL.

Very good point. I've always liked the idea of France conquering Spain's and/or Portugal's American colonies.

Nicomacheus said:
The next pre-requisite is that we figure out what happens to New Amsterdam. I don't have a problem assuming the English take it, but that was in the context of the Anglo-Dutch wars which means that we still need to know what's going on in Europe. I could easily go with some sort of scenario that sees the Dutch threaten by France and perhaps conquered leaving New Amsterdam almost by default to the English/British.

I think the British would still take New Amsterdam possibly in 1654 instead of 1667 as since Acadia is already British. Though it may just be handed back as the Dutch won that war.

Nicomacheus said:
Next, consider the state of affairs as it appears to the native residents of the New World: while in OTL they could take some comfort from their ability to play the British, French and Spanish off one another, in TTL they have no hope of doing so. This will make them much more likely to resist colonial encroachment. Alternatively, though, because of the likelihood of more continuous conflict, the colonials may change their attitude. Here, contests with natives are not likely to be proxies for European struggles. Attempting to be more upright in dealing with them may prove fruitful, particularly as Britain is not likely to offer much help in dealing with the Indians in the first place.

The Indians will be more nervous about the whites while the whites will feel more emboldened in their territorial ambitions. I see a lot more Indian warfare in this TL.

Nicomacheus said:
And this brings us to another important consideration: Britain has little to no need to station troops in the colonies to defend them from other colonial powers. This means that if the colonists get taxed at all, they are liable to resent it. Furthermore, the colonists will not have the expereince of working together during conflicts with European powers to gain a sense of a wider identity: without the Seven Years' War and the need to organize aganst the French, there's no Albany Conference. However, it does seem likely to me that European powers may try to descend on the American continent during any war with Britain, which may mean the some kind of naval protection is more necessary than it was OTL. This could provide a source for huge unity as American colonial sailors mix with British ones. Perhaps the attitudes of the Royal Navy will prove different than the interactions of OTL's British Army and Colonial militia, if only because TTL's naval service is more likely to be integrated than OTL's army/militia.

I can see Americans taking part in operations against Spain's and France's Caribbean colonies as they did against Cartagena in OTL. Maybe we see Washington take part in General Wolfe's conquest of Mexico:D

Nicomacheus said:
It seems to me that if the colonists do form any cooperation plans, they're going to be regional. Indeed, the Albany Plan of Union is rather incorrectly remembered as a truly continental plan because no colonies south of MD attended. Indeed, the reason they didn't is because many were at a conference in Viriginia spnsored by Gov. Dinwiddie. The reason for the divergence is simple: the southern colonies dealt with different Indian tribes than the northern ones did. Massachussetts had no interest in settling squabbles between the Carolinas and Catawbas just as Virginia had very little interest in the dealings between New York and the Iroquois/Haudenosaunee. And then of course there's the huge distances involved and little intra-colonial comunication (OTL postal connections weren't coordinated until the 1750s, when Franklin was appointed Postmaster). I wont say too much more, because I go off on the topic of regional unions everytime we talk about colonial America.

The colonies unitng would be dependent on finding a common powerful adversary. Britain is the only one I can think of.

Nicomacheus said:
Suffice to say that TTL's British North Americans will not lack reasons to revolt, since they probably won't get too much attention from Britain (or that might help, since nothing was better for the colonial relationship than Britain not trying to run them, at least until things got so bad the colonists begged for it). However, I see a lot which may make them less likely to band together and more likely to fragment into smaller groupings if they ever acheive indepedence.

You seem to be correct, however the same was pretty much true in OTL, if Britain does begin to impose its will on the colonists you could see them unite for the common defense.

Nicomacheus said:
Nevertheless, the first question in my mind is the need to figure out just what Britain is up to through this 17th century. A continued Stuart dynasty would be far different from Cromwell or William & Mary. Prince Henry surviving would be a far different ruler than his brother Charles. And then there's the issue of ATL children to throw things for a loop, to say nothing of wars in Europe.

I can't see the Glorious Revolution being disturbed by these PODs or the English Civil War as issues resulting in these events date back to the early 1500's and I guess even to the Magna Carta.
 
Top