Slightly inspired by reference to first fleet landin in WA, could Britain have put penal colonies anywhere that became the US after 1783. I know that Spain and later Mexico claimed huge tracts of land but not how effective that was.
British Penal colonies on American mainland (outside Canada) after 1783
- Thread starter Derek Jackson
- Start date
Let's assume they want to do that, and for some reason don't think of Australia, or want something besides that...
It obviously would be a bad move having them neighbouring with the USA, as this would be a natural escape route; I don't think that a penal colony program is worth getting into a conflict with Spanish or Russian claims, you don't want Canada - in that case, the only area I can think of is Oregon. There were also Russian, Spanish, and US claims, but Britain claimed it even in OTL, so a penal colony might have been used to enforce the claim.
It obviously would be a bad move having them neighbouring with the USA, as this would be a natural escape route; I don't think that a penal colony program is worth getting into a conflict with Spanish or Russian claims, you don't want Canada - in that case, the only area I can think of is Oregon. There were also Russian, Spanish, and US claims, but Britain claimed it even in OTL, so a penal colony might have been used to enforce the claim.
Last edited:
Florida
It works if the POD is 1783 and the British keep Florida. They had taken it from the Spanish and occupied it from 1763-1783. They could make it into their version of Devil's Island.
It works if the POD is 1783 and the British keep Florida. They had taken it from the Spanish and occupied it from 1763-1783. They could make it into their version of Devil's Island.
Thande
Donor
That would be a death sentence in all but name; we could have done that with the West Indies in OTL but to be honest I don't think people would have stood for it (you can send soldiers there, but criminals?
)Georgia was originally started as a penal colony, but the growing of cash crops quickly put an end to that.
But that would be too near to the US - a penal colony is no high security prison; it relies on the fact that its far away from home and from civilisation to keep people in.
West Coast
Then you put in on the west coast of FL, down near the Everglades. After all, how much fun can it be to escape into the Everglades?
Then you put in on the west coast of FL, down near the Everglades. After all, how much fun can it be to escape into the Everglades?
But down there they all just die.
Oregon seems the obvious choice here. Plus it'd make for a really fun TL.
Oregon seems the obvious choice here. Plus it'd make for a really fun TL.
Max Sinister
Banned
Oregon was used as a penal colony (for people like Jeremy Bentham and Eric Blair) in the Cornwallis TL from Gurps AE 2.
Or even merge the HBC trading posts in the area (which means Rupert's Land and the North-Western Territory) with the British claim. Thus, the Columbia District (aka Oregon) would have a dual economy - penal colony on one hand, and HBC profiteering on the other. That would be a pretty large area, stretching over much of what is now northern and western Canada, northern Ontario, and northern Québec. This means that the British colony of Oregon would be almost as large, maybe even larger than, the other colonies in British North America. What would be even more interesting is if the original boundaries of these territories are kept, especially Britain's extreme claim of the southern border being on the 42nd parallel north.
Also, keep in mind that in OTL from 1849/1858 to 1866, after the Oregon Treaty, Vancouver Island (capital: Victoria) and British Columbia (capital: New Westminster) were separate British colonies, but in 1866 both colonies were united. I would imagine that if Britain kept its claim on the Columbia District that the District would be part of the Colony of British Columbia and the union of the separate Vancouver Island and British Columbia colonies would happen much sooner than in OTL.
Really?
I somewhat disagree. It seems to me the much larger populations would increase the number of governmental divisions in the territory, rather than decreasing it.
I somewhat disagree. It seems to me the much larger populations would increase the number of governmental divisions in the territory, rather than decreasing it.
Yeah, no kidding.
But likely one of the main reasons the two were combined was how low the population was out there. The fact that there were two to start means nothing; there's just a tendency for administrative ease to give different governments to different areas when one is a large island. After all, New Jersey used to be West Jersey and East Jersey, not to mention the disappearance of Plymouth Bay and East Haven.
But those are probably abstract examples. Just look at the OTL history of Canada and Australia. Aside from the case you mention (which again I believe is due to the low population at the time), the trend was clear. The more people there were, the more the area was divided up. See the creation of New Brunswick and for that matter most of the history of Eastern Australia.
In a situation where Britain's convicts were sent to the Northwest instead of to Australia, this TL virtually guarantees that the US will miss out on the area entirely. By c1840 the area will be well on the way to settlement. I think it's not unreasonable to wonder if part or even all of California might not end up in British hands. It also makes the Russian position in Alaska rather questionable. I think this New Caledonia/Oregon/British Columbia/Whatever will probably end up as a separate Dominion entirely from Canada. In OTL they had to be bribed in. In this one... I don't think Canada can afford a bribe that big.
But likely one of the main reasons the two were combined was how low the population was out there. The fact that there were two to start means nothing; there's just a tendency for administrative ease to give different governments to different areas when one is a large island. After all, New Jersey used to be West Jersey and East Jersey, not to mention the disappearance of Plymouth Bay and East Haven.
But those are probably abstract examples. Just look at the OTL history of Canada and Australia. Aside from the case you mention (which again I believe is due to the low population at the time), the trend was clear. The more people there were, the more the area was divided up. See the creation of New Brunswick and for that matter most of the history of Eastern Australia.
In a situation where Britain's convicts were sent to the Northwest instead of to Australia, this TL virtually guarantees that the US will miss out on the area entirely. By c1840 the area will be well on the way to settlement. I think it's not unreasonable to wonder if part or even all of California might not end up in British hands. It also makes the Russian position in Alaska rather questionable. I think this New Caledonia/Oregon/British Columbia/Whatever will probably end up as a separate Dominion entirely from Canada. In OTL they had to be bribed in. In this one... I don't think Canada can afford a bribe that big.