usertron2020
I'm not disputing that. Just that border adjustments making Canada and the CSA more defensible was the idea, not outright conquest for the sake of conquest. Unless you want a run at Turtledove's abomination.
In terms of California becoming independent after a period of British 'occupation' during a long and bitter war in the east I have repeatedly mentioned that this is a possibility that could occur. Also that, after such a costly conflict Britain would find attractive the idea that the Us could be further weakened in this way as it would markedly reduce the future threat to Canada. [I am aware that some will argue any defeat will make the US rabidly determined to wage a new war but it will lack the resources for quite a while [aka at least a generation] and also the capacity to threaten much of Canada at all.
Under those circumstances, and those alone, I think it's both possible and would seem attractive to Britain, Canada and many Californians.
I think a problem here is the politics of a non-specific unwritten ATL. Without a specific story line, you can argue for an eternity the nature of the circumstances in terms of damage done industrial, financial, political, and psychological to the US.
That's why I have tried to detail what conditions would be required for the circumstances I mention.
[/QUOTE]All examples of peoples separated by language. Flemish/French for Belgium, Dutch for Holland. Czech for the Czech Republic, Slovakian for Slovakia. Norway and Sweden may have different languages officially, but I think I'll concede your point with them. And the former states of Czechoslovakia have only been democratic for twenty years. I wish them all the best, but my fingers are still crossed.
[/QUOTE]
Then what example would you take? Nations, even established ones, do fall apart occasionally. It's easier for defeated states to lose fringe areas in which they have little influence or history.
Put it another way. Various posters are saying that California would never seek independence, under just about any circumstance, apparently just because their Americans. At the time we're talking about a sizeable number of Americans have just decided they want out and OTL many of them were to fight for ~4 years, in steadily worsening conditions, to preserve their decision.
I know about the politics of perception, which is what politics is all about. And the perceptions of Irish immigrants fleeing the Famine, whatever the facts were on the ground at the time, were inflexible and adamantine. This was an issue not limited to the minds of Irish immigrants, as with their unpopularity in the US, their circumstances made no secret of why they were suddenly arriving in such numbers (at least the reason they gave). It wasn't "fleeing imperialism", but "fleeing the Famine". Whatever a proud Englishman might have to say about that, the conclusion to be drawn by a third-party listener is obvious.
The conclusion is that they have a viewpoint. Whether it's accurate, rubbish or somewhere in between. Plus as you point out yourself, they weren't fleeing British rule but a natural disaster that any nation would have struggle to handle on that scale. Britain's response was handicapped by the dominant laisse-faire beliefs of the time/place but it still did more than probably most states would have done.
I'm afraid that too many people on this thread are looking at this with a 21st century prism. Personally, I see no problem with the idea of California being ruled by the UK. Provided, of course, that you are talking about the UK of 2010, not 1861/62. I personally very much approve of the parliamentary system vs. the republican one (except for the Independent US Judiciary). Has anyone forgotten that to the rest of the world (in the 19th century) the International Bogeyman #1 was the British Empire? The US would not pick up that torch until 1945. And they had to share it with the USSR until 1991. The Empire was not seen as a safe haven in the 19th century. Not if you, as a region, had serious resources (up for grabs?
). Texas got it's independence in 1836 and waited only a dozen years before welcoming annexation by the US. Annexation by the Empire is seen as the same thing by Non-Americans, but I'm not seeing much hard historical evidence of 19th century American Toryism.
I suggest you read my posts! I am not talking about Britain ruling California but about a Californian republic.
Also while some, chiefly deeply conservative groups, felt hostile towards Britain, many more looked towards it as a friend and ally. Don't forget where the largest single group of those Irish fleeing the famine ended up.
BTW, yes, I'm of Irish extraction myself, and I'll consider that I may not know everything about the subject of Irish history. And you, dear sir?
I'm British. In reference to Ireland my feeling may well be coloured by events during my lifetime. What can only be described as Irish imperialists insisting they have a right to rule a part of my country, regardless of the feeling of the population of that region, and willing to murder all and sundry in 'support' of their aims. [I fully admit a fair number of the 'Loyalists' were every bit as evil as the IRA. Also that a lot of the violence is motivated as much by psychopaths and criminals out for personal gain as brutal fanatics]. When those same scum use often dodgy and inaccurate claims about ancient abuses to give an excuse for their behaviour. [Again I make clear. A lot of bad things were done during periods of British domination of Ireland, frequently by the British. However given standards and views at the time the Irish could have been treated a lot worse, with different overlords].
I think the whole problem with the use of the term US Exceptionalism is the pejorative nature of it versus the much more relatively balanced (though still uncomplimentary) term of US (Pro-Union) nationalism.
The problem is that I and I think other posters get frustrated by blanket statements that something could never happen, regardless of circumstances and ignoring reasons given why it could happen. Especially as I say, at this time another large proportion of Americans with far more links to the US than those in California, have decided they want to exit the country!
If you look at it as a question of nationalism? Imagine the hackles (outrage, really) raised if someone suggested that following a successful Napoleonic invasion of England
she was divided into four separate English "kingdoms" of Bristol, Essex, the Midlands, and York. And that the English in these regions would have no problems with this, provided they were ruled benevolently.
Cry Havoc, and let slip the dogs of war! Actually, the idea that any of the English race would be happy with the situation (beyond the usual collaborators) is too silly for words.
Different circumstances. I think you're talking about a foreign military occupation, which as I repeat I'm not. Also Britain by Napoleonic times has a far longer history than the US as a coherent state. A more accurate comparison would be if Napoleon somehow defeated Britain and established an independent Canada - or in you're example one under French military occupation.
But too many posters here seem convinced Californians of the 1860s just weren't real Americans. To the point of handing themselves over to the POLITICALLY PERCEIVED (however unfairly, but she was) most greedy empire the world had ever seen since Ancient Rome (Yes, I know, the Mongols, Byzantines, Persians, etc, etc)?
Politically perceived by whom? Various groups with grudges to carry? A lot of people were happier and more secure under British rule than before, or unfortunately in many cases since
. The key reason the empire spread so far and lasted so long was because most people found it preferable to alternatives. The empire, especially in this period, was maintained by relatively small military and bureaucratic resources, often with substantial local content. Britain was the biggest economic and industrial power of the period but while it had the capacity to be a military super-power it didn't need to. The Indian Raj was for instance dependant on mainly local troops and even during the height of the recent mutiny that was only defeated because most local forces stayed loyal!
Also, I ask you again to consider the situation I'm proposing, not the one you're talking about. I'm talking about an independent California not one under British rule.
The reason the charge was raised, after several pages of 'discussion', was because various posters insisted that Californian independence was impossible, with no reason given other than that they were Americans! What other assumption can be made unless some reason is given?
Steve