Looks like the Richelieu is more navigable than I thought. So the Chambly canal goes in earlier.
Ah. THanks for the info.
Canada Wank (YACW)
- Thread starter Dathi THorfinnsson
- Start date
- Status
Ah. THanks for the info.
The measures against slavery are a good thing to see, and they can be a good example for TTL USA.
Archangel
Agree with the 1st part. For the 2nd it might happen or the Americans might take the view that their 'i.e. the British/Canadians" are the enemy so they will move in the opposite direction. Especially since the plantations were the core of the southern economy that developed so either the south takes a hard line on slavery or finds a radically different economic system. Could see the latter occurring but Dathi seems to have the view that slavery will still be the dominant economic factor in the near future. [Unless I've mis-read things, which I could well have done
]If the American south does become dependent on a slave economy then I fear it will be very harsh. Apart from the fears they had historically in this case they will face the problems of both it being much easier for slaves to escape and of them being a potential 5th column if the case of a new war with Britain. The latter will be highly likely sooner or later as Britain blocks all overland lines of expansion for the US.
Steve
Dathi
Can't remember if I've suggested this before. When slavery is banned in the British empire I could see one significant factor being blacks eager to emigrate from the west Indies colonies, with their limited economic prospects and continued economic and political domination by the planter elite to British Louisiana. Given the number of free blacks in the latter already this could well be welcomed/accepted by Louisiana so might be a major factor in increasing its population. Which would have impacts on developments in N America.
Steve
Can't remember if I've suggested this before. When slavery is banned in the British empire I could see one significant factor being blacks eager to emigrate from the west Indies colonies, with their limited economic prospects and continued economic and political domination by the planter elite to British Louisiana. Given the number of free blacks in the latter already this could well be welcomed/accepted by Louisiana so might be a major factor in increasing its population. Which would have impacts on developments in N America.
Steve
Perhaps things will improve after the US takes its bloody revenge in the next war, stevep?
Perhaps things will improve after the US takes its bloody revenge in the next war, stevep?
Grimm
Improve in what way, and where?
If the US takes on Britain in the next couple of generations unless they produce some military/political genius, Britain is distracted by a major crisis elsewhere or has a degree of incompetence that makes the Crimean War look outright brilliance, the US is likely to get hammered. It has markedly less resources than OTL and the British presence is stronger, both in Canada and to the west. With Spanish Florida and an independent New England they have lost further resources and added to their potential enemies. As stated elsewhere if they try and maintain a strong slave population that gives a formidable potential 5th column.
At the same time they have a worse economic position because much of their trade and commerce depends on foreign, potential enemies and because they will undoubtedly have markedly higher military spend. Also given the back-biting over the defeat the internal situation could be more divisive.
This presumes that the US takes a militant, revanchinst approach. While I think that's what Dathi is planning and probably the most likely I have pointed out its not the only way the US could go. It could see a more responsible approach which looks to internal development of the country's still considerable resources and peaceful economic relations with its neighbours. Especially if say you get the cultural revolution I mentioned in the south where the small farmers win out over the big plantations. That would both reduce/remove the slave issue and greatly reduce the US land hunger as more would be available for the ordinary population within their current borders rather than hogged by big business.
I have pointed out things which could go wrong for the US, which I think is what your referring to? However I have also pointed out things that could go right. They could even win a future conflict against Britain in the next generation but would need to be very, very lucky and this could backfire on them badly. [After all if a new American attack seizes land and seeks to oppress or expel its people there will be a lot of anger from the victims. While any shortfalls shown by the conflict are likely to the subject of strong attention in Britain the Americans could get even more overconfident and find yet a 3rd war of aggression ending very badly for them
]. Steve
PS When I was working on a similar TL a few years back that's basically what happened. The US aided by a major war in Europe, 'won' the 2nd conflict then came a hell of a cropper a generation later.
No sense of humor these days...sad, very sad.
More likely is that the remnant US will seize Florida at some point in the next 10-20 years when the Spanish are losing their empire. The British might even encourage this on the grounds that if the US feels better there won't be problems and if the US does not...well, Florida won't make much difference in terms of the strength of the US.
More likely is that the remnant US will seize Florida at some point in the next 10-20 years when the Spanish are losing their empire. The British might even encourage this on the grounds that if the US feels better there won't be problems and if the US does not...well, Florida won't make much difference in terms of the strength of the US.
Grimm
Improve in what way, and where?
If the US takes on Britain in the next couple of generations unless they produce some military/political genius, Britain is distracted by a major crisis elsewhere or has a degree of incompetence that makes the Crimean War look outright brilliance, the US is likely to get hammered.
With a apologies to Dathi, I've had a long day and I'm going to ramble.
I'm seeing a USA that's had some serious setbacks and isn't going to get some of the breaks that it had in OTL. I'm not seeing any sort of Texas emerging, certainly not with a bunch of Americans breaking away from the local government and getting annexed by the States. I'm not seeing the US being wholly contained, though.
Moreover, Britain doesn't rule the world. It can't impose stability and its advantage everywhere. They're not going to kick over the whole rotten structure of the Spanish colonial empire like they did historically, but it's still going to implode at some point. They might hold on to more of it, but I'd expect some land sales. If Britain's distracted, the States may give them a better deal. I doubt that Cuba and the Philippines are going to them this time as in the turn of the century peace treaty, but the States may get something during the collapse.
Britain isn't going to be so distracted that the States can win a short victorious war. But there's going to be events of pretty immediate concern going on. The Indian Mutiny. The revolutions of 1848. The Ottomans and Egypt.
Is a less than foolhardy USA going to be able to pull a rabbit or two out of its hat?
Multilaterally, things should start going in the States' favour in another generation. Are Prussia and Sardinia-Piedmont still in positions to lead their respective unifications here? The next French republic'll be rearing its head, hell, maybe the Scandinavians'll pull off a superstate.
I know Dathi's Canada's going to be a going concern for a long time, but the British don't have to win every war hands-down and break the Americans' back in order for that to happen.
Speaking of the British losing stuff, is the next British head of state going to be female? Or do you think Hannover'll stick around for a while?
Here you go - it's drafted in legalese (and early 19thC legalese at that) but it looks like Clause III is what you need:
"And be it further enacted, That from and after the said First Day of May, One thousand eight hundred and seven, it shall be unlawful for any of His Majesty's Subjects, or any Person or persons, resident in this United Kingdom, or in any of the Colonies, Territories, or Dominions thereunto belonging or in His Majesty's Possession or Occupation, to carry away or remove, or knowingly and willfully to procure, aid, or assist in the carrying away or removing, as Slaves, or for the purpose of being sold, transferred, used, or dealt with as Slaves, any of the Subjects or Inhabitants of Africa, or any Island, Country, Territory, or Place in the West Indies, or any part of America whatsoever, not being in the Dominion, Possession, or Occupation of his Majesty, either immediately or by Transshipment at Sea or otherwise, directly or indirectly from Africa or from any such Island, Country, territory, or Place as aforesaid, to any other Island, Country, Territory, or Place whatever,"
It seems to be pretty clear that the slave trade is banned between British colonies as well as between British colonies and the outside (in either direction). Enforcement would be a problem (not sure how you'd stop two neighbouring plantation owners in Jamaica from selling slaves one to another) but the principle is there.
Ah. Hmmm... that reads differently than I thought it would. It doesn't so much prohibit imports of slaves as it prohibits British subjects/residents from engaging in the trade.
I read it as
"As if 1 May 1807 no subject or resident of the British Empire shall have anything to do with the slave trade (buying, selling or transporting) from anywhere not in the Empire to anywhere at all.
So it does NOT prohibit internal slave trade. Nor does it technically prohibit import of slaves by non-British subjects/residents. (Of course, what good would it do them, if no one staying in British territory can buy them...)
Hmmm... I see that the fines are to be split, half to the Crown and half to the person who helps apprehend the slaver. I didn't actually know that when I made the suggestion that forfit goods be split that way, but it makes a good precedent...
If the next monarch was female, there's at least one thread about a surviving Princess Charlotte, as seen from doing a quick search. In OTL, she died due to childbirth, in which the child was stillborn (devastating her husband at the same time). If she survives that, or even change one of her early miscarriages into a successful childbirth in which she survives, she could live longer than in OTL and potentially be Queen.
No sense of humor these days...sad, very sad.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN NO SENSE OF HUMOUR! HOW DARE YOU! I DEMAND SATISFACTION! SEE YOU AT DAWN WITH THE PISTOLS.
Seriously I wasn't quite sure what you were saying. While I admit I'm enjoying seeing a more successful Britain and Canada as I've said it could see see a fairly successful US, even if nothing like as expansionist as OTL.
Its a possibility that Britain might try appeasement. After all that was their tactic for most of the 19thC OTL. Especially if the Spanish have fallen into disorder or angered British opinion. However would expect that it would be far more likely that the US buys Florida rather than seizes it militarily. That would be far less likely to result in British intervention.
I think Florida could well make a significant difference in a future conflict and possibly not just as a trigger point. Until railways become dominant, which is some way and a lot of money off yet, denial of it by non-American forces makes movement of goods and forces in the US south markedly more difficult. Especially presuming that in any likely conflict with Britain for quite a time the US is unlikely to have access to naval movement.
Also, with I think a predominantly Indian/black population, I think it would be awkward for the US to swallow if fighting a major war at the same time. Not a war winner in itself but a useful extra factor if the two powers clash again.
Steve
In terms of whether its restricted to its current border I think it would depend on how long before it tries to expand and how. As I said to Grimm I could possibly see them buy Florida from Spain and maybe under the right conditions possibly Cuba or other Caribbean islands as well.
A military expansion would be very risky for the US for the next couple of generations unless they get very, very lucky. They don't have the military strength, compared to their probable opponents. Also while memories of the last war are recent both British N America and the neighbouring states [New England and Spain/Florida] would have strong interests in supporting each other against a new attack. If they wait a few decades, building up population, economic strength, logistics etc and also giving time for their opponents to grow lack and possibly suffer internal division then they would have a substainally better chance in any conflict. [This presumes that British N America doesn't undergo very rapid economic and demographic growth, which it might do but is by no means certain].
I think the question of what happens in the Spanish empire and how Britain and America respond to it will be very important. Could even be a case that if Britain is drawn in as the protector of the Spanish empire then American, if it can avoid becoming too nativist, could find itself a role as a supporter of the rebels. This might enable the US to actually establish an informal empire in at least part of Latin America markedly earlier and more reliably, at least if they can keep their Walker's under control.
Alternatively if the US seeks to improve relations with its neighbours it could start a better relationship with Britain and the two might become allies in resolving common problems in the region. Could be difficult with the bitter relations between the two nations however.
Actually, if the US is going to win a war before ~1850 then their best bet is probably a fairly short war while Britain was distracted by a crisis somewhere else. If the US makes some quick but limited gains and then seeks a moderate peace British opinion might decide on coming to terms rather than the long and expensive process of moblishing the forces that would be required to win such a conflict.
Quite possibly. Presuming that it doesn't try anything military or if it does it gets lucky. It can make progress economically and possibly territorially but its better if it doesn't
There are so many butterflies. Even as late as 1848 an Austria struck by disorder and unrest was seen as too powerful for Prussia to challenge. With no Hundred Days the development of France and hence of all of Europe could well diverge totally. Which could be to Britain's favour or dis-advantage depending on how it goes. [Note that a period without the long peace of OTL is not necessarily a major disadvantage for Britain. If you have more wars or war scares it could drain resources or prompt even faster economic, social and/or technological development].
Agreed. If it keeps its current borders and possibly secure land further west its still likely to become as populous and powerful by the end of the century as the US although the latter will be more concentrated and might have a stronger industrial base.
In fact this is probably the best case scenario for the US. Avoid conflict and concentrate on internal development and resolving internal problems.
Dan raises a good point. We generally forget that but for Charlotte's death Victoria probably wouldn't even be born. Presuming she last's longer than her father, which seems likely, then I think there would be a break with Hanover, at least for a while. If she had a son I'm not sure if he would become the king of Hanover or it would go to to an older male relative? If the former than presumably in time the two would be re-united, which could be a major butterfly itself.
Steve
I don't see any reason Spain's empire is less likely to crumble in this TL than in our own but note which country now has an extended border with the future nation of Mexico.
While resolving the border between Canada and Mexico and the fate of the Canadian Southwest(Mexican Northwest?) Florida is likely to look a bit small, don't you think?
There's also the possible concern of the US seeking sufficient military forces to take Florida from Spain, a level which would not threaten the British but would the British want that precedent when they can avoid it by letting the US have one piece of an obviously doomed colonial empire? It's not like Florida was actually valuable for quite some time.
While resolving the border between Canada and Mexico and the fate of the Canadian Southwest(Mexican Northwest?) Florida is likely to look a bit small, don't you think?
There's also the possible concern of the US seeking sufficient military forces to take Florida from Spain, a level which would not threaten the British but would the British want that precedent when they can avoid it by letting the US have one piece of an obviously doomed colonial empire? It's not like Florida was actually valuable for quite some time.
Grimm
Its possible as I say if they try and get it by diplomatic means. Less likely if they try by military means without some agreement with Britain.
Florida is useful for Britain both economically, as its getting the share of US tariffs and also to restrict the potential US threat. If they get ports on the gulf this makes their ability to threaten Louisiana markedly greater. I do agree that, especially if the US has been trying the diplomatic approach, it won't be seen as the most important however so some deal could be agreed.
Not sure if the Spanish empire will necessarily die that quickly. Because of the situation with the US Britain is less likely to be hostile and hence may not block a French move to support Spain as it did OTL. With the relatively small forces involved in the colonial campaigns and the fact France has a large number of Napoleonic veterans the monarchy will want to keep busy a military solution could revive the empire, at least for a couple of decades. [Especially when the lack of the hundred days means that there are markedly more Napoleonic veterans and their causes is not as discredited].
Steve
stevep, it seems to me that with Canada having the entire OTL border with Mexico prior to the war 1846-1848 the last thing London would want would be a substantial number of Napoleonic veterans showing up to turn Mexico into a more credible power.
Even ignoring the risk of this giving the US an ally on the spot or, even worse, Mexico and the US as potential allies to France in a future crisis...
Even ignoring the risk of this giving the US an ally on the spot or, even worse, Mexico and the US as potential allies to France in a future crisis...
Interesting. Do you have a cite for that? I should probably investigate this. While Royalist France and Spain and Britain are all supposed to be good friends now, it certainly can't last.
People have also made comments about Britain helping to rip apart the Spanish Empire. I do know that Britain did some of that when Spain was fighting Britain, and I do know that OTL there were lots of demobbed soldiers/sailors who hired out to the independence movement (starting with Cochrane
), but how much did Britain support e.g. Bolivar after Spain switched sides and/or the war was over. I'm rather afraid my knowledge of South American history is not what it could be. When looking at the Wiki article on Mexican independence, there wasn't (IIRC) any reference to British aid.
Following that link, he seems to have been completely a private citizen. Given that he was press-ganged into the navy, he probably served as an able-bodied seaman or equivalent. Hardly "The British [government] fighting against Spain"...
You can find thousands of individuals who signed on with the various independence movements. Was there any OFFICIAL help (after Spain became Britain's ally)?
Grimm
Depends on how far they think ahead. If they give the green light to French intervention its politically more difficult for stepping in to stop them later. Also apart from the fact they would be spread over a wide area, from Mexico to Argentina and Chile I still suspect the British would rather such forces being fighting rebels in Latin America than sitting in France, either boosting the French army and/or possibly plotting a Napoleonic revival.
Steve
- Status