Canada Wank (YACW)

[Grimm Reaper]

stevep, no 100 Days, the British were the ones who took Paris, etc. Russia's role, though surely both valorous and vital simply won't look quite as impressive which is peculiar since the maps show Russia gaining MORE than OTL, and since both Austria and Prussia will be opposed to such a development and you state France and the UK ALSO oppose Russia getting all of Poland...

I'm not certain about the relative values of the huge Rhenish province given OTL vis a vis that portion of Saxony not given to Prussia although it must also be noted that Prussia kept her scattered smaller territories in the area and gained a few more.

Certainly it would seem that a more modest unification of Prussia's western territories would make more sense than awarding Belgium, an area Austria held for centuries and which Holland had a historical and ethnic claim to but which Prussia had no ties to.

One option might be a partition of Belgium, part to Holland and the rest to the former Saxon monarchy.


And why would Prussia be given a former Austrian territory while Austria as to be given a completely new Rhenish province and Silesia instead of or in addition to the obvious return of the Austrian Netherlands(Belgium)?


In all honesty the only way Austria is gettin Silesia is by fighting a war and I don't see that happening. Prussia is not yielding her second wealthiest/most important territory for a gain so dubious that Austria historically wasn't too unhappy to be rid of it.

 

[stevep]

Well something like the above division could see Britain giving most of the Cape back to the Netherlands to keep them on board with a Franco-British Axis, keeping the Eastern Cape and Natalia as strategic holdings (i.e much like the Dutch east Indies, giving most of it back except the nicest bit). And/or you might see them getting east Frisia via some horse trading.

That's a possibility. Britain would mainly be interested in control of the Cape for securing communications. Although not sure the Dutch, or at least the Dutch EIC had that much interest in the rest of the colony. From what I read they seemed to think of the settlers as a useful source of supplies for the ships to the east but otherwise an unwelcome nuisance. Although that might change if the Dutch government gets more heavily involved. Potentially could be very valuable when gold and diamonds are discovered. Also possibly Britain might also return Ceylon.

Not sure Malaya was the 'nicest' bit of the East Indies. It became very valuable with the tin and rubber later on but I think was largely outside the historical Dutch sphere of influence at the time and Singapore was virtually unpopulated until Raffles started work there.

You could have Silesia being split in some manner into upper and lower portions.

That's a possibility although it could leave both Prussia and Austria and the locals unhappy.

I'd certainly say that Austria with Bavaria and Prussia with Saxony so early would likely encourage the formation of distinct North and South German national states later on, rather than a German Empire and rump Austria. Spare German royalty can always be used in the new world, as Dathi has already started on...

Now there's a thought. The Wittelsbach dynasty was Catholic and the Wettins, although formally Lutherian had seen a number of kings make formal, if probably superficial changes to Catholism to bid for the Polish throne so either might provide a member or two for a throne in the America's. None of them are going to be available until several years after the settlement of the borders in Europe however, which prevents the Spanish colonies being available as compensation for any disposed families.

Steve

 

[Brasidas]

Dathi
...If none of the uncles produce a heir then, saying they die in the historical sequence, William will be succeeded by Ernest who dies in 1851. What happens then to Hanover? Would it go to Charlotte or possibly to her son William? A re-uniting of the two kingdoms, especially once that would be pretty certain by 1830 if none of George III's sons had produced heirs by then, could have a big effect on events in Europe.

Steve

Wouldn't Salic law prohibit that and demand that a male heir be found by tracing the family tree back a few generations? Are you suggesting that with a long leadtime (eg. by 1830 without Ernest being in any hurry to die in less than 20 years), the ruling family'll campaign to have the law changed to semi-salic in order to hold onto Hannover?

 

[stevep]

stevep, no 100 Days, the British were the ones who took Paris, etc. Russia's role, though surely both valorous and vital simply won't look quite as impressive which is peculiar since the maps show Russia gaining MORE than OTL, and since both Austria and Prussia will be opposed to such a development and you state France and the UK ALSO oppose Russia getting all of Poland...

As Dathi says British forces arrived just before the allies, rather than actually taking the city, which might be beyond their strength. Also the destruction of the Grand Army, coupled with the heavy losses of the Spanish ulcer were the key steps that made possible the destruction of the Napoleonic empire. Not saying it would be impossible without 1812 but markedly more costly and also it was probably important in persuading many that the French could be defeated.

I'm not certain about the relative values of the huge Rhenish province given OTL vis a vis that portion of Saxony not given to Prussia although it must also be noted that Prussia kept her scattered smaller territories in the area and gained a few more.

I also have doubts about this although not sure of how that is dependent on hindsight. Much of the areas was thinly populated and relatively undeveloped [I believe] away from the Rhine itself. Whereas Saxony was very rich and close to the Prussian/Brandenburg heartland. The other factor normally stated for the transfer was that it gave a strong Prussia presence on the Rhine as a barrier to any French revival.

Certainly it would seem that a more modest unification of Prussia's western territories would make more sense than awarding Belgium, an area Austria held for centuries and which Holland had a historical and ethnic claim to but which Prussia had no ties to.

Austria actually held the region for less than a century, although it had been with the Spanish Hapsburg's before that date. The other reason that it might go to Prussia is that Prussia might be the nation Britain was happiest with holding it. [i.e. strong enough to defend the key region against France but without the power or naval tradition to pose a serious threat to British interests].

One option might be a partition of Belgium, part to Holland and the rest to the former Saxon monarchy.

Possibly, although that means that the most vulnerable part lacks any real strong protection and would be vulnerable to French encroachments. As such I don't think that would be popular with many and especially not with Britain. The historical process of unifying it with the Netherlands would be preferred.

And why would Prussia be given a former Austrian territory while Austria as to be given a completely new Rhenish province and Silesia instead of or in addition to the obvious return of the Austrian Netherlands(Belgium)?

I've mentioned above why Prussia might get the provinces. They were rich but I think Austria had relatively little interest in retaining control. The provinces were too far away from their core territories and too difficult for them to defend.

In all honesty the only way Austria is gettin Silesia is by fighting a war and I don't see that happening. Prussia is not yielding her second wealthiest/most important territory for a gain so dubious that Austria historically wasn't too unhappy to be rid of it.

That I agree with. Both because of its wealth and because of its historical importance. In theory a strong and far sighted Prussia monarch might make a deal, returning it to Austria in exchange for suitable gains elsewhere to build bridges. However I think that's very unlikely and even if it did occur the two would still be rivals inside Germany. With the almost inevitable growth of national identity I can't see that issue being resolved without conflict.

Steve

 

[Nugax]

On the Hanover issue, whilst Augustus Frederick seems unlikely to produce children without huge incentive, I think Ernest Augustus and Adolphus will produce at least one male heir between them....

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Dathi

Interesting developments with Britain. As you say with Charlotte surviving and producing heirs the so called Royal sweep-stakes will be largely butterflied and Edward will probably stay with his long time mistress, so no Vicky. Not sure how thing would go with a different but older woman on the throne or how Leopold will do in place of Albert as a reforming figure in Britain?

Charlotte seems to be quite Whig enough, but Leopold when (OTL) King of Belgium was pretty reformist.

One question. Without Charlotte's death will any of her uncles indulge in a mad race to get a heir that late in life? If not that not only denies us Vicky but also George, the son of the Duke of Cumberland and later the last king of Hanover. [Only other legitimate childred were those of Adolphus Duke of Cambridge who also married late after Charlotte's death]. If none of the uncles produce a heir then, saying they die in the historical sequence, William will be succeeded by Ernest who dies in 1851. What happens then to Hanover? Would it go to Charlotte or possibly to her son William? A re-uniting of the two kingdoms, especially once that would be pretty certain by 1830 if none of George III's sons had produced heirs by then, could have a big effect on events in Europe.

Steve

No, the uncles aren't racing to get married. I don't imagine that William, Edward or Adolphus are any of them getting married.

Ernest and Frederica were married before Charlotte died. It was, apparently, a love match, at least on his side. So George V (or some other child) is likely.

In August, her engagement to Ernest Augustus was officially announced. After the British Parliament officially consented to the wedding, Frederica and Ernest Augustus were married on 29 May 1815 at the parish church of Neustrelitz.[citation needed] Some time later, the couple traveled to Great Britain and married again on 29 August 1815 at Carlton House, London.

Of course, if the child were a girl, it would rather muck up Hannover, wouldn't it?

 

[stevep]

Ernest and Frederica were married before Charlotte died. It was, apparently, a love match, at least on his side. So George V (or some other child) is likely.


Of course, if the child were a girl, it would rather muck up Hannover, wouldn't it?

Dathi

Well spotted. I just looked quickly through the uncles and noticed the birth of George was after Charlotte's death so assumed it was another part of the race.[2 + 2 = 5 !]. There are still chances of butterflies as something could stop them getting married or George being born, or as you say a sex change would complicate matters.

Reading what it says on Wiki about him he actually comes out quite well compared to Victoria. On matters such as the jewels for instance and the oath in the Lords. The squabbling over presidence seems fairly trivial to us but was a lot more important on both sides at the time.

Steve

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Miscellaneous bits, post war

Miscellaneous bits, post war



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Fur Trade[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The North West Company and the Hudson's Bay Company neither go to war with each other, nor do they merge. The cooperation forced on them by their assistance in the war, and the opening up of formerly US territories to the NWC means that relations between the two companies, while chilly, don't descend into outright hostility. The use of their various factors/traders by the Canadian and British governments (as they are often the only literate persons within a hundred miles) also means that they are somewhat more under the eye of higher authorities, which also helps them behave. The opening of the canals on the St. Lawrence system in 1821 also allows the NWC's shipping to be far more competitive. True, they still have a longer shipping route, but they can now ship furs all the way to Montreal with only a single portage (at Sault Ste. Marie) instead of many. And with other inducements, see below, work starts on a 'St. Lawrence standard' lock system there in the early 1830s.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Arctic Exploration[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Sir John Franklin's first arctic exploration trip to the Coppermine river happens [as OTL]. The lack of war between the HBC and NWC means the provisioning of this expedition is slightly better handled, and only 9 of 20 men die, instead of 11 of 20. They also map a wee bit more of the Arctic Sea shoreline.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Southern US Territories[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Punitive land treaties open up formerly Creek and Seminole territory to white settlement, and thousands of settlers pour in. The Chickasaw and Choctaw do somewhat better, but still cede the majority of their land. Mississippi becomes a state in 1817 (as OTL), and Alabama territory which is split from it in the process, quickly becomes a state as well, in 1819. The borders are largely OTL's, except they don't reach the Gulf Coast, which is still (or again) Spanish West Florida.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Shipping[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]In March of 1818 the Black Ball line inaugurates their 'packet line' from New York to Liverpool with four fast sailing ships. The revolution is that this is one of the first 'common carrier' services. The ships sail on specified dates from New York and from Liverpool each month, 'whether they have a cargo or not'. So if you want to ship much less than a ship's worth of cargo, this is much more convenient and efficient and reliable. Obviously, since they're using sailing ships, they can only guarantee departure times, not arrival times, but it's still a major advance. [OTL][/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Unlike OTL, New York is not quite as overwhelming predominant, and there is more competition from other ports. A Halifax consortium (including Samuel Cunard) puts together a similar packet service for the Halifax-Liverpool route, while Boston merchants do the same. These start up in 1819. Molson expands his transport business to include a similar packet service from Montreal in 1820, and from Québec City in 1821. British shipping lines don't catch on immediately, so the 'colonials' have the market to themselves for a while. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Finance[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Bank of Montreal opens 1817, Quebec Bank 1818, Bank of New Brunswick 1820, Halifax Banking Company 1825, [all OTL, basically], Bank of Nova Scotia 1821 [11 years early, due to increased shipping], Bank of Ontario 1819, Bank of Michigan 1820, Banque Bourbonne, 1821 [all ATL].[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Religion[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Josephine Smith discovers golden tablets near Manchester, NY. This leads to the later publishing of the Book of Nephi, and the Nephite movement based on it. [1][/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]US misadventures in the Caribbean[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Since the end of the War of 1812, the US has been pretty isolated diplomatically. The only country actually prepared to sign an alliance is Haiti, so that happens in 1818. The governing classes of the US despise the idea of a Black led country (just lead to disaster, given bad ideas to our slaves), but it's Haiti or nothing at the time. The US does supply war-surplus arms to the various Caribbean rebellions, fighting against Spain, but most of those fail. In 1821 Haiti Español (later the Dominican Republic) is declared independent of Spain by [/FONT]José Núñez de Cáceres, and the US quickly lands a small military force to assist. Unfortunately, at the same time, Jean-Pierre Boyer leads a Haitian army across the border to re-unite the island. Since the US would rather support whites (even papist dagos, as some put it), the US funnels some more men, and many arms into the hispanic side, and signs a treaty with the new government.[2] The US army has huge casualties, mostly from Yellow Fever and Malaria, but buys enough time for the Dominicans, as they're now known, to build an army. After 10 years of hard fighting, Haiti finally recognizes the independence of the Dominican Republic.


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Iron mining and foundries[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]There has long (since French colonial times) been a minor iron foundry near Trois-Rivières in Lower Canada. However, this is very low output. A very modern iron foundry opens at Marmora in Upper Canada [near OTL Peterborough] in 1821, to supply Upper Canada [as OTL]. Also, a foundry opens in Sydney Nova Scotia, using ore from Bell Island (Newfoundland) and local coal. [That ore had been known for a long time, but the use of it is quite a bit earlier than OTL.][/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Copper mining[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]During the War of 1812, one of the Ojibwa from Georgian Bay area notices a corroded piece of copper and remarks that he's seen something like that. 'Really?' [/FONT]'Yes, my stupid brother-in-law's band is sitting on a bunch of rock just like that.' The comment gets noted, and after the war, the note works its way up the hierarchy. Just from an off-hand comment, it's not obvious what those rocks are, but blue rocks are not normal. Whether they be copper ore, or jade or lapis, it's probably worth investigating, so headquarters sends out a miner who knows his rocks. When he gets there, no one will admit anything, so he goes over to the next band, where the veteran warrior lives. 'Of course they don't want any white man digging up their rocks. But I can't stand my ex-brother-in-law, so, I might show you where they are. What's it worth to you?'.


Thus the 'Has-sex-with-ducks'[3] copper body is discovered in 1818, with a mine being built there starting the next year. Name is later shortened to the Jichib mine.


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The success of this mine means that people keep an eye out for other minerals, and a miner is sent out to various places, to talk to locals and show samples of things they might find. There is no positive result from this for a number of years – and several wild goose chases, exciting sounding rocks that turn out to be boring, or that are in too small deposits. But then someone mentions red rocks, and the Iron Range (Minnesota/Wisconsin) is discovered in 1827, and then some other unusual rocks turn out to be silver ore, and Silver Mountain (west of OTL's Thunder Bay, Ontario, just north of the OTL US border) is discovered in 1830. ('discovered' as in – come to white man's attention, the locals knew all about the funky rocks, they just didn't necessarily realize that they were valuable – or if they did, they didn't want whiteman coming in and mucking up the water and scaring off game.)[/FONT]


–
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]1 OTL Mormonism, of course. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]2 Hmmm... So the earlier comment about the US being allied to only Haiti and Mexico in 1820 is technically correct, but somewhat misleading, as the Haiti alliance only lasts another year or so. [I had thought the Dominican revolt, when I was planning on the US switching allegiance, was earlier.] Since the front men (especially the ambassador to the US) from the Dominican Republic are white, it is MUCH easier for the US to deal with that alliance. Haiti really was a desperation alliance.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]3 In Ojibwa, of course. The NWC miner didn't speak any Ojibwa. When his local informant told him about his ex-brother-in-law who had showed him the rocks, the miner heard the 'name' as a string of syllables which he wrote down. He thought he would make the man famous by naming the mine after him, so he did. It wasn't until much later that the somewhat obscure local idiom was translated, by which time it was too late. The name gets truncated to just “Jichib” (would have been zhishib in English Orthography). [/FONT]

 

[foresterab]

Mmm...

Mines..check
Furs...check
Shipping...check
Banks...check
Canal and road infrastructure..check
agriculture exports...check.

Dang...sounds like a heck of a lot more balanced economy than Canada had for quite a few years. Should be a very strong basis for developing and filling the country with people in the next few decades.

 

[stevep]

Dathi

Good details on development. Mind you the US fouled things up with Haiti. Not only will it make the blacks in the US even more of a potential 5th column but also dumping an ally that quickly might well make new ones more difficult to pick up.

A couple of queries:

a) Why the name change with the Mormons? Apart from anything else its likely to be awkward for people following the TL having to remember to translate Nephi to Mormon. Could have a significantly different history as their starting off in a small [relatively] country and most of the areas they settled in OTL are now in another country.

b) Would Alabama become a separate state? Given the loss of New England and potential free states in the north there's quite an imbalance now. Wondered if some at least might argue for a single state [Mississippi and Alabama together] to prevent it getting even larger.

As foresterab says there's a much deeper and and broader economic development of Canada so could see it really take off economically and demographically as technology improves.

Steve

 

[Dan1988]

Sounds nice, Daði. The "has-sex-with-ducks" name just sounds too funny.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Dathi

Good details on development. Mind you the US fouled things up with Haiti. Not only will it make the blacks in the US even more of a potential 5th column but also dumping an ally that quickly might well make new ones more difficult to pick up.

True, but the idea of allying with a n****r state, given an alternative, was just too much. They can spin it as 'protecting the rights of revolutionary freedom loving peoples* against invading oppressors', which could actually go over OK in a Venezuela defending against Columbia, say.

*unstated, of course, is that 'people' mostly involves white or 'pass for white' people. Which also goes over fairly well in many places where the revolutionaries were more criollo whites than Indios, let alone Negros.

A couple of queries:

a) Why the name change with the Mormons? Apart from anything else its likely to be awkward for people following the TL having to remember to translate Nephi to Mormon. Could have a significantly different history as their starting off in a small [relatively] country and most of the areas they settled in OTL are now in another country.

To be honest, there really shouldn't be any Mormon equivalent at all. We've got butterflies flying all over the place, and that fact that Josephine is a women will change *Mormonism a lot. Besides, another TL (was it DoD, I think) had a Nephi free state, so it's not like no one here has seen the word before.

I'm not a Mormon, I think Mormon theology is ... wierd, at best. But ... they're solid God-fearing people, and I can see God taking the same inspiration (whatever its original source), and doing similar good things with it. Ooo that was a tricky statement to write.

b) Would Alabama become a separate state? Given the loss of New England and potential free states in the north there's quite an imbalance now. Wondered if some at least might argue for a single state [Mississippi and Alabama together] to prevent it getting even larger.

One could certainly make a case for them being one state, not two. However, 1) when I was first writing references to the two territories, I thought they'd already been split, which they hadn't. It turns out, to my surprise, that Alabama wasn't split off until Mississippi was made a state. I could have retconned those references to the OTL state areas, but I decided not to. 2) The US is looking to refill its flag. Sort of. I'm not actually sure they removed the stars for New England, but they are looking to build up. So, ya, they're going to go for smaller rather than larger states. Florida may well be two states (or one, but it MAY be two)... New York is likely to split (eventually, not real soon now, and don't bet money on it).

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Sounds nice, Daði. The "has-sex-with-ducks" name just sounds too funny.

Probably a bit over the top. I was thinking of the character of Birdy in the 163x book "Ram Rebellion"; and the scene in Shogun...

The guy REALLY didn't like his ex-brother-in-law much....

 

[stevep]

fact that Josephine is a women will change *Mormonism a lot.

Ooh! Wasn't paying attention and didn't notice that little difference. I think that will changes things somewhat.

If we were being pedantic that's probably an invalid butterfly as he/she would have been born before the POD. Unless that's actually the POD and the outcome of the war are results of butterflies from that say. However it does makes for some interesting potentials.

One could certainly make a case for them being one state, not two. However, 1) when I was first writing references to the two territories, I thought they'd already been split, which they hadn't. It turns out, to my surprise, that Alabama wasn't split off until Mississippi was made a state. I could have retconned those references to the OTL state areas, but I decided not to. 2) The US is looking to refill its flag. Sort of. I'm not actually sure they removed the stars for New England, but they are looking to build up. So, ya, they're going to go for smaller rather than larger states. Florida may well be two states (or one, but it MAY be two)... New York is likely to split (eventually, not real soon now, and don't bet money on it).

OK. Thought I would check if you had considered the slave/free issue's possible effects.

Is that statement about Florida a hint about what will happen or what some Americans are planning/desiring.

If so, even with the New York split, although that could be controversal, your likely to have the slave states keep a majority in the Senate at least for quite a while to come. Even if the free states in the NE become more populous and powerful in the lower house.

Steve

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Ooh! Wasn't paying attention and didn't notice that little difference. I think that will changes things somewhat.

If we were being pedantic that's probably an invalid butterfly as he/she would have been born before the POD. Unless that's actually the POD and the outcome of the war are results of butterflies from that say. However it does makes for some interesting potentials.

Joseph Smith was born December 23, 1805; some 12 years after the PoD. The Royalist Vendéens linking up with the British, remember? Although I had a pretty strong butterfly net for a while.

Now that we're getting people showing up that were born after the PoD, there are minor changes. Did you notice Santa Anna was named after a different saint?

Is that statement about Florida a hint about what will happen or what some Americans are planning/desiring.

Tum te tum te tum (to quote David Weber)

If so, even with the New York split, although that could be controversal, your likely to have the slave states keep a majority in the Senate at least for quite a while to come. Even if the free states in the NE become more populous and powerful in the lower house.

Steve

But the slave/free split really gained its energy over the expansion west. There is no expansion west, now, and so fights will likely happen in other directions. My impression, OTL, was that the 1820s are when that whole question is starting to be asked, long before it's a burning issue. I could be wrong there. I'm finding I'm wrong in a number of things involving territory/state transitions [Yes, I'm talking to you Nugax]

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Dathi

Less thinking about it being called a kingdom, as probably too small in population yet. More concerned with why I thought Dominion was used OTL and hence dubious about it turning up now and here.

Interesting that comment about the neighbouring duchy. Looking forward to finding out more.

Thanks for the map.

Steve

returning to an old post

There were the precedents of the Dominion of Virginia (the Old Dominion), and the Dominion of New England both in colonial times. So they weren't going straight from the Bible in 1867. (or here in 1816?)

 

[stevep]

returning to an old post

There were the precedents of the Dominion of Virginia (the Old Dominion), and the Dominion of New England both in colonial times. So they weren't going straight from the Bible in 1867. (or here in 1816?)

Dathi

Good point. Had heard of both of them before I think but just remembering reading somewhere that Canada took it from a biblical usage. May well not be accurate.

Steve

 

[stevep]

Joseph Smith was born December 23, 1805; some 12 years after the PoD. The Royalist Vendéens linking up with the British, remember? Although I had a pretty strong butterfly net for a while.

Now that we're getting people showing up that were born after the PoD, there are minor changes. Did you notice Santa Anna was named after a different saint?

Duh! Too many TLs, plus galloping senility possibly. Good point.

Tum te tum te tum (to quote David Weber)

I'll wait and see.

But the slave/free split really gained its energy over the expansion west. There is no expansion west, now, and so fights will likely happen in other directions. My impression, OTL, was that the 1820s are when that whole question is starting to be asked, long before it's a burning issue. I could be wrong there. I'm finding I'm wrong in a number of things involving territory/state transitions [Yes, I'm talking to you Nugax]

Again true. In which case things could come to a head earlier. The small farmers who can't compete with the slave plantations have a lot less room to settle, The plantations aren't going to have it that easily either. Keeping their 'equipment' is going to be more difficult with British, Spanish and Indian lands bordering them while expansion over the Mississippi is out for the foreseeable future. [Unless they manage to change the minds of the new Texan government but that sounds a bit unlikely].

Steve

 

[Dan1988]

returning to an old post

There were the precedents of the Dominion of Virginia (the Old Dominion), and the Dominion of New England both in colonial times. So they weren't going straight from the Bible in 1867. (or here in 1816?)

Which brings up a question: if New England rejoins the British Empire, would the Dominion of New England be revived?

 

[AuroraBorealis]

True, but the idea of allying with a n****r state, given an alternative, was just too much. They can spin it as 'protecting the rights of revolutionary freedom loving peoples* against invading oppressors', which could actually go over OK in a Venezuela defending against Columbia, say.

*unstated, of course, is that 'people' mostly involves white or 'pass for white' people. Which also goes over fairly well in many places where the revolutionaries were more criollo whites than Indios, let alone Negros.



To be honest, there really shouldn't be any Mormon equivalent at all. We've got butterflies flying all over the place, and that fact that Josephine is a women will change *Mormonism a lot. Besides, another TL (was it DoD, I think) had a Nephi free state, so it's not like no one here has seen the word before.

I'm not a Mormon, I think Mormon theology is ... wierd, at best. But ... they're solid God-fearing people, and I can see God taking the same inspiration (whatever its original source), and doing similar good things with it. Ooo that was a tricky statement to write.



One could certainly make a case for them being one state, not two. However, 1) when I was first writing references to the two territories, I thought they'd already been split, which they hadn't. It turns out, to my surprise, that Alabama wasn't split off until Mississippi was made a state. I could have retconned those references to the OTL state areas, but I decided not to. 2) The US is looking to refill its flag. Sort of. I'm not actually sure they removed the stars for New England, but they are looking to build up. So, ya, they're going to go for smaller rather than larger states. Florida may well be two states (or one, but it MAY be two)... New York is likely to split (eventually, not real soon now, and don't bet money on it).

Well in most cases where the Miss. terr. remains separated from its own Gulf coast its usually decided to split the terr. north/ South, to give the Terr.s both river front access and access to the port at NO... In this case since all the seaports are outside the US I suppose this works ... but wouldn't both terr. still want river front access for incoming supplies and settlers?