DBWI: Anglo-American Rapprochement

Britain is not America, where American Indians were slaughtered because their relatives joined the British and the murderers of blacks go unpunished.
Now where'd you get that idea? Granted, early on (i.e pre napoleonic victory, and therefore during the days when America still looked up to britain as the cultural and governmental ideal) those accusations would have held ground. But they haven't been true since the 1820s. We granted all races legal equality in the 1840, provided they weren't slaves, and slavery itself died it's last breath when in the 1860s, the south rebelled against the election results, giving the North (i.e 2/3s of a continent) the excuse to force its abolition. And considering we've had men and women of the 5 biggest ethnicities, and three native presidents of, respectively, Sioux, mohawk, and chinook; whereas native aristocrats were lucky to get the same train car as Europeans? You'll have to forgive my doubts regarding the British records and whatnot.

And maybe I'm wrong and Mosley didn't systematically kill millions of Irish innocents. Still makes people wonder why an island the size of Scotland and the hiberness islands has about a third the people. Especially considering there was 1 plausible foreign government that could be responsible.
 

eadmund

Banned
OOC:

Now where'd you get that idea? Granted, early on (i.e pre napoleonic victory, and therefore during the days when America still looked up to britain as the cultural and governmental ideal) those accusations would have held ground. But they haven't been true since the 1820s. We granted all races legal equality in the 1840, provided they weren't slaves, and slavery itself died it's last breath when in the 1860s, the south rebelled against the election results, giving the North (i.e 2/3s of a continent) the excuse to force its abolition. And considering we've had men and women of the 5 biggest ethnicities, and three native presidents of, respectively, Sioux, mohawk, and chinook; whereas native aristocrats were lucky to get the same train car as Europeans? You'll have to forgive my doubts regarding the British records and whatnot.

Avoid the aggressive American expansionism and repeated attempts to conquer British North America and you have a good start.

As mentioned the Franco-American alliance was also an issue. France already being the hegemon throwing it's weight around in Europe directly enabled and inspired the Americans to do the same.

I guess delaying the anti-slavery movement in Britain would also help. The racist and pro-slavery lobbies have been at the heart of American politics for years and influence the country's aggressive stance even when their strategic interestsmight otherwise have been aligned.

IC:

And maybe I'm wrong and Mosley didn't systematically kill millions of Irish innocents. Still makes people wonder why an island the size of Scotland and the hiberness islands has about a third the people. Especially considering there was 1 plausible foreign government that could be responsible.

I can understand why you Americans are so eager to defend the "Irish" Ulstermen. A bunch of planters who sought only to drive out and oppress the native population, then getting pissed off and rebelling when the government asked them to stop? Where have I heard that one before?

The Presbyterians and the descendants of the original New England colonists absolutely despised the Irish. They despised the Irish immigrants. The Scots, of course, were good, hard-working (fellow) Presbyterians. And Scotland was the ancestral homeland of many of the "Irish" Ulstermen. So it's easy to see why, as you say, some got more than others. And soon enough the British were forced out of Ireland and the Tubaiste began. Funnily enough, plenty of Americans supported the Presbyterian "Irish", the descendants of those aforementioned planters.

By the end of the Tubaiste millions were dead and the whole thing was used as further evidence that the British Empire had to be destroyed because, after all, that's what British imperialism results in. Meanwhile, with all that American aid, Scotland prospered and its population boomed.

I wonder which foreign government could be responsible. I wonder indeed.
 
There was the attempted rapprochement in the 1850's; popularly known at the "Cousin Détente". That all ended in 1862 during the Battle of Charleston Bay when the Union Navy found British sailors serving on Confederate ships after taking them prisoner. Under interrogation the British officer in charge, Commander Alex Stewart, explained that he was part of an advisory group meant to aid the Confederacy and that his orders came directly from the British Admiralty. Although both the South and the British denied this, President Lincoln broke off relations with Britain. Once the war ended in late 1864, the U.S. Congress declared war on Britain and the U.S. Army launched an invasion of Canada. Despite Britain winning several battles in the Caribbean, it was forced to concede Canada in the Treaty of Windsor in 1869. Relations between the two countries never really normalized.
 
I can understand why you Americans are so eager to defend the "Irish" Ulstermen. A bunch of planters who sought only to drive out and oppress the native population, then getting pissed off and rebelling when the government asked them to stop? Where have I heard that one before?
Forgetting the english sponsors there, aren't we? And that the Union was always unpopular in Scotland and Ireland, so of course when we broke up the British empire and gave Scotland independence we buffed them out so the far, far more populated part of the island that began all this trouble couldn't do anything about it.

And of course the south was the heart of the early union's politics. it was disproportionately wealthy due to institutions set out by a certain empire. And we were aggressive against other european nations. Granted, some rebellious officers broke a lot, and i mean a lot of our treaties with the natives, but considering that we've protected the only native american majority country on north america- the Seminal Republic, if you were wondering, better than you protected any of your colonies, i don't think you're in a position to judge us. And considering that Britain has the handling of the Sepoy Rebellion, the original potato famine, and apartheid south africa to excuse, all at the same time the US was expanding westward or into Asia, (and again, we actually made damn good on our promises of equality), i wonder if you ever could judge us without some hypocrisy and blame shifting?
 

eadmund

Banned
Forgetting the english sponsors there, aren't we?

There were English noblemen involved, yes.

And that the Union was always unpopular in Scotland and Ireland, so of course when we broke up the British empire and gave Scotland independence we buffed them out so the far, far more populated part of the island that began all this trouble couldn't do anything about it.

The union was the result of the Scottish king taking the English throne, not the other way round - it was hardly a case of the poor, oppressed Scots being forced into a union against their will. The union with Ireland did face opposition, yes - from the Irish Protestants, because the union resulted in Catholic emancipation.

The Scots are still Britons, just like us English. Not even your inclusion of a ban on reunification in the Scottish constitution stopped the 80% vote to reunite in 1959. And once you'd thrown away your alliance with the Germans, we had their support and there wasn't much you could do to stop us from reunifying.

Granted, some rebellious officers broke a lot, and i mean a lot of our treaties with the natives, but considering that we've protected the only native american majority country on north america- the Seminal Republic

The whole reason you rebelled was so you could attack the natives and steal their land. Don't try any of that "rebellious officers" nonsense, those "rebellious officers" are the same people who went on to become presidents and senators.

Seminole, not Seminal.

You forced the Seminole out of their home in Florida, where they had good relationships with both us and the Spanish, just because you wanted their land. Now they all live west of the Mississippi, in the former Indian Territory. The Seminole Republic is a puppet state and you know it.
 
The whole reason you rebelled was so you could attack the natives and steal their land. Don't try any of that "rebellious officers" nonsense, those "rebellious officers" are the same people who went on to become presidents and senators.
That's... that's literally what you did to ireland. And yeah, I admit it's f-ed up. You'll notice I commented on our use of the nuclear bomb, slavery, and those officers in very negative tones.

And no, your little border was barely considered an issue. You refusal to give us the ability to set the taxes or devolved parliament? That was 99.9% of the problem. If ol' Georgie had told the colonies "we need ~200k pounds in taxes over the next decade. Do what you gotta," never would've been an issue.

And the Seminole are a "puppet state," because they're tiny with no natural resources-which, yes is on us, and we're the world power.

And I know full well how the first union happened. Doesnt mean it wasn't english dominated and it barely passed in Scottish parliament.

And the US and Germany are arguably on better terms with germany than france right now considering that france just embargoed the entire new world to get their manufacturing back up. But that's for Chat.

And one thing has gone right over your head: the US has grown up over the last two centuries. Clearly britain hasn't.
 
Worst of all was the dreaded insignia of Moseley's Inquisition Section. The smiling unicorn head with the rainbow behind it. Never understood why they figured the worse the task the more innocent the armpatch.
 
I think with a POD before 1900 the best shot for rapprochement between the United States and Britain would be during the scramble for Australia and the early settlement there of by Western nations. While the American , French, Dutch, and British Governments were scheming and posturing in the region in a bid to control the entire populace the new settlers weren't having it. Most of the new towns and villages grew out of a patchwork of whaling stations on the coasts. The inhabitants thereof had to rely on each other and cooperated on almost everything in those early days, trusting very little in the politicians back home. Of course part of that was a common enemy in the aborigines who didn't take kindly to being usurped. With the right publicity though in either the press or romanticized novels or short stories popular in that era the general public might start adopting the Australian model and that might trickle up to the boys in Washington and London for a kinder detente. It's a long shot but at least possible.

After 1900 it's much slimmer of course unless you're talking about the last few years where there's been a thaw in the relationship between the United States and England. Though that has more to do again with a common enemy with the new Chinese-Russian Ulaanbaatar Pact being signed. Or the recent coordination in Greenland and Antarctica Mineral Extraction projects. But for most of their shared history these two powers have been at odds with each other. The dislike is heavily ingrained in the culture and education systems of both nations at this point. To the point most adults know it's propaganda but can't help going there anyways, hell it's only been about 30 years since we stopped burning Union Jacks on the Fourth of July.

Did anyone else here have their parents sign them up for those summer tours organized by the Bureau of Education? There was a civics one to DC and a history one that varied region to region. Those were full of anti-Brit stuff. I was in the Great Lakes so it was all centered on the War of 1914 and Conquest of Canada. First stop was the No Man's Land battlefields of Northwestern Ohio and Southeastern Michigan with all the craters and hills left over from artillery hits, the places with lingering effects of poison gas. Then some rah-rah for the arrival of General Pershing who turned the war around. Go to Detroit to see how it was burnt to the ground by airships and incendiary bombs (same as Buffalo and Cleveland.) Then off across the river to see the places where American troops landed in Windsor. A tour of the fort, photos with the big guns and the first American tanks on display. Then off to Toronto to hear and see everything related to the siege, Pershing and Crowder linking up and finally taking down Curry. Third stop was Montreal and the French Canadian Resistance Museum, Lay wreaths at the monument to Blackjack Pershing in Lafayette Park (Parc Du Lafayette), ignore the Rape of Ottawa how it was put to the torch and never recovered. Off to the Maritimes and all the museums and statues about the Naval battles at Halifax and St. John's. Last stop is always a trip to St. Pierre and Miquelon so we can see how bad the Occupation was for France with our own eyes. Seeing the labor camps can be quite hard and hearing about all the ways people who couldn't or wouldn't work anymore were disposed of. I believe the British have a similar program though about their European war. To make a long story short these are the kind of things that get internalized and makes a normal relationship between England and The United State difficult even today. Even with effort it might take generations to forget and think a new way about an adversary.
 
Top