DBWI: New England joins the United States

I've always pondered of what could have happened if the notherneasternmost colonies had joined the American Revolution, and New England had never existed as an independent dominion/country. Everything could have been much different; including locations of cities, forts, railroads.

Although everything in New England would have been different, what about the United States? Obviously certain aspects of US history would have been changed, but which ones? Slavery?

It is my personal belief, that the world would have been much different. America would have become an even greater power, perhaps even a superpower; that's if they can solve the inevitable inner conflict since New England's culture has always been very different and in ocassions opposite to that of the United States (War of 1812 anyone?)
 
I've always pondered of what could have happened if the notherneasternmost colonies had joined the American Revolution, and New England had never existed as an independent dominion/country. Everything could have been much different; including locations of cities, forts, railroads.

Although everything in New England would have been different, what about the United States? Obviously certain aspects of US history would have been changed, but which ones? Slavery?

It is my personal belief, that the world would have been much different. America would have become an even greater power, perhaps even a superpower; that's if they can solve the inevitable inner conflict since New England's culture has always been very different and in ocassions opposite to that of the United States (War of 1812 anyone?)

Well, for one, Manifest Destiny could have been far more successful, I would think; there's a reason why California is still independent today and that Seattle and Multnomah[OOC: Portland, Ore.] are in Canada and not the U.S.

I also think slavery wouldn't have survived much past 1900 or so; IOTL, it lasted in America until 1946(though it was dying by 1910), and resulted in the assassination of a liberal President from Pennsylvania that very spring, and 8 years of extreme civil unrest, while the Commonwealth of New England and my country, Canada(neither are British dominions, btw; New England has been independent since 1809, Canada since 1861), had fully recovered from the Global War which ended only a decade earlier(it had started in 1932, in August) and were beginning to enjoy serious prosperity by then, while the U.S. stagnated from 1949-55.

And then there's cultural diversity; In fact, Canada might just be the most diverse nation on Earth, with people of over 200 different nationalities, current or ancestral, within it's borders(about half of these are represented in my home province of Manitoba for example). New England, too, has a fair amount of diversity; New York and New Jersey in particular are home to dozens of unique cultures, and Rhode Island, Maine, and Nova Acadia[OOC: New Brunswick], have a fair share of diversity as well.

But only within the past 70 years or so has America begun to catch up in that regard; in fact, only in 1942 were the bans again Latin American, and South & East Asian immigration lifted, and there were quotas all the way up until 1966, and those were only chucked out by a very slim margin.
 
Last edited:
Well, for one, Manifest Destiny could have been far more successful, I would think; there's a reason why California is still independent today and that Seattle and Portland are in Canada and not the U.S.

I also think slavery wouldn't have survived much past 1900 or so; IOTL, it lasted in America until 1946(though it was dying by 1910), and resulted in the assassination of a liberal President from Pennsylvania that very next year and 8 years of extreme bloodshed, while the Commonwealth of New England and my country, Canada(not a British dominion since 1861, btw), had fully recovered from the Global War which ended only a decade earlier(it had started in 1932, in August) and were beginning to enjoy serious prosperity by then, while the U.S. stagnated from 1949-55.

And then there's the

OOC:And with that post we've just crossed the threshold into utter ASB territory.
 
OOC: Not really. I can change Portland's name, though......;)

OOC:Yes really. 1946? What are we, Mauritania? Seattle and Portland existing with the same name is like Kazakhstan having the same border with Russia with a POD in the 18th century.

And how in the world is no New England being part of the United States (a region that historically was a Federalist stronghold and very opposed to expanding the US past the Mississippi for fear of being politically outnumbered by the Democratic-Republicans) going to make the US not wish to partake in manifest destiny, take over parts of Mexico, and at least demand OTL borders with Canada. Under what you said, they pretty much surrendered all of the Oregon territory to them for nothing.

Basically everything you said is complete ASB.
 
OOC:Yes really. 1946? What are we, Mauritania? Seattle and Portland existing with the same name is like Kazakhstan having the same border with Russia with a POD in the 18th century.

And how in the world is no New England being part of the United States (a region that historically was a Federalist stronghold and very opposed to expanding the US past the Mississippi for fear of being politically outnumbered by the Democratic-Republicans) going to make the US not wish to partake in manifest destiny, take over parts of Mexico, and at least demand OTL borders with Canada. Under what you said, they pretty much surrendered all of the Oregon territory to them for nothing.

Basically everything you said is complete ASB.

OOC: I didn't say that the U.S. didn't partake in Manifest Destiny.....perhaps I should have worded it better, yes, but the U.S. not being quite as successful is by no means implausible.....not to mention that John Adams was one of it's first proponents anyhow.

(Also, Seattle was named after a Native American chief anyhow, and I already changed Portland's name)

IC: You have to realize that New England was a major center of industry from the early 19th century onwards, while very little of it started developing en masse in the States until the late 1840s. That, btw, was a big part of the reason why we didn't get as much of Mexico as we could have; we had plenty of good tacticians and a fair number of men, but we couldn't outfit enough weapons to supply the Army to keep us going much farther than we did.

And not to mention that a fair number of Californians wanted to remain independent and that many Southern politicians feared that if California were admitted into the Union, that it would break the balance between slave and free states, which is also why America pulled out of the Oregon Country in the 1850s(well, most of it, except for the Idaho territory, which later became the State of Idaho[OOC: OTL's southeast Idaho with a little more territory to the east])

OOC: As for slavery, would something like 1900-10 be more acceptable to you? We can work this out.....
 
Gotta love propaganda from the Boston press. By all means feel free to reverberate the Federalist Party song from now until the Almighty returns.

So first New Jersey and all but the Free City of Hudson and east bank of the Hudson in New York have not been a part of New England since the mid-1800s when her people decided they liked having more food and coal in the wintertime. You can harp about secessionists if you like but if not for occupation with military troops I think Vermont might have gone their own way too.

California is independent because they had so much gold by 1856 that they decided federal taxes and shipping to the East and markets of Philadelphia or New Orleans was simply too expensive. They became a British protectorate and are settled by so many different people as to be a culture unto themselves. Hence why they no longer control anything more than 15 miles north of San Francisco Bay and why the US state of Cascadia has provided Pacific access with its railway since 1871.

The Canadian province of Albion (OTL Washington, Oregon, and northern Idaho) is their major population center and has a secessionist movement easily rivalling Quebec's. The *only* reason that the US does not control everything west of Sault Ste Marie was because of a twisted deal by Seward in the 1860s to try to balance the slave and free states, instead the Second Mexican-American War served as a unifying force that also gave the US eight of its current states just as the First Mexican War gave us five.

Had New England joined the US, I think she would have become the industrial center earlier and the continent might have industrialized much sooner. Until the Wisconsin and Minnesota iron stores got underway with the steelworks in Birmingham and Pittsburgh in the 1850s along with the railway connections in the 1850s our country had little heavy industry while New England was among the top 3 industrialized countries in the world. Their educational system is admittedly *much* better, we would have benefitted from that. However, the "Dual Monarchy" of the Kennedy-Bush family of the Federalist Party who have held the Chairman office for 7 of the last 8 terms and its No Child Left Behind Act are taking a serious toll. Also the Federalists hold a 75-80% share of the Directorate while the second largest party in New England has what, 14% of the ruling body?

Slavery was also gradually lifted starting in 1869 with total manumission coming New Year's Day in 1890 thank you very much. The programs of using convict labor until 1946 were cruel but prisoners earned wages to pay for their incarceration, the abuses largely cleared up by the "chain gang investigations" of the 1920s with the holdovers in the Deep South running until 1946. There was no slavery on the North American Continent by January 2, 1890 despite what your Party material may tell you. At least we did not try to implement a prohibition on alcohol and let the criminal element run free!
 
Gotta love propaganda from the Boston press. By all means feel free to reverberate the Federalist Party song from now until the Almighty returns.

So first New Jersey and all but the Free City of Hudson and east bank of the Hudson in New York have not been a part of New England since the mid-1800s when her people decided they liked having more food and coal in the wintertime. You can harp about secessionists if you like but if not for occupation with military troops I think Vermont might have gone their own way too.

California is independent because they had so much gold by 1856 that they decided federal taxes and shipping to the East and markets of Philadelphia or New Orleans was simply too expensive. They became a British protectorate and are settled by so many different people as to be a culture unto themselves. Hence why they no longer control anything more than 15 miles north of San Francisco Bay and why the US state of Cascadia has provided Pacific access with its railway since 1871.

The Canadian province of Albion (OTL Washington, Oregon, and northern Idaho) is their major population center and has a secessionist movement easily rivalling Quebec's. The *only* reason that the US does not control everything west of Sault Ste Marie was because of a twisted deal by Seward in the 1860s to try to balance the slave and free states, instead the Second Mexican-American War served as a unifying force that also gave the US eight of its current states just as the First Mexican War gave us five.

Had New England joined the US, I think she would have become the industrial center earlier and the continent might have industrialized much sooner. Until the Wisconsin and Minnesota iron stores got underway with the steelworks in Birmingham and Pittsburgh in the 1850s along with the railway connections in the 1850s our country had little heavy industry while New England was among the top 3 industrialized countries in the world. Their educational system is admittedly *much* better, we would have benefitted from that. However, the "Dual Monarchy" of the Kennedy-Bush family of the Federalist Party who have held the Chairman office for 7 of the last 8 terms and its No Child Left Behind Act are taking a serious toll. Also the Federalists hold a 75-80% share of the Directorate while the second largest party in New England has what, 14% of the ruling body?

Slavery was also gradually lifted starting in 1869 with total manumission coming New Year's Day in 1890 thank you very much. The programs of using convict labor until 1946 were cruel but prisoners earned wages to pay for their incarceration, the abuses largely cleared up by the "chain gang investigations" of the 1920s with the holdovers in the Deep South running until 1946. There was no slavery on the North American Continent by January 2, 1890 despite what your Party material may tell you. At least we did not try to implement a prohibition on alcohol and let the criminal element run free!

OOC: Okay, but just one problem; that New York and New Jersey are part of New England in the present day, as I established in an earlier post(unless Arcvalons objects), and I don't think New England would be welcoming of any "No Child Left Behind" type legislation. Also, as established earlier, OTL's Cascadia region is part of Canada....which also negates "Albion".....(the state of Shasta might work, though, but it'd kinda risk negating the whole purpose of this DBWI so let's wait a bit)

IC: Hmm....while it's a decent retrospective, I do feel a few corrections are necessary:

1.)Gradual emancipation did begin in 1869, but only in the states of Tennessee, North Carolina, Florida, Virginia, and Kentucky(completed in 1876, 1882, 1879, 1889, and 1884 respectively). It wasn't until South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama threatened to secede in 1890 that the final ban on slavery became immediate, and it took 2 and a half years of bloody civil war to FINALLY destroy chattel slavery down there, and implement the 15th Amendment once and for all.

2.)New England may have instituted Alcohol Prohibition, but it ended in 1937, and was one of the first countries, actually, to affirm cannabis legalization in the '40s(Canada followed not long after). Your country instituted a total nationwide drug ban in 1947 that was only repealed in the last 20 years.....and not without huge amounts of opposition from the South at that(Fun fact: Mississippi became the first state to ban cannabis consumption in 1841.).

3.)The Boston charter school program was a failure, yes, but don't confuse that with "No Child Left Behind"....that was an American piece of legislation and one that started in Mississippi at that(there's a reason their students are the least successful in the country).

4.)Albion? You mean the hypothetical country that would have been formed had the secessionists won out in the early 1900s? The truth is, the movement has been practically all but nonexistent since the '50s. The provinces of Oregon, Cascadia[OTL's Washington and B.C. south of 55* North], and Blackfoot[OOC: eastern Oregon, western Idaho], are all pretty much proud to be Canadians and I don't see that changing at any point in the near future.

5.)California's days as a British protectorate ended in 1891, though, after just a decade; they didn't like the fact they were already starting to become a vassal of Britain.
 
OOC: Okay, but just one problem; that New York and New Jersey are part of New England in the present day, as I established in an earlier post(unless Arcvalons objects), and I don't think New England would be welcoming of any "No Child Left Behind" type legislation. Also, as established earlier, OTL's Cascadia region is part of Canada....which also negates "Albion".....(the state of Shasta might work, though, but it'd kinda risk negating the whole purpose of this DBWI so let's wait a bit)

[OOC] Albion is a very old proposed name for the Oregon area and might be applied to the region under different circumstances. Also New England separated from the rest of the US will lead to a very different culture there, and the intent of the aforementioned bill might still be attempted.[/OOC]

Irredentalistism at its finest, sir. New York State (Modern state of Iriquois) and New Jersey were once part of New England, no one here will dispute that, but the plethora of cultures found there are not the results of 40 years of Bostonian rule. Their participation in the United States has seen them grow, and granted they were among the most industrialized states when they joined in the 1850s.

IC: Hmm....while it's a decent retrospective, I do feel a few corrections are necessary:

1.)Gradual emancipation did begin in 1869, but only in the states of Tennessee, North Carolina, Florida, Virginia, and Kentucky(completed in 1876, 1882, 1879, 1889, and 1884 respectively). It wasn't until South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama threatened to secede in 1890 that the final ban on slavery became immediate, and it took 2 and a half years of bloody civil war to FINALLY destroy chattel slavery down there, and implement the 15th Amendment once and for all.

If you care to call 2 years of guerilla warfare part of the Insurrection that is your decision. The decision to secede was so heavily disputed in Georgia and Alabama it nearly cut the states in half, and without New Orleans the best two ports they could manage were Mobile and Charleston, hence the reason my great-grandfather was camped out on Murray Street when the capital of the Federation fell barely three months after the states seceded. But why do you choose to leave out the abolition of slavery in Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Sequoyah, Delaware, or Maryland? By 1890 those states had completed their gradual emapncipation programs too. Had those states all joined together the war might have been very bloody with a real chance for secession, but thankfully we will never know.

2.)New England may have instituted Alcohol Prohibition, but it ended in 1937, and was one of the first countries, actually, to affirm cannabis legalization in the '40s(Canada followed not long after). Your country instituted a total nationwide drug ban in 1947 that was only repealed in the last 20 years.....and not without huge amounts of opposition from the South at that (Fun fact: Mississippi became the first state to ban cannabis consumption in 1841.).

The logic should follow that of your Kennedy-Bush dynasty who reportedly made vast sums on prohibition. Why should influential or common Southerners want to pay taxes on a business they already have when they can keep it illegal and make at least double what they might otherwise? And in the parts of Appallachia that opposed it the most fervently the local law enforcement systems were often in on the trade! (Fun fact noted and appreciated)

3.)The Boston charter school program was a failure, yes, but don't confuse that with "No Child Left Behind"....that was an American piece of legislation and one that started in Mississippi at that(there's a reason their students are the least successful in the country).

Nice try, I'll grant you that the New England school system has achieved much and its students are often much better prepared in many areas. Their nationally unified agenda and spending of 8% of GDP on education has born fruit for half a century. OTOH, it also sticks to an idea of "well-rounded" education and not fairly straightforward vocational training or professional training on the British model like what the US instituted in the mid-1960s. The idea of the gentleman who has exposure to history, arts, and liberal studies was nice in the 19th century but conflicts with the needs of the workplace in the 21st. Hence the rise of the Track system combining focused undergraduate studies with the career degrees, like the 6 year medical track, the 5 year legal track, the 4 year MBA track, etc. Vocational training and Union training on the job are now more the norm, and we are still working on improving the systems but high school graduation rates are up and the scores are notably improved without the tests having been modified in over 30 years.

4.)Albion? You mean the hypothetical country that would have been formed had the secessionists won out in the early 1900s? The truth is, the movement has been practically all but nonexistent since the '50s. The provinces of Oregon, Cascadia[OTL's Washington and B.C. south of 55* North], and Blackfoot[OOC: eastern Oregon, western Idaho], are all pretty much proud to be Canadians and I don't see that changing at any point in the near future.

Have you spent time in Burns, Boise, or Spokane? Granted the three major cities there might sing "O Canada" loud and proud but that might also be because of the influx of so many "outsiders" over the last ten years. With the relocation of many Californian and Canadian companies there due to the impressive tax structure it should be no surprise that the area has had an economic boom over the last 20 years. The locals are quite libertarian and extremely well-armed, hence the hefty paychecks for professionals working in the areas of those provinces beyond the three major cities. I am not referring to the Mormon settlers either, but the longer term locals who have a survivalist mentality akin to the "preppers" we saw last year with the bubkis of the "Mayan apocalypse". When they were still the majority they set up a very minimal tax system, and there are many who would like to see the region secede as its own nation.

5.)California's days as a British protectorate ended in 1891, though, after just a decade; they didn't like the fact they were already starting to become a vassal of Britain.[/QUOTE]

The only reason that the US did not try to reclaim the rest of the region in force after 1850 was because of a British naval squadron being based out of San Francisco Harbor, which may be why the Kingdom of Hawaii remains a British protectorate to this day. Without the British being there, California would surely have gravitated to the US, but their elites wanted to keep more of that gold for themselves and the UK was more than happy to permit that in exchange for being the supplier of machinery and certain military concessions.
 
OOC: New England was the most anti-British region in the country in the Revolution. It's much more likely for the South to remain loyal.
 
Top