Dominion of Northern America

OOTL: The title is taken from Glen's excellent timeline.

Chapter One: The Sadness of Mother Liberty
Part I: The Loss of New England
When Washington lost the Second Battle of Boston he retreated to New York, and Burgoyne followed him with his army. At Albany, Washington's men lost a devastating loss to Burgoyne's soldiers. This marked the effective loss of New England*. There were a few more battles, most noticebly Yorktown, Saragota and Annapolis. The Peace of Madrid that ended the Anglo-Mysore War, it also established that New England stayed with Britain. Washington said later "The loss of New England is a loss to Liberty". Pan-Americanists often say that the New England region should be American, but by 1817, they had started to be closer to the Ontarians then the Pennsylvanians.


*New England in the TL includes New York.

OOC: The POD shall remain unknown OK?
 
Chapter One: The Sadness of Mother Liberty
Part II: The Aftermath
Washington, the General-in-Chief of the American Militia, was elected President of the United States of America. His vice president was Thomas Jefferson, from Virginia. Thomas Jefferson was of the Statist faction that promoted anti-federalism. It was at odds with Washington's Centrist faction that promoted federalism and centrism. Despite this, Washington took Jefferson as a Vice President to appease the Statists. John Adams was a New English revolutionary that couldn't go back to his homeland because of the British ownership. The Statists evolved in the Liberty Party and the Centrists evolved in the Whig Party. Both parties lasted until the 1800s. Michigan and all the land above the parallel that defined the Pennsylvanian border with New York was part of Britain.
 
DrTron

I think it's unlikely that New England could be secured and the rest of America not reclaimed give the most bitter centre of support for the rebels was in New England. Also a victory this early, probably negating France and Spanish intervention would mean that Britain would almost certainly be encouraged to fight even harder to crush the remaining rebels.

However it's not impossible so interested to see where you take this. Two big questions come to mind.
a) What happens to the trans-Ohio lands? I would expect given the position that Britain would be less willing to agree to their transfer to the new republic. [Sorry, remember now we do keep Michigan which suggests the rest is lost, although possibly not further south.
b) With the loss of NE/NY the US is now, at this point anyway, overwhelmingly slave states and has lost its most economically advanced region with the bulk of the textile industry and financial structure. That's going to have some impacts on it's developments.

Best of luck anyway and subscribing.

Steve
 

Glen

Moderator
OOTL: The title is taken from Glen's excellent timeline.

Chapter One: The Sadness of Mother Liberty
Part I: The Loss of New England
When Washington lost the Second Battle of Boston he retreated to New York, and Burgoyne followed him with his army. At Albany, Washington's men lost a devastating loss to Burgoyne's soldiers. This marked the effective loss of New England*. There were a few more battles, most noticebly Yorktown, Saragota and Annapolis. The Peace of Madrid that ended the Anglo-Mysore War, it also established that New England stayed with Britain. Washington said later "The loss of New England is a loss to Liberty". Pan-Americanists often say that the New England region should be American, but by 1817, they had started to be closer to the Ontarians then the Pennsylvanians.


*New England in the TL includes New York.

OOC: The POD shall remain unknown OK?

I am flattered, of course, and the concept is an interesting one.

However, I am somewhat surprised that with so much of the 13 colonies (both states and population) under British control, that the USA came to exist at all. How did the US win this war with New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachussetts, and New Hampshire under British control? If they lost New York, how did they hold onto New Jersey, for example?

I think you can pull this off in some sense, but we either need a LOT more backstory, or perhaps a less expansive Dominion of North America (at least at first).

Okay, enough of my nitpicking. With so much of the US in British North America, you are looking at a USA that is dominated by the South, and especially Virginia. This is likely a USA that will hold onto slavery for a very long time. This is also a USA that is likely to be dominated by Baptists and Methodists over time. If you keep the butterflies to a minimum, you are likely to see a Louisiana Purchase of some sort (which reminds me, it will be interesting to see where the Western boundary of the US will be after the ARW), and a Texas takeover, as well as a likely war with Mexico (or whatever analogue of Mexico is there).

However, British North America so far is a powderkeg. There is nothing so far that makes me think that there's been a decrease of patriots in 'New England' for example. I could see a War of 1812 that in fact erupts into a New England Uprising - which quite frankly might be the only thing that will save the nascent USA from being completely beaten by the British. The aftermath of the uprising could be....unfortunate.

However, the winds of change can blow many a way, so I'll be interested to see where you take us.
 

Glen

Moderator
Chapter One: The Sadness of Mother Liberty
Part II: The Aftermath
Washington, the General-in-Chief of the American Militia, was elected President of the United States of America. His vice president was Thomas Jefferson, from Virginia. Thomas Jefferson was of the Statist faction that promoted anti-federalism. It was at odds with Washington's Centrist faction that promoted federalism and centrism. Despite this, Washington took Jefferson as a Vice President to appease the Statists. John Adams was a New English revolutionary that couldn't go back to his homeland because of the British ownership. The Statists evolved in the Liberty Party and the Centrists evolved in the Whig Party. Both parties lasted until the 1800s. Michigan and all the land above the parallel that defined the Pennsylvanian border with New York was part of Britain.

Hmmm, some interesting differences in terms, but the most shocking is hearing Washington being outright referred to as part of the Centrist faction (though we know he was, he didn't flaut it IOTL). And now I see roughly where the border is - actually kinda makes sense, but I feel another straight border coming on!
 

Glen

Moderator
Hmmm, some interesting differences in terms, but the most shocking is hearing Washington being outright referred to as part of the Centrist faction (though we know he was, he didn't flaut it IOTL). And now I see roughly where the border is - actually kinda makes sense, but I feel another straight border coming on!

Well, if I were the British, I might press for their territory to include all the lands that were claimed by Connecticut as well, keeping this USA off the Great Lakes entirely (see map) If they extend the border from there all the way across the continent eventually, it would essentially give not just all of the Great Lakes, but also all of the Oregon Country (they'd straddle too much of the western part of the Oregon Trail to make it viable for US migration). The USA is still quite possible to gain California if they can whip Mexico (or whatever is there):
Statecessions.png
 
Last edited:
Oh, and if you notice, ITTL, it is possible that New Jersey could have the northernmost point in the USA.


Why exactly, if I may ask? It doesn't look like New York was claiming the northern half of PA on that map. Are you suggesting that CO would succeed in claiming an exclave territory which they had no (direct) land connection to? I'd find that freaking awesome, because I love disconnected territories and exclaves, but I also find it highly unlikely.

Very interesting TL. I'll be watching.
 

Glen

Moderator
Why exactly, if I may ask? It doesn't look like New York was claiming the northern half of PA on that map. Are you suggesting that CO would succeed in claiming an exclave territory which they had no (direct) land connection to? I'd find that freaking awesome, because I love disconnected territories and exclaves, but I also find it highly unlikely.

Very interesting TL. I'll be watching.

No, I'm claiming that the British ITTL might be strong enough to prevent the USA from having access to the Great Lakes, and that they might use their continued possession of Conneticutt and it's charter as a pretext/inspiration to claim the 41st parallel as the border between it and this USA.
 
With the United States as they are I would see a revolt in New England which could be led by a men like Adams, Hancock, Paine and others possibly backed by the US and either France or Spain.
 
No, I'm claiming that the British ITTL might be strong enough to prevent the USA from having access to the Great Lakes, and that they might use their continued possession of Conneticutt and it's charter as a pretext/inspiration to claim the 41st parallel as the border between it and this USA.

got it, thanks.
 
Thnk you for your advice, the Connecticut claims is the border now. I am planning for slavery to last longer, up to when?

DrTron

Given that, although it's probably fairly small in a number of them, I'm not sure there are any states in the TTL US that aren't technically slave states, it could be a hell of a long while. Especially if the invention of the cotton gin occurs about on schedule and slavery explodes in the south. You might even have difficulty getting any of the new states established as 'free soil' states given the power of the slave lobby. This would be heightened further presuming Britain bans slavery ~1833 as even if there aren't a lot of tensions between BNA and the US it will isolate the US on the issue.

I would agree with Glen that given the territory held:
a) There would be a good chance of rebellion at some point in the near future, unless there is a movement of populations - loyalists and freed slaves in and rebels out. New York would have a good chance of remaining loyal but could be isolated by rebellions further north.
b) Given those lands staying in the empire there would be a lot more pressure for it to continue to claim more of the 'old NW'. Possibly not totally cutting off the US from the great lakes because they have the link via Pennsylvania but Britain could easily claim the bulk of the area. As Glen says that gives a good basis for Britain ending up with more land further west, especially Oregon, although if the US does obtain Louisiana they have a claim to land between those areas. Probably some agreement like the 1819 one that settles the border but somewhere further south than OTL west of the Mississippi.

Not sure whether there would be a 1812 conflict as much of the commercial trading area from which the disputes sailors were working for are now in the empire. Probably going to be a squabble at some points over borders or some other matter but may not be about OTL. Also, since the ARW ended earlier and without heavy French intervention the ancient regime may either pull through or more likely stagger on for another decade or two before the wheels come off.

Anyway, looking forward to seeing what develops.

Steve
 
Top