Fragmented North America

[KieronAntony]

Isn't Nova Scotia Latin for New Scotland, so effectively the state you named Kingdom of Nova would translate to "Kingdom of New" lol as you had Nova Scotia split to two different provinces/states.

 

[Grand_Panjandrum]

Interesting timeline, I would just ask for some clarification. You mentioned a Western Confederation early on that seemed to have appeared out of nowhere and disappeared. Where and what was it? Also, when did California gain independence?

 

[Paul Spring]

Isn't Nova Scotia Latin for New Scotland, so effectively the state you named Kingdom of Nova would translate to "Kingdom of New" lol as you had Nova Scotia split to two different provinces/states.

Sorry, I can see how the setup of my map is a little confusing. The Kingdom of Nova Scotia is one unit. The three lines coming from the name are pointing to the three parts of the Kingdom of Nova Scotia - Nova Scotia itself, New Brunswicl, and Prince Edward Island.

 

[Paul Spring]

Interesting timeline, I would just ask for some clarification. You mentioned a Western Confederation early on that seemed to have appeared out of nowhere and disappeared. Where and what was it? Also, when did California gain independence?

I posted a variant of this timeline a while back where there was a Western Confederation, but I decided not to have it in this timeline. I don't see it after skimming the first 50 years of the timeline I posted here.

 

[Darkling]

How did the Americans (specifically the FSA) persuade the British to vacate the forts of the old Northwest?

What persuaded the various FSA states (to be) to surrender the Erie triangle?

 

[KieronAntony]

Sorry, I can see how the setup of my map is a little confusing. The Kingdom of Nova Scotia is one unit. The three lines coming from the name are pointing to the three parts of the Kingdom of Nova Scotia - Nova Scotia itself, New Brunswicl, and Prince Edward Island.

Oh I see

 

[mycroft holmes]

Very Interesting timeline, remarkably plausible.

You seem to have a Britain v. Russia-France struggle heating up. What role does Germany have to play? How powerful is Germany in your TL?

And all these independent states on the NA continent with only 1 or 2 minor wars in 100 years? seems unlikely considering the history of a divided Europe.

Hope to see more soon.

 

[Paul Spring]

How did Vandalia come about? I don't think it's implausible to use the OTL West Virginia border as it's defined by the Appalachians, but was it a secession over slavery as OTL, or gained by the USA in a war?

It was a combination of slavery and the belief in western Virginia that their interests were consistently ignored by the state of Virginia, plus the fact that west Virginia/Vandalia was becoming more economically attached to the USA than to the ISA.

 

[Paul Spring]

holy shit Britian looks like it could conquer NA

Yes, but appearances can be deceptive. The British are certainly the most powerful presence in North America in this timeline, but a large portion of the people who settled in their territories (and later kingdoms) were originally from the independent American republics. This has meant that the British authorities and settlers from Britain have had to compromise with republican Americans in many small and large ways in fields ranging from government and law to religion and patterns of speech.

 

[Paul Spring]

I thought Vandalia was in Eastern Kentucky?

I thought that "Vandalia" was a term used for a variety of lands that drained into the Ohio, ranging from what became southern Ohio to eastern Kentucky to western Virginia.

 

[Paul Spring]

How did the Americans (specifically the FSA) persuade the British to vacate the forts of the old Northwest?

What persuaded the various FSA states (to be) to surrender the Erie triangle?

The FSA states (particularly Connecticut) surrendered claims to the Erie triangle because they didn't feel prepared to fight a war over a territory that was closer to their prospective enemy (Pennsylvania) than it was to Connecticut, the state in the FSA that claimed. Plus, the Pennsylvanians offered good terms - allowing most of the settlers from Connecticut to stay as long as they recognized Pennsylvania's authority and purchased their plots of land from the proper authorities in Pennsylvania; and guaranteeing duty free transit of goods through the area that separated the 2 halves of the FSA.

The British evacuated the forts because the FSA government and mercantile elite was generally pro-British - harsh laws against loyalists passed during and after the American revolution were soon repealed in most states and Loyalists got more financial restitution for confiscated property than in the USA or ISA. During the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars, selling food and naval stores to the British navy at good prices even bending the terms of neutrality in Britain's favor by allowing British warships to stay for fairly extended periods in FSA ports to repair and reprovision. All of this was worth more to the British than a few western outposts that they had promised to evacuate anyway. The British saw the FSA as a friendly neutral and potentially even an ally, unlike the USA or ISA.

 

[Paul Spring]

Very Interesting timeline, remarkably plausible.

You seem to have a Britain v. Russia-France struggle heating up. What role does Germany have to play? How powerful is Germany in your TL?

And all these independent states on the NA continent with only 1 or 2 minor wars in 100 years? seems unlikely considering the history of a divided Europe.

Hope to see more soon.

Thank you. This world's 19th century definitely sees a strong Britain vs. France and Russia "cold war" that is more consistent than in OTL - Britain in this timeline never really enjoys "splendid isolation", feeling aloof from anything happening in Europe. At the same time, the colonial rivalry, although more intense, is often played out more through proxies (Ottoman Empire or Mexico for the British; Egypt or Louisiana for the French) than by directly taking territory.

I don't think it's fair to say that there are only 1 or 2 little wars in 100 years. There is major fighting between Britain and Spain vs. Louisiana and the ISA at the same time as the Napoleonic wars. The "Prairie Wars" in the late 1850s are pretty big - they pit Britain and Mexico against Louisiana, the ISA, and the USA, and see fighting from Texas and Florida through Kansas and Iowa to OTL Minnesota. There was a little fighting when California became independent, and several significant campaigns by Britain, Mexico, USA, ISA, FSA, Louisiana, Texas, and California against various native American nations. Also through in a major slave uprising and a bloodier war for Texas independence with racial overtones.

In the later 19th century there are no major international wars because Britain basically won the Prairie wars and is friends with Mexico, the FSA, and California. The ISA, Louisiana, and Texas are not strong enough to think about challenging that alliance at this point.