Hmm, while I’m sure the loyalists in the south would change the voting patterns a bit wasn’t the north the more conservative end at the time (what with the Federalists) and the south the bastion of Liberalism (with the Dem-Reps) if you ignore the slavery? I’m eager to gain a better understanding if not.
Galloway and the Plan of Union: A Saga of a British America
- Thread starter PGSBHurricane
- Start date
Wasn't that more "Centralist Urban North vs. Decentralised Agrarian South", though? Though it was more complicated than that, obviously.
That's exactly what I mean. I will clarify that right now.
Actually, pre-ACW it was Whig/Patriot-leaning North and Tory/Loyalist-leaning South.
Last edited:
True. But the next two chapters will not focus on that, but rather will focus on outside of North America.
So, the results of the poll for Australia and New Zealand are back. If one vote went to the other option, there would have been a tie. Thus, I'm thinking of fusing both options together.
As a note, one of the votes for full British was an accidental second one of mine so ignore it.
I think that the British would have taken both OZ & NZ. I'm a South Australian and although SA was the 1 colony without convicts, we were told that the British came to Botany Bay because of the independence of the American colonies. For the eastern 2/3 of Australia, and NZ, the British were by far the most powerful player and I don't think they would have let anyone else take it. In regard to Western Australia, it was only claimed in 1826 and I think the British thought the Dutch were entitled to a claim because they had the East Indies and had discovered the WA coast. We were taught the British only claimed it when they concluded the Dutch didn't want it and the French were interested.
I think there are far more interesting butterflies in North America itself. Manifest Destiny was a big thing to the American Republic in the early 1800s, but I don't think the French would have sold Louisiana to the British, and I think the Mexican cession would have been butterflied away. So I think that your scenario where a British North America develops quasi-independence, like Canada and Australia did later, would lead to either: -
1. A British North America which never reaches the West Coast and consists of the 13 colonies, perhaps extending to the Mississippi + Ontario, Quebec & the Maritimes.
2. A British North America which reaches the Pacific by taking what is today Western Canada + Oregon (including Washington state and Western Idaho).
In neither case can I see Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, Upper California and Alaska ever becoming part of the nation.
I think there are far more interesting butterflies in North America itself. Manifest Destiny was a big thing to the American Republic in the early 1800s, but I don't think the French would have sold Louisiana to the British, and I think the Mexican cession would have been butterflied away. So I think that your scenario where a British North America develops quasi-independence, like Canada and Australia did later, would lead to either: -
1. A British North America which never reaches the West Coast and consists of the 13 colonies, perhaps extending to the Mississippi + Ontario, Quebec & the Maritimes.
2. A British North America which reaches the Pacific by taking what is today Western Canada + Oregon (including Washington state and Western Idaho).
In neither case can I see Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, Upper California and Alaska ever becoming part of the nation.
Or 3. Louisiana is conquered by the British from the French in a war between the two.
To be honest war between France and Britain is fairly inevitable, could easily be caused by the Americans settling Louisiana and rebelling from the French.
The reason I made a poll about Australia and New Zealand in the first place is that it was the first thing that came to mind when talking about the initial consequences for the British outside of North America (which next chapter will explore). In my mind, it just makes sense to be that without the full independence of the Thirteen colonies, Britain will continue to send its convicts to North America, particularly the Southern colonies. And with that in mind, I can’t imagine the British having AS tight of a grip on Australasia here.
And without the American Revolution as we know it, I cannot see Napoleon ever coming to power, which means Louisiana remains Spanish territory and is in a greater position to bargain with a more powerful navy. This also leaves some room for the Dutch Empire. There will definitely be butterflies in and outside of North America, I just wanted to balance the more local butterflies (which started being talked about last chapter) with some of the more global implications.
Alaska could be gained if it remains Russian until the Crimean war or analogue thereof.... and Hawaii is pretty easy to get possibly as a semi independent state....
Update: I modified the last chapter so that the image is no longer of Benjamin Franklin but of the Articles of Confederation of OTL which serve as an analog for the articles that are used to govern the UAC. And Benjamin Franklin is no longer President-General but rather Joseph Galloway himself since Franklin would've reached the mandatory retirement age in 1781 and only gives him a year to do anything. Galloway was born 25 years later and he was the one who essentially created the UAC in the first place so why not?
Chapter Six: Britain Beyond North America
Chapter Six: Britain Beyond North America
The passage of the Declaration of Commonwealth, or known as The Compromise of 1776 in Great Britain itself, provided a rather interesting reaction to the British public, particularly in England. When word of the final compromise spread through the country, Britons were initially silent and apathetic. To many, this was like a child throwing a tantrum and being rewarded for it. Others thought this would be a temporary solution. Yet, more were relieved that they could stop hearing of this nonsense or were horrified that the colonists would receive preferential treatment over themselves. Of course, port city merchants and traders were relieved that reconciliation was used to preserve trade ties with North America. In Parliament, the Whigs gave their approval while the Tories mostly opposed. As a Tory, Prime Minister Lord Frederick North believed this did not punish Massachusetts enough but eventually went along with it as long as Massachusetts paid for the damage to the tea and to Boston Harbor itself. He remained Prime Minister until March 7, 1778, which coincided with Britain beginning to place focus on the British West Indies over the UAC. This paved the way for William Pitt the Younger to become Prime Minister and cement Whig supremacy in Parliament. This was further solidified as various reforms were passed in the 1780s and 1790s like abolishing pocket boroughs and granting industrial cities more seats.
Even before the Massachusetts Rebellion, the British began setting their eyes elsewhere. They were not the first to reach what is now Australasia, as the Dutch navigator Willem Janszoon first reached it in 1606, followed by others such as Abel Tasman (who reached Van Diemen's Land, New Zealand, and Fiji). Charles de Brosses of France wrote about the southern seas and effectively mapped the major landmass (New Holland) in 1756. It was not until the British came along that serious efforts to colonize the area were proposed. John Callander of Scotland proposed in 1766 to found a colony in the region consisting of banished criminals) in order to exploit the resources of the area and for Britain to reap its benefits. His writings (a good chunk of which were plagiarized by de Brosses) influenced Lieutenant James Cook in 1770 to explore the east coast of New Holland after he traveled to Tahiti in 1769. Traveling on the HMS Endeavour, he sighted the east coast of New Holland on April 19 and landed at Botany Bay ten days later. He chartered the coast during his visit. The ship’s naturalist, Joseph Banks, reported favorability of establishing a colony at Botany Bay. Cook took possession of the coast of New Holland for Britain in August 1770.
The British were far from the only ones interested in the land down under. The French also turned their heads to the South. Hoping to restore their prestige after the Seven Years War, the French partook on a mission of their own hoping to solve this mystery of the existence of a southern continent (Terres Australes) between New Zealand and Cape Horn. King Louis XV agreed to finance a voyage to explore this southern ocean. The mission was led by Yves-Joseph de Kerguélen-Trémarec, with Louis Aleno de Saint Alouarn as his number two. The expedition launched on April 26, 1771, with Saint Alouarn in command of the vessels Fortune and Gros Venture. Part one of the mission was complete by December 7, with part two underway the following month. Kerguélen-Trémarec revealed the mission (which had prior remained a secret) to Alouarn, which was to find the Terres Australes. Land was found on February 13, 1772, but awful conditions forced Kerguélen to abandon Alouarn with the Gros Venture just four days later at what is now Kerguelen Island. The number two, with his crew sick and demoralized, sailed north and east before reaching Flinders Bay on March 17. They anchored at 'La Baie des Tortues' at Dirk Hartog Island on March 29 before claiming the western half of New Holland for France the following day (via Officer Jean Mengaud de la Hage), the first time a European power formally claimed New Holland. He died in Port Louis, Isle de France from scurvy and dedicated a letter to Kerguélen about his claims.
Once the French asserted their claims, the British got serious about establishing a colony. In 1779, Sir Joseph Banks (who accompanied James Cook on his 1770 voyage), suggested Botany Bay as a suitable spot for a colony, insisting it would provide high returns for Britain. A second proposal came from James Matra in 1783, reasoning that the land was suitable for sugar, cotton, tobacco, timber, and hemp production, could serve as a Pacific trade base, and provide an opportunity for newly liberated American slaves from the northern UAC. With Matra as a blueprint, a plan was presented to the British Prime Minister in November 1784. At the same time, there was an uproar about the deplorable conditions of British prisons and a wave of complaints from the southern UAC about the British dumping convicts there. In May 1787, 11 ships with 1,420 settlers (including nearly 800 convicts left Portsmouth, England for Botany Bay and arrived in January 1788 before moving to Port Jackson at Sydney Cove with more suitable soil and reliable water and anchorage. The settlement was named New Albion and the entirety of New Holland east of 135° east and between 10°37' south and 43°39' south as New South Wales. The French would continue to explore the west coast of New Holland but could not yet establish colonies due to issues at home.
Last edited:
Thank you. The next update will be about France before eventually returning to North America. And as far as Australasia goes, I'm not so sure about Australia
but they will likely end up with all of New Zealand
So, it looks like we could end up with a British Eastern Australia and New Zealand and a French Western Australia (which is what I was thinking of suggesting).
Looks like British eastern New Holland is ready to get underway. As far as the French go, they currently claim it but the political landscape back in France between 1788 and 1800 could very well decide things. Also, if Napoleon doesn't come to power and with less pressure by the British, we could very well see the Dutch and Swedish compete for territory too.
I can't say for certain but it's not out of the cards. It all depends on how Spain evolves over the next 20 years.