Map: comparison of the Americas before and after the war
Just for easier reference, a side-by-side comparison of the Americas before and after the Pan American War.
Never Setting Sun (Redux): A "Western British Empire" Timeline
- Thread starter Coyote Knight
- Start date
You forget that TTL Civil War starts far more early, will likely have vast consequences on immigration (going to Canada and Brazil instead of the US, and there is a high chance for the South to win it thereby making the US keep slavery as a defiance measure in the face of the British, with all the ills this kind of outlook will bring to US development.
Last edited:
I meant the three major powers in the Americas, as in the western hemisphere, meaning 'USA, Canada and Brazil'. With the US weakened and the northern states' treasury capacity for industrialisation smaller prior to the civil war (thus reducing the improvements in infrastructure and industry that might be made during the war) and Brazil more stable, the latter is in a position to pull ahead economically and perhaps see an even greater growth in population. I would expect that in this timeline, for speakers of romance languages, Brazil would be the land of opportunity most often spoken about rather than the USA.
Canada has excellent connections to Britain during the time Britain is the leading force of industrialisation and some brand new real estate to build new things in for a very long time. While quantity has a quality all of its own, an advantage in industry, technology, wealth and military preparedness goes a long way. If Canada is more appealing or accepting of newcomers during coming great surges of people emigrating from Europe, that would at the same time boost Canada's population and reduce that of the USA compared to OTL. Also, the premise of this timeline sounds like a realistic Canada-wank, so I am assuming that Canada is likely to do the smart thing, have powerful and reliable allies when it needs them or just get lucky when it is in trouble in this timeline and go from strength to strength.
Even so, I do agree the USA is still be poised be the first among equals (assuming the North wins the civil war, if the slaver states successfully secede, even that is no longer certain), but them genuinely having to treat Brazil and Canada as equals would already be a massive divergence from OTL.
It is one thing for Canada to successfully defend itself in a war most kids in the USA only learn about in passing, it is a different matter if 'them damn Canucks stole our land' enters public consciousness at a time when the national myths and legends of the USA are still in their formative years.
The Anglo-French alliance was made in spite of centuries of rivalry and warfare. Most people in both countries still considered the bastards on the wroing side of La Manche as their true enemies decades after the agreement was made, with the alliance treated as a temporary pact. Even after the second world war, De Gaulle was on several occasions more willing to cooperate with West Germany than the UK. I was thinking that with this new reason to see Britain as a rival if not an enemy, the USA would be very interested in a European ally and France is the natural choice by virtue of history and ideology. If France does have a suitor like the USA ready and waiting, one of those spats over Africa might just lead to the Entente breaking up. I do admit I did not consider that the greater success against Argentina might benefit the Anglo-French alliance getting off on the right foot.
Canada has excellent connections to Britain during the time Britain is the leading force of industrialisation and some brand new real estate to build new things in for a very long time. While quantity has a quality all of its own, an advantage in industry, technology, wealth and military preparedness goes a long way. If Canada is more appealing or accepting of newcomers during coming great surges of people emigrating from Europe, that would at the same time boost Canada's population and reduce that of the USA compared to OTL. Also, the premise of this timeline sounds like a realistic Canada-wank, so I am assuming that Canada is likely to do the smart thing, have powerful and reliable allies when it needs them or just get lucky when it is in trouble in this timeline and go from strength to strength.
Even so, I do agree the USA is still be poised be the first among equals (assuming the North wins the civil war, if the slaver states successfully secede, even that is no longer certain), but them genuinely having to treat Brazil and Canada as equals would already be a massive divergence from OTL.
It is one thing for Canada to successfully defend itself in a war most kids in the USA only learn about in passing, it is a different matter if 'them damn Canucks stole our land' enters public consciousness at a time when the national myths and legends of the USA are still in their formative years.
The Anglo-French alliance was made in spite of centuries of rivalry and warfare. Most people in both countries still considered the bastards on the wroing side of La Manche as their true enemies decades after the agreement was made, with the alliance treated as a temporary pact. Even after the second world war, De Gaulle was on several occasions more willing to cooperate with West Germany than the UK. I was thinking that with this new reason to see Britain as a rival if not an enemy, the USA would be very interested in a European ally and France is the natural choice by virtue of history and ideology. If France does have a suitor like the USA ready and waiting, one of those spats over Africa might just lead to the Entente breaking up. I do admit I did not consider that the greater success against Argentina might benefit the Anglo-French alliance getting off on the right foot.
A Canadian/North American centric TL and I haven't read it yet? What madness is this!?
Subbed by the way
Subbed by the way
San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle are all founded by this point OTL among other cities. The gold rush will attract a LOT of people once it gets going (OTL 1848-55, I assume after the war here unless I forgot an earlier footnote amongst all the war stuff). Especially Hispanic and Chinese immigrants.
I figure Britain will intervene on the South's behalf. Because why miss a chance to further weaken the USA? Hopefully Uncle Sam doesn't take this out on the natives.
Assuming those circumstances, immigration after the USA breaks could mostly head to Canada.
Has Crimea been butterflied?
Has anyone asked about Alaska? From what I understood, Russia sold it to the USA to deny any possibility of Britain acquiring it.
I figure Britain will intervene on the South's behalf. Because why miss a chance to further weaken the USA? Hopefully Uncle Sam doesn't take this out on the natives.
Assuming those circumstances, immigration after the USA breaks could mostly head to Canada.
Has Crimea been butterflied?
Has anyone asked about Alaska? From what I understood, Russia sold it to the USA to deny any possibility of Britain acquiring it.
One of the gold rushes (Fraser Valley) did happen earlier than OTL, hence why America pushed for total ownership of the Oregon Country and thus leading to the spark that would be the Pan American War. And yes, Western Canada is going to be a lot more relevant and influential ITTL, but will have similar demographics to OTL (lots of people from South and East Asia, as well as a solid number of Mexicans and Central Americans).
That reminds me, I really need to start posting the US Civil War section, seeing how it's next in the chronological order of things.
A lot is going to head to Canada regardless of what happens to the USA.
No, but it has been changed.
Ehh, not exactly. Russia wanted to sell it post-Crimea because they feared Britain may seize it in the future and not pay anything for it. Russia actually approached both Britain AND the US with the offer in the hopes of setting off a bidding war. When the Brits weren't interested, the Americans were the only ones left.
My mistake! Still, I doubt the USA will be buying it ITTL. So if Britain still refuses perhaps they're still willing to sell when Japan industrializes ITTL (unless that is butterflied).
I heavily doubt Russia would sell it to Japan even if Japan is interested because their is the racism factor and the fact that Japan even after industrializing was still treated as a 2nd rate power. Make noises about selling it to Japan to rouse Britains interest if Russia still holds it at that point is something that might happen cause neither Britain or ITTL Canada will want Japan on the border
Well, I didn't directly say it would be Japan buying it. I meant to indicate a changed geopolitical situation around that time may increase interest in buying it off the Russians.
Or like you said earlier, have Russia muse about selling it to Japan or threatening to sell it to Japan if it doesn't get buyers. Perhaps Napoleon III wants it for France? Perhaps Britain/Canada want to prevent a meaningful flank on their western reaches? Perhaps Russia keeps it? Lots of possibilities.
Great_Stag
Banned
Or an independent Russian state? I've seen a couple TLs with a Tsardom of Alaska that were actually relevant.
American Civil War (1851-1861): The Wrong Man in the Wrong Place
Sorry it's been a while. I got busy with real life stuff and spending time with my little sisters.
In any case, on with the story. I'm going to be covering the American Civil War ITTL, which happens earlier. Once this 'block' is completed, then it will move to the "world at large" block that will cover 1851-1884, the first decade of which involves the US Civil War. We'll get to see what other nations are doing while America is at war with itself.
----------
Part 1: The Wrong Man in the Wrong Place
Soon after the start of the Pan American War, when the extent of the territories to hopefully be acquired was still unclear, the question of whether to allow slavery in those territories polarized the Northern and Southern United States in the most bitter sectional conflict up to this time. When the war ended and only Texas - a slave state - was acquired, the confrontation between the slave states of the South and the free states of the North came to a vicious head. [1]
The Democrats were now political poison in the wake of a costly war under the Democrats, and many turned to successful war hero Zachary Taylor and the Whigs to lead the nation in the aftermath. Unfortunately, Taylor would be the wrong man for the job. Many in the south had assumed that, being a slave-owner himself, he would understand their demands and seek compromise. The opposite turned out to be true.
Zachary Taylor, 12th President of the United States
As President, Taylor kept his distance from Congress and his cabinet, even as partisan tensions threatened to divide the Union. Despite being a Southerner and a slaveholder himself, Taylor did not push for the expansion of slavery, and was somewhat untenable to compromise. Texas, having lost the majority of its claimed territory, threatens to leave the United States if they did not press their claims in New Mexico on their behalf. [2]
Taylor holds to the previously agreed upon compromise of Missouri as the standard for the future admissions of states. Taylor favoured legislative compromise, but found it odd that slave states were now arguing for a changing of the rules they had previously agreed upon. The bulk of new states would have to come from the large unorganized western territory. As the threat of Southern secession grew, Taylor sided increasingly with antislavery northerners such as Senator William H. Seward of New York, even suggesting that he would sign the Wilmot Proviso to ban slavery in federal territories should such a bill reach his desk.
William H. Seward, New York senator and abolitionist
A new compromise was proposed that would see the unorganized territory be settled and have the settlers decide the slavery question via "popular sovereignty." Tensions flared as Congress negotiated and secession talks grew, culminating with a threat from Taylor to send troops into Texas to prevent them from pursuing further violence with Mexico, with himself leading the army. Taylor also said that anyone "taken in rebellion against the Union, he would hang ... with less reluctance than he had hanged deserters and spies in Mexico."
The Union was at its breaking point. Texas ran the risk of open conflict with the federal government, and all eyes were on pro-slavery statesman John C. Calhoun and his Nashville Convention. The convention was held in Nashville, Tennessee, from June 3 to 11, 1850. It's purpose was to consider the course of action for the south in the wake of recent events, particularly how to respond to "northern aggression."
A total of 176 delegates from Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Arkansas, Florida, and Tennessee convened at the McKendree United Methodist Church in Nashville and spent over a week coming up with a plan and a platform. After heated debate, the southern moderates had been overruled. The delegation had agreed that if the United States did not renegotiate the Missouri Compromise and allow new slave states north of the 36°30′ parallel, then the South would secede from the Union. [3]
John C. Calhoun in 1849
President Taylor, staunch as ever, held firm in his uncompromising stance that the South should honour its agreements. He also threatened to personally shoot any who went through with such actions as traitors. With a distant and intransigent President, radicals on both sides preventing compromise, and a South fearing future disadvantage, it came as little surprise when South Carolina seceded from the Union on December 20, 1850. By the end of January 1851, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas had all followed suit.
The aforementioned states agreed to form a new federal government, the Confederate States of America, on February 4, 1851. As they began to take control of federal forts and other properties within their boundaries, they encountered heavy resistance from Taylor's government. The situation only worsened when roughly one fifth of the U.S. Army—the entire garrison in Texas—was surrendered in February 1851 to state forces by its commanding general, David E. Twiggs, who then joined the Confederacy. [4]
Major General David E. Twiggs
In the wake of these events and seizures of federal property, President Taylor called for a 75,000-man militia to serve for three months following the seizures and loss of federal troops in Texas. In the wake of this call, several of the border slave states refused to send troops against their southern neighbours, with the result being that Tennessee, Virginia, Arkansas, and North Carolina declared their secession and joined the Confederacy. To reward Virginia, the Confederate capital was moved from Montgomery, Alabama to Richmond, Virginia. Now the United States found their capital on the edge of the Confederacy.
----------
[1] The Compromise of 1850 was a result of a victory in the OTL Mexican-American War. With no substantial territorial gains other than a good chunk of OTL Texas, there's no real avenue for a compromise.
[2] Texas is basically as much an instigator of secession ITTL as South Carolina was OTL.
[3] At the OTL version of the convention, moderates had prevailed and the secessionists were stymied. ITTL, that changes due to previous TL changes and now we have an earlier civil war.
[4] He did this in OTL, and he's still in charge of the military wing in Texas ITTL since this just happens earlier but his feelings on the matter are the same.
In any case, on with the story. I'm going to be covering the American Civil War ITTL, which happens earlier. Once this 'block' is completed, then it will move to the "world at large" block that will cover 1851-1884, the first decade of which involves the US Civil War. We'll get to see what other nations are doing while America is at war with itself.
----------
Part 1: The Wrong Man in the Wrong Place
Soon after the start of the Pan American War, when the extent of the territories to hopefully be acquired was still unclear, the question of whether to allow slavery in those territories polarized the Northern and Southern United States in the most bitter sectional conflict up to this time. When the war ended and only Texas - a slave state - was acquired, the confrontation between the slave states of the South and the free states of the North came to a vicious head. [1]
The Democrats were now political poison in the wake of a costly war under the Democrats, and many turned to successful war hero Zachary Taylor and the Whigs to lead the nation in the aftermath. Unfortunately, Taylor would be the wrong man for the job. Many in the south had assumed that, being a slave-owner himself, he would understand their demands and seek compromise. The opposite turned out to be true.
Zachary Taylor, 12th President of the United States
As President, Taylor kept his distance from Congress and his cabinet, even as partisan tensions threatened to divide the Union. Despite being a Southerner and a slaveholder himself, Taylor did not push for the expansion of slavery, and was somewhat untenable to compromise. Texas, having lost the majority of its claimed territory, threatens to leave the United States if they did not press their claims in New Mexico on their behalf. [2]
Taylor holds to the previously agreed upon compromise of Missouri as the standard for the future admissions of states. Taylor favoured legislative compromise, but found it odd that slave states were now arguing for a changing of the rules they had previously agreed upon. The bulk of new states would have to come from the large unorganized western territory. As the threat of Southern secession grew, Taylor sided increasingly with antislavery northerners such as Senator William H. Seward of New York, even suggesting that he would sign the Wilmot Proviso to ban slavery in federal territories should such a bill reach his desk.
William H. Seward, New York senator and abolitionist
A new compromise was proposed that would see the unorganized territory be settled and have the settlers decide the slavery question via "popular sovereignty." Tensions flared as Congress negotiated and secession talks grew, culminating with a threat from Taylor to send troops into Texas to prevent them from pursuing further violence with Mexico, with himself leading the army. Taylor also said that anyone "taken in rebellion against the Union, he would hang ... with less reluctance than he had hanged deserters and spies in Mexico."
The Union was at its breaking point. Texas ran the risk of open conflict with the federal government, and all eyes were on pro-slavery statesman John C. Calhoun and his Nashville Convention. The convention was held in Nashville, Tennessee, from June 3 to 11, 1850. It's purpose was to consider the course of action for the south in the wake of recent events, particularly how to respond to "northern aggression."
A total of 176 delegates from Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Arkansas, Florida, and Tennessee convened at the McKendree United Methodist Church in Nashville and spent over a week coming up with a plan and a platform. After heated debate, the southern moderates had been overruled. The delegation had agreed that if the United States did not renegotiate the Missouri Compromise and allow new slave states north of the 36°30′ parallel, then the South would secede from the Union. [3]
John C. Calhoun in 1849
President Taylor, staunch as ever, held firm in his uncompromising stance that the South should honour its agreements. He also threatened to personally shoot any who went through with such actions as traitors. With a distant and intransigent President, radicals on both sides preventing compromise, and a South fearing future disadvantage, it came as little surprise when South Carolina seceded from the Union on December 20, 1850. By the end of January 1851, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas had all followed suit.
The aforementioned states agreed to form a new federal government, the Confederate States of America, on February 4, 1851. As they began to take control of federal forts and other properties within their boundaries, they encountered heavy resistance from Taylor's government. The situation only worsened when roughly one fifth of the U.S. Army—the entire garrison in Texas—was surrendered in February 1851 to state forces by its commanding general, David E. Twiggs, who then joined the Confederacy. [4]
Major General David E. Twiggs
In the wake of these events and seizures of federal property, President Taylor called for a 75,000-man militia to serve for three months following the seizures and loss of federal troops in Texas. In the wake of this call, several of the border slave states refused to send troops against their southern neighbours, with the result being that Tennessee, Virginia, Arkansas, and North Carolina declared their secession and joined the Confederacy. To reward Virginia, the Confederate capital was moved from Montgomery, Alabama to Richmond, Virginia. Now the United States found their capital on the edge of the Confederacy.
----------
[1] The Compromise of 1850 was a result of a victory in the OTL Mexican-American War. With no substantial territorial gains other than a good chunk of OTL Texas, there's no real avenue for a compromise.
[2] Texas is basically as much an instigator of secession ITTL as South Carolina was OTL.
[3] At the OTL version of the convention, moderates had prevailed and the secessionists were stymied. ITTL, that changes due to previous TL changes and now we have an earlier civil war.
[4] He did this in OTL, and he's still in charge of the military wing in Texas ITTL since this just happens earlier but his feelings on the matter are the same.
Already fisically drained coming straight out of a war they started and lost, where Mexico received no new land but had a lot of need for funds even after the British cleared their debt, the US does not have the capital to build up a war industry. They must be very low on guns and especially powder. With the British advancing down from the north and having naval supremacy, what few large ships the two sides in this civil war have are likely to be in the secessionist states. Even those are probably ones better suited to rivers than the ocean and of limited use, but the south does still probably have a better access to neutral ports.
With the big promises prior to the Pan-American war that resulted in nothing but disappointment and humiliation, printing paper dollars and just expecting people to treat them as hard currency is not going to work.
This war must in all probability be won or lost with carefully maintained old weapons and tools and end with the victor markedly weaker than they started, heavily in debt to whoever financed their victory.
With the big promises prior to the Pan-American war that resulted in nothing but disappointment and humiliation, printing paper dollars and just expecting people to treat them as hard currency is not going to work.
This war must in all probability be won or lost with carefully maintained old weapons and tools and end with the victor markedly weaker than they started, heavily in debt to whoever financed their victory.
And I thought Buchanan was hard to beat for "fiddling while Rome burned" in the lead up to the civil war! But damn Twiggs and Calhoun! Damn them they're worse!!
Hey y'all, sorry for no update this week. I came down with the flu and largely spent my time resting. There will be an update coming this weekend though. Just wanted to briefly apologize for no update and letting this get buried.
Last edited:
That's ok, old chap. You take as much time as you need to recover.