Norton's Dream: A Delayed American Independence, Revanchism and an American Napoleon

I can see the point of Vermont not wanting to join the British due to an independence streak, but I think historical events make it reasonable for it to exist as a dominion within the greater British Empire or something like that. And in a landscape redraw to punish rebellious tendency, I think hurting NH and NY by giving Vermont its own legitimized parcel is reasonable.

Loyalist forces in the South may be reasonable, but if the British abolish slavery as the did in 1803(?), that may spark tensions, even if there is made perhaps a leniency on allowing the colonies to end it later or more gradually. Plus, they'd be more distant from British owned Quebec/Canada, and although the British navy doesn't make that detrimental, it would perhaps complicate it if there's one loyalist colony in the middle of an American rebel ocean. And if Jackson can spur up Southern common men to fight the British Imperialism....
****

What about the government? While there'd be some features from the government the Americans were trying to establish (the Articles of Confederation, for example) there'd be a pretty free hand at establishing a formal government.

I think Jackson himself may be a mixed bag; Liberal in the form of representing the common people and supporting Liberty for all men, Conservative in the form of ensuring his own power, defying areas of the government around him, opposing ethnic freedom, etc. So perhaps an enlightened tyrant, although I don't like many of the other connotations connected to that phrase.
 
I can see the point of Vermont not wanting to join the British due to an independence streak, but I think historical events make it reasonable for it to exist as a dominion within the greater British Empire or something like that. And in a landscape redraw to punish rebellious tendency, I think hurting NH and NY by giving Vermont its own legitimized parcel is reasonable.

I was thinking of Vermont saying hey make us a dominion not G.B. sticking it to NY and NH so I like it.

Loyalist forces in the South may be reasonable, but if the British abolish slavery as the did in 1803(?), that may spark tensions, even if there is made perhaps a leniency on allowing the colonies to end it later or more gradually. Plus, they'd be more distant from British owned Quebec/Canada, and although the British navy doesn't make that detrimental, it would perhaps complicate it if there's one loyalist colony in the middle of an American rebel ocean. And if Jackson can spur up Southern common men to fight the British Imperialism....

The British abolished slavery in IIRC the 1830s so a little later. What if this loyalist colony is South Carolina or Georgia? Both pretty loyalist to begin with. One thing to consider, New York was Loyalist and strongly so because of New York City, in fact they barely voted to rebel in 1776 and barely approved the Constitution in 1788. So What if they are your loyal Dominion? Changes the game a bit IMHO.


What about the government? While there'd be some features from the government the Americans were trying to establish (the Articles of Confederation, for example) there'd be a pretty free hand at establishing a formal government.

I think Jackson himself may be a mixed bag; Liberal in the form of representing the common people and supporting Liberty for all men, Conservative in the form of ensuring his own power, defying areas of the government around him, opposing ethnic freedom, etc. So perhaps an enlightened tyrant, although I don't like many of the other connotations connected to that phrase.

I agree with your view of Jackson as long as we agree that he wanted to improve the lot of the common WHITE man. He was spectacularly egalitarian and spectacularly racist at the same time; quite the contradiction to observe IMO. I think a rebellion won by Jackson is going to be some sort of Santa Anna type regime. He is popularly elected once and then basically rules until he dies, with or without elections, I think it wouldn't matter. Washington ran unopposed and I am sure Jackson would too. There is a rump legislature that serves as a rubber stamp and that is all. Now with Jackson running the show, I think the government is highly centralized and rightly concerned with England looking for round 2. I don't think he gets all stirred up about Blacks and Indians unless they make him (English provide Indians with guns, is definitely a possibility). As for Slavery, he held slaves and practiced slavery IOTL but it is possible in his struggle for freedom he is helped by slaves (while promised freedom by England, it is likely they are returned to servitude as a way to suck up to whites) and so views them differently.
 
I was thinking of Vermont saying hey make us a dominion not G.B. sticking it to NY and NH so I like it.
It could be both; both sides, meeting a common interest.



The British abolished slavery in IIRC the 1830s so a little later. What if this loyalist colony is South Carolina or Georgia? Both pretty loyalist to begin with. One thing to consider, New York was Loyalist and strongly so because of New York City, in fact they barely voted to rebel in 1776 and barely approved the Constitution in 1788. So What if they are your loyal Dominion? Changes the game a bit IMHO.
I know what it was now, it was the Slavery Act of 1807 I was thinking of; it abolished the slave trade, but not slavery. I still think that would PO the south in and of itself, though, and foreseeable violation of the act (if it still comes into being) could lead to punitive measures against the south to inflame sentiments against the British.

I think if the revolution went ahead, and failed, then the events to follow would not allow for peaceful existence within the empire for very long for anyone in the former rebel colonies. There would be the rebellious sentiment in the Colonial culture, a dislike of Britain and feeling of being under occupation, and punitive measures by the British could just poke the bear. I think even those colonies with the most loyalists would not necessarily be outside the sphere of revolution due to those (and the fact that they did join the original rebellion, so they could be as subject to punishment as any of the others). Its dependent on the circumstances, though. Although I think it would still be harder to get Northern colonies on board, perhaps, both for inside sentiments and possible British occupation in the outbreak of war.


I agree with your view of Jackson as long as we agree that he wanted to improve the lot of the common WHITE man. He was spectacularly egalitarian and spectacularly racist at the same time; quite the contradiction to observe IMO. I think a rebellion won by Jackson is going to be some sort of Santa Anna type regime. He is popularly elected once and then basically rules until he dies, with or without elections, I think it wouldn't matter. Washington ran unopposed and I am sure Jackson would too. There is a rump legislature that serves as a rubber stamp and that is all. Now with Jackson running the show, I think the government is highly centralized and rightly concerned with England looking for round 2. I don't think he gets all stirred up about Blacks and Indians unless they make him (English provide Indians with guns, is definitely a possibility). As for Slavery, he held slaves and practiced slavery IOTL but it is possible in his struggle for freedom he is helped by slaves (while promised freedom by England, it is likely they are returned to servitude as a way to suck up to whites) and so views them differently.
I agree, but I think the government would still be democratic; Jackson would stretch the limits of his power, break rules, and so forth, but I don't think it'd be just a puppet of Jackson. What I wanna discuss is what the ATL government will be? They basically have to create a government from nothing more than some concepts from a few decades previous on a free republic.

I think Jackson would probably be punitive towards the Indians. Concerning blacks, what about freedom through military service as a prospect?
 
I agree, but I think the government would still be democratic; Jackson would stretch the limits of his power, break rules, and so forth, but I don't think it'd be just a puppet of Jackson. What I wanna discuss is what the ATL government will be? They basically have to create a government from nothing more than some concepts from a few decades previous on a free republic.

I think Jackson would probably be punitive towards the Indians. Concerning blacks, what about freedom through military service as a prospect?

I would need to think about the goverrnment structure more. The Jackson we are talking about would be virtually uneducated, he would not have studied law or read it (Jackson didn't go to school for more than a year or two). I don't think he would have been all that knowledgable on govt or govt. theory so more likely someone else comes up with it and he just goes with it cause he gets the power from it. Besides who says Jackson has to be a good president?

As for military service, while that is what I am working towards in my own TL (lol, its a great theme), I find that to be the most likely form of freedom for them. Jackson would be in the same class that basically opposed slavery in OTL so him supporting its abolition, provided they "earned it" would be feasible. I am thinking this....

Andrew Jackson was scarred by a British officer and through out his lifetime hated the British and eventually lead us to our freedom in the 2nd rebellion. The first had failed in 1778 after the loss of the army at Saratoga; the war dragged on until 1780. By then most of the troops would be kill and in 1780 with the surrender by George Washington to Henry Clinton outside Philadelphia, most of the ringleaders were hung: Adams, Washington, Arnold, Franklin, Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Gates, Richard Henry Lee, Arthur Lee, Patrick Henry, John Hancock. Some of the younger men managed to escape with terms in prison and hard labor not ending in less than 20 years, such as Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr, James Monroe etc. Andrew Jackson and his older brother Hugh Jackson (recovers the smallpox their mother still dies, one more reason to hate the brits) were imprisoned and released after the Boston Hangings were concluded. Both men heard of the land over the mountains a place called "Kentucky". They traveled out of the Waxhaws (border region between N and S. Caroline) to southern Virginia and through the Shenandoah and out through the Cumberland Gap. They met Daniel Boone and his sons who resided in "Boonesbourgh" officially named Georgetown after the new lord of the Ohio (Lord George Cornwallis) Country. The Jackson gang as they would be known in later years ran wild with Daniel Boone supposedly learning about Indian trails, tracking and the like. There weren't two better woodsmen in the territory when news hit the Kentucky country of the "King's Laws" or as Andrew called them "the Hessian Heresies"; that is when Hugh and Andrew realized what they were meant to do.

Hows that for a start?

Edit: The thing with Jackson is that he is way different as a kid than he is as an adult. He grew up in the backwoods, he is feelings on Indians were mainly from his experiences fighting them in Tennessee during the 1790s. Before Jackson shows up in Tennessee in the 1790s and after the end of the war he is kind of a blank slate. Two good sources are the biography by HW Brands and the Bio by Jon Meacham. Jackson is one of those people were so little of his early life is known and so much of it shapes his personality. I think with the right conditions placed on him by the British and with right conditions placed in front of him he would work with the Indians and the Blacks to free the land in this 2nd rebellion we are kicking around
 
Last edited:
Top