Partitioned British North America
- Thread starter Faeelin
- Start date
British Revolution? Qu'est que c'est? I'm assuming, from the reference to 'rump United States', that you mean the American Revolution. If I'm being very dumb, and this is about something else, please ignore the rest of this post.
Anyway - it kind of depends on when this proposal was made and accepted. Was it before or after French entry into the war? That's relevant, because no French entry might very well butterfly the French Revolution.
Initially, thing will run smoothly. If this poposal is accepted by all parties, Loyalists from the USA will migrate south (as they migrated to Canada & the Caribbean IOTL) and Patriots from... British Southern America(?) will migrate north.
But then the butterflies become important. Assuming a French Revolution still occurs, Québec/Canada might go monarchist, or at least attempt to separate from France itself (since many inhabitants were staunch Catholics, and the revolution was rather... anti-Catholic).
What does that mean for the USA? They had designs on Canada IOTL (see: War of 1812), so they might try to obtain Canada. If it doesn't go monarchist, Canada might be persuaded to join the USA. We might see a bilingual French-English US. That's all kinds of awesome.
On the other hand, if Canada goes monarchist, the USA might use loyality to her 'sister republic' (France) as an excuse to try and conquer Canada (but they will call it 'liberating', of course). I'm not sure, though, since with a British America to the south, they might be hesitant to get involved in any 'European' conflict - fearing that Britain will invade from the south if they move their forces north against Canada.
That's very likely, yes. Might a prominent figure pull a Napoleon, of sorts? I can see Hamilton filling that role, in a USA that relies much more on a standing army (with the British threat to the south, and Canada as a great big unknown in the north). That sort of situation would certainly provide more support for his federalist proposals.
While Hamilton had some monarchist-like ideas, he certainly DID NOT have Napoleon-like ones. I doubt that even Thomas Jefferson, who was frequently quite critical of many of AH's ideas and proposals, would agree w/you.
I'm not saying Hamilton was not a believer in the republic, but he was both intensely ambitious and a supporter of a strong central government. In this ATL, can see him pushing for an even stronger central government, with a powerful executive, and a sizable standing army. Those are, after all, the things he advocated IOTL. It all depends on the circumstances, of course. When I say I can see Hamilton fulfulling a 'Napoleonic' role, of sorts, I mostly mean that he would be ideally suited to be a powerful head of the executive, supported by the military, and strengthened by great personal charisma.
But... I think you underestimate Hamilton's ambition when you say he would never actually be a Napoleon-figure, coup-and-all. I'm not neccesarily talking about this ATL scenario here, but just considering Hamilton's personality, his driving motivations, there is no doubt in my mind that he would be prepared to (temporarily) seize power, if he believed he was serving the republic in doing so. If he believed his country was in danger from invasion, and the government was ignoring the issue? He would stop at nothing to save the USA - even if he had to 'save' it from itself...
So when Britain tries to abolish slavery in the Empire, which the addition of those remaining colonies' planters to the anti-abolition lobby probably means doesn't happen until a bit (say 10-15 years) later on than in OTL, do those colonies rebel again? And if they do, is the USA's desire to see them incorporated into itself strong enough for the USA to join them in fighting against Britain, and to guarantee their right to continue keeping slaves in the deal offered for their joining the union?
If the United States is just New England and the Mid-Atlantic, then it is likely to abolish slavery even before the British Empire. This may guarantee the independence of BSA, which is likely to become more dependent on slavery as time goes on. Sort of a preemptive secession.
Now, I've heard a lot of "US goes dictatorship" scenarios, but why in the world should simply being without three states cause this to happen? I see a early US sans Georgia and the Carolinas as being very similar to the OTL early US, with the differences only becoming profound as time goes on. A rump-US along these borders would be just fine. France isn't a threat to it, and the British have no greater a border than they had OTL. There would be little reason for the ATL US to be grim-dark or go off the rails, it would just be a little smaller and less wealthy.
Though I do wonder if US-British Southern America? relations along the border might be much more tense than the US-Canadian border was, because the populated areas would be right next to each other rather than being across natural boundaries and wilderness.
Now, what might be grim-dark is the combined power of the Caribbean and OTL-US slave interests. That's probably going to push abolition in the British empire back decades (OTL, the lobbying power of the Caribbean planters is what delayed emancipation until the 1830s) and could even cause a South+Caribbean secession of some kind. Although seceding would have made them very vulnerable to US annexation, so they may not have done that.
I was careless in my formulation, obviously. Lord Grattan also thought I meant all-out dictatorship. Wat I meant was: there will be a British presence directly to the south, and the US will be smaller, weaker and poorer. I can see strong-government advocates like Hamilton pushing for an even stronger central government than he did IOTL, with a powerful executive, and a sizable standing army.
Again: when I say I can see Hamilton fulfulling a 'Napoleonic' role, of sorts, I mostly mean that he would be ideally suited to be a powerful head of the executive, supported by the military, and strengthened by great personal charisma.
Why would te US be inclined to such a development? You said it youself:
A weaker US, with a very possible threat right to the south, and with no natural barriers in between? I wouldn't neccesarily call it 'grimdark', but I suspect they would be inclined to set up a sizable standing army much earlier than they did IOTL. And I can see someone like Hamilton being the man advocating such a policy.
The points about what a slaveholding British Southern America (plus the Caribbean) might become in this ATL are plausible and, indeed, very ominous...
I have never heard of this offer for mediation by Prussia. Where did you read that?
Oh, you'd see war long before then. Remember, Britain didn't evacuate the Ohio forts until the 1790s. The temptation to hold onto them would be much stronger here, with teh goal to enfeeble the United States and trap it along the Appalachians...
Wasn't the suggestion for this deal to include the Ohio valley in the 'Canada' that would be given back to France?
If it did do so then the USA is still blocked-off from the interior by the French, rather than by the British.
In fact, if it did do so, then isn't the likeliest result actually an Anglo-American alliance against France ASAP to partition 'Canada' (Ohio valley to USA, and Quebec to Britain: I'm not sure about Mischigan/Wisconsin/Minnesota...) instead?
That makes more sense, actually, although I'm not sure. Where'd you come across that?
I think that it was mentioned in the same thread about possible consequences if the rebellion was crushed that we've both posted in during the last 2 or 3 days.
It's probably my favorite book on the war. A bit military focused, but does a good job overall. One of my favorite points is that he thinks Washington almost doomed the rebellion in 1779 or 1780 by remaining fixed on New York. Given growing French exhaustion, some sort of peace where British kept what it had seized wasn't improbable..
One of the reasons the US probably wouldn't be in dire straights in this scenario is that they would no doubt align with France if at odds with Britain, and align with Britain if at odds with France. I can see the three states expanding straight to the Pacific ocean, if it would prevent war between them.
Now if the British had had both the Deep South and Canada, the US could have been facing dim prospects.
