The Dominion and the Union: An Alternate North America

Would Texas still revolt TTL? One of the major reason they revolted OTL was because of Anglo-Texans wanting to keep their slaves after Mexico abolished slavery. If the American settlers aren't bringing slaves with them, that won't be an issue.
I was under the impression Texas revolted (along with others) because of the centralization of the Mexican government?
 
TTL actually seems good for mexico. The dominion of "Mississippi" won't have the freedom to expand into a nation like mexico and even if "texas" happens like OTL, britain will be the one making the decision on war, and they'd probably find it unprofitable for themselves.
In contrast, there wont be many settlers from the US, and while california would be a highly desired area as OTL, I think America can probably wind up with most of BC, which could make it a bit moot. After all, what remains of BNA ttl has never been especially populated, meaning theres plenty of space for immigrants and not a lot of immigrants.

I was under the impression Texas revolted (along with others) because of the centralization of the Mexican government?
The centralization in question was Santa Ana enforcing abolition on texas
 
I was under the impression Texas revolted (along with others) because of the centralization of the Mexican government?
I’d think since British America will inform British policy in America due to their dominant position, Mexico will be in a worse position as the Southerners would want to exploit Latin America/Caribbean more through the British Empire, so I expect the British America to consist of Knights of the Golden Circle land + Guiana. As a result British America will be in general much more unstable as they don’t have the US of A and they would have a multitude of subject populations that don’t like them in the long run. British America may also fight with Brazil as they would be bordering each other. Would be fun seeing Native Americans (including those from Latin America) in the South.
 
I’d think since British America will inform British policy in America due to their dominant position, Mexico will be in a worse position as the Southerners would want to exploit Latin America/Caribbean more through the British Empire, so I expect the British America to consist of Knights of the Golden Circle land + Guiana. As a result British America will be in general much more unstable as they don’t have the US of A and they would have a multitude of subject populations that don’t like them in the long run. British America may also fight with Brazil as they would be bordering each other. Would be fun seeing Native Americans (including those from Latin America) in the South.
Thing is, due to the Louisiana purchase, Mexico no longer shares land borders with British America ITTL.
 
Would Texas still revolt TTL? One of the major reason they revolted OTL was because of Anglo-Texans wanting to keep their slaves after Mexico abolished slavery. If the American settlers aren't bringing slaves with them, that won't be an issue.
Good point, I was thinking of the United States may be taking it in a war with Mexico but it would be interesting if Mexico was actually staunch Ally like Canada has been in the last 150 years in our timeline.
 
Thing is, due to the Louisiana purchase, Mexico no longer shares land borders with British America ITTL.
That's nothing a war can't fix. Even though America bought Louisiana, the Southerners could take it with an offensive war during something like an alternate Oregon war.

PS: let's hope Greece and Armenia ittl would be more fortunate. Cilician Aremnia and Megali Greece here we go! Plus Assyria + Lebanon union and a very cursed and different Middle East is born. At least the Middle Easterners don't get to commit genocide against so many people.
 
That's nothing a war can't fix. Even though America bought Louisiana, the Southerners could take it with an offensive war during something like an alternate Oregon war.

PS: let's hope Greece and Armenia ittl would be more fortunate. Cilician Aremnia and Megali Greece here we go! Plus Assyria + Lebanon union and a very cursed and different Middle East is born. At least the Middle Easterners don't get to commit genocide against so many people.
British Dominions did not have the right to declare war on their own.
 
British Dominions did not have the right to declare war on their own.
I mean the Brits would be influenced by the British Americans in how they conduct diplomacy in Latin America. Basically the Brits don't like the Americans taking Louisiana and the Southerners don't like the Yankees too.
 
I mean the Brits would be influenced by the British Americans in how they conduct diplomacy in Latin America. Basically the Brits don't like the Americans taking Louisiana and the Southerners don't like the Yankees too.
Mexican conflicts would have been interesting. The US would have certainly supported the Mexican Liberals, while the Brits probably would have backed the Conservatives.
 
Mexican conflicts would have been interesting. The US would have certainly supported the Mexican Liberals, while the Brits probably would have backed the Conservatives.
That would also spiral into wars between the Americans and British, which would be quite interesting. I'd think they'd at first cooperate to dismantle the Mexicans though...
 
Maybe the Tejano population would have more of a role in TTL's Texas rebellion than in OTL. And in OTL Texas wasn't the only rebellion Santa Anna's Mexico suffered. Though to be fair only one other rebellion succeeded. Maybe Britain's increased presence in the Gulf of Mexico could result in them funneling support to some of these rebellions.

I definitely like the irony of Britain and the United States temporarily uniting to dismantle Santa Anna's Mexico. If only because I like reading about breakaway nations finding their feet and succeeding.
 
Could the Texan Revolution be completely averted? IIRC, part of the motivation for the revolt was that Mexico adopted a much more centralized system of government and in particular tried to ban slavery (which was pretty much hated by everyone in Mexico except the Anglos). If the Texan Anglos are from the Union and not the Dominion, they won't be bringing slaves anyway, so that issue becomes moot. They probably wouldn't like a centralized government, but maybe instead of trying for independence, they try to bring about a more federal model for Mexico? There might still be a conflict, but it would be a Mexican Civil War between Centralists and Federalists, with Texas as part of the Federalist faction.
 
The Era of James Madison (1808-1816) Part I New
Chapter 3: The Second Revolution and the Era of Nationalism

A Portrait of James Madison.

Though the Federalists were effectively a non-issue, the Democratic-Republicans still faced some problems. Their strongest presidential candidate, Thomas Jefferson, had retired from federal politics after the previous election, and wasn’t willing to give the presidency another go. The next option was James Madison, a co-founder of the party along with Jefferson. Madison was an intelligent man, seen as the main force behind the ratification of the Bill of Rights. Madison was willing to take the position, and he was made the Democratic-Republican candidate for the upcoming election.

1808 was an easy victory for the Democratic-Republicans. While the Federalists remained strong in most of New England, Madison carried the rest of the nation. New York and New Jersey were solidly in the Democratic-Republican sphere by this point, and even Delaware went for the Democratic-Republicans over the Federalists.

The America that Madison became president over was on a knife’s edge. In 1809, tensions with Britain were at an all time high. The Caribbean and the Gulf of Texas were the crowning jewels of the British Empire, and the US port of New Orleans was an unsightly stain on British domination of the sea. While the war scare was growing, the US military was nearly non-extant. The previous line of Federalist presidents had gradually diminished the ability of the military.

There were also a number of US motivations for war. Unresolved anger over the Chesapeake affair, when the USS Chesapeake was attacked by the HMS Leopard off the coast of Norfolk, added to the tension between the two. Thomas Jefferson, governor of Virginia at the time, wrote that the incident was an insult to the US, and Madison agreed strongly with his colleague. Another possible motivation was a desire to take Rupert’s Land from the British. Chief among US grievances, many US seamen were forced to join the British Navy, and many US ships were captured by the British. This was seen as a grave insult to the American nation and national honour.

During this period of national unrest, Madison was of course under great duress. Unfortunately, despite his intelligence, Madison was not an incredibly skilled leader. His embargoes and restrictions on Britain had little effect, and captures of American vessels and the impressment of American sailors continued. It became even more obvious to Madison that more drastic measures needed to be taken to protect the national honour and his legacy as president.

On February 15th, 1810, the 11th United States Congress declared war on Britain. With a vote of 13-3, the war was widely but not unanimously agreed upon. Notably, the Federalists were major opponents of the war. At one point, the idea of New England seceding from the US was thrown around amongst some. The point of the war was to protect American sovereignty and honour, and to prove to the British that they couldn’t do whatever they pleased.
 
Last edited:
An earlier War of 1812? The Southern Dominion will definitely get involved in attacking the US. I think the war will more of a loss for the US this time around. The aftermath will most likely see the US have more centralization of the government and having a completely capable military. The US will absolutely work hard on annexing any territory possible to always keep their position secure. Keep up the good work.
 
I wouldnt be entirely sure. The British will be more pressed to reinforce the colonies than otl, which will take priority over just rolling up to DC and taking a matchbox to it. Plus, while Britian has the Cherokee and other tribes down south, I don't know how much manpower that will provide or if they're willing to make concessions on that front to push that up. If the usa is smart they could promise emancipation of British slaves, which will cripple the dominion but be less impactful for them this time.

Of course, this is still pre MexAm War america we're dealing with, so the army will be very disorganized, probably wont have good knowledge of the front, and will struggle in matters of even getting troops.
 
I wouldnt be entirely sure. The British will be more pressed to reinforce the colonies than otl, which will take priority over just rolling up to DC and taking a matchbox to it. Plus, while Britian has the Cherokee and other tribes down south, I don't know how much manpower that will provide or if they're willing to make concessions on that front to push that up. If the usa is smart they could promise emancipation of British slaves, which will cripple the dominion but be less impactful for them this time.

Of course, this is still pre MexAm War america we're dealing with, so the army will be very disorganized, probably wont have good knowledge of the front, and will struggle in matters of even getting troops.
There also should be a much larger local force that the British can use than OTL Canada. I expect loyalist brigades to be formed from the south to buff any British force that heads over to fight.
 
Top