The Revenge of the Crown : An Alternate 1812 and Beyond.

[Derek Pullem]

Agree

They may not need to if the Canadian Pacific is built. Or they annex Hawaii on the same trip

 

[Northstar]

They may not need to if the Canadian Pacific is built. Or they annex Hawaii on the same trip

Mexican Hawaii sounds great! 😉

Northstar

EDIT: Also, on a more serious note, Hawaii is still 2,500 miles away from California across the Pacific Ocean. The Pacific is not exactly the calmest of oceans either, so I'm not sure that this option would be any better than sailing along the coast of Russia and then along to Alaska and down. The previous members' points about it being a logistical nightmare remain.

Finally, because my thoughts are getting away with me, if it was so easy for the British to be sailing around to California, why didn't they do this IOTL before any of the other powers even get a sniff?

 

[Northstar]

I understand your point and there would be some similarities but as I have recently posted in my own TL where Irish migrated to Portugal starting in the late 18th century you will have a long period of living side by side for their religious practices are different.

So there might not be the level of animosity as with Irish in a Protestant country. (Such as the level of attacks snd discrimination Irish witness in both US and Canada) there still be differences and the larger the population of emigrants the more difficult it is to integrate.

How much different would you say Irish Catholic religious practises differed to Mexican religious practises between 1800-1850? This is a genuine question which I ask because when I was teaching in Spain I went to church and was struck by how similar the services were to the ones I went to in Afghanistan.

Obviously the differences aren't going to be as large as Southern Baptist churches compared to say the Anglican Church.

Northstar

 

[Derek Pullem]

Mexican Hawaii sounds great! 😉

Northstar

EDIT: Also, on a more serious note, Hawaii is still 2,500 miles away from California across the Pacific Ocean. The Pacific is not exactly the calmest of oceans either, so I'm not sure that this option would be any better than sailing along the coast of Russia and then along to Alaska and down. The previous members' points about it being a logistical nightmare remain.

Finally, because my thoughts are getting away with me, if it was so easy for the British to be sailing around to California, why didn't they do this IOTL before any of the other powers even get a sniff?

Nootka Sound 1778-80

If Britain hadn't been willing to force a military conflict there would never have been a "54 40 or fight" either

 

[Northstar]

Nootka Sound 1778-80

If Britain hadn't been willing to force a military conflict there would never have been a "54 40 or fight" either

Did you get as far as reading the Wikipedia article on "54-40 or fight?" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_boundary_dispute#"Fifty-four_Forty_or_Fight!")

Some of my favourite lines from it are:

"Aberdeen had no intention of going to war over a region that was of diminishing economic value to the United Kingdom."

"The key was the overwhelming naval power which Britain could have brought to bear against the United States, combined with a diplomatic and political landscape that ultimately favored the British government's aim of protecting her interests robustly but without resort to armed conflict. Ultimately British politicians and naval officers recognised that any conflict over the Oregon boundary, however undesirable, would be decided, like the War of 1812, on the Eastern Seaboard of the U.S. and the Great Lakes."

"By a large margin, moderation had won out over calls for war. Unlike Western Democrats, most Congressmen—like Polk—did not want to fight for 54° 40′."

Bolding and italics mine.

I'm fairly certain that Britain will see no need to go to war ITTL, especially as it's likely they'll already have secured the Colombia River ITTL's version of the Adam-Onís Treaty.

However, all that said, a war isn't ASB. It just seems incredibly unlikely that the British would start a war with a friendly power over a region that had "diminishing economic value," was practically logistically impossible for them to reach, and was likely to alienate the other new nations of North America who'd be wondering if they would be the next to be targeted by the British. It would be far more sensible for both sides to settle any issue diplomatically.

I could see the British expanding in Argentina ITTL though.

Northstar

 

[sarahz]

Maybe......not?

Opium was used in China otl because they demanded silver for exports and did not want to buy anything from the EIC Won't necessarily be the case in resource poor Japan

 

[Sarthak]

A fantastic couple of updates @Sārthākā. So glad to see this continuing and I can't wait for more.

As for the meat of it, this is the best chance Louisiana has to become independent, the US is in a civil war already, and the Anglophone population is still small enough to either be expelled or brought into line. That being said, an alliance with a greater power will still be necessary to ensure independence both in this war and later on.

Luckily for Louisiana, Britain, France, and Mexico all have reasons to keep the US from gobbling up the territory later on. Mexico especially given their weakness in the north, better to have small Louisiana as a neighbour than a large and revanchist US.

thanks, yes this is probably the last time Louisiana could rebel successfully.

 

[Sarthak]

Lots of people speculating on what the UK, France and Spain are doing, but it's like we've almost forgotten about Mishigama and the Commonwealth of New England!

Mishigama is largely just trying to up the population and trying to mix their way of life with western societal life. Creating a 'mix' should i say. I do intend to expand on that soon enough. New England is largely just concentrating on the Cone of America and their colonial efforts in the region and looking at the civil war with mild eagerness. For the moment both are out.

I imagine, if the Commanche are supporting Louisiana, there might also be some support from Mishigama; or at least Mishigama provides a precedent that the aid of Native Americans will be rewarded with a homeland. It also means that, in general, the word of the 'white man' might be seen as more trustworthy ITTL.

Slightly more yes.

Uff, I missed the questions regarding what we expect to happen and have only just caught up! Looking good.

Lots of people speculating on what the UK, France and Spain are doing, but it's like we've almost forgotten about Mishigama and the Commonwealth of New England!

I imagine, if the Commanche are supporting Louisiana, there might also be some support from Mishigama; or at least Mishigama provides a precedent that the aid of Native Americans will be rewarded with a homeland. It also means that, in general, the word of the 'white man' might be seen as more trustworthy ITTL.

I'm less sure what the Commonwealth of New England will be doing. They might recognise Louisiana, but I feel they'll be a little more isolationist in terms of supplying any type of physical aid. Plus, logistically speaking, I doubt they'd want to be sailing all the way from Boston to New Orleans to supply what little aid they could.


There also seems to be some anglocentric talk of this timeline being "balkanisation for the sake of balkanisation." However, I imagine that with a strong Mexico, the Americas north of Panama will be less balkanised than IOTL. By that I mean that I expect Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala will all end up part of this greater, more powerful Mexican Empire. Either they'll join willingly or Mexico could see taking the isthmus much how the USA of OTL saw Westward expansion. Especially when it comes to Panama and a canal there. IOTL French attempts to build a canal in Panama began in 1881, however;

"The earliest record related to a canal across the Isthmus of Panama was in 1534, when Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain, ordered a survey for a route through the Americas in order to ease the voyage for ships traveling between Spain and Peru. The Spanish were seeking to gain a military advantage over the Portuguese." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal#Early_proposals_in_Panama)

A Mexican Empire with Californian gold, Texan oil, and the Panama Canal would be a frickin' beast...

Northstar

EDIT: For anyone keen on maps, the last map of North America is on page 13 and the last map of South America is on page 23. I find the maps help better imagine the political situation.

Panama no.......spain still has control in panama and mexico will continue to have problems projecting power into the other areas of Mexico other than the core of Mexico City and Veracruz so the Central American territories are also kept loosely. Though yes, you are correct in essentiality.

 

[Sarthak]

There are a couple of things to consider. The first is that TTL's USA is now broken up into ~4/5 states. It's been in almost constant civil strife, suffering secessions, civil wars, and defeat to the British, for around 50 years. ITTL it's going to have a reputation for being a mess and probably won't be seen as an attractive destination for emigrants. Additionally, it's lost or is losing a lot of the large tracts of land that attracted immigrants. Next, it's got a more powerful and, perhaps more importantly, more Catholic, Mexican Empire on its doorstep.

Indeed, the Irish Immigrants i have already listed as being diverted to Quebec Canada, though a good amount still go to Mexico ittl. The Italian immigrants and Catholic German immigrants have been diverted to Mexico due to the constant strife in America.

As immigration picks up, I imagine that Mexico will be seen as the far more attractive option. This will be especially true for Catholic Irish and later Catholic Italian emigrants. We already know that ITTL there seems to be a friendly relationship between Great Britain and the Mexican Empire, so it might even be that the two powers cooperate on sending the Catholics the British don't want to Mexico. And it would be in Mexico's interest to take these immigrants because guess what the Mexicans need? Railroads to connect their northern territories to Mexico City. And guess what the Irish are renowned for building? Railroads. Guess what else the Mexicans might want? A canal in Panama! And guess what else the Irish have a reputation for building? Canals! It's also important to note that the Irish around this period are NOT anglophones:

"It is believed that Irish remained the majority tongue as late as 1800 but became a minority language during the 19th century. It is an important part of Irish nationalist identity, marking a cultural distance between Irish people and the English.

Before the Great Famine most Irishmen were bilingual with irish and english. The famine killed off its speakers and the British government did not really show any enthusiasm for bringing Irish back as a tongue properly.

Sorry for a second lengthy post, but I've had a second thought only tangentially related to my earlier one.

I think it's important here to consider emigration/immigration trends.

Here's the Wikipedia article on immigration to the USA IOTL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_United_States#1790_to_1849

There are a couple of things to consider. The first is that TTL's USA is now broken up into ~4/5 states. It's been in almost constant civil strife, suffering secessions, civil wars, and defeat to the British, for around 50 years. ITTL it's going to have a reputation for being a mess and probably won't be seen as an attractive destination for emigrants. Additionally, it's lost or is losing a lot of the large tracts of land that attracted immigrants. Next, it's got a more powerful and, perhaps more importantly, more Catholic, Mexican Empire on its doorstep.

As immigration picks up, I imagine that Mexico will be seen as the far more attractive option. This will be especially true for Catholic Irish and later Catholic Italian emigrants. We already know that ITTL there seems to be a friendly relationship between Great Britain and the Mexican Empire, so it might even be that the two powers cooperate on sending the Catholics the British don't want to Mexico. And it would be in Mexico's interest to take these immigrants because guess what the Mexicans need? Railroads to connect their northern territories to Mexico City. And guess what the Irish are renowned for building? Railroads. Guess what else the Mexicans might want? A canal in Panama! And guess what else the Irish have a reputation for building? Canals! It's also important to note that the Irish around this period are NOT anglophones:

"It is believed that Irish remained the majority tongue as late as 1800 but became a minority language during the 19th century. It is an important part of Irish nationalist identity, marking a cultural distance between Irish people and the English.

A combination of the introduction of state funded, though predominantly denominationally Church delivered, primary education (the 'National Schools'), from 1831, in which Irish was omitted from the curriculum till 1878, and only then added as a curiosity, to be learnt after English, Latin, Greek and French, and in the absence of an authorised Irish Catholic bible (An Biobla Naofa) before 1981, resulting in instruction primarily in English, or Latin. The National Schools run by the Roman Catholic Church discouraged its use until about 1890.

The Great Famine (An Gorta Mór) hit a disproportionately high number of Irish speakers (who lived in the poorer areas heavily hit by famine deaths and emigration), translated into its rapid decline." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Irish_language)

Any Irish emigrating to Mexico will just learn Spanish as they did English. I also expect that, whilst the new North American states will also want railroads, the sheer greater expanse of Mexico will mean there are far more job opportunities there.

IOTL, Germans went to the Mid West and Texas (see above link to Wikipedia) and I don't really see why this would change ITTL. Again though, Germans are not anglophones and so I don't imagine they would cause any issues in Texas as the anglophones did IOTL. I really think Texas will be fine ITTL.

I also think California will be fine. It looks like there'll be a Native Mishigama and Francophone Louisiana between California and the US nations, so I doubt we'll see an anglophone majority there. The issues regarding language shouldn't matter as much ITTL.

Mexico didn't lose California until 1848 IOTL. One of the causes of the Mexican-American War was Mexican political instability. This seems like it won't be as much a problem ITTL. A second cause was US expansionism. This is likely completely dead in the water ITTL. A third was limited Mexican control over the territory. Again, with a stronger Mexican Empire and easier Irish-built railroads making travel between Mexico City and California easier... well, that's another problem sorted.

Later, this more powerful, more economically prosperous, politically stable Mexico will probably continue to attract migrants. Especially Catholic ones from Italy that would go to New York and Argentina IOTL.

I suppose what I'm saying is that immigration was one of the key ingredients to making OTL's USA the power it is today.

ITTL, I see the butterfly effect driving a lot of that emigration/immigration towards the Mexican Empire. US political instability coupled with British-Mexican cooperation will mean Irish emigrants end up in Veracruz. Veracruz will develop into a prosperous port city and railroads will be built by Irish immigrants between Veracruz and Mexico City. Mexico City and Veracruz will begin industrialising and this will attract further immigrants. Family ties will encourage this even more so. Railroads will then be built between Mexico City and Texas. German immigrants will set up farms in Texas. Railroads towards the Pacific will be built and these will then be extended up to the Californian coast. When gold is discovered in California, migration from Mexico City is easily facilitated by the Mexican railroads - migration from the US's Eastern seaboard is much more complex, with any migrants having to first land in an anglophone nation, then cross Louisianan or Mishigaman territory, then British, then finally Mexican territory - much easier to just land at Veracruz and get the train direct. Mexico City and the Mexican cities in California will grow wealthy and industrialise. Italian immigrants will view stable, wealthy, Catholic Mexico as a much more attractive destination than one of the anglophone nations, especially given that both the climate of Mexico and the Spanish language will seem more familiar to them. Content with their northern territories being secure, the Mexican Empire will look southward; their railroads facilitating trade between the Pacific and the Atlantic are good, but a canal in Panama would be better. It would also be grand to be able to move the Imperial Mexican Navy between the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific without having to sail all the way around South America. Any independent Central American states are encouraged, coopted, and coerced into the Mexican Empire, and the dependents of those first Irish emigrants are called upon for a new project.

The Mexican Melting Pot.

Northstar

Mexico will definitely recieve immigration, but i wouldn't say on the level that the usa received, not enough to become a melting pot. They certainly will attract a lot of catholic immigrants, but Mexico was still very conservative otl, and with a catholic monarchy ittl, they remain conservative overtly so. So any protestant trying to go to Mexico will probably think 5 times before making any decision to go.

 

[Sarthak]

How by stopping migration?

limiting it. Creating language quotas etc.

 

[Sarthak]

I'm wondering if the Louisianans are going to do deals with other natives, aside from the Comanche.

Though having done a deal with the Comanche might put some tribes off such an agreement.

The Comanche were by far the strongest tribe in the region, holding a virtual empire. If one tribe of the comanche go in, the others will follow, tribe loyalties. It will be interesting.

 

[Ikny]

I think we need to be careful assuming immigration patterns will be the same. Just assuming all the people that went to America originally will go to Mexico is a questionable assumption given that the non-political motivators or the immigration patterns are still there. Just taking historical number and dumping them in Mexico without providing the economic reasoning will be a problem.

A lot of the population in the American south west today (Mexican territory here) only boomed in the 20th century because of the invention of air conditioning. People can live there, but it doesn't have the same carrying capacity.

You also have to keep in mind that the Conservatives are in power now (Pedro Vélez is the conservative Minister). In other words, people that consider Catholicism important. Unlike the US, I'm not sure Imperial Mexico is secular. Catholics in the US faced discrimination, but the Catholic Church in Mexico can make things a lot more difficult.

Mexico can overcome these of course, but just saying that because the US is unstable they'll go to Mexico is a very gross simplification of the population dynamics. And of course if the writer wants to hand wave it away that is fine too.

One last note, the big flood of immigrants came after ocean going steam ships were common. So Mexico needs to do well and the US needs to have problems until after the 1850s-1860ish period and continuing after.

 

[Sarthak]

This is the approximate map of the situation right now. It's not fully accurate (the maine border for one, and the saranac) but its mostly accurate.

 

[Sarthak]

The risk I think with filling up California, Texas and norther territories with majority European emigrants even if they are Catholic is that in time they become disconnected and alienated from the people and government in the south. If the object is to protect these places from English settlers and keep them as part of Mexico then there has to be a large Mexican population too.

that depends on the government, but the longer they wait, the riskier any uprising will take.

 

[Sarthak]

Bolding mine.

If you're talking about the northern US states that are the secessionist states ITTL, then I have to disagree that they could have made it to the Pacific.

Look at the map.

To reach the Pacific, a northern US state would have to head west until it after Mishigama, then head north, then keep going west between Canada and the Mexican Empire for thousands of miles until it reached the Pacific coast. Why would it do that? What strategic purpose would that serve? It would end up with a country that was snaking across the North American continent in an absolutely ridiculous fashion, like something out of an EU4 challenge!

Plus, it's like we all keep forgetting Mishigama! Are they not going to try for a bit of extra land to their south or west? 🤔

Northstar

I do agree, the Northern States if they go independent as the FSA, will not be able to reach the Pacific.

 

[Sarthak]

I was thinking that places like Ohio and Illinois join the northern rebelling states.

As for natives we could see them get Wisconsin. Which gives them extra lands. The dakotas and Minnesota could and I think be part of BNA.

But we leave it to author yo tell us.

Wisconsin is already a part of the BNA and Mishigama.

 

[Sarthak]

I think you have to view TTL's Mexico as OTL's USA to a degree. What I mean by that is that the Americans that settled California and Texas were what, second and third generation Americans? And California and Texas remain American to this day.

You have to imagine the processes that happened IOTL's USA repeating ITTL's Mexico. That is to say, Irish, Italian, German, migrants landing in Veracruz and settling in the port city or Mexico City will have children. Their children will most likely be the ones that then move onwards to California. Those children ITTL are Mexicans, born in Mexico and most likely speaking Spanish. They'll be just as Mexican as the Americans of OTL were American. IMO, they'd be happy to make their fortunes, sending some wealth back to their parents in Mexico City and Veracruz and being able to enjoy the protection of a powerful Mexican Empire. Why would they want to start wars of independence? Look at how that worked out for the Americans who've now been warring for 50 years?

We cannot view TTL through the prism of our OTL!

And you're exactly correct; we have to leave it to the author to tell us! But, like any good series, it's great to speculate on what comes next!

Northstar

They will be speaking Spanish, but most probably with a wierd Italian/German/Irish accent. I met a few Irish Mexicans in Mexico in 2018, and their Spanish accent was so different than the normal Mexican accent. It would still distinguish them. Anyway yeah the swapping over of Mexico and USA from otl is a very simplistic view in regards to this tl.

 

[Sarthak]

There is also the question of whether Mishigama even lasts long enough to matter.

Mishigama already holds Wisconsin.

At the very least, it's a good place for any displaced natives to migrate into. Provided that Mishigama is able (and willing) to absorb them effectively.

That is the million dollar question. The available land will soon disappear and ability of the natives to support themselves hunting and gathering will be impacted. If they are unable to convert to a western way if living agriculture, trade and manufacturing otherwise I think it will collapse.

I do have plans for this. So don't worry!

 

[Sarthak]

View attachment 605084

I'm not sure using a base over 5,300 miles away is practicable...

Yes, there was a RN squadron there, but the question is whether it can realistically stand up to the Mexican Empire ITTL. And even if they did sail 20,000 men there, they would be outnumbered at least two or three times by the Mexicans. Plus, as you've said, the British ITTL have their hands full in Japan. The British are more likely to use the farmland in the northern Louisiana territory that it sounds like they're going to get rather than invade their new Mexican friends.

But I mean, maybe, Sārthākā will tell us...

Northstar

Invading California from Japan is a no go. Britain had stations in Malaya, india, and friendly french bases in Khmer to stop and reload when they invaded China and that would not be present in any all round pacific operation to take california. A land invasion from Oregon would be much more feasible.

 

[Sarthak]

Finally, because my thoughts are getting away with me, if it was so easy for the British to be sailing around to California, why didn't they do this IOTL before any of the other powers even get a sniff?

Britain was money minded otl. They didn't take territory for the sake of it. In 1843 when a few squadrons annexed Hawaii into the UK, the Uk promptly gave independence back because well, the islands would be massive drain on the treasury. If its a drain on the money, Britain will not take anything during these times.