The Sun Never Sets - A Brighter Dawn

A Brighter Dawn


This is a revision of my earlier “Kicking an Open Door” TL, looking at how to create a plausible Brit-wank, extending British hegemony in the 19th century from first amongst the Great Powers to a true Superpower.


PoD 1802: I'm choosing to avert the Yellow Fever epidemic which claimed the French expedition to Haiti. This is quite possible, as the timings of epidemic flare ups does seem quite arbitrary. This means that Napoleon's American dreams are not yet extinguished, so there is no Louisiana Purchase later on.

1803: Hostilities resume between Britain and France. Secret Negotiations begin concerning the sale of New Orleans to the United States, but Napoleon is unwilling. He still hopes to knock Britain out of the war and gain further colonial possessions for France.

1805: The Royal Navy under Nelson lure the French Mediterranean and Spanish Fleets from port and destroy them in the Battle of Gibraltar. Britain seizes New Orleans from the weak French garrison there, seizes the Baleriacs from Spain, and takes the Cape of Good Hope from the Dutch. Later that year Napoleon sells (British occupied) Louisiana and the French Caribbean, including Haiti to the United States, realising they are doing him no good, and hoping to tempt the United States into the war.

1806: The British take Montevido in Rio de la Plata (Argentina). The commander is welcomed by the local merchants, as the British takeover partially reopens their markets. He maintains a set of policies designed to keep the locals happy.

1808: The short Russo-Swedish War ends. After the Russians made disappointingly progress the bulk of Finland remains Swedish, but border adjustments favourable to Russia are made.

1809: A rebellion in the Rio de la Plata is suppressed.

1810: Frustrated with British interference in their trade, the continuing practice of impressment, and British control of New Orleans, and encouraged by Napoleon's continued successes in Europe, the United States declares war on Britain. The war is not initially decisive, although the British and their Indian allies see some minor successes in the North, and both British and American privateers range widely. The United States moves into Florida, at Spanish invitation. The British begin a strategy of blockading the Southern ports but leaving the New England ports untouched, and encouraging smuggling. As a result, the New England state governments refuse to substantially assist in the war.

1812: Napoleon dies during the opening stages of invading Russia. His young son is proclaimed Emperor, but a power struggle breaks out for the Regency. The Austrians take advantage of this weakness, and rejoin the war. An American assault on New Orleans is defeated

1813: After a series of significant reverses, the French internal power struggle is resolved with the emergence of Marshall Bernadotte as President of the Council of Regents. The French have been driven from Spain and Poland, the members of the Confederacy of the Rhine and virtually all other French Allies have defected to the Coalition, Illyria, and the Dutch Republic has been conquered by the Allies. In America, the British win a series of decisive victories in and around the Great Lakes, although lack of manpower prevents them from consolidating these victories, they continue to supply their Indian Allies. The war settles into a lower ebb, with the French fighting a defensive war

1814: With the Continental System broken, the British can turn more of their attention to North America. The United States is defeated. By the end of the war, Washington has been burnt to the ground, and Britain retains New Orleans, and it and its Indian Allies have advanced in the North East, expelling US forces from the Great Lakes and taking Michigan and Northern Ohio. In June, the French sue for peace, and the Americans follow suit shortly afterwards. With Napoleon dead, the British will to fight it exhausted, and they are no longer willing to bankroll the war. The Congress of Frankfurt later that year produces the following results:

-The Confederation of the Rhine is dissolved.
-A German Federation, comprising of 24 states is created. The major states are Prussia, Austria, Hanover, Bavaria, Saxony and Westphalia. Westphalia remained under the rule of Jerome Bonaparte, who had broken with France after loosing the political struggle over the regency of Napoleon II.
-Russia gained half of of the Duchy of Warsaw.
-Prussia gained the other half of the Duchy of Warsaw.
-The Kingdom of the Netherlands was formed from the Dutch Republic.
-Hanover gained Frankfurt and the northern part of the Rhineland.
-Austria regained, Tirol, Salzburg Illyira, and Venetia (reduced in size, so that its border runs along the Adige).
-The French retain their Italian possessions, and the infant Napoleon II remains King of Italy.
-Joachim Murat remains King of Naples. The Kingdoms of Sardinia and Sicily are confirmed as territories restricted to those islands.
-Britain's rule over the captured colonies of the Rio de la Plata, Louisiana, the Cape Colony, Ceylon, and the Dutch East Indies is confirmed. The Americans also agree to cede the entirety of the Indiana Territory, plus Michigan, and agree to border adjustments around Niagara. The US retain Haiti and the French Caribbean. US forces remain in Florida, although it remains nominally Spanish. American freedom of navigation on the Mississippi is guaranteed.
-Gibraltar, the Ionian, Faroe and the Baleriac Islands and Heligoland remain British.


my.php


Comments, criticisms, revisions?

Anything ludicrous in the above?

Outstanding questions I see:

How long will New Orleans remain British? I can't see them hanging on to it forever in the face of American expansion, but I do see it as a delaying factor.

Will peace in Europe survive in the face of a much stronger France? The government is in the hands of a divided Regency Council, will this encourage or prevent foreign adventures?

Germany is more evenly divided than OTL, and there are fewer states. How does this impact German unification?

Italy remains within the French sphere of influence - and partially under direct French rule. Will Sardinia and Sicily seek foreign patrons as well? The British are distracted with colonial games, will be see a Austria seeking to extend its influence here?

Russia has not made anything like its OTL gains. Will it look south, and what will happen come the Greek revolution? With a stronger France will Britain desire a stronger Russia as a counterweight? Austria certainly won't, but will want to nobble its own pieces of the Ottoman Empire.
 
Last edited:
By Indiana territory are we talking about as it existed in 1800 (i.e. Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan and Illinois) or just what would become the state of Indiana?
 
The yellow area on this map is what I intended. Any difficulties you see with that., let me know In 1812, according to the US census the area was incredibly scarcely populated.

Indianaterr.PNG
 
Last edited:
The yellow area on this map is what I intended. Any difficulties you see with that. In 1812, according to the US census the area was incredibly scarcely populated.

I don't see any difficulties in the British being willing to take it, I just wonder whether they wouldn't prefer to trade away the territory beneath the Wabash for territory bordering the great lakes .

In particular in the Minnesota region (where the Red River area was a mess with Rupert's land having claims on the old Indiana territory and territory south of the 49N line further west) and what would eventually become the Upper Penisula of Michigan.

It seems like the Maumee (I assume that is the border in between Britain and Ohio) - Wabash makes too good of a natural line to pass up.

The British are also likely to want access to the Mississippi (given then in the Treaty of Paris although geography wasn't accommodating) especially if they have southern access.

The long and short of it is that the border west of the great lakes is a mess (with the geography either being wrong or set to be negated by Britain taking Michigan) and if Britain has control of Mackinac and the Wabash then under a uti possidetis peace they can claim everything north and west of the Wabash(not they necessarily will).

The question of Maine also raises its head.
 
I could see Britain keeping Michigan and Wisconsin, but not Ohio/Illinois.
At this time it was popular for people, thousands of miles away, with no idea of the local conditions, to draw lines on maps.
Maybe they draw a line along the 42nd o. Or from Detroit/Niagara West
This then would be a natural for extending as Border questions arise.

Either way it will have a profound influence on the US westward Movement.

If the US got Florida from Joseph Bonaparte in 1810 [?What happened to Him?] there will be a lot different Greek Indian war.

West Florida applied for statehood in 1811, and was turned down because the US didn't want to upset, Spanish Ally Great Britain.
Here whe are already at war so that wouldn't apply.

With a more southern Influence I see more support for the 1810~1820 Filibusters in Texas,
This US will not accept Florida and the Sabine [Louisiana border] River, in return for giving up claims to Texas.

With Control of Haiti and other French Caribbean Islands, The US is going on a naval Expansion, in order to Control/Protect them.
 
Last edited:
I don't see any difficulties in the British being willing to take it, I just wonder whether they wouldn't prefer to trade away the territory beneath the Wabash for territory bordering the great lakes.

Quite possible. How about having a Border Commission established to work out the details that reports a couple of years later.

In particular in the Minnesota region (where the Red River area was a mess with Rupert's land having claims on the old Indiana territory and territory south of the 49N line further west) and what would eventually become the Upper Penisula of Michigan.

I'm assuming that is all British.

It seems like the Maumee (I assume that is the border in between Britain and Ohio) - Wabash makes too good of a natural line to pass up.

You're correct there - I think I'll make this the border.

The British are also likely to want access to the Mississippi (given then in the Treaty of Paris although geography wasn't accommodating) especially if they have southern access.

This should give it to them. They'll control the Upper Mississippi as well.

The long and short of it is that the border west of the great lakes is a mess (with the geography either being wrong or set to be negated by Britain taking Michigan) and if Britain has control of Mackinac and the Wabash then under a uti possidetis peace they can claim everything north and west of the Wabash(not they necessarily will).

So does saying the British are granted everything north and west of the Wabash - Maumee - Ohio - Mississippi line sound?

The question of Maine also raises its head.

Even though Britain played nicely with the New England states, I imagine the treaty is still not kind. I imagine it will be some way south of its OTL location, the 45th parallel as the border would be possible I suppose.
 
I could see Britain keeping Michigan and Wisconsin, but not Ohio/Illinois.
At this time it was popular for people, thousands of miles away, with no idea of the local conditions, to draw lines on maps.

This is true, but I think a border commission may sort it out.

Maybe they draw a line along the 42nd o. Or from Detroit/Niagara West. This then would be a natural for extending as Border questions arise.

As they have the mouth of Mississippi, they'll want northern access to it.

Either way it will have a profound influence on the US westward Movement.

Most certainly. Any ideas?

If the US got Florida from Joseph Bonaparte in 1810 [?What happened to Him?] there will be a lot different Greek Indian war.

The puppet regime in Madrid

West Florida applied for statehood in 1811, and was turned down because the US didn't want to upset, Spanish Ally Great Britain.
Here whe are already at war so that wouldn't apply.

As they claimed to be there at the invitation of what they recognised as the legitimate French government, they couldn't really annex the place. This would occur sometime in the next decade, I expect.

With a more southern Influence I see more support for the 1810~1820 Filibusters in Texas, This US will not accept Florida and the Sabine [Louisiana border] River, in return for giving up claims to Texas.

I imagine the US will be very interested in Texas, to squeeze the British out from in between it and Florida. They could well succeed as well, depending on British distraction. There could also be an earlier Spanish-American war possibly in nominal support of Mexican independance, that just so happens to result in ex-Spanish colonies being under US administration.

With Control of Haiti and other French Caribbean Islands, The US is going on a naval Expansion, in order to Control/Protect them.

Certainly.
 
So does saying the British are granted everything north and west of the Wabash - Maumee - Ohio - Mississippi line sound?

That gives them all of modern day Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, about 1/3rd of Indiana and a unknown amount of Minnesota (depending upon where the boundary is in that region).

That also means the British get sole possession of the upper lakes.

The line beyond that depends upon whether the British leave the beyond the Mississippi boundary to a commission latter on or decide to just draw a line along the 42N as suggested.

I would guess it looks something like this (slightly altered from something I already had).

portwarNA.png


Even though Britain played nicely with the New England states, I imagine the treaty is still not kind. I imagine it will be some way south of its OTL location, the 45th parallel as the border would be possible I suppose.

In OTL the British showed some inclination towards the Penobscot river as the new boundary.
 
With no Louisiana Purchase + the British in New Orleans, more like this:

portwarnasi5.png



Not that it'll necessarily stay that way, but with the Americans defeated at New Orleans and the British taking the remaining French North American holdings, I think it'll be like that immediately post war. It's worth noting that the concept that territorial continuity was essential for a country wasn't so certain at this point. A US that looks like:

portwarna2xz8.png


Might arise by the 1840s (obviously the Spanish possessions may be gone or different by then)

In OTL the British showed some inclination towards the Penobscot river as the new boundary.

Might as well put it there then.
 
Last edited:
With no Louisiana Purchase + the British in New Orleans, more like this:

I thought there was a purchase

"Later that year Napoleon sells (British occupied) Louisiana and the French Caribbean, including Haiti to the United States, realising they are doing him no good, and hoping to tempt the United States into the war."

Although I suppose since the US never pushes a claim the British could keep it.

Jefferson is going to look a right moron for buying it though and never being able to take receipt.

Might arise by the 1840s (obviously the Spanish possessions may be gone or different by then)

I doubt Britain would approve of letting Texas join the US, nor would they like the US making war on Mexico.

The very possibility of the OTL settlement of Texas seem to have dropped considerably with British territory in the way.

I would also guess that a number of Texans would be British instead of American and Britain would leap on the possibility of making it a protectorate.

I think the US is going to waste a decade fighting to keep Haiti from cooking off.
 
Hmm, Poland is more evenly divvyed up here- looks like Prussia even gets Warsaw back.

Maybe if revolutions similar to those of 1830 come around Poland manages to break away successfully due to less Prussian-Russian cooperation?
 
Interesting start but I have two questions:

1: Why didn't Napoleon get involved in Spain?
2:Why did Napoleon die?
 
Federalist resurgance.

What you might see, from an American domestic perspective, is a resurgent Federalist Party. An outright loss might cripple the Republicans for good. On the other hand, anti-British sentiment could limit the Federalists to New England only, or if the British push them too hard, end it altogether.
I paradoxically predict that slavery's going to be much less of an issue, at least temporarily, as the country will be very much focused on redressing their losses. Will the Brits try to abolish slavery in Louisiana? That might be part of how they lose it. I could see them creating seapoylike units out of the free blacks in the area as well.
Also, expect the Americans to look for allies against the British. The French let them down elsewhere so this may well mean...
(Cue the Imperial theme music)
Either Russia or Prussia.
 
I thought there was a purchase

"Later that year Napoleon sells (British occupied) Louisiana and the French Caribbean, including Haiti to the United States, realising they are doing him no good, and hoping to tempt the United States into the war."

Although I suppose since the US never pushes a claim the British could keep it.

Napoleon sells it after the British had already seized it, and the Americans went to war to try to enforce that claim. As they lost the war they had to admit they the purchase was invalid in the first place.

Jefferson is going to look a right moron for buying it though and never being able to take receipt.
Yep, although later generations pin the blame on Madison, Jefferson's reputation is also tarnished.

I doubt Britain would approve of letting Texas join the US, nor would they like the US making war on Mexico.
Both true. It does depend on how busy the British otherwise are. With the French Caribbean the US is in a substantially stronger naval position to intervene against Mexico.

The very possibility of the OTL settlement of Texas seem to have dropped considerably with British territory in the way.

I would also guess that a number of Texans would be British instead of American and Britain would leap on the possibility of making it a protectorate.
With settlement patterns disrupted, I'm lloing at something more like this:

portwarna3bs2.png


being the initial result of the US backed revolutions against the Spanish. After something like this:

1818: Ferdinand VII of Spain is deposed by conservatives, and replaced by his brother Carlos.

1820: In North America Mexican liberals try for independence, but aided by Mexican conservatives the Spanish suppress the rebellion. The United States bullies Florida from Spain in return for non-intervention, and a Treaty guaranteeing the borders of Spanish North America. Florida joins the United States as a state.

1833: There is an attempted liberal revolution in Spain. Spain descends into civil war between liberals and conservatives. Carlos' cruel and arbitrary regime had left him friendless in the courts of Europe, so he receives less support than he would expect. American filibusters support the various liberal rebellions which flare up.

1835: The first Mexican war begins between between the Empire of Spain and the United States, over American support for filibustering and rebellions in North and Central America.

1837: The Mexican war ends with the Treaty of Bermuda, imposed by the British. The United States gains Cuba, the remainder of Hispaniola, and Puerto Rico. The Confederation of the Rio Grande and the Republic of the Yucatan are recognised.

I think the US is going to waste a decade fighting to keep Haiti from cooking off.
Certainly true.

Hmm, Poland is more evenly divvyed up here- looks like Prussia even gets Warsaw back.

Maybe if revolutions similar to those of 1830 come around Poland manages to break away successfully due to less Prussian-Russian cooperation?
Possibly. I can't see the Poles having too much luck in the short term though. I suppose it depends on what the Austrians do.

1: Why didn't Napoleon get involved in Spain?
He did, it's just that the Peninsula War wasn't as successful as OTL, with the British busy elsewhere, in North and South America, so by 1812 the British hadn't won so complete a victory.

2:Why did Napoleon die?
Bad luck. Senior Officers in Napoleonic era had to get quite close to the field of combat, and at one of the Russian spoiling actions Napoleon was caught by a sniper or a stray cannon shell. Not likely but not impossible - senior officers died in such fashions in OTL. Alternately, the British finally managed to get an assassin to the right place at the right time...

What you might see, from an American domestic perspective, is a resurgent Federalist Party. An outright loss might cripple the Republicans for good. On the other hand, anti-British sentiment could limit the Federalists to New England only, or if the British push them too hard, end it altogether.
Quite possible. The Democratic-Republicans will probably fragment, and they may coalesce with those elements of the Federalists who desire a stronger centralised state, a Federal Army, etc. Seeing as how the militia from Federalist states was less than enthusiastic about contributing to the war, there may be cries of treason and the like, but the rebuttal will be that their opponents were simply stupid.

I paradoxically predict that slavery's going to be much less of an issue, at least temporarily, as the country will be very much focused on redressing their losses. Will the Brits try to abolish slavery in Louisiana? That might be part of how they lose it. I could see them creating seapoylike units out of the free blacks in the area as well.
That's true, the British will certainly ban slavery in Louisiana. I think that it would be more likely that there could be substantial British support for the Amerindians as buffers against American US, rather than supporting free Afro-Americans. If the US starts to expel Amerindian tribes from East of the Mississippi, I can see the British welcoming them into the British territories to the East. This is particualry true of those groups that had adapted to a European style economy. This would be consistent with their continued support for Tecumensh to the north. Of course, there will be pressure from settlers, but with the Southern Cone open to British migration, and the fact that the anti-progress Indian Nation to the north providing a far better target, the British may find it possible to manage a more peaceful integration of settlers. If the Indians retain title, and are able to lease land out on something approaching fair terms, then we could bizarrely end up with a British colony with an upper class of landowners with a substantial native component. For extra fun, I could have the Indian chiefs granted hereditary positions within His Majesty's North American Peerage - not very senior in the order of precenence, of course..

I think we could see more interest in things like the American Colonisation Society, due to the fear that the British would arm the slaves against their owners.

Also, expect the Americans to look for allies against the British. The French let them down elsewhere so this may well mean...
It depends. I don't think the US will necessarily harbor too much resentment, particularly as they have the poisoned chalice of the Caribbean to console themselves with.

A suggestion for the 1870s (not definite):

portwarna4ob3.png


The USA has spent itself on the acquisition and maintainence of a Caribbean empire, whilst the British have granted responsible government to the Kingdom of Canada (pink-ish), and the Kingdom of Alexandria (orange-ish). The Union of Nations along the Mississippi is still under more direct rule from Westminster, as the local elite (both white and Amerindian) still fears the US. The Confederation of the Rio Grande has drifted out of the American orbit, and into the Imperial German one over the years, but, bu contrast the Yucatan Republic has been annexed. After the discovery of gold a British backed Republic of California has been established (should I make it a Kingdom, with a a non-British price?). The Empire of Mexico still exists, ruled by a Bourbon King, after the Conservatives lost the Spanish Civil War and fled to the New World. It is a client of the Empire of France, which is making its presence felt in the Great American Game (between the British, United States, Germany, and France)
 
Last edited:
Outstanding questions I see:

How long will New Orleans remain British? I can't see them hanging on to it forever in the face of American expansion, but I do see it as a delaying factor.

Probably depends on the Us approach. If they try and improve relations and use the carrot they may be able to puchase it from Britain. Although could be difficult once the empire abolishes slavery. [May be earlier than 1833 in this scenario if it is related to an hostile US or black troops recruited from freed slaves played a part in the conflict]. If they try a land-grab, especially an early one british attitudes are likely to harden. Also if they start allowing settlement, similar to into Canada prior to OTL 1812, from the US after the removal of slavery it could establish a strong loyalits presence. As the small famers would possibly see their interests not being boosted by being transferred to the US and being griven out of business by compertition with large plantations. In that case you might just see whites, blacks and Indians at a lower than historical level of settlement all having a vested interest in maintaining the link with Britain.

Will peace in Europe survive in the face of a much stronger France? The government is in the hands of a divided Regency Council, will this encourage or prevent foreign adventures?
Depends on the exact balance. Some will possibly puse for glory in war while others seek to preserve the new dynasty, which could still be vulnerable with the Bourbons in the background. From Napoleon having a son when he died was that still with Marie Louise? Presumably you have avoided Bearnodettes involvement in Sweden? France will continue to be the major threat but could find its Italian lands increasingly a problem if nationalism starts growing there.

Germany is more evenly divided than OTL, and there are fewer states. How does this impact German unification?
Probably delay it, or at least any unification via Prussian military success. The lack of the historical 1813 war of liberation will reduce Prussia's prestige, as well as practical experience. Possibly even more importantly the markedly greater slice of Poland with both make Prussia less a clear 'German' state and complicate matters in terms of army recruiting especially. The sort of national identity the Prussian army had after 1815 is not going to be very easy with so many Poles in the population. Unless their left out of the army which would create problems of its own.


Italy remains within the French sphere of influence - and partially under direct French rule. Will Sardinia and Sicily seek foreign patrons as well? The British are distracted with colonial games, will be see a Austria seeking to extend its influence here?
Think Italian nationalism looks far less likely to succeed, at least in the near term. With sizeable Italian provinces of its own France is less likely to see the nationalists as allies. Probably have Sicily and Sardinia edging toward Austria while Naples allies with the French.

Russia has not made anything like its OTL gains. Will it look south, and what will happen come the Greek revolution? With a stronger France will Britain desire a stronger Russia as a counterweight? Austria certainly won't, but will want to nobble its own pieces of the Ottoman Empire.
I don't think Britain will look for a stronger Russia, especially with the resulting threat to Constantinople. More likely if concerns about the French power and behaviour to seek a central European alliance. Although Austro/Prussian rivarly in this could be a problem. Still I would expect higher Russian/Prussian tensions.

Interesting scenario Alratan. Love to see how it develops.

Steve
 
Probably depends on the Us approach. If they try and improve relations and use the carrot they may be able to puchase it from Britain. Although could be difficult once the empire abolishes slavery. [May be earlier than 1833 in this scenario if it is related to an hostile US or black troops recruited from freed slaves played a part in the conflict]. If they try a land-grab, especially an early one british attitudes are likely to harden. Also if they start allowing settlement, similar to into Canada prior to OTL 1812, from the US after the removal of slavery it could establish a strong loyalits presence. As the small famers would possibly see their interests not being boosted by being transferred to the US and being griven out of business by compertition with large plantations. In that case you might just see whites, blacks and Indians at a lower than historical level of settlement all having a vested interest in maintaining the link with Britain.

I agree with this. As I've said in my now edited previous post, the support of the substantial Amerindian (using that term as I could well start talking about sub-continental Indians in the same posts soon) populations that the US may soon be expelling could well be important. I'd not considered the impact that banning slave agriculture on the west bank of the Mississippi would have vis-a-vis support from settlers could have, although I'm not sure enough if its enough to prevent resentment of the British colonial authorities supporting the locals and forcing fair purchases/leases. Could and would the the tribes let out there land without it being seized, if the British need their support enough.

Depends on the exact balance. Some will possibly puse for glory in war while others seek to preserve the new dynasty, which could still be vulnerable with the Bourbons in the background. From Napoleon having a son when he died was that still with Marie Louise? Presumably you have avoided Bearnodettes involvement in Sweden? France will continue to be the major threat but could find its Italian lands increasingly a problem if nationalism starts growing there.

Yep, Benadotte, didn't fall out with Napoleon, and won the political battle fro control of the infant Napoleon II. This meant he did extract him from the hands of his mother, who is probably his main opponent on the council. Nationalism will be a problem in Italy, but I imagine the biggest initial problem is the mess the French economy is in and the casualties they have suffered.

Probably delay it, or at least any unification via Prussian military success. The lack of the historical 1813 war of liberation will reduce Prussia's prestige, as well as practical experience. Possibly even more importantly the markedly greater slice of Poland with both make Prussia less a clear 'German' state and complicate matters in terms of army recruiting especially. The sort of national identity the Prussian army had after 1815 is not going to be very easy with so many Poles in the population. Unless their left out of the army which would create problems of its own.

All very interesting points. It makes Prussia more like Austria, as only a semi-German power. I wonder how successful the Prussification programs would be

I was considering having the Austrians unify Germany into less centralised more federal Empire than OTL, with the various states retaining more reserved powers.

Think Italian nationalism looks far less likely to succeed, at least in the near term. With sizeable Italian provinces of its own France is less likely to see the nationalists as allies. Probably have Sicily and Sardinia edging toward Austria while Naples allies with the French.

I was considering having the Austrians gambling on supporting limited Italian Nationalism, and trying to break the Neapolitan-French alliance, detaching the Kingdom of Italy from France.

I don't think Britain will look for a stronger Russia, especially with the resulting threat to Constantinople. More likely if concerns about the French power and behaviour to seek a central European alliance. Although Austro/Prussian rivarly in this could be a problem. Still I would expect higher Russian/Prussian tensions.

Like in my earlier version of this TL, I'm considering having Britain miscalculate and create a super Germany. A more powerful Britain needs more powerful rivals.

Interesting scenario Alratan. Love to see how it develops.

Thanks
 
I read the TL as the British controling New Orleans and surrounding area [OTL state Louisiana] and the north of the Ohio /Mississippi Juntion.
In between is controlled by the US, under the purchase of Louisiana.

So by ~1820/2 Arkansas & Missouri [OTL 1821] enter the union,

Meanwhile Mexico is in Revolt against Bonaparte's government in Madrid. [As is the rest of Latin America]
The US steps in and With Support from Paris buys Texas/New Spain. and the Spanish claims above the 42nd [ie oregon]

Britain outraged arranges to send the Spanish King [?Carlos?], from His Exile in London, to Mexico City along with some British Ships and Troops.

So whe have King Carlos and the Mexicans controlling Southern New Spain [includes C Am]
The US controlling Texas/northern New Spain.
And the Yaqui/Apaches/Comanches controlling the centre.

In the Race to control the territory west of the Mississippi the US has a definite Population advantage
 
I read the TL as the British controling New Orleans and surrounding area [OTL state Louisiana] and the north of the Ohio /Mississippi Juntion.
In between is controlled by the US, under the purchase of Louisiana.
I'll clarify. The treaty had the entirety of the Lousiana purchase go to Britain. Without control of New Orleans the West isn't worth much, and keeping hold of the French Caribbean is much more profitable. Yes, this will cause trouble as American settlers cross the river.

So by ~1820/2 Arkansas & Missouri [OTL 1821] enter the union,
As above, no yet, they are still nominally British

Meanwhile Mexico is in Revolt against Bonaparte's government in Madrid. [As is the rest of Latin America]
Once again, I need to go back and clarify the Treaty of Frankfurt. The Bourbon's return to power in Spain at the end of the war, as the the British finally win the Peninsula war as the Marshall's in Spain take their troops home during the struggle for the Regency. This means that Ferdinand VII returns to power.

The TL I had sketched out goes:

1818: Ferdinand VII of Spain is deposed by conservatives, and replaced by his brother Carlos.

1820: In North America Mexican liberals try for independence, but aided by Mexican conservatives the Spanish suppress the rebellion. The United States bullies Florida from Spain in return for non-intervention, and a Treaty guaranteeing the borders of Spanish North America. Florida joins the United States as a state.

1833: There is an attempted liberal revolution in Spain. Spain descends into civil war between liberals and conservatives. Carlos' cruel and arbitrary regime had left him friendless in the courts of Europe, so he receives less support than he would expect. American filibusters support the various liberal rebellions which flare up.

1835: The first Mexican war begins between between the Empire of Spain and the United States, over American support for filibustering and rebellions in North and Central America.

1837: The Mexican war ends with the Treaty of Bermuda, imposed by the British. The United States gains Cuba, the remainder of Hispaniola, and Puerto Rico. The Confederation of the Rio Grande and the Republic of the Yucatan are recognised.
Producing an America more focused on southern as opposed to Western expansion.

So whe have King Carlos and the Mexicans controlling Southern New Spain [includes C Am]
The US controlling Texas/northern New Spain.
And the Yaqui/Apaches/Comanches controlling the centre.
Funnily enough, that's basically the way I had it, but with the Confederacy of the Rio Grande being an independent state in the same fashion Texas was. There would be significant pressure for annexation, particularly with the inflow of Anglo settlers, paired with the hostility to Britain that their territories on the West bank of the Mississippi served as a refuge for the Indians.

In the Race to control the territory west of the Mississippi the US has a definite Population advantage
As time passes they may gain one. However, if the US expels the Five Tribes on schedule, and the British invite them to the western bank, this influx could do a lot to even out the balance in the early days. Even if the area becomes American later, if the rights of the Amerindians were systematically protected for 20/30 years and so colonisation happened more in the way I suggest - i.e. leasing the land from the tribes (chiefs, anyway), it would produce major changes.

I'm unsure about what the precise status of affairs would occur around the old Indiana Territory. Given the details of the war, and greater British success, its likely that neither Isaac Brock nor Tecumseh died, and that the latter would be would be looking to the former to keep their promises. I imagine that some form of Indian Protectorate would be cobbled together under British oversight. This could be where the concept of leasing comes through, seeing as Tecumseh was opposed to further land sales. I'm assuming the Prophet has been discredited by this point, so Tecumseh may be amenable to persuasion on modernisation in the style of the Five Tribes.

It's worth noting that due to the earlier start of the War, the Creek War (and the massive forced purchases of land in its aftermath) probably didn't occur. This means that the US still needs to organise itself to break the Creek Nation, but this time when the Creek have the British at their back (and possibly running guns to them). In the aftermath of Creek defeat, this could well be one of the mass migrations that help the British demographic west of the river.
 
Last edited:
The British are going to be on California like white on rice once gold is discovered (if not before), take the Transvaal as an example.

The Californians are going to have to stay under the British skirt to a great deal, to the point where there is only a superficial difference between them and their neighbours to the north (especially with the dastardly French to the South and the Germans to the East).

I would think the British and Americans are going to have problems over the issue of escaping slaves.

With a stronger southern hand do we see less protective tariffs and thus less northern Industry and immigration (especially with New York no longer being the gateway to the interior)?

That in addition to no Californian gold and no Midwest wheat exports is going to give the US economy further problems.

What about sectoian differences?

Does the US manage to cheat fate and avoid a civil war over slavery, tariffs, military expansion (I doubt the North likes the slave territory in the Caribbean and military costs to protect it) or state Vs central authority?
 
The British are going to be on California like white on rice once gold is discovered (if not before), take the Transvaal as an example.

That's certainly true. I'm thinking of having very substantial East Asian immigration onto the West Coast, due to the lack of a transcontinental railroad.

The Californians are going to have to stay under the British skirt to a great deal, to the point where there is only a superficial difference between them and their neighbours to the north (especially with the dastardly French to the South and the Germans to the East).

Careful/lucky playing off the Great powers is likely the only reason for an independent California.

I would think the British and Americans are going to have problems over the issue of escaping slaves.

Certainly. Plus, the British could cause much trouble by recognising some of the Indian Nations as sovereign, and giving them arms in return for receiving favourable leases on territory west of the river.

With a stronger southern hand do we see less protective tariffs and thus less northern Industry and immigration (especially with New York no longer being the gateway to the interior)?

Less tarrifs, but not none. The south needs to pay for the navy and army required to hold down the ex-Spanish and French Caribbean territories.

That in addition to no Californian gold and no Midwest wheat exports is going to give the US economy further problems.

All true. However the Caribbean is very profitable in this era, which helps offset this. The US is also likely to develop as more of a maritime and trading power.

What about sectoian differences?

Well, I've penciled in diverting the Irish Catholic colonists to Argentina, and the German Catholics to the Confederation of the Rio Grande. This will reduce the tensions. On the other hand, with less of a perception of an empty continent to fill, given more difficult Indian Wars and the Mississippi line acting as a barrier, it could still present problems.

Does the US manage to cheat fate and avoid a civil war over slavery, tariffs, military expansion (I doubt the North likes the slave territory in the Caribbean and military costs to protect it) or state Vs central authority?

The mutual hostility to Britain could damp these issues. If anti-slavery becomes presented as unpatriotic - the British being implicated in supporting slaves and refusing to return runaways, for example. The slavery issue does have to be resolved. The experience of Haiti may make fear of salve revolt rise, and encourage the USA to try and remove the slave problem. More attempts to send freed slaves back to Africa, etc. With the north relatively smaller than the south, and no new free states available, the matter will eventually rise to a head. With Cuba as a state or two, the Yucatan as a state, Hispaniola as a state, the rest of the American Caribbean as a state, then the North may be at a permanent disadvantage in the Senate. In this circumstance could we see a war of Northern succession, with the northern states fed up of paying for a large Federal Army and US Navy for the protection and control of a slave holding south and Caribbean.
 
Top