WI USNA and post-British CSA

Eurofed

Banned
One scenario idea I've cherished for possible not-so-near future TL development (see here for a previous discussion of the topic) is the following:

PoD 1: Britain keeps both Florida and Cuba after the French and Indian War.

PoD 2: Quebec and Nova Scotia side with the American Revolution, while South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Cuba remain loyal to Britain.

After the ARW, North America is split between the USA (Canada, New England, Mid Atlantic, Upper South) and British Southern America (Deep South, Cuba, British West Indies), with a border at the 35° parallel. NFL remains British as well.

The USA (let's assume for clarity it picks the 'United States of North America' name ITTL) goes down an evolutionary path quite similar to OTL, except it gets to be much more Federalist and progressive: slavery is abolished in the 1790s (slaves are sold into BSA), there is much more investment into internal improvements, etc.

The BSA develops into the planter slaveocracy we all love to hate (Loyalists and the Civilized Tribes merge together, except the Seminoles that get wiped out due to their antislavery attitudes).

There is a *War of 1812, fought about the ownership of the Louisiana Purchase, besides the usual US complaints (blockade, impressment, etc.), which results into a moderate US victory (Federalist influence ensures a much better prepared US military). The USNA gains the Tennessee Valley, Rupert's Land, Columbia-Oregon, northern Louisiana Purchase (down to the Arkansas River-Canadian River line), and free shipping rights on the Mississippi River and in New Orleans.

Butterflies in Europe leave the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars otherwise untouched, but result either in the victory of Napoleon (defined as "Napoleon destroys Austria and Prussia, binds France, Germany, and Italy into a united empire, and forces Britain and Russia to recognize his hegemony in Western-Central Europe") or in the victory of the 1848 Revolutions (with creation of Greater Germany, Italy, and Hungary, although it is everybody's guess whom unifies Germany).

The influence of BSA planter interests (and quite possibly, butterflies from the victory of Napoleon) on the British Parliament results into the ultra-conservative Tories remaining entrenched into power during the 1830s, and stalemating reforms like abolition of slavery, the Great Reform Act, and the Catholic Relief Act. This causes a Chartist revolution in Britain and an insurgency in Ireland in the 1840s. The former entails at least several months of severe political instability and infighting, if not downright civil war, between moderates and radicals, like 1848 France. It is not a quick, seamless regime change as in 1688.

The BSA slaveocrats react to revolution in Britain and the threat of abolitionism by staging a successful war of independence, while the UK is still busy with domestic trouble in the British Isles. They create the CSA, with the benevolent neutrality if not quite possibly the active support of the USNA, which, due to the *War of 1812, deems the destruction of British power in North America more important than antislavery moral scruples.

Soon afterwards, the USNA and the CSA make an alliance against Mexico, the USNA gets California, Nevada, Utah, western Colorado, and Baja California, while the CSA gains Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Sonora, Chihuahua, Neuvo Leon, Tamaulipas, Sinaloa, Durango, and San Louis Potosi. The western USNA-CSA border is established on the Colorado River. The USNA buys Alaska from Russia, while the CSA exploits its foothold in the Mosquito Coast and filibustering to annex Nicaragua, Honduras, and Costa Rica. Rump Mexico and Guatemala (that grabbed Belize during the collapse of BSA) merge for protection from CSA expansionism. I'm not sure whether NFL and Guiana would stay British or be absorbed by the USNA/CSA.

Butterflies in South America result into the survival of Gran Colombia and the Peru-Bolivia Confederation, and Argentina keeping Banda Oriental (AKA Uruguay) and Misiones Orientales.

This has the quite interesting result of creating a classical "CSA victory" geopolitical scenario, with a Canada-Northern US progressive USA and a Deep South-Caribbean-northern Mexico conservative CSA slaveocracy, by means that do not entail the humiliation of the USA, which keeps the Upper South, or a lasting USA-CSA hostility.
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
World map, ca. 1850. It assumes that butterflies in Europe follow the "Napoleonic victory" path. At the moment I have no clear idea of what a victorious Napoleonic Empire would do of the Ottoman Empire, although I do assume that Greece would find its way to independence, one way or another.


sowmqs.gif
 
Last edited:
Some nice ideas, but there is massive instability in the model:

This would leave Britain cut off from India, a situation that they are not going to allow for long. They would need to ensure that either a sea route or land route was availble without having to go thru French territory. I am assuming that the Royal Navy was unable to defeat the French or to hold the Continential blockade, so they would probably form a close alliance with Russia.

The other option would be to build their own Panama canal 50 years before the American did it in OTL.

Secondly why did Napoleon stop in Poland, would he not have invaded Russia in 1812? It may well be that you need to extend the French Empire to the Urals, taking in all of continental Europe.

In OTL Greece was shown support by the European Powers in their fight for independence, who would support them in this scenario? If France then why didn't they just invade from Hungary and drive the Turks off the European continent?
 

Eurofed

Banned
This would leave Britain cut off from India, a situation that they are not going to allow for long. They would need to ensure that either a sea route or land route was availble without having to go thru French territory.

How so ? What's stopping the British from keeping a link between the British Isles and India (and Indonesia) the usual way, the Atlantic-Indian Ocean route ? It is true that Napoleonic victory cuts them off from the Med, but the Suez Canal won't be built for a while. Admittedly Nap. Europe could build it earlier than OTL. It is also true that in a generation or two, as Nap. Europe industrializes to outmatch Britain, it may easily outbuild the UK in the naval field.

I am assuming that the Royal Navy was unable to defeat the French or to hold the Continential blockade, so they would probably form a close alliance with Russia.

Almost surely. Admittedly, I have not yet fully thought out the ways and means of Napoleonic victory (one reason I have not yet done this TL), but I assuem that once Napoleon defeats Russia, it can throw its individed attention to Iberia and kick the British out, and then Britain would be sooner or later forced to sue for peace (more so if it got a bloody nose in North America, too).

The other option would be to build their own Panama canal 50 years before the American did it in OTL.

From what I read, the Nicaragua/Panama transoceanic canal cannot be really built before at least dynamite becomes available (the Suez Canal is another matter entirely, Iron Age civilizations could do it). My default assumption is that the USNA would annex Panama (or even whole Gran Colombia) one way or another and build the Panama Canal, while the CSA would build its own canal in Nicaragua. Admittedly, since the CSA would most likely lack the economic capacity to do the canal itself, it is more likely that it would task Europe or Britain to build the Nicaragua Canal on its territory.

Secondly why did Napoleon stop in Poland, would he not have invaded Russia in 1812? It may well be that you need to extend the French Empire to the Urals, taking in all of continental Europe.

As OTL shows, united Europe still lacks the resources to pull a total conquest of European Russia in 1812. By late Victorian times, it would be another matter entirely.

My basic assumption is that Napoleon would still declare war to Russia, but then take an initial defensive stance in Eastern Europe and destroy a few Russian armies, then invade Russia through the Baltic route with the support of allied Scandinavia (he puts the Danish king on the throne of Sweden) and inflict final defeat to Russia near St. Petersburg.

The map assumes that Napoleon gives a lenient peace to Russia, asking for recognition of his Franco-German-Italian empire, its Polish and Hungarian vassals (with Poland set up out of Austro-Prussian Poland, minus West Prussia of course), and Finland to Scandinavia. A harsher peace is of course quite possible, by which Russia would give back Latvia-Estonia to Scandinavia, and restore the 1795 or 1793 Russo-Polish border. Anything more than that, I deem, is unfeasible, since 1812 Europe has not yet the economic and technological means to stage an in-deoth invasion of Russia.

In OTL Greece was shown support by the European Powers in their fight for independence, who would support them in this scenario? If France then why didn't they just invade from Hungary and drive the Turks off the European continent?

As I said, my ideas about the fate of the Ottoman Empire in a Napoleonic Europe are far from fully fleshed out. It may easily be that Napoleon, or his son, kicks the Turks out of Europe, it would entirely be within his capabilities. The map made the tentative assumption that after winning in Russia and Iberia, an aging Napoleon would dedicate his last years to entrench the empire, and do the liberal reforms he planned to. Someone (Nap. Europe, Russia, or both in a temporary alliance of convenience) would eventually liberate Greece. But it also may well be that Napoleon liberates the Balkans and conquers Constantinople as his last war. It would entirely be within his mindset and abilities.
 
Last edited:
My default assumption is that the USNA would coqnuer or peacefully absorb Gran Colombia and build the Panama Canal, while the CSA would build its own canal in Nicaragua. Admittedly, since the CSA would most likely lack the economic capacity to do the canal itself, it is more likely that it would task Europe or Britain to build the Nicaragua Canal on its territory.

I would ask you to clarify your assumption about why the USNA would conquer Gran Colombia.
 
I struggle to see Britain getting into a war against the US in 1812 when they no longer have any real holdings in the America from which to fight from.
 

Eurofed

Banned
I struggle to see Britain getting into a war against the US in 1812 when they no longer have any real holdings in the America from which to fight from.

The war between the US and the UK occurs in the 1800s-1810s when the Deep South, Cuba, and the British West Indies are still British. They make their own war of independence in the 1830s-1840s.
 

Eurofed

Banned
I would ask you to clarify your assumption about why the USNA would conquer Gran Colombia.

Yeah, I should have expressed that point better. OK, if some other power builds a transoceanic canal in Nicaragua, the US shall be most eager to build another one under its control in Panama. The USNA also may or may not be interested to establish its own strategic foothold and do some expansion in the Caribbean beyond that. If Gran Colombia does not turn out friendly, they may forcibly separate Panama and annex it by means similar to OTL (why they went for the whole Canal Zone shenanigan instead of simply annexing whole Panama is beyond me). OTOH, if the US turns out friendly with Gran Colombia, it might peacefully buy the area, but it is also quite possible that the US might peacefully annex Gran Colombia (this multicultural and less racist US shall have less qualms with admitting a few Catholic-Hispanic states), by means similar to the ones I wrote in USAO (US support to Gran Colombia during its war of independence and/or early nation-building -> Pro-US attitude of Colombian elites -> US protectorate on GC -> Texas-like peaceful annexation).
 
Last edited:
The war between the US and the UK occurs in the 1800s-1810s when the Deep South, Cuba, and the British West Indies are still British. They make their own war of independence in the 1830s-1840s.

Yes, very stupid of me. I was getting confused between your scenario and another thread I was reading at the same time. How likely do you think it is the slave colonies will rebel against the people they are selling the vast bulk of their products to?
 
How likely do you think it is the slave colonies will rebel against the people they are selling the vast bulk of their products to?

Given that rebellions are caused by 1 of 3 things (political power, money and lack of food) I think it highly unlikely, given that the British would have learnt their lesson after loosing the North, and I think doubily so if they were humiliated by the French.

If we could alter the TL to keep the South British then I can see this working.
 
Can I point out just how difficult it would be to convince Quebec and Nova Scotia to side with the Americans ARW?
 

Eurofed

Banned
I might suggest you read Glen's superb 'Dominion of Southern America' TL. It deals with a POD very much the same as this.

That TL (indeed excellent), which I'm following, is where I got original inspiration, although I strived to make the scenario different in several ways:

- DSA puts the Upper South under British rule; here it is part of the USA.
- In DSA, the *War of 1812 is averted, the USA and the UK ally against France and remain on friendly terms afterwards; here the war happens, and the USNA wins it (although it is not a decisive victory) and the two powers rermain somewhat antagonistic afterwards.
- In DSA, Napoleon is defeated and Britain has a political evolution much like OTL; here Napoleon wins and Britain stays ultraconservative, and eventually has a revolution as a consequence.
-In DSA the British suppress the Slaver Rebellion; here it is successful.
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
Given that rebellions are caused by 1 of 3 things (political power, money and lack of food) I think it highly unlikely, given that the British would have learnt their lesson after loosing the North, and I think doubily so if they were humiliated by the French.

Please don't forget that ITTL the Slaver Rebellion happens because Britain is in the throes of revolution, and the planter elites fear the takeover of abolitionist left-wingers. As long as the ultra-conservative Tories stay into power, the slaveocrats are quite happy (and indeed their influence is one of the reasons the ultra-Tories stay in power so long ITTL). When revolution inevitably happens if the British political system is locked into ultra-Tory stasis, they rebel for fear of losing their privileges.

As for why the Slaver Rebellion is successful, well Britain is suffering revolution at home and an insurrection in Ireland, and the rebels have US support.

If we could alter the TL to keep the South British then I can see this working.

I'd prefer not to do it, for various reasons.
 
World map, ca. 1850. It assumes that butterflies in Europe follow the "Napoleonic victory" path. At the moment I have no clear idea of what a victorious Napoleonic Empire would do of the Ottoman Empire, although I do assume that Greece would find its way to independence, one way or another.

Shameless France wank :D.




However, why do you always use the absolute oldest blank maps? Use the new, good ones!
 

Eurofed

Banned
Yes, very stupid of me. I was getting confused between your scenario and another thread I was reading at the same time. How likely do you think it is the slave colonies will rebel against the people they are selling the vast bulk of their products to?

They can have the reasonable expectation from the example of US history that before too long their diplomatic relationship with Britain shall normalize and they can resume normal trade as an independent country.

Moreover, ITTL the USNA and Napoleonic Europe shall industrialize quicker than OTL, so they shall be available as alternative secondary markets.
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
OK, how did Newfoundland remain British? I would think it goes to the USNA.

I do not find it any reasonable for the USNA to win NFL at the peace table in the *Peace of Paris. I'm honestly uncertain whether it would be plausible to happen in the *Treaty of Ghent or not. Same stance as it concerns Guiana going to the CSA or not. I welcome reasoned suggestions.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Can I point out just how difficult it would be to convince Quebec and Nova Scotia to side with the Americans ARW?

No, you can't. ITTL the ARW PoD happens because Carleton, which IOTL did an helluva lot to keep Quebec loyal, is the governor of South Carolina, and strives to keep the South (which was the most pro-British section of the 13 colonies anyway) loyal to the Crown, successfully lobbying the British Parliament for favorable terms for SC and Georgia (extemption from the Intolerable Acts and stuff). Quebec instead gets an anti-Catholic governor that harasses and antagonizes the locals, pushing them to rebelliousness. So the Parliament votes a repressive version of the Quebec Act, which extends the manifold legal penalties and discriminations that Irish Catholics suffer to North America. The Act also awards Ohio Country to Hudson's Bay Company, which mightly pisses off all the colonies, including Nova Scotia.

If this satisfies your reasonable doubts about the PoD, fine. If you instead happen to be one of those Canuck nationalists that disbelieve the feasibility of US-Canadian union under any circumstances, please leave this thread alone.
 
Last edited:
Top