I was wondering about this one. Would British America's expansion necessarily include all of the lower 48 from OTL? What would cause a war with Mexico and subsequent annexation of California and the Southwest? I'm guessing that once the inevitable next war with France comes around the Louisiana Territory is annexed, the main question is whether or not the Southwest/Cali/Texas becomes British American?
Would British America include all the Continental US?
- Thread starter Don Draper
- Start date
David S Poepoe
Banned
If you want to write a story like 'The Two Georges' than yes. As a writer you can do whatever you wish. It is historically possible and improbable.
-Britain would take New Orleans and subsequently the entire Louisiana territory in the next war with France or Spain (bound to happen).
-Britain will control the Oregon territory by default. There is no independent U.S. to haggle with.
-The treaty that the U.S. had with Spain over the northern border of California will be butterflied away. I think Spain and Britain adjust this border eventually. It would be much less favorable to Spain due to it dealing with a stronger nation. So, perhaps half of the California territory goes to the British. It is considered mostly wasteland in 1819 anyways.
No, it won't control ALL of continental U.S., but it would control most of it IMO.
-Britain will control the Oregon territory by default. There is no independent U.S. to haggle with.
-The treaty that the U.S. had with Spain over the northern border of California will be butterflied away. I think Spain and Britain adjust this border eventually. It would be much less favorable to Spain due to it dealing with a stronger nation. So, perhaps half of the California territory goes to the British. It is considered mostly wasteland in 1819 anyways.
No, it won't control ALL of continental U.S., but it would control most of it IMO.
I think at least some of the Southwest would stay Mexican ITTL. I think they'd grab the Louisiana Territory at some point, and would get the Oregon Territory. Something interesting would be Britmerican Norcal and Mexican SoCal. What could bring that about?
If Mexico keeps all or most of its OTL American territories, what is the effect on Mexico?
What is Alaska's fate? Does it stay Russian?
I'm guessing a British Hawaii is in the cards ITTL.
If Mexico keeps all or most of its OTL American territories, what is the effect on Mexico?
What is Alaska's fate? Does it stay Russian?
I'm guessing a British Hawaii is in the cards ITTL.
In my own Britain crushes the war of independence timeline, Britain doesn't take all of OTL's continental US. The Napoleonic Wars sees Britain and France fighting in North America as well as Europe, the settlement afterwards sees Louisiana north of the Missouri being ceded to Britain. South of the Missouri, Louisiana remains French, although Britain controls the Mississippi and occupies New Orleans (though it remains French). As in OTL, Anglo-French relations improve and Britain and France end up becoming strong friends and Allies. In fact, the Entente Cordiale occurs earlier, helped by Napoleon IV's marriage in 1885 to Princess Beatrice, daughter of Queen Victoria.
Britain then aids Mexico in Iturbide's uprising against Spanish rule. As a result, Mexico wrests all of Central America from Spain (apart from the Mosquito Coast which is British) and turns them into states of the Mexican Empire. Furthermore, the Mexicans desire an empreror from one of the ruling houses of Europe, and naturally they turn to the House of Hanover. Augustus Frederick, younger brother of George VI is crowned Emperor Augusto Frederico I of Mexico. The British alliance and Hanoverian emperor means that Mexico becomes quite a powerful, modern nation with a lot of British influence. Therefore the OTL US states of Californina, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas as well as parts of Utah, Colorado and Oklahoma remain Mexican.
The rest of OTL lower 48 US states form the provinces of the Confederation of British America, along with pretty much all OTL Canada and the Bahamas.
As for the other two US states, Hawaii is a Viceroyalty of the British Empire, the Hawaiian monarch acting as a Viceroy/vassal to the British monarch.
Alaska remains in Russian hands until the early 20th century, when it declares independence during 'the war of 1915'.
Basically, like David S Poepoe, it depends on your scenario, you can conjour up all sorts.
Britain then aids Mexico in Iturbide's uprising against Spanish rule. As a result, Mexico wrests all of Central America from Spain (apart from the Mosquito Coast which is British) and turns them into states of the Mexican Empire. Furthermore, the Mexicans desire an empreror from one of the ruling houses of Europe, and naturally they turn to the House of Hanover. Augustus Frederick, younger brother of George VI is crowned Emperor Augusto Frederico I of Mexico. The British alliance and Hanoverian emperor means that Mexico becomes quite a powerful, modern nation with a lot of British influence. Therefore the OTL US states of Californina, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas as well as parts of Utah, Colorado and Oklahoma remain Mexican.
The rest of OTL lower 48 US states form the provinces of the Confederation of British America, along with pretty much all OTL Canada and the Bahamas.
As for the other two US states, Hawaii is a Viceroyalty of the British Empire, the Hawaiian monarch acting as a Viceroy/vassal to the British monarch.
Alaska remains in Russian hands until the early 20th century, when it declares independence during 'the war of 1915'.
Basically, like David S Poepoe, it depends on your scenario, you can conjour up all sorts.
Probably about right. Couldn't comment on California, don't know enough about it.
hmm...interesting. Mexico gets a bit richer, but the northern areas stay largely depopulated. The UK, trying to rein in the American colonists' aggressive expansionism, would probably preempt them by buying up large tracts, moving the British North America boundaries closer to RL, but probably not buy all of OTL USA. So this may not mean much.
I think Russia is still going to decide it's unprofitable eventually, and get rid of it. I can't see anyone else being interested in buying it, but the period they get tired of the expense could determine what happens to it; if British relations with Russia are frosty then they won't sell it. I can't see the British wanting to conquer it because of its remote and far-north locality, but I'm really not sure. I'm pretty sure at any rate that it won't provoke a war, though it may get involved in a war started in Europe.
Probably, yes, but I'd say only as a protectorate. By and large the British weren't interested in dethroning local rulers and or otherwise doing what the Americans did with Hawaii. More likely they'd eventually sign an agreement at the hint of Russian or French interest to form a protectorate and give the UK control of Hawaii's foreign relations. Moving a Resident in, trading a bit with the islands and perhaps a few private citizens settling in the area for business reasons would likely be the extent of British involvement. I see Hawaii as being rather more like OTL Tonga than, say, New Zealand or OTL US Hawaii.
It is a fact to consider that the colonists were quite expansionist. I'd think that in addition to Norcal, maybe Nevada, Utah and Colorado go Britmerican.
If Russia is on bad terms with Britain they won't sell them Alaska, and who else will there be to sell it to? No one really.
TTL could see them hanging on to Alaska until gold is discovered(how would a Russian Alaska affect that discovery btw?) after which point they'll want to keep it I think.
The Brits will want naval bases in Hawaii too I imagine as part of their protectorate. However there's no major white settlement there ITTL.
How does the lack of a Monroe Doctrine affect colonialism in the Americas?
If Russia is on bad terms with Britain they won't sell them Alaska, and who else will there be to sell it to? No one really.
TTL could see them hanging on to Alaska until gold is discovered(how would a Russian Alaska affect that discovery btw?) after which point they'll want to keep it I think.
The Brits will want naval bases in Hawaii too I imagine as part of their protectorate. However there's no major white settlement there ITTL.
How does the lack of a Monroe Doctrine affect colonialism in the Americas?
If the U.S. remained under British control, settlement of the west would likely be slower and more orderly. After all, Britain sought to limit western expansion prior to the Revolutionary War, and in Canada it attempted to set up government infrastructure before, not after, settlers arrived.
So while Louisiana and Oregon are givens, I don't think any of New Spain/Mexico would necessarily be taken at all. After all, unlike the U.S., Britain would have to consider the European ramifications of annexing a chunk of Mexico - would France be after some as well, or expect a greater chunk of India as compensation?
Of course, a war could end up happening, but if it did, British settler colonies in Mexico are unlikely to be the ultimate cause, and Britain, not facing the same concerns of manifest destiny and national honor as the U.S., very well might just settle for Texas and the best regions of California.
So while Louisiana and Oregon are givens, I don't think any of New Spain/Mexico would necessarily be taken at all. After all, unlike the U.S., Britain would have to consider the European ramifications of annexing a chunk of Mexico - would France be after some as well, or expect a greater chunk of India as compensation?
Of course, a war could end up happening, but if it did, British settler colonies in Mexico are unlikely to be the ultimate cause, and Britain, not facing the same concerns of manifest destiny and national honor as the U.S., very well might just settle for Texas and the best regions of California.
As many have said, anything is possible in this regard.
I have a minor point:
The present northern border of California (and Nevada and part of Utah) represents an agreement between Britain and Spain to settle the boundaries of their claims in 1790, before the US became party to the Oregon condominium. The line represents a pretty good division between rivers that flow south, toward the American River system and into San Francisco Bay, and those that flow northwards into the Columbia river system. If Britain and Spain are at peace, such a line could well become some sort of border TTL.
I have a minor point:
The present northern border of California (and Nevada and part of Utah) represents an agreement between Britain and Spain to settle the boundaries of their claims in 1790, before the US became party to the Oregon condominium. The line represents a pretty good division between rivers that flow south, toward the American River system and into San Francisco Bay, and those that flow northwards into the Columbia river system. If Britain and Spain are at peace, such a line could well become some sort of border TTL.
British America would not be the whole Continental US. Southwest US and Alaska would be Spain and Russia.
One thing to factor in: whilst it IS true Britain will regulate expansion in some form, the USA had a far larger population than any of the OTL dominions and thus will be much harder to rein in. Look at what happened just with the problems of the 1763 Proclamation! By the time of the Mexican War the American population will only be that much bigger, and that much harder to control, and will have probably won some form of self-government/regulation/right to see to national affairs that affect it directly. The government of the Americans will want the right to expand as much as the OTL USA did to meet the needs of a growing population.
Remember also the harbors of San Francisco and San Diego are pretty valuable, were recognized by Anglo-Americans for their value even when Mexico was New Spain, and the Americans in 1848 purposly moved California's border southward to snag San Diego.
So whilst the exact borders will definately not be the same as reality, to hold a nice large chunk of the southwest is very likely. Eschaton put it best: Texas, most of Northern California, and the chunk of land between their boundaries. The extreme southwest, not as much.
------
As for Alaska, remember by the time of the Alaskan Purchase only 500-700 Russians actually inhabited the territory. Russia's claims to it will only grow weaker unless some exodus to the colony happen. Perhaps even captured by Americans as their local version of the Crimean War, I do not know.
------
I only urge to remember that by the 1840s in OTL Canada already had much self-government. The Americans will have likely already had it or some right to external affairs by now with its larger territory and much larger population that was already used to self-government and even local warfare (witness Louisbourg's siege in Queen Anne's War) with the traditional salutary neglect-don't think that 'America stays loyal to Britain=forever directly dependent on Westminster'. I think that's becoming a cliche...
Remember also the harbors of San Francisco and San Diego are pretty valuable, were recognized by Anglo-Americans for their value even when Mexico was New Spain, and the Americans in 1848 purposly moved California's border southward to snag San Diego.
So whilst the exact borders will definately not be the same as reality, to hold a nice large chunk of the southwest is very likely. Eschaton put it best: Texas, most of Northern California, and the chunk of land between their boundaries. The extreme southwest, not as much.
------
As for Alaska, remember by the time of the Alaskan Purchase only 500-700 Russians actually inhabited the territory. Russia's claims to it will only grow weaker unless some exodus to the colony happen. Perhaps even captured by Americans as their local version of the Crimean War, I do not know.
------
I only urge to remember that by the 1840s in OTL Canada already had much self-government. The Americans will have likely already had it or some right to external affairs by now with its larger territory and much larger population that was already used to self-government and even local warfare (witness Louisbourg's siege in Queen Anne's War) with the traditional salutary neglect-don't think that 'America stays loyal to Britain=forever directly dependent on Westminster'. I think that's becoming a cliche...
Well, France only controlled Mexico for a brief period, and their chances of holding it aren't likely to increase much ITTL. Moreover, any attempt to buy land off the 2nd Empire of Mexico won't be through France, France set up the Empire as a kind of French-orbit state but Mexico would retain the right to determine such. At any rate, the British would not trade part of India, not for the whole of Mexico. It's not that Mexico wasn't worth it, it's just that they would never be able to justify handing the hated French (or anyone else but particularly the French) even a tiny part of such a vital and important colony.
Bingo. The Aranda Plan basically allowed all of the Viceroyalties independence assuming they at least accepted the Spanish King as their overall Head of State; it is not illogical to think something like that could happen in their world. And that's even assuming the cliche of 'America stays loyal to Britain=Spanish colonies stay loyal to Spain'.
The Spanish American lands might revolt and become fully independent themselves. It feels to me in the end it's more deciding the exact southwestern border in detail roughly around the Gila River/Rio Grande areas, not if all of California/Texas/New Mexico/Nevada stays Spanish/Mexican.
Napolean could not defend Louisiana against the Brits, hence the sale, he knew he'd lose it anyway. Especially with the British next door ITTL. So Florida would still be British, but the British could throw Spain's claims to Oregon down the still very young toilet, and the British would probably aid any Mexican Rebellion in exchange for a load of land for themselves.
In reality, would they really have to? A Britain with North America could probably demolish whatever troops are in Spainish North America, I don't know if they'd take all of Mexico, even up to California, but I would expect the British to take all of Spain's Carribbean possessions, and maybe some expansion around Berlize, though I don't know much about Berlize so it may not have had the power to do so.
Why would a Mexican Empire have a European Emperor, that only happened later on OTL because it was forced on them by an invading army? The ITTL First Mexican Empire was led by a Mexican, but fell apart almost straight away.
Alaska would probably go to Britain ITTL, the Russians had no use for it and sold it OTL, ITTL they wished to start a bidding war between Britain and the US, with no US, and no really need/willpower/desire/capital/use for expansion, they'd probably just sell it to Britain.
Britain would probably possess most of the territory of the modern US. How well it is populated, is a question I can't begin to answer.
The OTL First Mexican Empire ended up with Iturbide as Emperor largely because Spain and Ferdinand VII opted not to take the role. Furthermore, the other European houses didn't offer up candidates because they were largely supportive of the Spanish Monarchy and didn't want to encourage the revolutionaries. This left Iturbide free to give himself a way to get the throne. Whether he was deadset on this is uncertain. IMO, if Spain had aquiesced to dispense with a free prince of the blood (perhaps Infante Francisco), then Iturbide is free to act as Richelieu to his Louis XIII. Also, the OTL First Mexican empire included central America.
I am aware it inluded Central America, for the whole year in which it existed, before they broke away and tried to 'pull a pennslyvania' (as I term it) and become a US clone. Why would the Spanish monarchs and European houses act any different ITTL?