Unmanifest Destiny - A tale of the Nootka Sound War of 1790 and it's aftermath

[Buba]

If the territory is divided up as it was historically (no combining east Minnesota with Wisconsin for example) the ratio would would be 10 Slave States to 15 Free States

Your math is better than mine

Once the states which in OTL ended slavery do this, I can only imagine the excitement over Delaware thinking about emancipation
If I understand the US political system correctly, two-thirds versus three-fifths makes a difference?

Hmm - would Maine become a state here, or would the South say "no"? The general setting is somewhat different ...

Even if such a mega-BNA does not develop at OTL pace, this still should extend the period when GB was the world's superpower in the 19thC (and could be to this day).

I wonder if such a stronger Britain might continue its aloofness from Continental matters for longer?

 

[stevep]

Oh, so @stevep, you're imagining it happening earlier, like sometime between 1804 and 1812? It would "complicate matters for everybody". Whose situation would get more complicated? Meaning would the US (a younger nation) or the UK (with more Napoleonic fighting ahead of it) suffer more from the early start and have more to lose? How would an Anglo-American war be likely to end if it starts between 1804-1809, and there's still several more years Napoleonic Wars and maritime provocations to go? Could a peace last?

I have played with several scenarios which see longer or more frequent Anglo-America wars. A lot of my ideas come from a TL I played with, with a POD of 16th Jan 1809 but I also thought of an idea where the US decide to go to war in 1803/04 shortly after Napoleon and Britain resume their conflict. Can't remember the initial trigger for that but its the other obvious time when the Us may think its got a chance with Napoleon dominating Europe and still with a powerful fleet which restricts British naval power considerably. This gives them more time before a Britain which is more concerned about invasion and also hasn't built up the military to the same extent. On the other hand the western parts of the US are less developed and the Indians stronger and assuming something like Trafalgar and Austerlitz still occurs it means that Britain has a greater reduced threat of invasion but that with the defeat of the other continental powers there's little hope for intervention on the continent so there's the chance of sending an army to beat back the yanks and 'teach them a lesson' for their attack so it could end up in a multitude of ways.

There's been alot of discussion so far in this thread of Anglo-American conflict evolving in a way where the USA perhaps wins Florida, and perhaps loses territory in the north (Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, maybe the whole northwest, maybe Maine, take your pick).

I get where this is coming from. Florida sticks out like a sore thumb, or some other dangling piece of anatomy. It's swampy and malaria ridden without great freshwater sources. Meanwhile the northwest territory/Michigan are around the core of developing Upper Canada settlements and the St. Lawrence, providing a buffer, and populated with some allied Amerindians.

On the other hand, the same factors that make Florida unattractive, make it hard for the Americans to pacify. The Americans took forever to win their wars agiainst the Seminoles and needed to pension off their chiefs as part of the surrender deals. Florida is arguably a buffer of sorts for New Orleans, the Bahamas and the rest of the Caribbean and is susceptible to Britain's superior navy.

Also, depending on how much Anglo-American wars involve campaigning in the south or the British try to gain a moral advantage and tactical advantage with anti-slavery policies, see the comment here...

I can see the point your making and agree that local Indians and freed Negros could well be very useful additions to the 'British' population and local defence forces. Both in this period and after the ending of slavery in the Caribbean there might be multiple incentives for freed slaves to move to the southern parts of BNA where they might be offered land in return for loyalty.

However I suspect its more likely to be in southern Louisiana - in its original form rather than the much smaller later state - than Florida. Would expect the latter, or at least its western reaches to be likely to fall to the US in a war because both the southern states are fairly near with markedly larger populations and control of the mouths of the rivers and ports are so important for developing the land further north, OTL Alabama and Mississippi. Britain and the US are going to contests New Orleans and the delta because of its vital importance to both sides but western Florida is far more important to the US - or at least its settlers in those regions, than to Britain. Naval superiority is going to make any threat to the British Caribbean colonies from the US minimal, especially assuming that Britain ends slavery some time before the US as that means no blacks in say Jamaica are going to welcome US invasions, especially from the south, other than with lead and steel.

As such while Britain might hold all of Florida as well as Louisiana - or at least the vital southern parts - the most likely to fall to the US would be western Florida. Britain might hold the peninsula as its less valuable to the US due to its marshy nature but assuming they can't take New Orleans the western part of Florida is the prime target they are likely to get.

...Florida and southern Louisiana may end up as big refuges for escaped slaves (and Amerindians) rallying to the British banner. Britain might feel a moral commitment not to give that sanctuary up.

At it's most extreme, in a super-escalated war of 1812 or follow-on war, I could imagine British forces conducting a "Sherman's march" through Georgia and the Carolinas that ends slavery there and leads to an exodus of slaves and practical end of slavery there, whether or not the British permanently occupy any extra territory. Freedmen could serve as cheap farm labor or herdsmen for the British in Florida, Louisiana, or Texas.

In the TL I mentioned above, while the US has Louisiana Britain has obtained Florida - albeit my argument here could be chancy - and after an equivalent to Pakenham in an attempt at taking New Orleans the commander defending Florida is desperate for manpower and possibly rather liberal so he looks anywhere he can. Free blacks and escaped slaves are initially used largely as labour source but after a massacre or two of blacks who had aided the British or simply been in areas overrun by US forces he is more than willing to use them in a military role and they earn the respect of a lot of men.

In the final stages as the war turns increasingly against the US there are raids/marches into Georgia and S Carolina, especially once the north is secured and the main army is able to operate with him and a lot of slaves who aren't dragged off by their owners are freed. Which further heightened tension but as things get more difficult the US eventually concede.

The US does better in the next war, in the 1840's when Britain is seriously threatened by a Bourbon France that for a while becomes the dominant power in Europe again as they regain some land in both the north and south - including most of Florida apart from the southern 2/3s of the peninsula.

If the territory is divided up as it was historically (no combining east Minnesota with Wisconsin for example) the ratio would would be 10 Slave States to 15 Free States

1) Delaware 2) Maryland 3) Virginia 4) North Carolina 5) South Carolina 6) Georgia 7) Kentucky 8) Tennessee 9) Mississippi (shrunken) 10) Alabama (shrunken); 1) Pennsylvania 2) New Jersey 3) New York 4) Connecticut 5) Rhode Island 6) Massachusetts 7) New Hampshire 8) Vermont 9) Ohio 10) Indiana 11) Illinois 12) Maine 13) Michigan 14) Wisconsin 15) Minnesota

That would be interesting. Not as bad for the US if they lost much of the old NW and/or New England as it will mean that free states - as slavery largely disappears from the northern states - will still outnumber old ones. However if Britain holds Louisiana and points west tension over land inside the US as well as with the UK will increase so any clash over the issue might come sooner.

Indeed, this is a very interesting aspect to speculate upon. I truly wonder how the society of Spain internally, and the Spanish overseas empire would develop if it is able to be left alone in neutrality and not torn apart by wars, invasion, the peninsula war, and the independence wars from 1793 to the 1820s. Would it be staunchly conservative, or would it develop an indigenous form of liberalism or of prosperous, conservative sophistication?

One off-the-wall idea I imagine is that the economy continues to develop, modern ideas continue to spread, the empire remains an intercontinental behemoth, but the institutions remain stubbornly inadequate and backward, stunting the development of a responsible parliament and middle class body politic, even as the industrial revolution stirs. The Spanish Empire comes to resemble another massive reactionary empire with an increasingly alienated working-class, peasantry, and intelligentsia- Russia. When the right external and internal shocks hit the Spanish empire in the late 19th or early 20th century, the Spanish Empire becomes the world's first Socialist Revolutionary state.

A hell of a lot could happen with Spain depends on how it develops. If it manages to avoid any real involvement in the Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars then its got a good period of peace and stability, plus possibly some opportunity to make economic gains while everybody else is butchering each other. However the question would be how good is its leadership as it seems to have been pretty dire in this period.

Also while it is likely to hold its American colonies longer if this is just via greater military strength and oppression that is only delaying the inevitable. It would need some way of incorporating colonial communities and interests rather than just being organised for the peninsula Spanish but can it do that, especially since that would mean power increasingly crossing the Atlantic.

I could see longer wars for independence but can't see Spain really holding on to the mainland much beyond ~1850 unless they greatly improve their economic and social organisation and especially their interaction with the colonists. Could see something like a soclalist/communist Spain possibly appearing sometime in the late 19thC as the burden of trying to maintain dominance becomes too much and you get a major and drastic revolt against the more reactionary elements.

I highlighted the scenario I had in mind behind the map. Basically, British aggressiveness towards Spain forges a consensus in France that suspends the revolution in it's tracks and puts constitutional disputes on ice, while the French Army and Navy are still in an organized state. This saves Louis' head and Lafayette's political power as the National Assembly votes for war in solidarity with Spain, and calls upon America to honor her alliance.

The still formidable French fleet rendezvous successfully with the Spanish fleet and makes for the Americas. Despite reluctance and some temporizing and then trying to use the situation to gain concessions from Britain peacefully, when this doesn't work in a timely manner, the United States breaks off negotiations and relations with Britain. Austria and Russia join the anti-British coalition, then finally the USA joins in.

The USA sucks at fighting, but it serves as a great resupply and tactical base for the Spanish and French fleets and French troops. The USA, with some French aid, gradually builds up some skill to be able to eventually beat some northwest Indians, and occasionally wins some privateering victories.

The French and Americans do a joint invasion of Canada, where the French based out of New York and New England do almost all the work. The Americans would have preferred to get all of mainland Canada or at least half, but with their poor performance relative to the French, their claim is weak.

The Franco-Spanish-American-Austrian-Russian coalition is successful at pinning down the Anglo-Dutch-Prussian Triple Alliance, mainly through fleet operations that force the British to guard the channel and force the British to try to protect the Caribbean and Canada.

The result is that in Europe, there's not much cross border movement - neither the Prussians nor the Austrians nor Russians take big risks. In North America, the Spanish hold all their own territory and vindicate their Pacific Northwest claims. The French succeed in crossing the St. Lawrence and conquering upper and lower Canada, New Brunswick, and contesting Nova Scotia. They are greeted with acclaim in Montreal and Quebec by the Canadiens.

At the peace settlement, the French gain back Quebec/Lower Canada, lesser populated Upper Canada, the Hudson't Bay region for good measure and extra security, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia (renamed Acadia). The exception in Canada is that the Americans demand and get all the islands upon the Great Lakes and the Ontario/York peninsula, south of the Ottawa river. Britain retains Newfoundland.

OK that's bad for Britain but quite possible with some good management by the alliance and poor moves by Britain. It basically means that Britain learns nothing from its errors in the US revolution and the parallel events in Europe. One problem is that the loyalists, having already fled the US have nowhere to do now unless their prepared to travel quite a distance. [No Draka please!!]

The California gold and the Nevada silver are big deal. I think that the California, Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Alaska oil are an even bigger deal long-term.

Thankfully for small U.S. industry, if it keeps its full 1783 borders, the Mesabi Iron Range and other iron ranges of Minnesota are almost entirely within the northeast corner, east of the Mississippi.

That's one of the reasons why Michigan and points west, which could easily be lost in a war with Britain are so important as there's a lot of mineral wealth as well as good land. Even apart from the impact it has on the slave/free balance.

I did read once that there was a hell of a lot of mineral wealth in the west other than the gold and silver of California and Nevada and it played an important part of funding of the development of the eastern industrial states so without them this might be delayed. The most interesting thing I remember was that the gold of the Black Hills dwarved just about everything else in the US for about a century. Very low density so by the time they ended extraction they had pretty much leveled the hills. Again never heard of this elsewhere so don't know how accurate this was.

If Britain owns the west, especially if its mainly concerned with protecting the border lands from American encroachments then such resources might be delayed some time in their development/exploitation of course.

Anyway a lot of ideas being raised here.

Steve

 

[stevep]

Your math is better than mine

Once the states which in OTL ended slavery do this, I can only imagine the excitement over Delaware thinking about emancipation
If I understand the US political system correctly, two-thirds versus three-fifths makes a difference?

Hmm - would Maine become a state here, or would the South say "no"? The general setting is somewhat different ...

Even if such a mega-BNA does not develop at OTL pace, this still should extend the period when GB was the world's superpower in the 19thC (and could be to this day).

I wonder if such a stronger Britain might continue its aloofness from Continental matters for longer?

It would depend of course on relations between Britain and the BNA and also political and social development, including economic policy in both and other areas. Unless it leads to an imperial federation, which would increasingly see its centres of power move to BNA - although the political centre might be London until the present day - I can't see 'Britain' still being the primary superpower.

Such a stronger Britain is still going to be very involved on the continent because until the rise of the US OTL and later locations such as Japan,and later China and India Europe is where the centre of military and economic power is. As such its the only region that could threaten 'Britain's' position and of course events on the continent could pose a threat to the British Isles. With the greater economic resources of a vast BNA behind them, even if the population there was less interested in military events in Europe they might even be more involved, both in Europe and also around the rest of the world.

Of course one clear down-side to this greater power is that when pressure for decolonisation comes up you're likely to see a more powerful ruling elite reluctant to give up colonies so that could lead to a longer and more destructive decolonisation.

 

[raharris1973]

I'm not sure that, other factors aside, slavery would last longer in the smaller US. You would have the same conflict between slave and free labour interests and they might come even earlier if there's no expansion west of the Mississippi to release some land conflict pressure.

However if Britain holds Louisiana and points west tension over land inside the US as well as with the UK will increase so any clash over the issue might come sooner.

You have mentioned a couple times the idea that with less territorial expansion the Slavery-Freedom conflict comes to a head *sooner* in America than OTL as if expansion westward served to *relieve* sectional tension and pressures over the issue.

I don't think I agree. I'm inclined to the more traditional view that expansion, and arguing over whether new territory would be slave or free, *raised* slavery and sectional tensions and accelerated the rift and formed the platform for the Republican Party, Lincoln's victory and the Civil War. If U.S. borders are limited and fixed earlier, territorial issues and futures are much more predictable, and can be managed to keep parity or a reasonably close balance, and less tension should build up.

I admit, slavery expansion versus free soil in new territories was not the *only* salient political question around slavery. There would still be fugitive slave laws and personal liberty laws to argue about. I just don't know if that issue alone would ever be enough to cause a secession crisis, or if, or when, a party could eventually emerge to sweep the north and scare the south running on an abolitionist platform.

We would definitely have to take a different path to any American Civil War that does happen. In theory it could be a shorter one than OTL's, but it would take some skilled creative writing for me to be convinced.

I have played with several scenarios which see longer or more frequent Anglo-America wars.

Have you ever posted any of them here or on other online forums, they sound very interesting and impressive.

 

[stevep]

You have mentioned a couple times the idea that with less territorial expansion the Slavery-Freedom conflict comes to a head *sooner* in America than OTL as if expansion westward served to *relieve* sectional tension and pressures over the issue.

I don't think I agree. I'm inclined to the more traditional view that expansion, and arguing over whether new territory would be slave or free, *raised* slavery and sectional tensions and accelerated the rift and formed the platform for the Republican Party, Lincoln's victory and the Civil War. If U.S. borders are limited and fixed earlier, territorial issues and futures are much more predictable, and can be managed to keep parity or a reasonably close balance, and less tension should build up.

I admit, slavery expansion versus free soil in new territories was not the *only* salient political question around slavery. There would still be fugitive slave laws and personal liberty laws to argue about. I just don't know if that issue alone would ever be enough to cause a secession crisis, or if, or when, a party could eventually emerge to sweep the north and scare the south running on an abolitionist platform.

We would definitely have to take a different path to any American Civil War that does happen. In theory it could be a shorter one than OTL's, but it would take some skilled creative writing for me to be convinced.



Have you ever posted any of them here or on other online forums, they sound very interesting and impressive.

I must admit I've too lazy to make the effort. Used to hand write pages of stuff for my own amusement. Did start the 1809 POD TL on AH probably about 15 years ago, IIRC it was called Red, Blue and Green or something like that but got very little done. Plus as I've got older I've been less willing to put in the work to make a fully coherent TL. Spent far too much time gaming on the computer nowadays, or responding to discussion.

That T-L in brief has General John_Moore survive his OTL encounter with a cannon ball and hence escaping with his men after the victory at Corunna. This means we have two high level generals - alongside Arthur Wellsey, later Duke of Wellington - which has some butterflies. Moore serves as the actual commander - with the Duke of Kent being the titular commander - during the Walcheren_Campaign which means that its somewhat more successful with the capture of Antwerp prompting the destruction of the ships Napoleon was having constructed there and also a quicker withdrawal rather than trying to hold the island and losing a lot of men to malaria.

Also IIRC I had the Battle_of_Wagram lasting a day longer, making it harder fought and a harsher treaty with Austria leading to Hungary being hived off. I think I had Napoleon impose his brother Louis on that throne, moving him from the Netherlands where he was unhappy that Louis seemed more concerned with the needs of his people than Napoleon's desires. The prime results of this is a strong reaction to modify Austria but also to be more careful hence when things fall apart for Napoleon in 1812/13 - albeit with a different path here - Austria is a bit latter entering the fray.

The 1810-11 French attacks on Portugal see Napoleon himself lead larger forces than OTL but being unable to get past the Lines_of_Torres_Vedras, despite some very bloody assaults. This means that French losses are markedly heavier due to both frontal assaults and the stravation and other privations the French face camped in the resultant wasteland during the winter before Napoleon returns to France and French withdraw. The rest of 1811 sees allied forces [British & Portuguese] recapturing the key border fortresses, doing better as Wellington is the commander at the Battle_of_Albuera.

1812 is when things spark off. Napoleon starts a major new war in the east - NOT an invasion of Russia and British forces build on their successes in Spain with the destruction of one of the French armies and a campaign meant to manouver the French out of Spain.

When news of the US attack on Canada reaches London Wellington, who had been with an army in the south of Spain is ordered with 3 divisions to Canada. he's actually operating to clear the south by the time news reaches him but this causes the curtailing of that campaign.

1813 - Massive fighting in eastern Europe with Prussia, aided by Russia at the centre of it and many defections or low moral by especially German elements of the French army. Austria enters the war against Napoleon who is increasingly beleaguered, especially since Germans and Russians are fighting very hard. One step is to make peace with Spain, restoring the Bourbon Monarchy in return for it leaving the war and insisting that British and Portuguese forces leave the country.

In N America Wellington is sent to Upper Canada, replacing the dead Isaac Brock - Wikipedia - would have loved to have kept him alive. However most of his reinforcements are taken by George_Prvost, the governor of Lower Canada who makes an unsuccessful attack down the Lake Champlain route - which I think was OTL. However with an extra unit which includes member of the elite Light Division Wellington does better on the western reaches.

More noticeably he is in command during the Second_Battle_of_Sackets_Harbor rather than Provost leading to a clear victory and the capture of the bulk of the American naval force on Lake Ontario, winning control of the Lake for the foreseeable future. This prompts some jealously from Provost and ultimately Wellington's recall to London, where however he is cleared over the affair.

1814 - In Europe the imperial forces collapse after several months of bitter fighting, with a British/allied force under Moore playing some role in the final stages, having been landed in NW Germany and linking up with the Swedes and some local German princely forces. You get a result somewhat similar to OTL with Napoleon sent to exile in Elba. However some differences with Hungary staying independent, albeit under a local king. Austria as well as gaining much of N Italy to block French expansion there regains its Adriatic lands and also annexes Bavaria, the latter's monarch being move to become king of Tuscany. Prussia also gains land along the Rhine and is pressing for the annexation of Saxony while Russia gets most of Poland.

In N America one result of the Spanish withdrawal from the war was that as compensation for this action they pass Florida to Britain and Britain now sends forces to defend it. Initially under Pakenham with General Rowland_Hill as his number 2, but they are largely on the defensive as most of the Indians who have opposed US expansion have already been crushed.

1815 - In N America Pakenham makes his OTL assault on New Orleans with the same result, Which leaves British forces in the south very hard pressed and Hill starts recruiting black troops.

In the north fighting continues with some British reinforcements helping to hold the line against continued US attacks and launching successful attacks on Washington and Baltimore under Moore. Since they still hold a good chunk of the old NW the US is reluctant to make peace and lose that land, Then news comes, 1st to peace negotiators in Antwerp and then the US of Napoleon's return to power and then his defeating of Prussian and British lead forces, the latter leading to the death of its commander Ernest_Augustus, Duke of Cumberland
and the remains of the force under his deputy Wellington withdrawing into siege at Antwerp and awaiting reinforcements.

This prompts the US to decide to step up efforts with the intent of raising major new armies so that the following year they can launch concerted attacks on Canada via three routes and also overrun British resistance in the south.

The Hartford_Convention still takes place, motivated by unrest in New England against the war although Jackson's victory at New Orleans seems to make it a dead letter. However the determination of Madison to continue the war leaves it a factor and the New England states continue to refuse to support the war.

Unfortunately for the US Napoleon's resurgence is based on fragile support and he is reliant on a core of volunteers which makes their quality high but their numbers limited. Many of those were already casualties of the heavy fighting and an attempt to impose conscription in the occupied parts of the Netherlands [including modern Belgium here] prompts massive opposition. While Prussia is largely spent Russian and Austrian forces are arriving in numbers and Britain has started moblizing more men who had been demobilized after the previous war ended. As such in fighting in July-Sept his forces are worn down and support crumbles. Napoleon himself dies after a last attempt to mobilize the mob in Paris leader to bitter fighting.

Earlier in April however the Mount_Tambora eruption has occurred. The ash cloud from this event is thought to be the reason for the very bad weather across much of the world in 1816, famously called the year without a summer.

The final operations by Napoleon and support he gained, at least initially, means as OTL a harsher treaty for France. Saxony is annexed to Prussia and its ruler becomes the king of Lorraine - which includes the old provinces of Lorriane and Alsace - not the 1870 territories. Also given the failure of the Netherlands to defend the southern Netherlands and to boost Prussia as it is exhausted by the war but wanted as a check on France it gains all of Germany west of the Rhine along with the former southern Netherlands - OTL Belgium which at the time was the most industrially advanced region outside Britain.

1816 - The US attacks in the north are fortunately faced sequentially as with the poor logistics of the western ones and greater distance to travel, plus British control of the Lakes General Moore is able to move forces westwards to face each attack. The biggest attack is down the Lake Champlain route which is defeated after bitter fighting but also due to a collapse of American logistics which means that the US forces have to retire in great disorder.

This is to have dramatic impacts as some in the withdrawal flee west of the Lake, i.e. into Vermont. Initially there is some sympathy for the desperate men due to their dire condition but the region itself, not the richest has already been badly affected by the extreme weather which means they have nothing to spare for the refugees. However some of the forces are unwilling to accept this along with accusation of treason being made against the Vermontans for their lack of support for the war. Several clashes, some fatal occurs and looting starts worsening when some forces get hold of alcohol. Ultimately large scale fighting sees many killed by the Vermont militia. This and the hanging of some looters causes outrage in turn in Washington. there are demands for action against the militia units and the governor for the 'murder' of the soldiers.

Ultimately the US is only able to send relatively small forces against the state and the latter is added by volunteers from other New England states and politically supported by their leaders.

Moore is able to move west with some of his forces to join in the defeat of the thrust against the Niagara defences then again further west to the smallest force seeking to look through Michigan territory into Ontario. Control of the Lakes not only means British forces are able to move forces but also and more importantly probably supplies by water while also stopping the Americans doing the same. The western force is largely destroyed after units are landed in its rear cutting off its retreat and forcing a surrender.

In the south a hard pressed Hill is pushed out of much of Florida but the much greater numbers of US forces but hostility between the two sides are worsened further by the frequent abuse of captured black British soldiers and in one case two white officers who complain against this.

1817 - With New England in pretty much open revolt Britain makes a defensive agreement with it and supports their militia in defeating new American attacks. Also for much of the summer Moore and his main force operates against the south with landings at Savanna and Charleston to aid Hill's defence in the south. Later he joins Hill and a campaign through southern Georgia sees the British free many slaves, most of who quickly flee into British territory.

1818 - This year sees the siege and surrender of New York in the north and the liberation of western Florida before the final American capitulation and a peace settlement signed in Havannh in August. Britain gains most of the old NW region as an Indian protectorate - since the US refuses to accept the validity of any Indian state. It sees the borders of Florida recognised and also of an independent New England.

In 1819 the western border of the two nations is agreed as reaching along the 45th parallel to the Pacific.

Well I meant a quick summary but that rather grew.

There is a 2nd war in the 1840's with some American success gaining most of Florida and much of OTL Indiana and Illinois, in part because Britain is seriously pressed by a powerful Bourbon France which at one stage looks like it might overrun most of southern England and does end up with most of Ireland as a satellite kingdom along with Spain and much of western N Africa under its control. Parallel wars see Prussian attempts to challenged Austria defeated and Russia ending up in charge of most of the Ottoman empire.

Britain gains some revenge in the 3rd conflict in the 1860's when its not distracted by events in Europe, not only regaining the lost territories but also much of the Pacific coastline of California, which had been annexed by the US after a war with Mexico.

Anyway that's the guts of the TL, from what I can remember along with a few wiki links.

Steve

 

[raharris1973]

However I suspect its more likely to be in southern Louisiana - in its original form rather than the much smaller later state - than Florida. Would expect the latter, or at least its western reaches to be likely to fall to the US in a war because both the southern states are fairly near with markedly larger populations and control of the mouths of the rivers and ports are so important for developing the land further north, OTL Alabama and Mississippi. Britain and the US are going to contests New Orleans and the delta because of its vital importance to both sides but western Florida is far more important to the US - or at least its settlers in those regions, than to Britain.

As such while Britain might hold all of Florida as well as Louisiana - or at least the vital southern parts - the most likely to fall to the US would be western Florida. Britain might hold the peninsula as its less valuable to the US due to its marshy nature but assuming they can't take New Orleans the western part of Florida is the prime target they are likely to get.

I can respect your arguments here. Maybe London might consider New Philippines/Texas to be the ideal territory in their North American holdings for American freedmen or black refugees from Anglo-American wars, they could keep it named as is, or call it Freetown or Liberia or something. It's probably still an underdeveloped frontier where crops for food and cash that this population knows how to grow will still work, others can take up cattle herding, the real estate is not as precious as in New Orleans, it's possible to get there in several weeks hiking or riding or short boat trips, but it removes tension and causes for cross-border raids by *not* being right on the border with the USA's slave states.

"Welcome to the new neighborhood; it's a nice place, kind of like where you're from, but with no masters to answer to; you'll have some neighbors to meet though, they're called the Comanche."

 

[ATP]

I can respect your arguments here. Maybe London might consider New Philippines/Texas to be the ideal territory in their North American holdings for American freedmen or black refugees from Anglo-American wars, they could keep it named as is, or call it Freetown or Liberia or something. It's probably still an underdeveloped frontier where crops for food and cash that this population knows how to grow will still work, others can take up cattle herding, the real estate is not as precious as in New Orleans, it's possible to get there in several weeks hiking or riding or short boat trips, but it removes tension and causes for cross-border raids by *not* being right on the border with the USA's slave states.

"Welcome to the new neighborhood; it's a nice place, kind of like where you're from, but with no masters to answer to; you'll have some neighbors to meet though, they're called the Comanche."

Comanche created quasi-state called Commancheria,so they would probably not provoke british.And raid only spaniards.

 

[stevep]

I can respect your arguments here. Maybe London might consider New Philippines/Texas to be the ideal territory in their North American holdings for American freedmen or black refugees from Anglo-American wars, they could keep it named as is, or call it Freetown or Liberia or something. It's probably still an underdeveloped frontier where crops for food and cash that this population knows how to grow will still work, others can take up cattle herding, the real estate is not as precious as in New Orleans, it's possible to get there in several weeks hiking or riding or short boat trips, but it removes tension and causes for cross-border raids by *not* being right on the border with the USA's slave states.

"Welcome to the new neighborhood; it's a nice place, kind of like where you're from, but with no masters to answer to; you'll have some neighbors to meet though, they're called the Comanche."

I would suspect that freemen would gravitate more towards Louisiana than Texas. The climate is similar to what their been used to and there's more opportunity for employment in both agricultural and small scale business while the Mississippi provides much easier access. Plus depending on the date and exact circumstances I suspect that many British interests, possibly especially those in the region would prefer them boosting the economy and the defence potential of this region rather than being several hundred miles further west. Its still going to be vulnerable to US pressure, especially if Florida was lost. Especially since once slavery is banned in the empire I can see some British, as well as the former slaves already there, being happy to upset the Americans by aiding slaves who manage to cross the river. "Sorry mate, we don't have slaves here. Now go back home!" It would all depend on how relations are with the US and also how capable and willing the colonial authorities would be to basically drive blacks westward. Note that after slavery ends the majority of such British subjects would quite possibly be former slaves from the Caribbean looking for better economic opportunities.

Definitely agree there's going to be clashes either way. Given that elements in the south were willing to kidnap free blacks and force them into slavery and that also your going to have the position of British boats on the river being reached by escaping slaves there's plenty of opportunities, not to say certainties of clashes. Would be interesting for a group persuing an escaped slave to find themselves running into the local security forces, which might be largely from the local black peasant farmer community.

There are likely to be moves into the Texas area - never realised it was called New Philippines at one time - and probably blacks and possibly some of the French settlers might be among them but how they would get alone with the locals would be difficult to tell. However I think it would be a lower priority area if we go with your initial suggestion that Britain gains all Louisiana and other areas in the west. More likely if Britain only holds a small region around the delta of the river as less scope for people to find employment there.

Of course this ignores what happens with the local native population as frankly I don't know enough about the people in the region.

 

[raharris1973]

This is the original poster, contributing an additional idea to the thread.

I have a new map - updating this world for circa 1825



The centerpiece of the new map is it shows how the "nestled nation" of the USA's territories were all subdivided into states by 1821 in matched pairs of "Free" and Slave" states to ensure an evenly matched balance of Senators between both kinds of states.

[Note- the internal subdivisions of pink, British North America, aka British Columbia or "Canada" are not correct per the timeline. Regarding other aspects of the map and timeline, I have retconned or by authorial fiat decided that the Peninsular War and Spanish American Wars of independence have happened, and by 1825 we have the first Mexican Empire in existence, as well as the Republic of Gran Colombia. Hayti rapidly took of the Republic of Spanish Haiti around this time.]

With expansion north, west, and south blocked by British North America, it was relatively easy to figure out a way to subdivide the overmountain west into even numbers of free and slave states, resulting in 12 states of each kind in the Union by 1821, with 24 Senators each. However it required certain changes from OTL, and certain inter-regional distortions to reach this goal, given the larger population and larger land area of free states and territories.

Basically, for slave states to keep up with free states in number, natural frontier expansion was not enough, territory needed to be subdivided from existing slave states, starting with Westsylvania, from parts of Virginia and Kentucky, in 1812. When the old northwest and old southwest states were admitted, the northwest states needed to be "long and tall" with the lower peninsula of Michigan's counties and Detroit included in Indiana, and the whole of remainder national territory, that in OTL became Michigan's upper peninsula, Wisconsin, and northeast Minnesota, becoming additional counties of Illinois when that state was admitted to the Union. Illinois is a true mega-state in this TL, sort of the "California" of this version of the USA.

They were "balanced" in the Senate, by truncated versions of Mississippi and Alabama, lacking their southern halves and Gulf Coasts which are part of British Florida.

When Mainers could no longer abide rule from Springfield Mass., it was no simple matter to grant them separate statehood, as that, once more, threatened to give the free states a two Senator edge. To balance the admission of Maine, fortunately, the Monroe Administration and Republican Party leaders were able to work with the Governors and legislators of North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia, to allow their fairly discontented mountain counties to form the new slave state of Franklin, preserving the balance.

With that, the structure of the Union seemed fixed for generations, perhaps perpetuity.

The United States has international agreements to permit its free commerce along the St. Lawrence river, the Mississippi and the port of New Orleans, and the Floridian ports of Mobile and Biloxi and Pensacola.

However, it is still interested in maximizing use of sovereign infrastructure. In this era, it mainly means canals and turnpikes. This is what the emergent Whig Party is all about, "internal improvements". Before them, even members of the Jeffersonian - lineage Republican Party who adopt the adjective "National" voice support of such project.

The most important and consequential project is the Erie Canal linking the Midwest with the Hudson river.

Another one is the C&O canal.

With rail technology in its infancy, interest in canals will also spread to the south, surprisingly increasing Whig support there. This sensitivity of southern states like Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi to have canal access to the navigable rivers of the Atlantic via canal networks substantially increases when the British Empire abolishes slavery in 1833, which the south sees as a hostile act, and a potential harbinger of British controlled ports not being reliable.

Politicians of the National Republican or Whig variety win some victories, even in the deep southwest, in some of the years of the 1830s, out of support for internal improvement projects to link local river networks via canal to river networks flowing into the Atlantic, and to some turnpike projects, out of a desire to avoid total reliance on British goodwill for exportation of the south's cash crops.