Welcome to the party, my friend!
Thankee.
You have written a most interesting variant to the evolution of North America, one that to my shame I was mostly oblivious so far (but no more). In some way, this is a rather more satisfying and "natural" solution to the dualities inherent in BNA than OTL, putting the section with the plantation economy and the one with with a trading-manufacturing and intensive agricultural vocation all in the same political entity.
I do not Quebec to keep its seigneural character for long anymore. Industrialization and immigration should hit it with full force soon, now that canals are developing its economic links with the Atlantic states.
Of course, this division shortchanges the southern blacks. The slaveocracy has got its ideal state, without the trouble of a secession, and the blacks have got little hope of emancipation in the foreseeable future.
BSA is not going to take British attempts to free the slaves peacefully, even admitting that abolitionism manages to break the lobby wall of Kings Cotton & Sugar.
If London tries, it is going to find a second Rebellion on its hands. Of course, this may well be the way slavery might be dealt with, Britain playing the role of the Union, suppressing the rebellion, ending slavery forcibly
and conceding Dominion autonomy as compensation.
OTOH, if most of the Caribbean goes in BSA, we can expect it to get a much better outcome than OTL.
In many ways, I think that this USA got much the better deal in the change, it has got plenty of valuable land
(and under American rule Canadian states shall get much more developed and populous than OTL)
without all the problems that the South brought (slavery, ACW, segregation, economic backwardness, religious right...).
So I fully expect this USA to become even more of a powerhouse than OTL.
OTOH, it ought to develop in some different ways, without the ACW is going to remain more decentralized (without the 14th, much less federal oversight on state powers).
And without the conservative South, US political system is going to be much more akin to OTL Canada.
By the way, the Deist Awakening is a very welcome touch. At last an America without the fundamentalist loonies, where religion may be friendly to science and social liberalism.
As it concerns the future fate of Texas, personally I'm much in favor of a breakout, with California going in the USA and Texas proper in the BSA.
This would fulfill the different geopolitical vocations of both sections.
I'm also in favor of some form of Mexican-BSA war allowing the BSA to gain at the least the Rio Grande region.
It would be quite a letdown if TTL USA+BSA ends up any smaller than OTL USA+Canada+most Caribbean.
By the way, does BSA own Cuba already ? It seems pretty much an inevitable acquisition.
A good point. But the Quebeckers are nothing if not obstinant. It may take them a while to fully let go of the 'old ways'.
Hmmm....an interesting approach to take to people who were just rebelling against your rule. OTOH, look at Canada!
What do you mean by that?
Do you think so? Or will the free ability to move between states without leaving the country encourage more southerly (relatively speaking) settlement and leave the OTL Canadian states depopulated relative to OTL? When looking at population density maps of modern North America, I've always found the crowding next to the American border fascinating....like they were huddling there for warmth!
In what sense?
OTOOH, the Federalists haven't had the crushing they took IOTL, so the USA is starting out with less of a decentralization movement compared to OTL. But yeah.
I really need to get caught up on this (and several other TLs), its looking great though Glen.
Sooner or later, it is going to happen. If nothing else, at the drive of immigrants from other states. Moreover, Quebec had important homegrown urban trading elites too, it was not just a landed gentry playground.
Exactly. If Britain had tried to keep a tight colonial leash on the white settlement colonies, sooner or later it would have faced another row of Revolutions.
Even if the price is some extra decades of slaveocracy, ending in the BSA is going to be a much better deal for the Caribbean than OTL in the long run. It means becoming part of a functional First-World democracy rather than the various OTL Third-World hellholes, cleptocracy dictatorships or communist prisons, etc.
I'm quite certain that early US-Canadian unity would have led to a more populated Canada, not the other way around. True, it would have essentially concerned the belt between the 50° and 52°-55° Parallels where most of the OTL population is concentrated, but that belt would have become rather more populous than OTL. Those areas are quite valuable economically in many ways, the climate is bearable and not radically different from northern USA, political unity with the USA would encourage economic development and immigration from the other states, and America had much more immigration-friendly policies than the British colonial authorities and the Dominion until late in the last century. Canada was essentially populated by local demographic growth, American immigration, and European immigration, and the PoD would substantially enhance the latter two.
More of an economic powerhouse than OTL, mostly.
Yep, I'm a big fan of the Federalists, especially Hamilton. Apart from their Alien & Sedition blunder, they seemed to have all the right ideas to build up the early USA.
Jefferson, OTOH, is terribly overrated as a President. He made one good thing with Louisiana, otherwise he wrecked the American military for the War of 1812, built the ideological basis for the Secession, and enforced his idiotic Embargo in just an autocratic way as the A&S A he decried.
How tolerant is the USA of Catholics outside of Quebec? Assuming the Potato Famine happens IITL, I'd expect that instead of Irish immigrants heading mainly to the cities in the northeast corridor, a good deal will move to Quebec and Ontario. Especially in Quebec, this probably means they'd end up absorbed into the Francophone community. Ontario could go either way - I expect it's going to ultimately end up like New Brunswick IOTL on a bigger scale though.
This could have knockoff effects further down the road too. If the rest of the U.S. stays more intolerant of Catholics due to less of an Irish presence, probably once the Italians (and Poles, and German Catholics, and whoever else) start immigrating later in the century, more of them will move to Quebec and Ontario as well. In the long run, I'm sure Catholicism will be as accepted as it IOTL, but this would give the region a large population boost early on, making the cities in what we would call Canada perhaps larger than IOTL.
Yes, but will they be that smart IOTL?
Okay, can't argue with that....Time will tell how much of the Caribbean if any ends up in the future Dominion.
In the 19th century probably. Hard to be even more of an economic powerhouse in the 20th century than OTL....but then again, there's nothing wrong with overachieving.
In many ways, I think that this USA got much the better deal in the change, it has got plenty of valuable land (and under American rule Canadian states shall get much more developed and populous than OTL) without all the problems that the South brought (slavery, ACW, segregation, economic backwardness, religious right...).
How tolerant is the USA of Catholics outside of Quebec?
Assuming the Potato Famine happens IITL, I'd expect that instead of Irish immigrants heading mainly to the cities in the northeast corridor, a good deal will move to Quebec and Ontario.
Especially in Quebec, this probably means they'd end up absorbed into the Francophone community.
Ontario could go either way - I expect it's going to ultimately end up like New Brunswick IOTL on a bigger scale though.
This could have knockoff effects further down the road too. If the rest of the U.S. stays more intolerant of Catholics due to less of an Irish presence, probably once the Italians (and Poles, and German Catholics, and whoever else) start immigrating later in the century, more of them will move to Quebec and Ontario as well. In the long run, I'm sure Catholicism will be as accepted as it IOTL, but this would give the region a large population boost early on, making the cities in what we would call Canada perhaps larger than IOTL.
Well, with Catholics playing such an important role in the ARW, Catholicism cannot but become more accepted in early America than OTL, that's a near-certainety.
OTOH, Catholic immigrants are still more likely to end up in Quebec and Ontario in large numbers simply due to cultural affinity.
And ITTL Canadian states are going to become more populous anyway out of the reasons I posted upthread.
Well, using 19th century British attitude to its white settlement colonies and India, I can predict as the most likely development, that Britain shall keep BSA in a thinly disguised colonial status for a good while, basking in the false security created by its Loyalist attitudes.
However, the slavery problem is going to sour the relationship just as seriously as it did with the North IOTL, and we are going to see a Second ARW as TTL equivalent of the ACW, the Dixies rising up for independence to build their ideal slaveocracy haven.
Since the USA does not like slaveholders, it is not going to help the Dixies (which they would have otherwise done out of American solidarity),
nor European powers are going to mess with the British Empire (unless there is something like the Crimean War going on at the time).
So Britain is going to crush the rebels with a lot of effort, forcibly abolishing slavery in the process. However, made wiser by the rebellion, they understand that giving autonomy to the WSC is necessary if they want to avoid a third ARW, so some time after order in the BSA is restored, they reluctantly give Dominion autonomy to the colony (and like OTL, this becomes the template for South Africa and ANZUS).
Yep. However, Cuba and Hispaniola are already in the BSA,
which means that the Haitian hellhole and *Castrism are surely butterflied away, oh joy.
Jamaica, the Guyanas, and Bahamas, too, are quite likely faring better in the long run as a part of USA/BSA.
Time will tell, indeed, but the more of Mexico and Central America ends up in the BSA, the better for both parties in the long run.
Another point about Central America: with such a rival and balanced pair of powerful nations in North America, I totally expect that each would strongly want its own Canal under its own control. It is a butterfly coin's toss whether BSA ends up building the Nicaragua Canal and USA the Panama Canal, or the opposite,
but this is going to mean that the USA, too, is going to have a strong interest in Central America. I also expect that Panama gets created for pretty much the same reasons as OTL and Nicaragua and Panama end up annexed by the respective Americas.
A burning curiosity of mine: do you think that the BSA would have been viable enough anyway, and such an early abolition of slavery feasible, if North Carolina, too, and hence Tennessee, had joined the ARW and ended up in the USA ?
I have always been curious about a PoD where the CSA/BSA ends up made of the Deep South and Caribbean only, and the USA gets Canada and all the border states. It seems a quite interesting setup, socioeconomically and politically. ITTL, this variant could be easily implemented by putting Carleton as Governor of South Carolina, not North Carolina.
True all of that, though I think you have to factor in that rather than a fervent Christian right, with the Deist conversion of the USA, you now have an extremely strong Christian left.
On the other hand, while it may be akin to a parent struggling to hold back a straining child with kiddie reins, the fact that BSA is still linked politically, economically, culturally etc to the motherland means that I don't think the south will be quite as contrary as it has been portrayed from RL. For instance, rather than being a hotbed of the Christian right, the fact that it is still in communion with the Church of England means that the churches of BSA are likely to retain the more British style of slow evangelism
acceptance of non-believers, rather than the intense anti-atheist lobbying we hear about IRL and the propensity for forming break-off or independent church denominations to serve the agenda of a local ultra-evangelist preacher. To take another point, while there's a conservative build-up with the powerful "slaveocracy", IOTL Britain goes through a reformation of its political practices in 1832 with the Reform Act and, as the only sizable white colony of note at this point, it is logical to suggest that BSA will receive some attention too, even if it is less of an inclusion in the Reform Act (which is unlikely) and more a motion by the loyal BSA middle classes and British politicians with financial stakes in BSA to transport over the better of the changes.
As Britain slowly lost its overbearing dominion by the landed classes, we could see slow reforms start to change the complexion of the BSA too. For instance, if the colonies' representative government (the Assemblies etc) are given proper recognition by London (N.B. not necessarily equal to being given law-making ability, just recognition of their status a la a town council or some such), then their Houses could be expanded by their Governors to suit their increasing populations, and see the enfranchisement change from a land-ownership basis to a profit margin, like England - i.e. all who make over £1,000 a year can vote or some such.
With the expansion of the wealthy middle classes, the increasing trade around the Empire which surely must be rubbing off on BSA etc, this could actually see the merchant middle class start to slot into that enfranchised elite.
However, with no interest in slavery, and with the slaveocracy unlikely to welcome in a large group of new monied men trying to muscle in on their wealth, especially with the slave trade banned and thus a finite supply of slaves,
this could mean that the influential elite slowly becomes more balanced to the point where an attempt at freeing the slaves meets 50% approval and 50% disapproval or thereabouts from the powerful elite of the BSA.
Under such conditions, the potential "second ARW" as the BSA tries to create a slave-owning haven which you (Eurofed) spoke of could actually misfire with a large percent of the population supporting London and the slaveocracy rebels actually forming the minority. In such a conflict, the idea that the British would have to kick the BSA to a pulp to show them what-for and offer Dominionship could be a non-issue, since the majority of the BSA's population could legitimately believe that freeing the slaves and defeating the slaveocrats was their victory, not their defeat.
Of course, that last point is all speculation and I'm sure I will have got some ideas wrong, such as how the Assemblies were viewed by London at the time. I'm aware they existed, and had little legislative power, and thus my point could stand, but I honestly was guessing at what their enfranchisement qualifications were, or even how they elected their members. But you get my point. Just because of how RL turned out with the south doesn't necessarily mean IMO that the south URL will be as independent in their viewpoints and as willing to resist ITTL.
I think the constant exposure to mother Britain through politics and the British traders
could pacify some of that feeling, and I think the fact that most of the slaveocracy probably proudly displays United Empire Loyalist in their names two generations later means they are likely to at least be amenable to change if it comes from Britain.
Let's not forget that up to the ARW, many of the more wealthy "macaroni" city-dwellers of the east coast viewed themselves as little more than Britons abroad, and were willing to follow British fashions and political attitudes because it was both "in vogue" and because they felt a responsibility to given their allegiance. While obviously the developing character of the BSA and merely the passage of time will dull this, I think it would be wrong to assume that this attitude would be gone entirely, and I think it's even possible that a minority of the slaveocracy could even take this attitude of at least viewing British sensibilities with an open mind, if not actually accepting them themselves.
Obviously the freeing of the slaves will be a massive issue when it arises, and I'm not suggesting that the slaveocracy will agree to it "because it comes from Britain" but the constant gradual osmosis of British ideas to the colonies will surely at least reduce the difference in opinions and perhaps even make some of the slaveocrats a little more liberal and open to discussion rather than immediately rejecting the idea?
Glen & all
Some interesting discussions here. What's OTL Canada may end up with a larger population if there is a revival of anti-catholic feeling in the bulk of the US. Possibly due to resentment of Quebec seeking to hang on to its language and religious privileges especially. In that case you might see a higher population in the north as Catholics move into there. Otherwise there is too much richer, warmer and better supplied lands further south, especially with slavery banned as the large demands for lands by slavery are no longer present. [It is notorious how many people encouraged to settle in Canada who fairly quickly moved south to the US and, barring something like religious tension, there will be even less barriers to such moves in TTL] Only other option I could see for a more populous Canada would be if the French Quebeckers are worried enough about their position they breed a bit faster, which is a possibility.
Glen - this is one reason why I think the early occupation of the NW is rather unrealistic. A larger US, with a lower initial population and possibly worried by a more powerful neighbour is less likely to be concentrating assets on territories so far away.
For the BSA, unless there are movements north, there will be a lot of tension over land. In OTL there was a steady stream of people moving north because they couldn't compete economically with the large estates.
While there could well be a strong surge into Texas now its open, making it possibly strong British but anti-slavery.
Could add to the complications there. However that won't ease all the problems so if the slavocracy grows as its likely to that would mean things come to a head earlier. If things are moving in Britain as well you could see conflict in the issue earlier, possibly as Falastur suggests, with strong local opposition to the slavocracy.
However less confident that when slavery ends the position of the blacks, both in the BSA and British Caribbean lands, will be better. OTL I think there was a steady movement of blacks from the depressed British islands to the US after the ACW, despite the discrimination they faced there because there were more economic opportunities. However don't forget a lot of anti-slavery feeling in the US OTL was because of the desire for 'free land' where white settlers didn't face competition from blacks, either as slaves or free.
Also that there were suggestions of deporting all blacks back to Africa, to get them out of the US. In a BSA after slavery is banned you could see similar factors but the problems would be worse for the freed blacks. There's much greater demand for land,
unless the white population find another outlet. [Possibly Texas-California, some move into Patagonia/Argentina, although that may be unlikely].
I doubt if blacks would be welcome in the US either and as foreigners they would be easier to exclude.
Furthermore the deportation option might seem more likely, either because Britain has a stronger presence in W Africa and much stronger fleet, or because the idea is to move the blacks to the islands.
Making places like Cuba and Jamaica dumping grounds.
Not saying those factors will come out on top but may be if things go bad. [A dark lining to the silver cloud of an earlier ending to slavery].
One other thing that comes to mind. Presumably Britain is still very much the economic giant, especially in industrial matters. As such what are the views of the US and BSA on tariffs? OTL the US imposition of very high tariffs to exclude British goods was hindered by the opposition of the south who wanted access to cheaper and more efficient British goods. Hence you could see the US imposing tariffs earlier. Possibly this might be early enough and high enough to undermine British moves towards free trade and it keeps its own tariffs, at least for the moment.
Can't remember if this was discussed before. When Britain gave up Newfoundland did it also give up claims to a share of the fisheries.
This would probably be highly unlikely because they were so important economically and also as a source of sailors. OTL neither the US, after they failed to take Canada or the French who lost their territories even earlier gave up a share of the fisheries. Hence probably likely that either/both will still have a say in them. However thought I better ask.
Steve
In the BSA the two groups probably overlap quite a bit. Also, I would caution you that the banning of the slave trade doesn't mean the end of it as there are still smugglers. It also doesn't mean necessarily a decrease in slave numbers as there will be slavers who just shift to breeding more slaves from the current stock.
Interesting viewpoint, and possible. But then again if there's a lot of native support for the British in the provinces, might they not feel 'owed' responsible government?