AHC: Nova Scotia is part of USA.

[Turek]

It all hinges on Haiti.

Well ITTL the American Revolution is bigger than in OTL, so I bet Haiti's still gonna revolt.

Hmmmm.....I imagine the south would want New Orleans for exporting purposes. Maybe if Jefferson becomes president of the south, he does the same thing he dose OTL, and purchases it?

That cuts off the North from everything that's OTL US besides the stuff east of the Mississippi, north of the Ohio, and north of the Mason-Dixon.

The two separate countries are allies against Britain anyway, and they both aren't as rich as they are at that point OTL, so perhaps the do a joint purchase? Is that even remotely plausible?

 

[asupackman]

Hmmmm.....I imagine the south would want New Orleans for exporting purposes. Maybe if Jefferson becomes president of the south, he does the same thing he dose OTL, and purchases it?

You could have some combined purchase where the two countries see it as in their best interest to remove a european power from north america while the european country is willing to be bought out. Dont know how the land would be split but you could see the south giving up most of the land in the deal just to get the port of new orleans and the ability to tax northern trade coming down the mississippi.

 

[Turek]

You could have some combined purchase where the two countries see it as in their best interest to remove a european power from north america while the european country is willing to be bought out. Dont know how the land would be split but you could see the south giving up most of the land in the deal just to get the port of new orleans and the ability to tax northern trade coming down the mississippi.

You've got to remember that Jefferson, who's a southerner and popular anyway (there's no Adams in his way now, so after Washington, Jefferson'll get the head job if there is one) wants a republic of small independent farmers and he bought the land to make that happen, though New Orleans was his goal. I see some sort of latitude split if it's a join purchase. Perhaps they split it at 39.43 north latitude, which is the top part of the Mason-Dixon line?

 

[asupackman]

You've got to remember that Jefferson, who's a southerner and popular anyway (there's no Adams in his way now, so after Washington, Jefferson'll get the head job if there is one) wants a republic of small independent farmers and he bought the land to make that happen, though New Orleans was his goal. I see some sort of latitude split if it's a join purchase. Perhaps they split it at 39.43 north latitude, which is the top part of the Mason-Dixon line?

That's a good point, however if the north is going in on this deal for the south to get more land and the port of new orleans they're probably going to have to put up a bulk of the cash, would they be in a position to do so? The south could just be happy to get a fair (fair as in good amount for what they paid not as in equal) amount of land, New Orleans, and access to later expand in to what would become Texas and Mexico? Also if the "US" splits what are the chances we see the larger southern states split back into an alliance of independant republics (Va, NC, SC, Georgia, maybe Maryland depending on where the mid atlantic decides to split. You also have to think what's going to happen with Florida in this scenario, obviously it's eventually going to get absorbed into the south but how and when?

 

[Turek]

That's a good point, however if the north is going in on this deal for the south to get more land and the port of new orleans they're probably going to have to put up a bulk of the cash, would they be in a position to do so? The south could just be happy to get a fair amount of land, New Orleans, and access to later expand in to what would become Texas and Mexico? Also if the "US" splits what are the chances we see the larger southern states split back into an alliance of independant republics (Va, NC, SC, Georgia, maybe Maryland depending on where the mid atlantic decides to split. You also have to think what's going to happen with Florida in this scenario, obviously it's eventually going to get absorbed into the south but how and when?

For the sake of this thread, we'll say Washington, the Virginian General, War Hero, and First President (if there is a President) of (Southern States, Dixie, whatever) begs the states to unite. He warns against Britain. His words compel the South to stay together. I'm thinking that the slave states will be the south and the free states'll be the north, though it's subject to change.

I can see them dividing the territory of along the Missouri River until it veers upward, then divide it along a line due southwest until connects with the northernmost bend of the Arkansas River. That, or we can be unrealistic and simply divide it along our old state lines .

 

[Umbric Man]

I can see them dividing the territory of along the Missouri River until it veers upward, then divide it along a line due southwest until connects with the northernmost bend of the Arkansas River. That, or we can be unrealistic and simply divide it along our old state lines .

Glad someone else would divide it at the Missouri River. In OTL Missouri the Southrons settled south of the river (becoming 'Little Dixie'), and Northerners (Pennsylvania-descended Quakers and general speakers of what would become the 'Midlander' dialect) settled north. St. Louis was noted as being a 'southern' city in the 1800s.

Being an (unfortunate) fan of parallelism, I personally would divide it by the river, then follow Missouri state's western border downwards to 36'30'', then go west from there. This allows Northerners and Southerners to keep the lands they historically settled as they moved to the Pacific.

 

[Turek]

Glad someone else would divide it at the Missouri River. In OTL Missouri the Southrons settled south of the river (becoming 'Little Dixie'), and Northerners (Pennsylvania-descended Quakers and general speakers of what would become the 'Midlander' dialect) settled north. St. Louis was noted as being a 'southern' city in the 1800s.

Being an (unfortunate) fan of parallelism, I personally would divide it by the river, then follow Missouri state's western border downwards to 36'30'', then go west from there. This allows Northerners and Southerners to keep the lands they historically settled as they moved to the Pacific.

Makes sense. The citizens IOTL did propose the western border - why not ITTL?

Anyway, this would be an interesting timeline if it was ever made. The British are forced out of North America, Quebec is its own country (preferable for everyone involved) and there's a peaceful North-South divide of the US.

It also only requires two simple PODs and careful maneuvering. It's quite plausible.

One question though: While Quebec would obviously call itself Quebec, the states aren't united and thus the name doesn't work. How would the naming of the two countries work? Was Dixie a popular name at that point? Would the North just call itself New England?

EDIT: Wait, 36'30" isn't significant ITTL. Why not choose a simpler parallel, like 37'?

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Could a feud between Jefferson and Adams sour north south relations to the point where they can't agree to make a joint purchase?

 

[Turek]

Could a feud between Jefferson and Adams sour north south relations to the point where they can't agree to make a joint purchase?

There weren't many bad relations before the Federalist-Antifederalist debacle. And the two got along quite fine in private life. I think they could agree on a joint purchase - after all, they're not arguing internally, they're agreeing to make a sensible purchase between two nations.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

I just got a thought. Typically the federalists were pro-British and the D-R's were pro French. An Adams-Jefferson feud souring relations, coupled with the two nations conflicting foreign interests, and a napoleonic war could lead it spilling over into America. A Napoleon who doesn't sell Louisiana could snuggle up to Jefferson to help him keep control of his North American possessions. The British in turn do the same with the north. The French and British play the two sides against each other, and war possibly breaks out.

Is this possible?

 

[Turek]

I just got a thought. Typically the federalists were pro-British and the D-R's were pro French. An Adams-Jefferson feud souring relations, coupled with the two nations conflicting foreign interests, and a napoleonic war could lead it spilling over into America. A Napoleon who doesn't sell Louisiana could snuggle up to Jefferson to help him keep control of his North American possessions. The British in turn do the same with the north. The French and British play the two sides against each other, and war possibly breaks out.

Is this possible?

It probably is possible with the right legislation on both parts but France, even with Napoleon, was only going to get crushed eventually (seriously, like all of Europe hated the French under Napoleon) and the North had more people and more industry than the South anyway.

It's possible, but probably not likely. I'd think that the North and the South would attempt to keep on good terms with each other.

 

[Tallest Skil]

Why are we considering slavery a problem worthy of splitting up the country if Nova Scotia joins? I mean, really?

If Nova Scotia joins, that completely changes the Revolution. We can't assume anything about the end without walking through the between.

So let's start at the beginning. Nova Scotia rebels. Does this mean Quebec is in the bag? What about Saint James Island? With the north being wrapped up sooner, that would then lead to the south receiving greater focus. It's possible that both Floridas could be successfully taken (and possible The Bahamas, taken OTL, would be held). So yes, that's one, two, three, even FOUR (Newfoundland, anyone?) more states in the North, but almost an equal number in the south (West Florida, East Florida, The Bahamas)…

 

[Turek]

Why are we considering slavery a problem worthy of splitting up the country if Nova Scotia joins? I mean, really?

If Nova Scotia joins, that completely changes the Revolution. We can't assume anything about the end without walking through the between.

So let's start at the beginning. Nova Scotia rebels. Does this mean Quebec is in the bag? What about Saint James Island? With the north being wrapped up sooner, that would then lead to the south receiving greater focus. It's possible that both Floridas could be successfully taken (and possible The Bahamas, taken OTL, would be held). So yes, that's one, two, three, even FOUR (Newfoundland, anyone?) more states in the North, but almost an equal number in the south (West Florida, East Florida, The Bahamas)…

We assumed that with Nova Scotia plus the 13 (we were also toying with an addition POD with Plymouth remaining as a colony, though that's not entirely related) would entice Quebec into rebelling for their culture 'n stuff and New Brunswick (was it a colony at this point?) and Newfoundland joining as well. We didn't toy with the Floridas and Caribbean yet, though I suppose that could balance things back out. Quebec would probably want to be its own country, and the Continental Congress would promise it that to get them to join.

Overall we were thinking a split of interests might do a unification in. Federalist North, Antifederalist South (though it wasn't always that clear) as well as the slavery issue rearing its ugly head earlier and a shift in economics for the North and South... it could go either way.

The Bahamas wouldn't be taken without Florida, but Florida was in British control at the time... hm... it might not divide the country enough to split it into two nations. But the Civil War, when it comes around, would be more massive. More men on each side.

 

[Hominid]

A few points (from my limited understanding of early American history):

1. New Brunswick was part of Nova Scotia until 1784, and it was mostly settled by loyalists fleeing the US. So an American NS results in a less populated NB, also part of NS.
2. Vermont would probably still become a state as already mentioned, thus increasing the number of free states.
3. Also, I have a feeling that Maryland would be part of the South ITTL. The main reason they didn't secede in the OTL Civil War is because of Washington DC. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not sure about Delaware
4. The Aroostook War would not happen.
5. Louisiana is still Spanish if Haiti rebels earlier. I'm not sure if that makes it easier or harder to purchase, or if the western boundary of the purchase is different.

Again, I'm sure most of you are more knowledgeable than me, so correct me if I'm wrong on any of this.

 

[Turek]

A few points (from my limited understanding of early American history):

1. New Brunswick was part of Nova Scotia until 1784, and it was mostly settled by loyalists fleeing the US. So an American NS results in a less populated NB, also part of NS.
2. Vermont would probably still become a state as already mentioned, thus increasing the number of free states.
3. Also, I have a feeling that Maryland would be part of the South ITTL. The main reason they didn't secede in the OTL Civil War is because of Washington DC. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not sure about Delaware
4. The Aroostook War would not happen.
5. Louisiana is still Spanish if Haiti rebels earlier. I'm not sure if that makes it easier or harder to purchase, or if the western boundary of the purchase is different.

Again, I'm sure most of you are more knowledgeable than me, so correct me if I'm wrong on any of this.

Maryland was mixed about seceding - the Union overthrew pro-secession legislators so that it wouldn't be cut off from DC. Delaware was never remotely near seceding.

Napoleon only sold Louisiana because he needed money and the Haiti rebellion tired him of New World colonies. If Haiti rebels earlier, the US might have to go to war with Spain for New Orleans, or possibly an earlier Adams-Onis treaty occurs. Of course, the US will be stronger - it's got a Quebec ally, and a bunch of Canadian wilderness, as well as the settled Newfoundland and Nova Scotia (and Prince Edward Island). New Brunswick's not going to form ITTL apparently, as it was formed by fleeing Loyalists. I don't know as much about early Canada as I do about the early United States, so I'm a little hazy on matters like this.

 

[Heisenberg]

During the American Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress asked Nova Scotia to join the 13 colonies and declare independence, but Nova Scotia refused. There were also a lot of colonists in Nova Scotia who wanted to join the 13 colonies.

Challenge: With a POD before 1867, Nova Scotia becomes part of the United States.

Nova Scotia refused because the political elite (Halifax merchants, mostly) had it good with contracts with the government. Two tiny movements did break out, the one involving Jonathan Eddy at Fort Cumberland and the other involving John Allan at what would become Saint John, New Brunswick. Both were huge flops. It's quite hard to get a rebellion to succeed in Nova Scotia for four reasons:

1. The rebels had pissed off a lot of people with privateer raids along the coast. Pillaging communities is not an effective means of encouraging volunteers to join your cause.

2. A lot of the settlers (the Yorkshiremen, Ulster Protestants, the returning Acadians, etc) just didn't care. They didn't have a horse in that race. The ones with revolutionairy sentiments by and large were the settlers from New England. There was also a religious movement ongoing in the form of the New Light movement which sapped support for fighting a war from many.

3. The Continental Congress did not think it wise to commit resources to any campaign in Nova Scotia. The geography is very unfavourable to a land assault, and a naval assault was virtually impossible given the large Royal Navy presence and lack of a Yankee one. Add to that that the fuckup that was the invasion of Canada and the rebels had no confidence of success, which is why they denied Eddy the support he requested.

4. The naval station at Halifax had quite a powerful garrison, one which can easily suppress any attempts at revolt in the city. In addition, the scattered nature of settlement in the rest of the colony prevented attempts at organising an effective rebellion in the rural areas of the colony.

So, if there was no privateering, and if there was little-to-no non-New English settlement, and if there was no New Light movement, and if the Continentals did send an army, and if they survive the march to Halifax, and if they can beat the powerful garrison of redcoats there, and if, and if, and if...

 

[Helios Ra]

Even with Florida, rebels cannot take and hold the Bahamas without a navy. And if the French or Spanish capture it, they're not going to just hand it over to the Americans. Spain didn't give Florida to the Americans after all.

I think an interesting question would be how holding Nova Scotia and perhaps Halifax would affect the American navy. Halifax was an important port. Successfully holding it forces the British to sail from farther away for any naval actions. I would imagine it has some shipbuilding facilities that would be useful too. I doubt it would be enough to take the Bahamas, or Bermuda before anyone suggests it, but a marginally larger American navy is sure to have some effect on the war.

Also, I'm pretty sure I've read that the Newfoundland colony was pretty staunchly loyalist and would not rebel.

 

[Hominid]

So maybe we'll get a US bordering on British colony Newfoundland. Which would most likely join the US eventually. I haven't even thought about Prince Edward Island.

If the US (or the South) goes to war with Spain for New Orleans, what exactly would it get? Just the area around New Orleans? The entire Louisiana Purchase? Part of Texas?

 

[Will Kürlich Kerl]

Nova Scotia refused because the political elite (Halifax merchants, mostly) had it good with contracts with the government. Two tiny movements did break out, the one involving Jonathan Eddy at Fort Cumberland and the other involving John Allan at what would become Saint John, New Brunswick. Both were huge flops. It's quite hard to get a rebellion to succeed in Nova Scotia for four reasons:

1. The rebels had pissed off a lot of people with privateer raids along the coast. Pillaging communities is not an effective means of encouraging volunteers to join your cause.

2. A lot of the settlers (the Yorkshiremen, Ulster Protestants, the returning Acadians, etc) just didn't care. They didn't have a horse in that race. The ones with revolutionairy sentiments by and large were the settlers from New England. There was also a religious movement ongoing in the form of the New Light movement which sapped support for fighting a war from many.

3. The Continental Congress did not think it wise to commit resources to any campaign in Nova Scotia. The geography is very unfavourable to a land assault, and a naval assault was virtually impossible given the large Royal Navy presence and lack of a Yankee one. Add to that that the fuckup that was the invasion of Canada and the rebels had no confidence of success, which is why they denied Eddy the support he requested.

4. The naval station at Halifax had quite a powerful garrison, one which can easily suppress any attempts at revolt in the city. In addition, the scattered nature of settlement in the rest of the colony prevented attempts at organising an effective rebellion in the rural areas of the colony.

So, if there was no privateering, and if there was little-to-no non-New English settlement, and if there was no New Light movement, and if the Continentals did send an army, and if they survive the march to Halifax, and if they can beat the powerful garrison of redcoats there, and if, and if, and if...

that is why this is a challenge.

 

[Turek]

So maybe we'll get a US bordering on British colony Newfoundland. Which would most likely join the US eventually. I haven't even thought about Prince Edward Island.

If the US (or the South) goes to war with Spain for New Orleans, what exactly would it get? Just the area around New Orleans? The entire Louisiana Purchase? Part of Texas?

If they win, possibly. Spain'd probably be like "hey, they're starting to rebel anyway. Take 'em, and lose 'em." But we'll remember that Spain's more powerful than it was in 1898 and the US was less powerful than it was in 1898. Get the Federalists up top, good relations with Britain (and avoiding the War of 1812), and you might have a shot.