Rebirth of an Empire "O Renascimento de um Império" v2.0

Exciting times and good to see Portugal pull ahead. I'm surprised neither the Brazilians nor the Angolans/Mozambiquans organized anything against Dutch South Africa, though I can see why that'd be the case; with no exaggeration, almost all ships are on deck to hold against the Dutch and the French with few ships available outside of the primary theaters to engage in military operations. Though I will note; Dutch South Africa had a population of 27k Boers at the time of annexation by the British in 1806. And the Dutch census of 1756 counted 6,000. Still plenty of time with a window of opportunity for Portuguese South Africa :evilsmile: Memes aside, the Portuguese and Dutch being friendly will serve both well and will help in resisting British colonial ambitions. We know with the benefit of hindsight that Great Britain dominating the colonial scene from the Napoleonic era until World War 1 is an imminent danger to Portugal's ambitions and general security should Britain begin to consider Portugal competition.

And completely sans memes here, now that Portugal's got Greater Timor, when's Portuguese Australia? The gates to the continent are in Portuguese hands now.
 
Portuguese Malabar cements Portugal control and dominance over the Indian west coast and further limits british opportunities on that part of India. The strengthening of French power around Pondicherry and leaving the territory south of it open to Dutch expansion means that British while dominant in the Bay of Bengal has been checkmated in its expansion south. All this means that Indian subcontinent will develop and be colonized much differently resulting in a much less unified area. It can also mean that some of the Indian kingdoms could survive or develop differently.
With such divisions, will India even be united?
 
With such divisions, will India even be united?
You have to remember that India (as a region) is a big place, very populated with many cultures and religions in it. If it weren't for unification under the British Empire, it would be very difficult to see a united India today. If you use the linguistic differences, you already have around 22 small countries, and that's not counting cultural or religious differences.

The forced union by the British caused the creation of a generic Indian culture (they stopped being seen as different cultures, and began to be seen as sub-cultures of Indian culture) and the establishment of Hindi and English as dominant languages for communication. Without colonization, asking for a united India is like asking for a united Europe, diverse languages, cultures and religions with many similarities and differences.

The only way to unify India would be through war, and if it is not the British Empire or a foreign country, it must be a strong Indian country with strong assimilation capacity. Similar to France that successfully annexed and integrated Normandy, Brittany, Burgundy, Gascony, Ocitania, Savoy, etc. which had other languages and cultures of their own.

In short, it will depend a lot on how large the Indian colony of the British Empire is, because if it is at least half of today's India, at the time it becomes independent it will have the power to attack the French, Dutch colonies, etc. and try to force annexation. Although Portugal will be a peculiar case because Goa is not a colony, but a country of its own in personal union / Confederation / Federation with Portugal. Probably, British India will demand a referendum first in this case, because it would not have the support of the locals in an invasion (using propaganda to fight against European colonialism and liberate a united India, useless in Goa that is not a Colony and is not considered part of "India - country, but part of the sub-continent of India).

PS: I think that it was always religion that is the main problem in India, they have strong and very established religions, and Pakistan is a clear result that Muslims did not accept Hindu rulers, even though Hindus did not accept a Muslim ruler either. In ITTL if Catholicism is established, we can see Goa (larger than OTL) as the Catholic version of Pakistan, and even if an independent India offers to "join" the Indian Federation, it would reject it, because of the different religion.
In the future, Goa (ITTL) will be independent because of its Catholicism, or will be part of a "Lusitanian union", especially if the Portuguese language manages to establish itself in Goa.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Exciting times and good to see Portugal pull ahead. I'm surprised neither the Brazilians nor the Angolans/Mozambiquans organized anything against Dutch South Africa, though I can see why that'd be the case; with no exaggeration, almost all ships are on deck to hold against the Dutch and the French with few ships available outside of the primary theaters to engage in military operations. Though I will note; Dutch South Africa had a population of 27k Boers at the time of annexation by the British in 1806. And the Dutch census of 1756 counted 6,000. Still plenty of time with a window of opportunity for Portuguese South Africa :evilsmile: Memes aside, the Portuguese and Dutch being friendly will serve both well and will help in resisting British colonial ambitions. We know with the benefit of hindsight that Great Britain dominating the colonial scene from the Napoleonic era until World War 1 is an imminent danger to Portugal's ambitions and general security should Britain begin to consider Portugal competition.

And completely sans memes here, now that Portugal's got Greater Timor, when's Portuguese Australia? The gates to the continent are in Portuguese hands now.
So we have two different factors here at play. On one hand the Brazilians were reluctant to get involved for fear of bringing European problems to their shore. Although they did sponsor occupation of Dutch Surinam. While on the other side of ocean Portuguese colonial administrators are upset about the war due to disruption in trade and jeopardizing Dutch investments in Portuguese Africa (namely Angola).

Therefore you will always have different regions reacting differently to conflicts that span multiple regions.

As for Dutch South Africa there was the possibility of Portuguese seizing it but like Dutch Surinam Would they be able to keep it negotiations. The Dutch already lost so much to the Portuguese in India, Malaca and Timor that the Portuguese were not able to get Spice Islands and best they could do is force the a Dutch to loose their monopoly in the region.

Therefore much more of Dutch colonial empire by Portuguese be hard to get. We also wrote that Portuguese thought the Dutch could be an ally or friend in the colonialism to better compete with the bigger Spanish, French or British empires. Wether the Dutch be Receptive to that we have to see. It be better for Portuguese if South Africa stayed Dutch instead of British for a even stronger British empire is potentially troubling for Portugal in future. But the British had other ideas for they wanted to make up for their loses in North America and inability to increase their holding in South East Asia snd India as they desired.

With such divisions, will India even be united?
You have to remember that India (as a region) is a big place, very populated with many cultures and religions in it. If it weren't for unification under the British Empire, it would be very difficult to see a united India today. If you use the linguistic differences, you already have around 22 small countries, and that's not counting cultural or religious differences.

The forced union by the British caused the creation of a generic Indian culture (they stopped being seen as different cultures, and began to be seen as sub-cultures of Indian culture) and the establishment of Hindi and English as dominant languages for communication. Without colonization, asking for a united India is like asking for a united Europe, diverse languages, cultures and religions with many similarities and differences.

The only way to unify India would be through war, and if it is not the British Empire or a foreign country, it must be a strong Indian country with strong assimilation capacity. Similar to France that successfully annexed and integrated Normandy, Brittany, Burgundy, Gascony, Ocitania, Savoy, etc. which had other languages and cultures of their own.

In short, it will depend a lot on how large the Indian colony of the British Empire is, because if it is at least half of today's India, at the time it becomes independent it will have the power to attack the French, Dutch colonies, etc. and try to force annexation. Although Portugal will be a peculiar case because Goa is not a colony, but a country of its own in personal union / Confederation / Federation with Portugal. Probably, British India will demand a referendum first in this case, because it would not have the support of the locals in an invasion (using propaganda to fight against European colonialism and liberate a united India, useless in Goa that is not a Colony and is not considered part of "India - country, but part of the sub-continent of India).

PS: I think that it was always religion that is the main problem in India, they have strong and very established religions, and Pakistan is a clear result that Muslims did not accept Hindu rulers, even though Hindus did not accept a Muslim ruler either. In ITTL if Catholicism is established, we can see Goa (larger than OTL) as the Catholic version of Pakistan, and even if an independent India offers to "join" the Indian Federation, it would reject it, because of the different religion.
In the future, Goa (ITTL) will be independent because of its Catholicism, or will be part of a "Lusitanian union", especially if the Portuguese language manages to establish itself in Goa.
Yes at moment we have Portuguese in West, British in East and Bay of Bengal, French in South a East (they were able to strengthen Pondicherry while loosing their other holdings and lastly Dutch in South East and Ceylon. This leads to a different India all together.

Portuguese are already allied with Hyderabad so that country has a source of support, weapons and another strong European country in its side so they may resist British subjugation. We see about other Indian countries. For it is not in neither of the four European countries to see Substancial part of India come under one particular country control. Although the two largest colonial empires British and Portuguese are most certainly going to attempt expand their domains.

As for religion yes the Portuguese with their taxation, religious tolerance and renewed and stronger Portuguese Catholic Church will result in a much larger Catholic number of people.

Another major factor in the Portuguese favor is the spreading of Portuguese with expansion of both its territory but more importantly education and Portuguese becoming língua franca if the territory.

It is feasible to think that while the majority of the Population may not be Catholic in an expanded Portuguese India (large minority yes) the Portuguese language will be the common language of the population with Other languages still being spoken but that if all are educated in Portuguese then it will be the common language.

How that would play out with the rest of India subcontinent countries be interesting to see.
 

Lusitania

Donor
The Paris Treaty of 1783

North American Terms

The theater in North America was the main point of discussion for the powers, though in Portugal’s case it was the one with less to discuss about directly, and there was a general understanding that this was where the most important chess pieces would be shifted. At the start of the negotiations, all powers pressed the obvious point that England would have to lose the most, but France and Spain remained very concerned about the exact size of this loss; Vergennes feared that the American borders would push against the Mississippi dangerously and the Spanish Count also insisted that its possessions in Florida be safeguarded.

There was also the matter that the United States were a rebelling fledgling power and none of the parties, including its allies, were interested in respecting the wishes of a state that had endangered the status quo of the colonial empires so much. The non-English side of the negotiations presented to Lord Shelburne very clearly that any final agreement in this area was to be made with their mediation on it or war would continue.

When American negotiators learned in September of the secret French mission to England, and the French position on the fisheries and territory, they sent a reconciliatory message to British government itself, explaining in some detail why the British government should avoid being influenced too much by the French and Spanish. At the same time the Americans reworded their peace proposal to refer to the 13 so-called colonies as the "United States of America".

In Paris, with independence taken as a done deal, discussions between Great Britain and United States concentrated on the details. Remarkably, Britain accepted the American demand that the boundary with Canada should revert to its state after the Seven Years' War in 1763, not the revision of the Quebec Act in 1774. The peace talks got stuck on the issues of personal debts and war reparations. The British position was that all British loyalists in the 13 colonies receive a just and complete compensation for property lost and seized. There was the matter of both loyalists who had fled, and their property confiscated and sold off. As well as the situation of those who had stayed behind in America and fought for their legitimate sovereign king would be even more heavily penalized unless safeguards could be built into the treaty. Americans negotiators countered this argument by suggesting that reparations could be demanded for the massive destruction of American property by British forces, and for the "kidnap" of tens of thousands of valuable slaves. In the end the British and Americans settled for no reparations made on each side.[1]



Over the next few weeks, serious negotiations began between Britain, Portugal, France, Dutch and Spain over the outcome of the North American theatre. Britain's chief negotiator was Alleyne Fitzherbert, Portugal’s chief negotiator was Count Anthony of Barca, Spain's was the Count of Aranda, France’s the Comte de Vergennes, and finally the Dutch representative was Mattheus Lestevenon, heer van Berckenrode.

There was a major point of contesting in the peace talks between America and Britain over which most of the side powers had one preoccupation or the other despite their lack of direct involvement in it; the fate of the Northwest Territories. A proposal by Vergennes made as early as 1782 suggested that the western border of the United States be settled at the Ohio River, with all territories further west being kept under Britain’s control. This was extremely contested by their ally, America itself. It was, however, one of the few pivotal points that convinced the Spanish to let go of their attacks on Gibraltar and have peace talks to begin with.

America counter-argued this proposal by claiming that sporadic American settlement was already occurring in the area and that the restriction of it had been one of the sparks that caused their Revolution. Moreover, the state of Virginia had laid claim to these territories after George Rogers Clark’s militia captured Kaskaskia and Vincennes from British commander Hamilton. Britain, on the other hand, claimed the area was inhabited mostly by Indians and that the majority of the European settlers were the 4,000 traders loyal to Montreal and London. There was no way at the time to confirm settlement numbers, however.

Unfortunately for the United States, the other major powers were not interested in backing its claim due to the developments in other theaters. Madrid, Amsterdam and Lisbon, for example, preferred Vergennes proposal due to their interest in placating London for its losses in the North American theater itself and surrendering its claims to Dutch West Africa and several Spanish territories in the Caribbean that were captured by British blood and guns throughout the war. Lisbon also promised to press British territorial claims in North America in exchange for London recognition of its own gains in Asia.

There was also an underlying comprehension between these powers that ceding the Northwest Territories to America would be opening a Pandora Box to having a gigantic rebel colony in the American continent to seed liberty into Brazil, New Spain and Haiti, not to mention the economic competition factor itself. The lesser powers feared that London would turn America into a trade partner instead of a rival and sought to foment animosity between the two. Headed by Spain, they pressed Vergennes and Lord Shelburne to sign the treaty with this proposal as soon as possible, fearing the Americans would cut them off from this matter by negotiating directly with London.

To sweeten the deal to Lord Shelburne, Madrid, Lisbon and Amsterdam proposed to offer Britain trading rights in the Dutch East Indies, at the time solely facing losses to CIP, the surrender of Spanish claims to the Bahamas and peaceful transfer of administration of Dutch Cape to Britain. With this also came the guarantee that the lesser powers would fully support Britain’s claims to Canada and the Northwest Territories should the United States press claims in the future. The ceding of the Bahamas was especially pivotal as the territory had been fully captured by the Spanish and the British needed a close-by territory to offer the British Loyalists in southern US states that could not afford to travel all the way to Canada.


John Nay still attempted to seduce Shelburne into signing a separate peace treaty, but upon learning that the other powers were conspiring to limit US expansion, he pressed the charges that Britain promised in its charters that the Americans were allowed to expand as far towards the west from the coastal states as they wished. This was refuted, however, as an insulting charge considering American had rebelled against the King and therefore had no legitimate claim to the Crown’s charter rights and that representatives of the Loyalists, incited by Vergennes and the Count of Aranda, argued that any further generosity to the Americans would be treated as a betrayal on them.

To placate America, however, there was a number of important points:

  • Borders with Spanish North America were left deliberately to be resolved, offering them the possibility to expand westwards anyway through Georgia, Carolina and Virginia;
  • Fishing rights to Newfoundland and the Mexico Bay were guaranteed by all powers;
  • In exchange for respecting its wishes on the theater, Spain and Portugal offered to replace British protection against pirates as part of their own North Atlantic campaign to battle the Barbary corsairs;[2]
  • The status of the Northwestern Territories was ultimately left as a disputed point with borders vaguely defined around the Ohio River, with the Americans retaining the right to contest them in the event of a truce break and ultimate settlement to be decided within the following thirty to forty years;[3]
In January 1784, feeling that its interests were being somewhat respected, the Americans accepted to sign the border treaty and the accord was ratified by the lesser powers shorty after, ending the American Revolutionary War.


North America Post-Paris Treaty (1774)
Cyan: United States
Red: British North America
Purple: Vermont Republic (integrated by 1794)

European-African Terms & The Luso-Dutch Alliance

The settling of accounts between the two empires was critical to not only ending hostilities between the two, but open the road to the coalition of smaller colonial states that would rival the Anglo-French axis throughout the new century (19th)
-Joseph de Pinto, Economic Retrospective on the Paris Treaty (1798)

The situation in Europe itself in terms of borders and captured territories was one of almost complete stalemate; the Spanish had pulled back their efforts to siege Gibraltar, France had failed to secure an amphibious route to Portugal, Britain had been uninterested in attacking its rivals in Europe completely and most of the points the powers fought over were located overseas anyway.

The articles pertaining the European continent, therefore, prioritized themselves in mere formalities and making sure the intention of all powers to ratify the terms and forget past offenses was secured. It was the point of view of the Portuguese, however, that the terms being agreed between the greater powers were not securing peace, as France remained in extreme financial difficulties and was unlikely to shift its energies towards attacking weaker European powers. Moreover there were several commercial and political resentments between Lisbon and Amsterdam remaining.

Count of Barca headed an initiative to add an additional article to the treaty that would settle disputes between Portugal and its enemies. His plan had the following priorities:

  1. Negotiate the release of the Portuguese ambassador in Madrid, detained since the early 1770s, and reopen diplomatic ties with Spain;
  2. Restart commercial relations with France;
  3. Compensate Dutch losses, agree to form firearm market divisions and ultimately sign an alliance;
  4. Renegotiate African spheres of control between the powers;
The Spanish did not have to hand back West Florida or Minorca and were also given East Florida in exchange for the Bahamas (so tens of thousands of refugees who had fled to East Florida from the United States had to move again). The opportunity was taken to resolve long-standing disputes about logwood cutting in Central America. The British, however, continued to hold Gibraltar after the siege was abandoned. As a last stipulation Britain demanded that Spain release all Portuguese captives, including the Portuguese Ambassador, accomplishing part of Barca’s first objective.[4]

In the preliminary treaties signed between Britain, Portugal with France and Britain with Spain on 20 January 1783, France and Britain returned to each other nearly all the territories they had taken from each other since 1778 in the West Indies, except for Tobago, which the French had captured in 1781 and were allowed to keep. In Africa, France also gained some territory around the Senegal River, and the northern bank of Gambia River.

The African Dutch, unfortunately, fell prey to British attacks in the last stage of the war, with Gold Coast seized by 1782 and Cape itself blockaded and captured by Admiral Johnstone by late 1783 after the disastrous encounter at St. Helena. The Dutch called upon Portuguese diplomacy to argue in their favor after agreeing to let Portugal use the political prisoners to press their own claims on making Tidore and Ternate and Portugal successfully argued the release of Dutch Gold Coast with its ally.

The Cape Colony, however, was a different story; embittered by its loss in North America and feeling pressed by the lesser powers to accept the Ohio border proposal by Vergennes, Lord Shelburne felt entitled to a compensatory gain of grand scale and demanded Cape Colony to be made part of a Second British Empire. Cape staying in Dutch hands was critical for the lesser powers to maintain their route to Asia free of British oversight and Count of Barca also felt pressed to defend it by many letters sent by Duke Lencastre citing the retying of Luso-Dutch commerce in the region.

Ultimately the winning side of the war was unsuccessful in defending the Dutch from British demands. With the colony itself captured and the necessity to placate the British for losses in America and limited gains in India, the French and Spanish representatives agreed to London’s terms. Portugal, however, suggested for the British administration to be indirect, something that guaranteed the Dutch that their settlers would be unharmed and not have their rights overruled.

This set the stage for Barca’s third objective; the intended Treaty of Friendship and Commerce with Amsterdam. The proposal had been the brainchild of Queen Charlotte herself; hailing from England, she felt personally attached to northern Europe and was educated in statesmanship, so she advised Joseph II that a Luso-Dutch Alliance at the time they lived in would be a critical chess move in the world stage.



Queen Charlotte and the Diplomats (1818)

Charlotte’s reasoning laid on a number of pillars; firstly Portugal and Netherlands were, among Europeans, the commercially and politically dominant powers in several theaters, mainly the Far East, South East Asia, Southwestern India, Sub-Saharan Africa (Congo & Cape) and Southeastern America (Brazil & Guiana), meaning that putting aside their differences would allow Amsterdam and Lisbon to become commercial powerhouses capable of rivalling England without having to match its naval might.

Secondly, in their time, Portugal and Netherlands possessed things the other desperately lacked; the Netherlands needed a sympathetic power to aid it in its time of regression, aid it in military reforming, provide it with experienced shipwrights, offer rights to do commerce in resource-rich colonies and help consolidating its much weakened territories so as to reform their empire, while Portugal desperately needed an influx of friendly settlers, a source of capable managers to administer its empire, a new naval ally to offset Britain with and important financial and commercial knowledge to improve its burgher class.

Thirdly there was a common fear among the two of being off-staged; while Spain was growing stagnant and Hapsburg Austria was no longer a threat, France and England had become gigantic colony grabbers and their colossal shipbuilding abilities threatened to one day trigger an even greater conflict that would doom the entire continent and its lesser empires. Amsterdam patriots and politicians increasingly felt that their interests were being ignored by its neighbors and that one day its fleet and wealth would not be enough to ward off French invasions and British colony seizing.

Fourthly, there was a statesman ambition from the Portuguese cabinet and even the Royal Family to come out of the Three-Years War with a politically groundbreaking peace treaty and the diplomatic prestige behind uniting Amsterdam and Lisbon against all odds appealed to the politicians greatly. It mirrored Lord Shelburne’s original intention to turn the US as a trade partner of Great Britain as far as it went to turning a loss into a massive long-term gain despite lingering resentments. Queen Charlotte was the main face behind this argument, something that would endear her to international historians.

Conversations between the Count of Barca and Matheus Lestevenon over this matter began as soon as the peace talks themselves, proving the desire was not entirely unilateral. The war had been especially humiliating for Amsterdam, whose empire was borderline carved out between the different powers, including Portugal itself, justifying a desire for a path of return to importance and political stability.

The treaty of Paris was therefore signed with an extra article between these two powers with the following points:

  • Treaty of Friendship and Commerce between the Dutch Empire and the Portuguese Empire: The two countries were to collaborate commercially, financially and militarily for bilateral benefit in the face of increasing adversities of their era;
  • Defensive Alliance between the VOC and the CIP: While the two companies remained diplomatically semi-independent, they were signed off by their European masters as defensive allies, with the main counterweight threat being native Indian Powers and the BEIC;
  • Mutual Market Opening: Ports, markets and stock exchange restrictions were dropped between the two powers, most notably between their Far Eastern possessions;
  • Formal and final demarcations of Asian Spheres of Influence: This point stressed divisions of sphere of influenced already numbered in peace treaties, including the Java-Timor division, the Malaysia-Sumatra division and the India-Ceylon division but also enforcing non-belligerent lines like the Brazil-Guyana division and the Macau-Dejima/Nagasaki division;
  • Ceremonial Obligations: A number of friendship ceremonies were planned out between the two powers throughout its possessions to ensure the message of peace and friendship was visually passed on to its colonies as well;


Luso-Dutch Alliance Manifest (1784)
The Alliance was the third formal treaty of friendship active during the Pombaline Era after the Russian Treaty of F&C and the historical Anglo-Luso Alliance


Portuguese at Dejima & Dutch at Macau (painted 1799)
Representatives of the two powers opened their respective ports to visits and commerce to the other, reestablishing an important link of commerce between Kyushu and Canton

The remaining points of the Paris Treaty in Europe concerned mostly the end to the conflict itself and most borders were left untouched. Still, the articles pertraining the regions of Europe and Africa included the following:

  • Spain regained Minorca Island from the British;
  • France recovered its Senegal colony;
  • Dutch Gold Coast was returned to the Netherlands;
  • Dutch Cape Colony was left unharmed but placed under British administration;
  • Portugal and Netherlands accepted to separate their arms sale markets, with France and Germany going to Amsterdam and Spain going to Portugal;
  • France was to allow Portugal to resume commerce to Northern Europe;
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
[1] In 1785, the British government passed the Loyalist act of 1785 offering financial support and land in both Canada and South Africa to any loyalists from the 13 colonies. The funds for this were made available from the war savings and increased trade with United States. Canada received over 150,000 settlers while South Africa received about 25,000 settlers. The key difference was due to the British government wishing to build a strong British deterrent in Canada offered loyalist settling in Canada three times the compensation (land, cost of transport and full reparations for lost property in the 13 colonies while those that chose to settle in South Africa received land, cost of transport and only portion of their property lost in 13 colonies. iOTL lack of financial support resulted in only about 75,000 loyalists leaving the United States for British North America and due to Cape Colony (South Africa) still being part of Dutch Empire none settled there.

[2] iTTL This would ultimately lead to the First Barbary War, where the US, under attack from Barbary pirates, supported Portuguese attacks on North Africa Barbary States.

[3] The vagueness of the agreement would lead to enormous Anglo-American border friction that would ultimate culminate in the 1814 War. The American Rebels saw the terms of the Peace Treaty as an attack on them and viewed any “loyalist” with resentment and anger. The British subsequently after the peace treaty offered large financial compensation and support to all “loyalist wishing to leave the United States. The tens of thousands of British loyalists that moved into Canada, Ohio and Indiana quickly organized the territory into pseudo-Canadian states as seen in the map to cement their anti-American claim over the Northwestern lands as part of British North America.
[4] The release of the Portuguese Ambassador did not change the status of the Portuguese and Spanish diplomatic impasse. It would take the outbreak of the French Revolution for the Spanish to renew diplomatic relationship with Portugal.


Note:
We can see a much different USA and BNA. We also have a British/Dutch Hybrid SA. The most crucial agreement was the friendship with the Dutch. This was only possible due to Portuguese strength, growing rich colonies and weakening Dutch colonial empire needing a partner who they felt was not threatening. It was a win-win deal for both countries. Questions/ Comments???

Please return on October 4 as we discuss the world after the "The Paris Treaty of 1783.
 
With the Frontier closed for now, how will American colonists expand themselves? OTL, some claimed it was a safety valve to prevent social dissent by sending poorer sectors off West.
And it seems Southern states are larger, maybe due to the fact most of the colonies' charters allowed them to expand until the Pacific.

As for the Portugal-United Provinces links, it might get more trade and also more links, especially since there's a local Sepharadic community. Will the Dutch help Portugal reenter Japan? Will scholars of both countries communicate together? And how much Portuguese liberals will want to inspire themselves from the United Provinces' governance as an exemple among others? And does Portuguese colonies get to vote on the rreaty too?
 
I love the idea of a Luso-Dutch alliance and i hope it lives long and prospers, there is something inspiring about two small, well run, plucky nations sticking together and almost matching larger empire through smarts rather than sheer size and power.
 
Those are some interesting borders in the United States...I do wonder what will happen in the future there...especially with the French Revolutionary War and the Napoleonic Wars...

The Luso-Dutch alliance after the war seems interesting, it makes sense given that the British and French are getting too powerful.

Excited for more.
 
This is economically devastating to the Growth of the US. Loosing not only the Great Lakes but also diminishing the value of the Mississippi while irrevocably boosting the Slavocratic South.
 

Lusitania

Donor
oh damm this will have major repruccasion also deifntily another war coming over that area
we need to see how the US develops and how Britain able to fill the areas with loyalist and future settlers. People in general just wanted to be left alone to do their thing and not looking for fight.

but yeah major change compared to iotl.

With the Frontier closed for now, how will American colonists expand themselves? OTL, some claimed it was a safety valve to prevent social dissent by sending poorer sectors off West.
And it seems Southern states are larger, maybe due to the fact most of the colonies' charters allowed them to expand until the Pacific.
Yes the Americans will need to adjust their thinking. Where will the Americans who went to the North West go? Some won’t leave so there is ramifications with that, some will migrate to areas south of Ohio River which means more smaller farms and more settlers. Some will move west to the “northwest” regardless of who controls it. Just like some move to Ontario regardless of British control over it. They be attracted to available land.

As for the Southern States they be split soon enough and while some may be pro slavery there be a lot more settlers and that mean smaller farms instead of large plantation (some will exists) but settlement will change and with more settlers there might be less support for slavery. But we also need to remember st this time slavery was legal in New York State also.

One thing that also impacted is the interaction between 5 civilized tribes and white settlers as more competition for land.

Those are some interesting borders in the United States...I do wonder what will happen in the future there...especially with the French Revolutionary War and the Napoleonic Wars...
Borders set from Afar do not take into consideration people who might live in the area. Native groups now might be living on both sides of the border. How will they become impacted? This is similar to the map drawing of the Scramble for Africa. With people in area having to deal with the agreement made without their inputs.

This is a game changer for sure. We will need to see if Britain and USA develop that close relationship as per iotl.

Will the US look for additional trading partners beyond Britain? How will the US politicians and people see Europe? What will it’s relationship be with Portugal? All very interesting questions.

British investment played a huge role in the early development and Industrialization of the US (especially northern states. How will that play out. Money always finds it way to where there is profit to be made but will it be to the same extent. Britain can now direct both government and private investment into the BNA. I am interested to see if we see the development of earlier canals linking the Great Lakes/ St Lawrence to the Atlantic. Could we see ships sail to the Great Lakes directly from Britain by 1800? Don’t see the Eerie canal being built since the Americans only have a small portion of Lake Ontario and rest part of BNA. a British canal system to the lakes would be a huge game changer both in the interior provinces development and settlement.

now to your question about French Revolution Wars and subsequent Napoleon Wars that be interesting. First and foremost there is no impact of these changes to Europe (Nothing that would impact them happening). This could make Britain stronger with a better supply of wood and other ship building materials. Might even result in stronger shipbuilding capability in BNA. Food production could be greater with large amount being sent to Britain, therefore much less reliant on US.

The border tensions and native attacks on American settlers in Northwest that were one of the irritants and caused of war of 1812 may not exist depending on settler patterns and native behavior. The manor in which natives in southern states adopted European agriculture could happen in north. There could be border skirmishes snd tensions but nothing like iotl.

The other major difference is that we will be dealing with an economical weaker US and wonder if that translate to more hostile US or cautious one? That a question to address in future.

lastly is the sale of French Louisiana to the US. How would the British react to it. That could be POD for an outbreak of war between USA and Britain, not saying it will. Britain could seize part of it or attempt to capture it all. That very important future event (maybe France not sell it since a weaker and poorer US can’t afford or Congress reneges on ratifying the agreement. Could Britain and US seize it and divide along existing areas of control? Giving Britain the northern half and US the southern and acess to the Pacific or would we see the seizure of it by Britain and subsequently movement Americans to west results in new countries along the west coast. Oh the possibilities.

This is economically devastating to the Growth of the US. Loosing not only the Great Lakes but also diminishing the value of the Mississippi while irrevocably boosting the Slavocratic South.
Yes as I have mentioned above there are mayor changes to the US as we know it. To the US in the TL it will be a shift south but not necessarily one to more Slave owning states. The souther US west will receive maybe double the number of settlers (maybe 3X) compared to iotl. That have an impact on settlement, size of farms and settlers. You may have areas that have many more smaller farms and less demand for slaves.

another thing is will this means more industry in south and central US as opposed concentrated one New England and northern US. how will slavery play out with an more industrious South?

the Mississippi becomes crucial for both only the US but also BNA as the lands south of Great Lakes would also benefit from use of the river and port along coast. A neutral Louisiana? Is that possible to guarantee acess to the Mississippi? Oh boy did I open up a can of worms. Lol.
 
One thing that also impacted is the interaction between 5 civilized tribes and white settlers as more competition for land.
So, depending of whether a Jacksonian democracy will occur, will the Trail of Tears occurs sooner?

another thing is will this means more industry in south and central US as opposed concentrated one New England and northern US. how will slavery play out with an more industrious South?
And how will Southern society evolve if they went from the OTL latifundism to TTL yeomen? Would politicians such as Calhoun still end getting elected to serve the landed gentry?
 

Lusitania

Donor
As for the Portugal-United Provinces links, it might get more trade and also more links, especially since there's a local Sepharadic community. Will the Dutch help Portugal reenter Japan? Will scholars of both countries communicate together? And how much Portuguese liberals will want to inspire themselves from the United Provinces' governance as an exemple among others? And does Portuguese colonies get to vote on the rreaty too?
Lots of good questions
Japan - I am certain that Portuguese merchants will try to trade through Dutch port but it will be a gradual process and It is upto the Japanese if they accept the Portuguese. Interesting thought fir the Portuguese are already are trading in Russian Far East ports and if they have items the Japanese want or wish to purchase Japanese goods this agreement will at very least allow them to use Dutch merchants as intermediaries.

The Portuguese have already granted right to worship to Jews and some Jews have already migrated from Spain to Portugal. The Portuguese are using the Sephardic community in Hamburg to enter the Germanies market and Jews have been expanding their investment throughout the empire therefore this will bode well for them as they are well positioned to act as a bridge between the two countries. I would Imagine that one or more members of these families would move to Portugal to administer family investment.

Collaboration in Science, medicine and other topics are definitely possible with the Portuguese themselves starting to contribute to the general knowledge of world. Portuguese universities are gaining recognition for their research and their advancement so it very possible that Dutch scholars study and work together with Portuguese.

Both countries will be influenced by the liberalization and ideas that will appear with the ARW and French Revolution. While in future there may be additional sharing of values and ideas between liberals in both countries till the Napoleon Wars each country will be dealing with these issues internally. The Portuguese have just recently come out of a massive upheaval culminating in the Tagus Accord. The country continues on an upswing and growth; with economy and empire both growing therefore it has time on its side. The Dutch on the other hand are both closer to France and have been dealt economic and military defeat which may put the country in additional social upheaval that Portugal not have at moment.

Treaties are sole responsibility of the Portuguese government, king and his cabinet. While it would be prudent and important to take into account wishes and view points of various regions they don’t get a say.
I love the idea of a Luso-Dutch alliance and i hope it lives long and prospers, there is something inspiring about two small, well run, plucky nations sticking together and almost matching larger empire through smarts rather than sheer size and power.
Yes the Dutch ships with the loss of South Africa have both Angola and Mozambique ports to stop on way to Ceylon and East Asia. This will compensate them for the loss of SA. Although for foreseeable future they will continue making use of SA ports as long as the current agreement between the Dutch and British is honored. But the biggest impact may be that Dutch merchants and investors now have access to several rich colonies. Portuguese India, Angola and Brazil are very important areas that Dutch merchants and investors are allowed to enter (we already have them invest in Angola). The other factor is that Portuguese growing manufacturing now has a new market that had been closed or expensive to enter. Portuguese goods will be able to compete with English goods which bodes well for Dutch who gain alternative source of some manufactured good with Portuguese less expensive goods driving costs down fir the Dutch. This of course is great for Portuguese which translates to increased demand.

The ability of Dutch to use Portuguese ports will bolster and same time reduce their costs. This accord might be the POD for VOC to survive. In addition the Ability of the Dutch to maintain Control over Ceylon and Southern India will provide VOC with revenue it would otherwise loose.

if the agreement continues to grow then an alliance with the Portuguese could follow. This could allow the Dutch to resist British and French pressure and hopefully prevent future wars between the two. Of course much of that depends on the side the Dutch choose during the Napoleon Wars. But that way in future.

The Luso-Dutch alliance after the war seems interesting, it makes sense given that the British and French are getting too powerful.

Excited for more.
Small nations with large colonial empire tend to have common interests.
Yes the Portuguese recognized that their friendship with Britain will not always result in mutual beneficial interactions. Especially if Britain starts viewing the Portuguese as a rival that is “unfairly” growing and expanding at the cost of Britain.

To hedge their bets against the day the British start viewing the Portuguese as rivals they have been expanding its trade, diplomacy to other countries. It continues to expand its trade with Russia, Sweden and Prussia now with Dutch. This bodes well for the Portuguese who slowly want to strike their own path and not be tied at the hip with the British.

The Dutch are perfect partner who despite recent blows recognize that their colonial prime has pass them and if they don’t ally themselves to a neutral colonial empire will be stripped of rest of their empire. So they put past behind them and gladly sign the agreement with Portugal.
 
Last edited:

Lusitania

Donor
So, depending of whether a Jacksonian democracy will occur, will the Trail of Tears occurs sooner?
I would say there be earlier pressure on Native groups south of the Ohio River. Wether that translates into an earlier trail of Tears or something different not entirely sure. Will the US have the means to carry out the expulsion? Would a Spain in Florida provide the natives with weapons to resist American expansion (be in their interest). Would the US view Spanish support for the southern tribes as justification for war? Could we see the natives groups retreat into Florida?

What I am saying is that we have a new US just trying to expand into these areas that have larger native groups still in them. It will be a weaker US and the relationship with Britain may be cordial it would not be same as iotl. Would that translate into less investment by British businessmen I think it safe to say trade between the two be diminished but continue. There will be investment in US but it’s a diminished US compared to iOTL.

what this all translate to its policy on natives? With diminished settlement areas the US government along with state governments will probable be aggressive in their clearing of land by defeating and pushing the natives westward. At some point their back will be against the wall and they might respond more aggressively and till the early 1800 either Spain or France (or both) might provide some support to natives to slow American Expansion.

And how will Southern society evolve if they went from the OTL latifundism to TTL yeomen? Would politicians such as Calhoun still end getting elected to serve the landed gentry?
All this of course would be dependent on manufacturing starting in the southern cities along the coast. It would be transforming in same way as Chicago and Detroit cities were different than rural parts of the states. You would have larger emigrants cities developing in sharp contrast to rural southern states that still be dominantly plantation driven.

then as you mention you have two differentCarolinas or Georgias. One along coast that be dominated by trade and manufacturing and one interior based on agriculture. The rural areas would fight to both maintain their influence and control of state legislatures. We would probably see difference in opinions on tariffs and other policies.

As for representation I think we see a mixture. Representatives and Senators from interior serving the land owners and a new type from coast representing the business owners.
 
It's rough luck for the American Indians in the US, though of course they were facing a bad time IOTL anyway.

But on the flipside, native groups north of the border have some better odds. It's not like Canada's relations with its First Nations was historically great, but under Britain there is a chance for the likes of the Shawnee and the Haudenosaunee to get themselves enough breathing room to consolidate and enforce protection of their . As soon as the Revolution kicks off Britain isn't going to want land, it'll want quick cash and warm bodies to fight the coalition wars, so they'd be more interested in strengthening the existing trading arrangements than displacing Indians for white settlers. Plus, the need to secure British North America from US attack while resources are focused in Europe grants the natives bargaining power.
 

Lusitania

Donor
It's rough luck for the American Indians in the US, though of course they were facing a bad time IOTL anyway.

But on the flipside, native groups north of the border have some better odds. It's not like Canada's relations with its First Nations was historically great, but under Britain there is a chance for the likes of the Shawnee and the Haudenosaunee to get themselves enough breathing room to consolidate and enforce protection of their . As soon as the Revolution kicks off Britain isn't going to want land, it'll want quick cash and warm bodies to fight the coalition wars, so they'd be more interested in strengthening the existing trading arrangements than displacing Indians for white settlers. Plus, the need to secure British North America from US attack while resources are focused in Europe grants the natives bargaining power.
You are right that the native groups caught up in the US push to Mississippi will be under greater pressure than iotl where expansion west along a wider frontier did place whites vs natives but over a more dispersed area.

here in the areas south of Ohio river we do have very interesting times ahead for us.

now the areas north of the Ohio river will be interesting too. The British will need to get the natives settled down and settled into peaceful state and at same time allow foreign settlements. A interesting balancing act. One that require certain type of diplomatic skill plus ability to carry big stick.

there is already an Iroquois state on the eastern side of Niagara River and east of Lake Erie. The Shawnee are located north of Ohio River. What happens next we will see.
 
Top