| Author | Message | ||
     Sean Swaby (sean_swaby) Registered Member Username: sean_swaby Post Number: 9 Registered: 08-2002 |
That's a good site Scott and an interesting POD. Had I known of it earlier I might have used it instead or in parallel. Perhaps after I finish the alternate William and Mary TL we could explore the 1582 POD some more. Now to continue the TL: 1814- With Napolean dead, the Coalition powers are ultimately victorious in France. Now comes the hard bargaining that would characterise the peace. The first treaty in the new period of peace is The Treaty of Paris, 1814. France was to give up all territory acquired since 1790 and Monaco was re-made into an independent principality. France also had to cede Tobago, St. Lucia, Seychelles and a few other small colonies to Britain. Guadeloupe was returned to France from Swedish rule. The Bourbon monarchy was to be restored in France with a much stronger Estates-General than before the Revolution (with some of the good aspects of reform due to Revolution being retained). The Bonaparte family was forbidden from assuming any major role in governing France and Bonaparte's immediate relatives (brothers especially) were exiled from France and indeed from Europe. France also had to pay a large indemnity and had to submit to occupation by an allied garrison until 1818. In addition Alsace-Lorraine was to be placed under exclusive Prussian occupation until the French indemnity was paid, and afterwards the future of the two provinces would be decided by the Coalition in a Congress for Europe. Prussia and Austria were going to press for at least Alsace to be an independent state in the German Confederation. Belgium was for now under the occupation of Anglo-Dutch forces and it was called the southern Netherlands. Its borders with Francewere those of 1790 but the north-eastern Flemish areas (including Dunkerque which was renamed Duinkerken) of France was transferred to the southern Netherlands. In addition some of the Walloon (dialect of French) areas were incorporated into the southern Netherlands. Lille and Cambrai are Walloon towns but it is decided they will stay in France (the border doesn't come near to Cambrai). So the border lies just outside of Lille and that little projection of French territory along the Muese into Belgium was annexed to southern Netherlands. In early 1815 Austria hosted a Congress in Vienna where the future of Europe was to be decided. France having made peace was allowed to attend as an equal (almost) power. France could not renegotiate her borders or her indemnity. Attending were Tsar Alexander I of Russia, Metternich the Chancellor of Austria, and major representatives for Prussia, Britain and the Netherlands and France. Minor representatives were present for some of the other European states as well. For 10 months the Congress went on with many side negotiations and distrust beginning to emerge among some of the powers. Prussia and Russia had secretly agreed in 1814 that Prussia would accept Russia's annexation of most of the Polish Duchy set up by Napolean in return for Prussia gaining all of Saxony. Britain, Austria and France resisted this agreement however (especially Austria as she wanted Saxony between herself and Prussia) and a compromise was worked out whereby Prussia annexed 3/4 of Saxony leaving a rump Saxon state and as compensation got some Rhineland territory quite close to France (in fact some of it just bordered Lorraine). Russia got to annex what she had desired of the Polish Duchy and the rest of the Duchy that came from Prussian territory taken by Napolean was returned to Prussia (essentially the border between Prussia, Austria and Russia is about the same as in OTL). Illyria and Tyrol were restored to Austria. Austria at the time was in occupation Lombardy, Venetia, the Romagna (of the Papal States), Modena, Lucca, Parma and Tuscany. Romagna was returned to the Papal States (which were restablished) and in return for the southern Netherlands becoming independent the Austrians were allowed to annex Lombardy and Venetia. Modena, Lucca, and Parma were united with Tuscany under a Habsburg prince into the Kingdom of north Italy. An Italian Confederation was setup and as Austria ruled part of Italy and had a Habsburg prince as King of a large section, it (initially) dominated the Confederation in alliance with the Pope (and at times with Piedmont). Piedmont was expanded slightly at the expense of France and was united with Sardinia (and already having Savoy and Nice) into the Kingdom of Sardinia. Corsica was transferred to the new Kingdom of Sardinia (from the 1814 treaty of Paris). In Germany the Rhine Confederation was disbanded but instead of the hundreds of pre-Napoleanic states, only 40 German states were restored. A new German Confederation was setup with Prussia and Austria being the defacto leading members. In Naples and Sicily the Borbon (As they would be known in Italy) monarchy was restored. In the southern Netherlands an independent Belgium was set up though some territory in Limburg connecting Maastricht to the rest of the Netherlands was annexed to the Netherlands. Luxembourg was fully included in the new Belgium and it had a British prince (much futher down in the line of succession) as its new King. A Belgian Parliament modelled off the States-General and British Parliament was setup and Dutch and French were made the national (and equal) languages. This new Belgium was intended as a buffer state between France and Britain-Netherlands. It would also be a British allied state. To be continued as I have to go study now.... | ||
| Scott Blair (Faeelin) Registered Member Username: Faeelin Post Number: 31 Registered: 08-2002 |
Here's what happened involving elizabeth, from what I found on a site about the history of the low countries: "In 1582 the General Estates (parliament) of the Netherlands finally renounced the King of Spain, for violating the ancient priviliges of the Provinces. They introduced a new suzerain for all the Netherlands provinces. The (Catholic) French Duke of Anjou, a youger brother of the French King assumed the Lordship over all Seventeen Provinces. It would be silly for him to adopt the title Duke of Burgundy, since Burgundy was no longer a part of the lands that came forth from the Burgundian inheritance, so he was known as the Duke of Brabant, since long the central state of the Provinces. Of course he also took titles for all the other provinces. He wasn't a complacent suzerain and interfered in the affairs of State in a way not to the liking of the General Estates and the Prince of Orange. When he died the suzerainty was offered to the English Queen Elisabeth. She sent her favorite crony the Earl of Leicester. An even more meddlesome fellow than Anjou had been. In the meantime the Prince of Orange was murdered by a Spanish agent, and succeeded by his son Maurice, as Stadtholder of Holland and Zealand and Head of the army. When Leicester was tossed out in 1588, the actions of the new Spanish Governor Requesens and his General Alexander Duke of Parma had greatly reduced the territory of the Uprising." http://home.wanadoo.nl/gerard.vonhebel/benelux1588.htm | ||
| David S Poepoe (David_s_poepoe) Registered Member Username: David_s_poepoe Post Number: 29 Registered: 08-2002 |
The end of the Napoleonic Wars is fine. Regarding Habsburg compensation for the loss of the Netherlands with greater gains in the Italian states, I have always wondered about the possibility of Italy (or at least Northern Italy) being unified under the Habsburgs. Perhaps Franz-Josef would be Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary and Italy - there one would have the Trial or Triple Monarchy. Perhaps a reconstituted Holy Roman Empire, but this time with Rome (or at least bordering the Papal States). | ||
| Sean Swaby (Sean_swaby) Registered Member Username: Sean_swaby Post Number: 5 Registered: 08-2002 |
Scott please explain your last post. How and Why would Elizabeth I send over an English viceroy to the Habsburg ruled Netherlands in 1580? Shawn, you are right, taking Calais would be a bad idea and the British should know it, so Calais will remain French. About Alsace and Lorraine, what you suggested isn't all that far from what would have happened in OTL. What I really want to know about and have been unable to find info for is exactly how, when, why, what form, etc. "France narrowly escaped having to cede Alsace-Lorraine" as one of my books (Europe since Napolean by David Thomson) states. I have also seen that tidbit of info pop up in a few other discussions and I would like to find out more behind it. The option of Alsace-Lorraine being occupied by Prussia til France pays up her reparations will be an option as you suggested. I will not have a Bonapartist ruler for France immediately after Napolean's death. The Coalition in early 1814 had agreed to a restoration of the Bourbons and so (for the time being at least) the Bourbons will rule France again. David, what's your opinion on the end of the Napoleanic wars? And to continue it slightly (haven't been able to look at it much as Univeristy classes started Monday and my week was rather hectic- should have a properly sorted out timetable for classes, tutorials, labs, free time and leisure in the coming weeks however): a rough outline of the Treaty of Paris, 1814: France was to give up all territory acquired since 1790 and Monaco was re-made into an independent principality. France also had to cede Tobago, St. Lucia, Seychelles and a few other small colonies to Britain. Guadeloupe was returned to France from Swedish rule. The Bourbon monarchy was to be restored in France with a much stronger Estates-General than before the Revolution (with some of the good aspects of reform due to Revolution being retained). The Bonaparte family was forbidden from assuming any major role in governing France. France also had to pay a large indemnity and had to submit to occupation by an allied garrison until 1818. *In addition Alsace-Lorraine was to be placed under exclusive Prussian occupation until the French indemnity was paid, and afterwards the future of the two provinces would be decided by the Coalition.* *- subject to change pending further information and more opinions. For Belgium, I have decided that rather than be returned to Austria it would be made into an independent Kingdom with a member of the British royal family becoming its first monarch (and starting a new royal family). Austria would be compensated in Italy. The borders of Belgium with the Netherlands would be remarkably similar to the OTL borders. (the area around and near Maastricht had been attached to the United Provinces of the Netherlands long before the Napoleanic wars and so a neck of land connecting Maastricht to the Netherlands proper makes sense). The borders with France would be similar but slightly different than in OTL. All of the Flemish speaking areas in the extreme north-east of France (border on the Flanders/Vlaanderen region of Belgium) would be incorporated into Belgium. I think this includes the port of Dunkirk (the name would be changed from the French "Dunkerque" to Dutch/Flemish "Duinkerken"). In addition some of the Walloon (dialect of French) areas would be incorporated into Belgium. Lille and Cambrai are Walloon towns but it is decided they will stay in France (the border doesn't come near to Cambrai). So the border lies just outside of Lille and that little projection of French territory along the Muese into Belgium would be annexed to Belgium. All of Luxembourg will be a part of Belgium as well. The Belgian Parliament would be modelled along the lines of the States-General and British Parliament. Belgium would also have Dutch and French as its two official languages. | ||
| Scott Blair (Faeelin) Registered Member Username: Faeelin Post Number: 14 Registered: 08-2002 |
Hmmm, you know, to get an english netherlands, you could have elizabeth send over a viceroy who the dutch like in the 1580's. Thus, the Dutch east indies will be part of the English Indian Company. Of course, they might just throw off all viceroys upon gaining independence. | ||
| Shawn Endresen (Shawn_endresen) Registered Member Username: Shawn_endresen Post Number: 18 Registered: 08-2002 |
England per se doesn't want Calais. You could call it part of the Netherlands, but it has no local traditions to support an Estates-General sort of government, really. Taking it would be a bad idea, and they know it. Alsace and Lorraine will not be placed under a dual administration. That was nothing more than a pretext for war between Austria and Prussia whenever the two of them felt like it. They only need one pretext. With Napoleon dead, will Joseph attempt to lead France? Rather necessitates exiling the whole family doesn't it? Drops the odds of a Bourbon restoration, actually. With Napoleon himself dead, his brothers don't look terribly frightening, and everyone was surprised when Talleyrand managed to convince Britain that the Bourbons were still viable. We may see France under an Orleanist or Bonapartist administration. Anyway, Alsace and Lorraine being used as collatoral--occupied by Prussia until France's reperations are paid, then handed back--looks like an option to me. | ||
| Sean Swaby (Sean_swaby) Registered Member Username: Sean_swaby Post Number: 2 Registered: 08-2002 |
Shawn, David....what do you two think of the end of the Napoleanic wars and my idea of a peace treaty. I know in OTL France almost lost Alsace-Lorraine in the Second Treaty of Paris, but I am unsure HOW Alsace and Lorraine would have been lost. Would those two areas be put under Prussian administration, made independent duchies in the German Confederation, or would they be placed under the dual control of Austria and Prussia like Schleswig-Holstein? Also would it be too much to have Calais annexed to the UK or possibly occupied for a fixed period beyond the Coalition occupation of France (which was to end when France paid the indemnities stipulated by the treaty)? The loss of Alsace-Lorraine will definitely have effects on the future for Franco-German relations and the unification of Germany. Another aspect I have been thinking about is the constitutional and administrative development of the UK. This UK would have to be formed by the more or less full union of the Netherlands to England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. However the Netherlands has a history of autonomy in the form of the Estates-General and the Estates-General would probably be retained as an assembly for the provinces making up the Netherlands but with some powers going to Parliament in London. Of course the retention of the Estates-General could lead to early (but extremely limited) devolution for Scotland and Ireland (and maybe Wales). Especially as how Ireland's parliament had been recently dissolved, perhaps an Irish Diet or Assembly (below the level of parliament) could be formed which would send members to Parliament in London. | ||
| Sean Swaby |
For the settlement I was thinking of going along the lines of the OTL second peace settlement (the Second Treaty of Paris) but with France losing Alsace (which joins the German Confederation) and losing Lorraine (in a way- have Lorraine become an independent duchy in confederation with France and with its eastern section in the German Confederation). I was also thinking of a slightly enlarged Belgium which would be a Anglo-Dutch allied-buffer state between France and a new United Kingdom of Britain, Ireland and the Netherlands (UK for short). I also thought that Calais might possibly be ceded to Britain (though maybe that is going a bit far). The rest of Europe would look more or less similar to OTL 1815 Europe though I was thinking of having Prussia take a bit more than half of Saxony as it did in OTL. Rhenish Prussia would probably still be created to counter any future French adventures. | ||
| Sean Swaby |
Now for the TL in the North America 1800-1804: 1800- Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte h a vision of a renewed western empire for France, and his schemes included the recapture of Louisiana from Spain. Control over this vast territory would halt the westward expansion of the young United States and would supply French colonies in the West Indies with the goods they needed. Napoleon signs the secret Treaty of Ildefonso with Spain as the first step in his plan, an agreement that stipulated that France would provide Spain with a kingdom for the son-in-law of Spain's king if Spain would return Louisiana to France. However, Napoleon's plan collapsed when the twelve-year revolt of slaves and free blacks in the French colony of Saint-Domingue succeeded, forcing French troops to return defeated to France and preventing them from reaching their ultimate destination--Louisiana--and from being able to defend it. As Napoleon's New World empire disintegrated, the loss of Haiti made Louisiana unnecessary. 1803- The general peace in Europe opens the way for negotiations over the sale of Louisiana by France (which is in need of the money to compensate the lost treasure spent on war, as well as for introducing conscription). France had regained Louisiana from France and now saw an opportunity to gain currency for modernisation. Initially the French are only willing to offer it to the USA. As Britain is an arch-enemy the French let it be known that the offer of Louisiana does not go for them. The French were also about to exclude the UPA but when the UPA (bankrolled by Britain and the Netherlands) offered to pay more than what the French initially hoped to receive, then the UPA was allowed to bid. Soon a bidding war begins between the USA and UPA with the French enjoying the rise in the amount offered. Eventually Philadelphia and Charleston agree in bilateral talks to jointly purchase Louisiana and to split the colony along a line extending from the US-UP border to the border with Spanish Mexico. The USA and UPA came to this agreement because the USA was fast running out of actual reserves to draw upon to make the purchase and the UPA's bankrollers (Britain and the Netherlands) were beginning to balk at any increase in the UPA's offer. So in July 1803 the UPA, USA and France agree to the settlement worked out by Philadelphia and Charleston. By August however war had resumed in Europe and the British and Dutch instructed the UPA not to go ahead with the purchase. The UPA was at first rather irate, but Britain and the Netherlands said the UPA could just take the area of Louisiana that it desired. When the agreement broke down, the USA as well saw an opportunity and approached Britain and the UPA about taking Louisiana along the lines agreed (with some adjustments in the extreme north favouring Britain) between the US and UP. Britain and the UPA agreed to the new US proposal and by December Louisiana had been taken over by the USA and UPA. The UPA in the meanwhile had also declared war on France. And Europe after 1808: In London the members of the States-General who escaped from the Netherlands sat in the British Parliament, albeit as a "government" as opposed to a section of the British government. Though they had no country to run the British Parliament allowed them to continue their duties and had in fact invited them to sit in Parliament when the evacuated the Hague. As the Netherlands were now annexed ("illegally" the Dutch and British claim) the colonies of the Netherlands and all her assests were placed under the emergency control of Britain by the States-General and British Parliament (from this point on acting mostly as one entity). So Cape Colony, Ceylon, the Dutch West Indies, Dutch East Indies and the Dutch West Indian Company (DWIC) and Dutch East Indian Company (DEIC) were all placed under British control, though the Dutch laws and administrations (in the case of the companies) remained. 1809- In Austria, moves were being made to resist further French actions (especially after what happened in Spain) and Napolean declares war on Austria. The French defeat the Austrians outside Vienna in a costly "Battle of the Danube". Napolean's army performed less aptly than before due to many of France's soldiers attempting to put down rebellion in Spain and also because the Europe's generals had learned from Napolean's tactics and were applying those tactics themselves. In Sweden the King, Gustav IV, was deposed via revolution and his childless uncle, Charles XIII, succeeded him. The Swedish Diet needed an heir to the throne however and begin debating which French Marshal is the best choice. The Diet decided to limit its candidate eligibility to French dukes and princes (marshals) wh obtained their titles before 1807 (this shows loyalty and skill) and with sons. They come up with 3 possibilities: Bernadotte, Murat and Berthier. Murat was voted against because he had married Caroline Bonaparte and so choosing him would tie Sweden closer to Napolean and Paris than the Diet wished (Murat's grand-duc title was also in doubt, since some thought he obtained by being related to Napolean by marriage). Berthier was almost picked but he had married only recently and had made it known his son would be named Napolean. So Bernadotte was picked. He would allow for closer relations with the Continental System yet allow Sweden to still remain mostly outside the new French Empire. 1810- The Cortes (Spanish Parliament) was summoned and drew up a new constitution based upon the French revolutionary constitution of 1791. This constitution contrasted with the present French constitution and Napolean's autocratic despotism and Napolean disliked it intensely. Napolean continued to lead campaigns in Spain but only achieved victories when he lead his troops, otherwise the Spanish guerrillas were victorious over his generals in Spain. In addition, British, Dutch and Portuguese troops in Portugal continued to supply the Spanish guerrillas and attack French troops. 1811- The continuing revolt in Spain and the attempted revolt by Austria, in addition to a economic downturn due to the Continental System (no trade with Britain and an Anglo-Dutch blockade of any countries participating in said system) induced Russia to move towards an alliance with Britain. 1812- Persuaded by Russia's moves and British encouragement, Sweden (even with Bernadotte) moved towards alliance with Britain and Russia and a Fourth Coalition came into existence. In response to Alexander jumping his ship in 1811, Napolean began assembling a Grand Armee in Konigsberg in Prussia. He invaded Russia in June and his Armee followed a path to Moscow. He had expected to defeat the Russians, but the Russians, having learned from the past, did not play ball. Instead they withdrew whenever the French advanced and burned or took anything of value in the areas they evacuated. By the time Napolean reached Moscow his army was hungry and tired and had not defeated the enemy decisively. With winter, disease, desertions, vast lines of communications to maintain and hit and run attacks by the Russians, Napolean decided Moscow wasn't worth keeping and that he would withdraw. By the time his Armee left Russia he had lost almost 3/4's of his original force either killed or captured. This was his greatest defeat and only encouraged Sweden into being committed to the Coalition. Now even Prussia became restive. 1813- Prussia makes an alliance with Russia and promises not to make a separate peace and later in the year after Naoplean had been driven west of the Elbe by the Russians and Prussians, Austria joined the Fourth Coalition. Napolean still achieved victories at places like Leipzig and Jena, however the new alliance against him now had close to a million soldiers, whilst he was having more trouble mustering up little more than half a million (some of which were on duty in Spain). At the battle of Munich, Napolean lost 40,000 men and retreated to the Rhine. At about the same time the Spanish, Portuguese, British and Dutch had achieved victory in Spain and all of these forces (led by a British general) entered France from the south. Once in France however, the allies faced popular French resistance and the advance was slower than in the rest of Europe. Anglo-Dutch soldiers had landed in Holland and began to quickly liberate the Netherlands and moved into France. The Prussians, Russians, Austrians, Bavarians and others entered France from the east across the Rhine. The British also began assembling a force to land in Normandy. Victory is looking assured but then the British suffer a political setback when King and Stadholder John II dies in 1813. All over Britain, the Netherlands and Hanover (to which George III had returned after Napolean' retreat) many people mourn his passing. Parliament (and the States-General) had already declared George III's son to be the heir and now King and Stadholder George I assumed the role left by John II. George I declared the landing in Normandy was carried out in memory to John II and as a tribute to the late King. Soon Coalition armies were outside Paris and a siege began by early 1814. 1814- Becoming tired of stubborn French resistance some of the Coalition armies stopped laying siege and entered Paris. Wherever they went fierce fighting ensued and parts of Paris were destroyed. Then like a thunderbolt, an Austro-Prussian force killed Napolean after surrounding the building he has holed up in along with some of his most elite soldiers. Victory was declared but some of the most loyal commanders to Napolean declared they would never make peace and continued to fight. By September 1814 the last of the French commanders and their soldiers had surrendered. Now began the rather difficult process of working out a post-war settlement..... | ||
| Sean Swaby |
Well the Peace/Truce of Rheims/Reims is the equivalent of the Peace of Amiens. Spain would retrocede Lousiana to France since it is now allied to France. I disagree Bill that Anglo-Dutch forces aren't going to go after New Orleans just because it is American. If America buys Lousiana then the Anglo-Dutch and UPA can interpret this as a sign of alliance and so the excuse to take the city is easily provided. If a bidding war takes place then the Anglo-Dutch don't have to see an American purchase as a sign of alliance. I rather like the idea of a bidding war. The purchase (for the USA at least) cannot consist of only New Orleans and the lower Mississippi, since then there would be no land connection between the lower Mississippi-New Orleans purchase and the USA. Remember the USA only borders the upper Mississippi. I was thinking the UPA would of course get everything south of the a line extending the US-UP border to New Spain, but I wasn't quite sure what would happen to everything north of that line. I won't have the USA ally with France then. This will probably make it easier to come about with a settlement for Louisiana. Maybe a bidding war takes place at first and the UPA, USA and Britain all get together and work out an agreement whereby the US and UP split the cost and split the territory. If Louisiana is not sold before a resumption of war then I expect the UPA will just take what it was about to buy (everything south of an extended borderline) and the USA will be allowed by Britain and the UPA to annex upper Louisiana (probably with some minor territorial changes with the British territories to the north in what may become Canada). Well if any other French Marshall can do then I will look more into that, but Bernadotte still looks likely since he is a French Marshall (made into a Prince). Thanks guys. | ||
| Bill Bruno |
Some points on Louisiana, since you have Spain allying with France between 1796 and 1805, do you still have Spain retroceding the Louisiana territory to France in 1801 (Treaty of San Iledefonso)? Secondly, you talk about a renewal of war in 1803, do you have an equivalent to the Treaty of Amiens (a very fragile peace signed between France and Britain that only lasted a few years)? If so, then the Louisiana Purchase can take place during that period as Napoleon realizes his renewal of war in Europe will make a continental American empire problematic. If the purchase takes place, then New Orleans is American and the Anglo-Dutch forces aren't likely to go after it. I think the point of not being able to acquire the entire OTL Purchase because of straitened funds is a good one. Figure a bidding war between the UPA and the USA, with the Anglo-Dutch perhaps bankrolling the former. Perhaps the purchase only consists of what Jefferson originally bargained for in OTL, the purchase of New Orleans and the lower Mississippi. | ||
| David S. Poepoe |
Regarding Louisiana, the forces of UPA and the British and Dutch will probably occupy New Orleans at the first oppurtunity. Partly out of fear of being surrounded, however, the USA will not have the population base to fill the entire territory itself. What will probably happen would be some settlement that would extend the existing USA-UPA border to the borders of New Spain. There would probably still be some Battle of New Orleans, tho I would expect the Anglo-Dutch forces to prevail through superior naval strength. Perhaps New Orleans will end up being a "Free City". | ||
| Shawn Endresen |
Actually allying with France looks like a wildly bad idea for them; allowing French commerce raiders to call at American ports is about as far as they'll take it. And maybe not even that. Any other French Marshall is an equally likely candidate, from what I can see. But a French Marshall is the logical choice for Sweden. | ||
| Sean Swaby |
Well I see no harm in Mr. Bernadotte becoming King of Sweden. From what I have read it seemed very likely and I am hard-pressed to find an alternative. Now David and Shawn and anyone else who wants to jump in...what should I do with the USA, France and Louisiana? I figure the USA would want to expand and that France wouldn't mind an ally to keep the British busy. But then again the French would probably also like to keep their large colony. Then of course this USA is a bit smaller and probably not as rich or strong as in OTL. So should the USA stay neutral or ally with France? I doubt she will ally with Britain unless she were to gain in some way and besides the USA's rival, the UPA is basically allied to Britain. | ||
| Sean Swaby |
Thanks for pointing out that the Kingdom of Naples wasn't a French creation. I meant the "new" Kingdom of Naples set up by Napolean which had been formerly called the Parthopean Republic (and that was a French creation). I know the Parthopean Republic was the Kingdom of Naples before and after that the Kingdom of the two Sicilies. Louis won't keep Illyria after Napolean as the Austrian's will want it back, but I think his rule will change the way the Austrians govern the area afterwards. Didn't mean to be too harsh of Francis the Good. "Could have some fun if Nappy captures or kills Archduke Charles(Karl)..." Hmmm...true. That could be fun. I think I will still have Mr. Bernadotte be King of Sweden, though I am still thinking on it. With the American colonies I originally thought of Virginia going to the South, but when I started out the Revolution and had the British regulars and colonial militia fighting I figured Virginia would throw in its lot with the rebellion as it would seem that London was taking aggressive action. Also Virginia is bit like Massachussetts and likes to go its own way on matters, so seeing a war starting Virginia would probably assume that if the British win then it can kiss any autonomy it currently has good-bye. Anyway, Virginia in the USA will make an interesting TL as Virginia will both push the USA forward (some cotton production to bring in revenue, bringing land claimed by Virginia into the USA (officially) which can be used for settlement and bringing more people into the USA) and will hold the USA back (Virginia's slightly independent manner, Virginia having hopes of becoming the dominant state, Virginia's initial opposition to a more centralised government, Virginia continuing to have slaves, and Virginia's claim to all of the western lands of the USA). As for the USA and UPA post-1780. Well the USA is having some internal troubles with Virginia (and New York also which half-heartedly aims to dominate the Union or at least rival Virginia). Virginia doesn't want to drop its claims to the western lands and hand them over as Federal territory as was proposed by the US govt. There is a consensus in the Virginia legislature though that it might be willing to drop claims north of the Ohio if the Federal govt. recognises its claims south of the Ohio. And of course there is that issue of slavery. Until 1799 it won't become a major issue because by then New York and New Jersey will still allow slavery to be legal. By 1804 however it might become a tense issue. In 1780 Mass. and Pennsylvania outlawed slavery. In 1783 New Hampshire basically outlawed it (though it didn't become fully illegal til 1857) and in 1784 Rhode Island and Connecticutt outlawed slavery. So by 1784 the legal slavery status was equal (5 states with slavery legal, 5 states with it being illegal). In 1799 New York outlawed slavery and in 1804 New Jersey outlawed slavery. This left only 3 states with slavery legal and 7 where it was illegal (this is counting New Hampshire in the anti-slavery camp). I don't see a civil war starting yet, but tensions will grow come the 1830s when the British Empire outlaws slavery and tries to stop the slave trade. Also the Loyalists in Virginia I have divided up: those who wish stay in Virginia and cannot afford to leave, those who leave for the UPA and those who leave for Canada. The capital of the USA is Philadelphia by the way. In the UPA, an Army and Navy are being built up and trained by some British and Dutch soldiers who stayed behind (but shed their uniform). Trade with Britain and the Dutch Republic is also high. Of course trade with the USA also exists but it has tapered off since the independence of the colonies in the form of two nations. Britain immediately after 1780 refused to trade with the USA, as did the Dutch Republic. The Anglo-Dutch boycott of trade ended in 1785 but trade was never the same and was much lower than pre-independence levels. Now with the Napoleanic wars we have new possibilities in the Americas. The UPA will ally with Britain and the Netherlands and will threaten the southern section of Louisiana (the area south of the line separating the USA from the UPA). The USA though may ally with France. I am debating whether to have the USA purchase Lousiana from France in 1803. This purchase in and of itself could cause tensions with the UPA which would feel surrounded. The UPA will take Florida from Spain (since Spain is a French ally). My "real changes" will be mainly what happens in the Americas since there will be a UPA and USA, and in the Netherlands (the Dutch royal family of OTL will not exist and will be replaced by a Hanoverian British-Dutch royal family) and possibly in Britain (you'll see what I mean, especially as I will ask for opinions in one area of the post-Napoleanic era). I am wondering how this alternate Britain (including the Netherlands) will respond to Prussian annexation of Hanover in 1866 (provided it still happens) and as the world becomes more "global" in terms of communication the minor changes of 1714 may (or may not) affect the future in any way. I also have an idea concerning India and the East Indies, but I will leave it as a surprise. | ||
| Pascal Schmidt (Susano) |
"So, Germany upset about France and GB. " Arg my English what I meant was taht GB is as well as germany upset about France.... hmpf....:/ | ||
| Pascal Schmidt (Susano) |
So, Germany upset about France and GB. Souns good. Hope the Frenchies get some nice, nasty conditions for them if their funyn revolution is put down. Eek, yeah that was an attack of francophobia, lol | ||
| Shawn Endresen |
The Kingdom of Naples wasn't really a French creation. Louis in Illyria, huh? This ought to be interesting; I suspect that's a harder place to rule than the Netherlands. On the other hand, they might let him keep it; you never know. My, you're harsh on the old boys. Holy Roman Emperor Franz II is remembered in Austria as Francis the Good, you know. Not his fault he's in his early 20s and following Josef II, nor that his uncle and aunt get killed by a French mob (in the Habsburg opinion). And the Directorate, whatever their faults, were better than what came before (and in some opinions, what came after). Could have some fun if Nappy captures or kills Archduke Charles(Karl)... Will Mr. Bernadotte still become King of Sweden, or will we get somebody else? "England" actually loses territory in this one; I don't think they'll be anywhere near as nice after Waterloo. Guess time and probability are a little more elastic for you than me ;) what with the Bonapartes still being around and all. Regarding the settlement in America, the splitting up of the colonies is done in an odd manner; probably better to lump Virginia and maybe even Maryland in with the South. Virginia has Loyalists left, and it does make sure the colonies squabble over the West (well, perhaps John II isn't that vindictive). Especially if the King dreams of reacquiring the South. Good still. | ||
| David S. Poepoe |
Sean, the Napoleonic War addition looks good. When drafting my TLs I never worry about the "famous people vs. butterfly effect" - who really cares. Will be waiting to see the "real changes" most eagerly. | ||
| Sean Swaby |
I didn't have Napolean go to Syria. He was ordered to stay in France in this TL and so his popularity grew in respect to the Directory since he has never had defeat when personally leading an army whilst the Directory almost lost a whole army on a rather crazy scheme in Syria (not altogether crazy, but a plan asking too much of an armed force that wasn't large enough). Your suggestion was good though and it considers serious thought. Imagine no Napolean to carry out a coup. Most likely the French Revolutionary wars would end earlier, about 1806 or 1808 I believe. David and Shawn, what are your opinions so far? Good enough? See any need for changes. | ||
| Bill Bruno |
Just a thought, but do you want to entertain the possibility that with a stronger Allied naval presence in the Mediterranean, that Napoleon isn't able to make it back from Syria (I'm assuming that he commanded the expedition, as in OTL)? A huge change, of course and certainly there's nothing wrong with him making it back in the ATL. As I said, just a thought. | ||
| Sean Swaby |
So Shawn, David..any comments (good and bad) about the outcome of the war? After all that you guys posted I thought that was the most likely outcome (or similar enough to the most likely one to fit.) Anway we are now onto the Napoleanic era. I am going to add to thw 1790-1797 section I have: 1790-1791- counter-revolutionary forces assembled in Brussells, Coblenz and Turin and an Emigre (French Exile) army is founded in the Rhineland January 1792- National Assembly declare that Habsburg Emperor of Austria, Leopold II, should be invited to declare whether or not he would renounce every treaty directed against the sovereignty, independence and safety of the French nation. Two weeks later it ordered the property of all exiles to be seized in the name of the government and the Revolution. Leopold II was ready to be conciliatory but he died on March 1 and his son and successor Francis II was less intelligent and dominated by militarist and absolutist advisers. He rejected the ultimatum and France declared war. Prussia, in alliance with Austria, and Piedmont declared war on France. In the early months of fighting the French achieved some victories. 1793- The revolutionary ideals of France were to too dynamic and radical to ignore by the rest of the monarchs of Europe (save a few like Catherine II who was preoccupied with Poland, but eventually sealed off Russia from revolutionary ideals). So, Britain and the Netherlands, Spain, Austria, Prussia, and Piedmont formed the First Coalition and waged war on France. Early in the year the French took Brussels. The King and Queen of France were executed shortly after for attempting to flee to the counter-revolutionaries the year before. The Royal couple would not be the only victim of the guillotine and over the next couple years many thousands of "enemies of the state and revolution" had their heads parted from their bodies. Shortly after taking Brussels and most of the Austrian Netherlands, the French army moved into the Netherlands were they fought a pitched battle with British and Dutch soldiers. The British and Dutch drove the French out and began an assault into the Austrian Netherlands taking Antwerp. Suffering reverses on the battlefield as well as outbreaks of rebellion in France, the National Assembly (now calling itself the Legislative Assembly) introduced a new and far-reaching idea: universal conscription. At first only bachelors and childless widowers between 18 and 25 were called up. This allowed the French to field massive battle formations which made up for training with numbers and soon turned th tide (while gaining experience) for France. Revolts in Gascony and Artois and around Paris were put down and the Prussians and Austrians were pushed out of Alsace and over the Rhine. The newly buffed up French army also retook Brussels from the Anglo-Dutch force holding and finally took all of the Austrian Netherlands by 1794. 1794- With a resurgent France the States-General in the Hague petitioned Britain to send more soldiers and called for closer cooperation between Britain and the Dutch Republic. Meanwhile across the Atlantic in the UPA, the British and Dutch soldiers and sailors who had secretly stayed behind after the end of the American Revolution to train the new UPA army and help found the UPA navy soon had to find themselves on the first ships back to London, Rotterdam, Dover, Bristol and Liverpool. George III of Hanover, now completely mad finally responded to Anglo-Dutch calls for alliance against France and his parliament (which was weaker than Britain's or the Netherlands') quickly called up Hanover's soldiers to assist the Dutch Republic. mid 1795- The National/Legislative Assembly was abolished and a new Directory was setup. The Directory was not popular to begin with as it was headed by corrupt men of ill-repute and as the years passed it would become only slightly more popular after some victories abroad but would have to put down more revolts than the Assembly did. The first revolt was in the winter of 1795 in Paris and the army was called in to put it down (the army was successful). Napolean Bonaparte had performed aptly in putting it down and the Directory, anxious to have excellent soldiers on their side and hopefully in their pockets, rewarded him with command of the home army. Bonaparte would continue to put down revolts right through into 1796. 1796- Frances only active enemies now were Britain and the Netherlands (and Hanover, but it doesn't count for much) on land and sea, and Austria and Sardinia. France had made peace with both Spain and Prussia and later Portugal, Saxony, the two Hesses, Naples, Parma and the Papacy. By annexing the Austrian Netherlands, France committed Austria to continue the war as it would not accept this loss. Britain and the Netherlands also objected to the annexation. In the Low Countries area, the French army had fought to a stalemate with the Anglo-Dutch armies roughly along the Dutch border and seeing no more sense in continuing operations in the area a truce was signed by both sides. In Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Groningen, Eindhoven, Utrecht and the Hague and other Dutch cities the locals cheered the British and Dutch soldiers for "saving the Republic from the French". France now concentrated her efforts against Austria and Bonaparte finally got a part to play in the war against the foreign enemies as opposed to putting down revolts. Bonaparte's army was charged with breaking Austrian power in Italy. He commanded brilliantly and drove the Austrians from northern Italy and pressed on to the Danube. Here he linked up with two other French armies and all 3 French armies could now threaten Vienna. Austria agreed to peace and recognised the annexation of the former Austrian Netherlands, the French created Cisalpine Republic, ceded France large districts of the Rhineland in return for part of Bavaria and all of Salzburg and the exclusion of Prussia from territorial gain. By now Hanover had made peace and only Britain and the Netherlands were still at war with France on the high seas. Britain and the Netherlands also eventually signed an armistice called the Peace of Rheims but more commonly called the Truce of Reims. 1798- The Directory though knew that with Peace their popularity would falter and aimed to keep up some state of war (and national emergency) and hopefully gain a strategic victory over arch-enemy Britain. It sent an expedition to Syria which had the aim of capturing Egypt (to aid in cutting off the British from India) as well as advancing through Persia if possible to threaten British interests in India. Their scheme was a bit too grand however and the Anglo-Dutch Fleet under Nelson almost annihilated the French Fleet off Syria. The French withdrew in defeat and only succeeded in forming a Second Coalition against them consisting of Britain, Turkey and Russia. This Second Coalition soon collapsed however when the French made no more moves against either Turkey or Britain. 1799- With high popularity and seeing the Directory as inept, Napolean carried out a coup and got the Directory to abolish itself and appoint him as Consul over a new Assembly (which was rather weak and had his brother Lucien in it). The Directory and Assembly had appointed two other Consuls as well, both reformers who Napolean had no real fear for in any event. 1799-1803- The Consulate reorganises France and with Napolean as head, the Consuls prepare the nation for a renewal of war by building more ships, shipyards, naval ports, barracks and sending expeditions to Madagascar and Mauritius (both close to India). The French created Republics: The Cisalpine Republic, the Helvetic Republic (Switzerland), Ligurian Republic, Roman Republic (the Pope was allowed to stay as nominal head) and the Parthpean Republic (Naples) were reorganised internally to serve French economic interests and needs and became tributary states. 1803- Napolean had the Assembly and other co-Consuls declare him Emperor of the French and from 1803 he instituted measures which whilst reforming France was making more and more into a police state. In mid 1803 war was renewed. 1804- The French Fleet (what was left of it and the new ships) in addition to many ships from the Spanish suffered a massive defeat in the Bay of Biscay. Again Nelson along with his new Vice-Admiral Therises (a Dutchman) was victorious for the the British and Dutch. Now Napolean's plans to invade Britain could not come to fruition and he instead focused on the Netherlands. 1805- The French attempt to invade the Netherlands but only occupy a small area of land south of the Rhine. Britain then rallied Austria, Prussia and Russia to form a Third Coalition. Napolean managed to defeat (or almost defeat) each of his enemies one by one. He was victorious over the Austrians before the Prussians and Russians could organise aid at Karlsruhe and Munich and Wagram and then proceeded to defeat the Prussians at Dresden and Leipzig. His army was now in a position to smash Hanover and did just that. George III fled Hanover and joined his children in London (where they were being schooled and also where they were sent by their mother for their own safety from their mad dad). In London King and Stadholder John II, getting on in life, welcomed his Hanoverian cousin and declared that Britain and the Netherlands (for which he spoke as Stadholder) would be in the fight against France for as long as it took and that Hanover, indeed Europe, would be free of French rule. 1806- Napolean's armies were now poised to enter the Netherlands from the east and this they did in mid 1806. The British and Dutch troops fought fiercely and by the end of 1806 the French had occupied all of the Netherlands save for Holland (that peninsular area). The reason Napolean stopped here was because the Russians were entering Prussia as he entered the Netherlands and he had no wish to be attacked in the rear. So he had the majority of his army move back to Berlin where they defeated a combined Russian-Prussian force. His army then chased the Russians to Posen then Danzig and finally defeated them totally at Memel. Here the Russian Tsar, Alexander I signed the treaty of Memel in March 1807. Napolean entertained Alexander's ambition to be Emperor of the East (though he would never give any real support) while Alexander recognised Napolean as Emperor of the West. Having defeated the Austrians, Prussians and Russians (as well as the getting the Danes and Swedes to come over to his side) Napolean began to reorganise Europe. He did away with the Holy Roman Empire and drew up new constitutions for the German states. Baden, Wurttemburg, Hesse and all the other German states (except Prussia, Austria and Bavaria) were then organised into a Rhine Confederation (as some states bordered the Rhine). Bavaria was enlarged at Austria's expense. In mid-1807 his army finally succeeded in capturing the rest of Holland, but not before many British and Dutch troops evacuated along with the members of the States-General. In late 1807 all of the Netherlands and sections of northern Germany (parts of Hanover and Westphalia) were annexed to France as was all of Italy save for the Kingdom of Naples (a French creation). A Polish Kingdom was carved out of Prussia and Austria's Polish lands. An Illyrian Duchy was formed from the Illyrian lands detached from Austria and a Kingdom of Westphalia formed from Prussia's Rhenish lands. Louise Bonaparte was made Duke of Illyria and Jerome Bonaparte made King of Westphalia. Joseph Bonaparte was made King of Naples and Sicily. 1808- Napolean invades Spain and quickly conquers it, but finds that holding it was not as easy. In any case Joseph Bonaparte was also made King of Spain by Napolean and now the French Empire was at its height. Britain was isolated in Europe (not counting the Hanoverian and Netherlands governments in exile in London), but Napolean's exclusion of Britain from trade with the Continent (instituted after the conquest of the Netherlands was completed) did not have the desired effect. Britain still had a large navy (and also had the Dutch navy) and could still trade with the rest of the world and these two things kept her going against France.... Will write more later. Will also write a bit on what is happening in North America around this time. Comments would be welcome and before anyone says it again, let me just repeat: I know I have people from OTL in this one and some/many events may be similar. However I intend to have real changes in the British government and Netherlands and Hanover and Europe to an extent occur after Victoria's birth. My reasoning is that the changes I had in this TL would not affect the royal families of the rest of Europe or the interaction between other European nations not even remotely connected to Britain or the Netherlands. Thus Corsica still goes to France and Napolean is still born and is French simply because the line produced by William and Mary do not affect any other royal families greatly (except maybe the future Dutch royal family) and the Hanoverian line is not affected since the Hanoverian kings in OTL focused more on Hanover than Britain until about George III and really until George IV (so not having them be kings of Britain wouldn't make much of a difference in their lives). | ||
| Sean Swaby |
Sorry it took so long, being on holiday and trying to write a TL isn't the easiest thing in the world. Good news is that the American revolution will be over soon and we can refocus on Europe and the development of the Nederlands and Britain together. the Napoleanic era is coming up and that should be really exciting. 1780- The French and Spanish troops in South Carolina and Georgia engaged British troops in the colonies though there was no clear-cut victory. In the north the Franco-Spanish-American forces finally achieved enough soldiers to overwhelm the British forces locally and take Trenton. These troops then began a march towards New York and just outside the the New York area they encamped. The British forces in New York were much too entrenched to shift in a regular engagement and the Franco-Spanish-American forces were content to keep the British bottled up in New York. Meanwhile in Virginia the Continental Army began marching south into North Carolina to aid in the fight in the south. In Massachussetts, the American rebels in the countryside gathered together and surrounded Boston. American and British soldiers fought fiercely in section of Boston, but the British regulars were tired of occupying a rebellious Boston and also knew that with war being waged in the south and near New York, that reinforcements were becoming more unlikely. The regulars opted to hold out in Boston as long as they could however. In the south the French and Spanish troops coming in from New Orleans finally reach Georgia and South Carolina and this is decisive for many battles. Despite Loyalist militia aid, the British regulars lost more battles than they won and the French and Spanish were able to move into Morth Carolina and join up with the Continental Army moving south from Virginia to fight the British there. In New England the American rebels around New Haven and the Connecticutt countryside sent half their forces to take New Port. The British (and now also Dutch) regulars in New Port decided to abandon New Port and help in the fight for Boston. So the Americans took New Port with relatively little fighting. The regulars arrived outside Boston and helped the British in the town to stave off defeat. However it wasn't enough to bring about a victory and the town was divided into section where the Americans had control and the British-Dutch regulars had control. The New England aspect of the war was over with stalemate in Boston and victory in New Haven and New Port for the Americans. Philadelphia and Trenton were also American victories and the position of the British in New York was looking increasingly tenuous. Now in the south the British regulars in North Carolina were facing too many enemies from too many directions at once. They fought harshly and only at the end of 1780 did they surrender. Back in London, Lord North and King John II had realised that continuing the war would drain British resources too much and had agreed that it should be brought to a conclusion with the British coming out of it as best they could. In January 1781 peace talks commenced in Paris and after much heckling and threats and counter-threats the British agreed that they would not retain any of the 13 colonies in question. However they refused to allow the 3 southern colonies to join the new United States of America. The Americans were disappointed about that development but the French and Spanish agreed since their aim of evicting the British from all 13 colonies would still be achieved. The British also insisted on keeping the northern section of Maine district as it had always been in British hands throughout the war and since it wouldn't affect British power in the Caribbean and Louisiana area the French and Spanish agreed and got the Americans to agree as well. In exchange the British evacuated all of Boston. The British then evacuated from New York City in exchange for setting up an Indian Reserve (a British protectorate) in the Iroquois lands in western New York and all along lake Ontario. There were forts held by the British along the lake in this areas anyway so the French and Spanish saw no reason to go to war with Britain over Indian lands and some lakeshore that the Americans may have wanted. The French and Spanish had also expended a lot of treasure to fight this war and had no wish to spend more gold to hammer-out the fine-details of their victory. The French and Spanish had no wish to see a strong American state competing with them in the Americas, so cutting the new state down in size was a bit desirable to the French and Spanish. It was agreed eventually by all that all lands to the Mississippi river north of the southern limit of Virginia's claim would be allocated to the United States and all lands to the Mississippi south of the southern limit of Virginia's claim would be handed over to the southern colonies/states. Florida was returned to Spain. 1781- The 3 southern colonies send delegates to Charleston where an agreement remarkably similar to the revised Albany Union proposed by the King is quickly drawn up and accepted almost unanimously. The new Union was to be called the United Provinces of America (UPA) (as opposed to the United States of America or USA) and was to have a Parliament based of the British parliament and the States General of the Dutch Republic. The head of the new Union would be the President-General who would be elected by Parliament (like how the stadholder is elected by the States General). Since the UPA was supposed to be independent of Britain all references in the Union agreement to royalty had to be dropped. The capital of the UPA was to be Charleston (the largest city in the area and the largest port). The UPA and Britain and the Dutch Republic soon began resuming trade and all agreed to curtail trade with the USA. In the north meanwhile the states of United States were about to argue over the Articles of Confederation and drafting a new Constitution (not drawn up in full til late 1786). Virginia did not initially support the new Constitution, nor did New York and it wasn't until 1787 that all states except Virginia and New York ratified and accepted the Constitution. Finally in 1790 Virginia and New York accepted the Constitution but still voiced reservations. So now in North America there were two nations: the UPA and USA. 1788- First British convicts shipped to Botany Bay, Australia. In 1793 the first free British settlers would reach Australia. 1789- The French Revolution occurs. The deputies of the tiers-etat (third estate) at the Etats-Generaux (Estates-General or Parliament) proclaim themselves the government under under the title of Assemblee Constituante (Constitutional Assembly). The Bastille waa stormed soon after. All privileges were abolished. 1792- The French monarchy was suspended and a Republique (Republic) was proclaimed. The next year the monarchs were guillotined as were nobles and tax-collectors and other "enemies of the Republic". 1796- Formation of the Directoire (Directory) in France after a new Constitution is made. 5 Directors are to be the head of government. 1797- French victory in Italian campaign against Austria. This victory was due in no small part to an up and coming soldier, Napoleon Bonaparte. to be continued.... | ||
| Sean Swaby |
Nice question Bill. Looking back i can see where I should have elaborated on the compromise. In the compromise I have it being stated that "1) All laws passed since 1763 would be up for negotiation with the Imperial authorities, though the colonial delegates must understand that some laws were quite necessary and should be implemented to some extent (though the extent would be negotiable)." Now by laws I also mean Acts and thus all taxes associated with said Acts. So the Imprerial govt. would be willing to negotiate some of aspect of past taxation policy and thus pave then way for a future taxation policy, whether the taxes are split as you had suggested or if perhaps the colonies impose their own tax policies that would be approved or disapproved of by Britain. I also have in the compromise "...and the government of this colonial union would be granted certain powers by the Imperial government: the power to approve or reject the Vice-Admiralty selected by the Imperial govt., the power to make laws which will directly affect the union of the colonies and will not contradict with any Imperial laws or will conflict with the interests of the Imperial govt. in other parts of the world, the power to pay and house the local standing army..". This would mean that internal taxation within the Union of colonies would be in the colonial govt.'s hands. However taxes on foreign goods such as Indian tea would affect the interests of the Imperial govt. and so the Imperial govt. could then intervene if such taxes conflicted with its interests. Also since the colonies would now have to shoulder some of the burden of paying a standing army and paying for housing and food, then it is more likely (in the minds of the British and most likely in fact) that the colonies will not oppose greatly the taxes instituted since 1763 and repealed except for the Tea Tax. Hope that clears it up for you. Shawn, thanks for the info on Burr. I think I can use him for the continuation which now follows: 1778- The situation at the beginning of 1778 was thus: The British still controlled Boston and New Port and all of Maine district and most of New Hampshire was under their effective control. Most of the Massachussetts contryside and vietuall all of Connecticutt west of the Connecticutt river was under the control of the American rebels though. The American rebels also had no trouble moving into the countryside of eastern Connecticutt (though the chance of bucking up the British regulars became greater). Virtually all of Ehode Island and the coast of Massachussetts though was firmly in the hands of the British regulars. In the middle colonies, he British regulars cotrolled only Philadelphia and some of the adjacent areas as well as controlling the mouth of the Delaware. Trenton in New Jersey was a contested area with both British regulars and American rebels operating in the area. It was here that the next battle would be fought.... March 1778- With spring coming the British army controlling Philadelphia had received orders to march towards New York as expediently as possible and form a land link between occupied Philadelphia and (ostensibly friendly) New York (the colony). The Americans of course had to prevent this since it would allow the British regulars to gain control over a large area of settlements and allow for the linking up of vast British armies which could move on to conquer all of New England while keeping the Americans pinned down in a fight to regain Philadelphia. Meanwhile in the Atlantic the French and Spanish fleets were making their way towards the Americas. At fist it was thought that the fleets should dock in New England to provide help where it might be needed most, but knowing the effectiveness of the British Navy and knowing that New England was likely to be blockaded, the Franco-Spanish fleets made their way to Havana and New Orleans.Here the French and Spanish soldiers disembarked and began preparing for combat in the British colonies. In Havana and New Orleans meanwhile, the local garrisons were also beign readied and new men were being drawn into the armues. Almost all French and Spanish ships in the Caribbean had also beun to rally at or near to New Orleans and Havana. A small French-Spanish force had been offloaded at Baltimore though and it made its way north towards Philadelphia along with the Continental Army. In Philadelphia there was an up-and-coming commander by the name of Burr who was leading the section of the Continental Army that would coordinate with the French and Spanish. April 1778- Some of the British regulars from Philadelphia made their way to Trenton and had little trouble defeating the small Continental army force that had been operating in Trenton, however they were continually harassed by the remnant force and started losing more men to these hit-and-run attacks. As the British were moving towards Trenton the French, Spanish and Americans proceeded to move towards Philadelphia. Here about half of this force lay surrounded the town and demanded a British surrender (even half of this force was slightly larger than the remaining British garrison), whilst the other half went on towards Trenton. In Philadelphia a long battle just outside the town raged between the British and the Americans, French adn Spanish. At one point it looked as though the British would win, but superior numbers prevailed in addition to the guerrilla warfare of the Americans and the British retreated across the Delaware. They now had the choice of aidng their fellow soldiers at Trenton or blocking a possible advance by the Americans and their allies from Philadelphia to Trenton to help force a decision. The British decided to stay put and block any advance. Such an advance was attempted but was successfully blocked. Meanwhile in Trenton the British regulars had moved out of the town and surprised the Continental Army before it could initiate its planned attack and the Americans, French and Spanish, though slightly larger in number lost out in the end. The Americans fled towards New York and the British regulars followed. In New York (colony) some of the Americans attempted to hide among some sympathizers. In one hamlet a small detachment of British regulars, having been frustrated at claims that their were no rebels when they knew different, burned half the hamlet to the ground and imprisoned ro killed most of the menfolk of a particular age. News of this reached the rest of New York and the New York legislature became rather anti-British and in a snap vote, decided to side with the Rebellion. The British regulars responsible were punished of course, but just like the Boston "Massacre" this seemed inconsequential since it didn't swing popular opinion back to the British. New York then began negotiating with the Congress and New Hampshire agreed that it would recognise New York's claims to Vermont. The British regulars from Trenton who had been in hot pursuit of the defeated Americans returned to Trenton suffering a different defeat of their own. Juky-August 1778- early 1779- British regulars begin arriving in large numbers in Charleston. Here they were still welcomed and had almost no trouble from any American rebels whatsoever. British regulars also arrived in Savannah, Georgia and in the fort in Florida near to what would become JAcksonville. Also the Dutch are being called upon to give more assistance as are the Hanoverians. Soon Hessian mercenaries hired by Hanover (as well as some Hanover soldiers) were being transported to the colonies by the British fleet which was to be augmented fully by the Dutch fleet (the Dutch form of assistance)in early 1779. 1779- The British regulars in the south had two goals: (1) protect the southern colonies from rebel attacks and the French and Spanish. (2) to advance from North Carolina into Virginia and seize the major settlements and then move on to Baltimore and finally coordinate another attack with British forces in the north to seize Philadelpha. Thus with the major settlments of all the colonies (New Haven was planned for separately by the British forces in the north alone) under British control the Americans would see the light and give in. In mid-1779 the French-Spanish-American forces pushed across the Delware and began a march to Trenton which was now being heavily defended by the former blocking British forces and the formerly victorious occupying British forces. In the south the French and Spanish initiated their plan for the south and sent their fleets towards the southern coast and the British fleet protecting it. Their larger fleet defeated the British and were able to land all their troops in South Carolina and Georgia. The Anglo-Dutch Fleet in the waters off the northern colonies was transporting more regulars and mercenaries to New York City(now occupied as opposed to friendly), Bsoton and Newport as well as blockading all of New England and most of the middle colonies. This fleet then manoeuvred to engage the Franco-Spansih fleet and in a great navsl battle in the Atlantic the swept aside the Franco-Spanish fleet and proceeded to blockade the southern colonies as well. From New Orleans more French (and some Spanish) soldiers were making their way to the southern colonies overland. Now the British were about to have a fight on their hands...... to be continued..... | ||
| Bill Bruno |
Sean, I know it's a bit late in the development of this ATL (nicely done, by the way), but where in your compromise proposal is the resolution of who can levy taxes on Americans? This was the biggest issue in the dispute between the colonies and England. Is there a split between internal taxes and trade regulations and duties, for example? | ||
| Shawn Endresen |
you didn't supply an email addy, so here's Burr, sort of. Joined the Revolution. Participated in the failed Quebec campaign, distinguishing himself for valor in the process. Assigned to Washington as an aide de campe. The source of their rupture is unrecorded, but that only lasted 10 days before he was transferred to General Israel Putnam. Washington and Burr respectfully hated one another for the rest of Washington's days. Stopped a mutiny pretty much by himself at Valley Forge. prevented the wholesale destruction of civilians and property in the NY campaign (Burr was frequently placed in command of a bad unit long enough to shape it up, then transferred to another bad unit. Washington may have hated him, but he knew Burr was a good commander). Burr resigned when it became clear that Washington's enmity would prevent his rise past Colonel; officially, for medical reasons. since this is an aside from the point of the TL, I'll save his post-war career for when it becomes relevant. | ||
| Sean Swaby |
King John II is still alive, and the Dutch are close allies of the British. I know at the moment they don't seem to be prominent in the American Revolution and that is because they aren't prominent until the French get involved also. The Dutch fleet is aiding the British fleet in transporting supplies and men, though I don't have any Dutch soldiers fighting in America (yet). This is primarily a war between Britain and her rebellious colonies, with the Dutch being allied to the British. This alliance has already changed the future of American society slightly: in OTL the colonists smuggled in Dutch tea but also began drinking more coffee (hence the reason coffee is to the Americans what tea is to the British. In TTL Dutch tea is totally unavailable so it is only coffee that is being drunk by the rebellious colonists, thus further polarising the social differences between the future American nation and Britain. Admittedly this is just a small change, rather along the lines of changed grammar that we all see in Turtledove's How Few Remain series (saying "the United States are.." and "the Confederate States are..." as opposed to "the United States is"). And technically King John II is both Dutch and British by ancestry. Once the American Revolution is over and done with then the focus can go back to Europe (and hence the Dutch as well as the British), especially with the Revolution in France coming up and the wars stemming from it. After the Napoleanic wars, Europe should be interesting... | ||
| David S. Poepoe |
I must be missing it somewhere, what happened to King John II? This is a nice timeline Sean, but where are the Dutch? | ||
| Sean Swaby |
Don't have Shockwave? You should get it. It is free. Anyway, you are right about the British Army in Philadelphia at the time in my TL. The city is rather safe compared to the countryside as the cities would be more well known and well mapped. However the population of the city might not be too accomodating. The rebels have do have open supply lines to an extent. In New York, which is pro-British at the time in the ATL, the rebel supply lines have to be more secretive, though there are quite a few in New York who have even some sympathy for the rebellion. The Loyalists do have open lines of supply in New York and in the Carolinas and Georgia. I might include Burr, thoughit wasn't my intention to include everybody from OTL. I appreciate the fact that slight changes in events in one place can ripple outwards affecting who is born and who is not. In my TL I have had the continuation of the William and Mary line being only temporary and I haven't had this line affecting the other royal families. The biggest changes will occur around the time of the American Revolution since the outcome will be different from OTL. As you may have noticed I intend to have the Hanoverian family pretty much the same until about slightly after Victoria's birth. The reason I have it this way is I have reasoned that the first Hanoverian Kings of Britain didn't really act like Kings of Britain since they focused more upon and had more fondness for Hanover. The first two Georges visited Hanover as much as possible and I figured that had they not been Kings of Britain their personal lives would have turned out much the same way since in OTL they tried to have as little to do with Britain as possible. So when the Hanoverian Kings finally do ascend to the throne by about George IV (or the I depending) and Victoria's time then afterwards I will try not to have the same Kings and Queens as in OTL. I doubt I will have a Hitler if I even get that far, but first I must see how Germany turns out. If you could, I would be much obliged if you provided some info on Burr. The Army has taken Boston, it is just that the Army is attempting to take New England with varied success. "In short, I think you've hit on the right level of bad sense for the British Army of the period." Thanks, I think. I had based it off OTL American Revolution and I attempted to figure out a British strategy that would be appropriate for the period, training, experience and leaders of the time. Having New York officially in their camp, I thought the British Army would attempt to clean up New England first and thus leave the Middle colonies between British allied New York, the Carolinas and Georgia along with British occupied New England. Since the South is more pro-Crown than in OTL, the British Army has no need to attack the area and landings should in fact be welcomed. I was thinking of a British Army moving from Charleston through friendly territory to reach Virginia and attempt to take Yorktown, Richmond, Baltimore and link up with the British army already in Philadelphia. Of course all plans don't go as planned when they are put into action and since the French and Spanish are going to intervene..... I will have the French and Spanish carry out a slightly different strategy than in OTL. With an Anglo-Dutch fleet capable of breaking just about ANY blockade in the world, the Franco-Spanish fleets will have to be used for just transporting enough men to make a difference where it would hurt the British: in the South and Middle colonies. I would like David's opinion as well on all this so far. Would have posted a continuation for 1778, but my Internet keeps kicking me off, its much too early in the morning and the computer is showing signs of freezing...again! Ugh! | ||
| Shawn Endresen |
I don't have Shockwave, sorry (or do I? hm...) As your PoD is properly in the 1690s, all the principals have changed, and we're down to talking about generalities. That said (darn, I need a tactical map utility), I like your premise so far. I'm not a tactician, so I'll stay out of the actual battles, but it looks like the Army attacking Philadelphia is in an untenable position, surrounded by a few rebel groups that can harry it and sitting on a hostile civilian population. The rebels have open supply lines, the Loyalists really don't, and there's a lot of rebels in New Jersey who would be happy to pop across the river and disrupt things (like my boy Burr, since you seem to be throwing in a lot of people from OTL). The Army attempting to take Boston looks likely to have better success, at least initially. In short, I think you've hit on the right level of bad sense for the British Army of the period. Although if the South is still pro-Crown, they won't be successfully repulsing all attempts to land an army there; after the initial Pennsylvania debacle, perhaps the second attack starts from Charleston and works north. Any Marquis de Lafayette analogue? Hmm...well, looking forward to the rest. Such as the French Revolution in a few years. | ||
| Sean Swaby |
Oh and Shawn, it looks as though you were right about a New York claim on the Ohio. Check out this map (if you have Shockwave that is): http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~atlas/america/interactive/map02.html I had no clue about the extent of New York's claims since I couldn't find a single map or historical entry which even briefly mentioned such a claim. Plus those maps at the University of Texas site show no New York claims at all, and those are very accurate maps. So I just assumed that the Erie triangle region must have been New York's only claim west of the present borders. The map at the site above seems accurate enough, though it does leave out the claims by New York and New Hampshire to Vermont and doesn't include the Maine area in Massachussetts. | ||
| Sean Swaby |
Alright, a continuation: August 1776- British regulars reach Boston and in concert with the small number of British soldiers already controlling parts of the town, take control of the entire town of Boston. The British also manage to drive off the Continental Army besieging the British army already in Boston at the start of the war. Washington's army scatters into the backcountry to plan for their return to Boston. In North Carolina the loyalist militia defeats a small band of American rebel sympathizers attempting to stage a revolt along the Virginia-North Carolina border. Back in New England, the British now plan to send some of their soldiers south from Boston and into Newport, Rhode Island. Control of Boston and Newport would give the British control over most of Rhode Island and the coast of Massachussetts. The British also plan to take New Haven in Connecticutt in a two pronged attack (hopefully if all goes well) from New York and Newport. December 1776- British regulars begin disembarking in New York. New York had accepted the Albany Plan and the New York legislature had stated that they "would not oppose the stationing of regulars in New York on a temporary basis for the purpose of quickly settling this revolt." And "That New York was desirous of a peaceful settlement and would prefer if no regulars had to be stationed in towns." 1777- In New York (the colony) opinion was divided over which side to support though many had some sympathy for the American rebels. In New York City the British commander told his soldiers that they were under strict orders not to upset the local colonists and to have as little contact as possible with the locals to avoid any possible disputations. In New England British regulars march south and capture Newport and begin preparing for the assault to take New Haven. Later in the spring, the regulars from New York and from Newport make an almost simulatneous move towards New Haven. Here Washington's army lies in wait outside the town and manages to interdict the army coming from New York. A rather fierce battle occurs and the British are held up. The army coming from Newport reaches New Haven only to be confronted by the local Connecticutt militia (which wouldn't have stood a chance against the two British armies). After fierce fighting the militia retreat and the regulars enter the town. The local residents attempt to resist the regulars and stage street marches. This results in street skirmishes and some local being fired upon by the regulars. While New Haven was in chaos the local militia had joined up with Washington's army and their combined forces managed to bring about the first victory for the American rebels. The British army had decided to disengage and return to New York to recover from the fight. Washington's Continental army then melted back into the countryside and quietly surrounded New Haven where the smaller of the two British armies was preoccupied with restoring order. Washington laid siege to New Haven and the British facing continuing disorder and the prospect of attacks by the American rebel army decided to withdraw from New Haven and take up camp just west of the Connecticutt. The Americans could rejoice in their first ever victory over the British. This victory also emboldened France to decide to ally with the Americans. The Spanish followed suit and in Europe a Franco-Spanish fleet was being assembled and Franco-Spanish armies were being raised. Meanwhile the British had decided to attack Philadephia and postpone their campaign to establish control over all of New England. British ships set sail from New York, Halifax and Charles Town for the mouth of the Delaware. There British regulars are offloaded and begin to march northwards to the point of their intended crossing of the Delaware near to Philadelphia. In Philadelphia, where the Congress had been meeting, the delegates of the Congress as well as the town govt. hurriedly evacuated. The British faced opposition from some of the local militias and some members of the Continental Army but succeeded in capturing Philadelphia in September, shortly after they landed at the river's mouth. Things were beginning to look down for the Americans with the capture of Philadelphia but they now had French and Spanish allies so they were certainly not down and out for the count...... Will continue, but for now I have to relinquish control of the computer to my sis, so will stop here. | ||
| Sean Swaby |
Okay, I was thinking of having the British attempt to march onto Boston through New Hampshire and blockade the port. These actions would cause Virginia to throw her lot in with the rest of the rebel colonies, lock, stock and barrel since to Virginia the prospect of further discussion would look quite dead and the British would be carrying out offensive operations in their opinion. I was alo thinking of having New York side with the British officially (though have many New Yorkers feel sympathy for the rebel Americans) and then have New York eventually go to the rebel side if their is increased solidarity with and sympathy for the rebels or if some British soldiers get a little overzealous and do something wrong and excessive in a town in New York. The southern three colonies would remain firmly pro-British and welcome British soldiers (though there will be pro-rebel people in the south). After the American Revolution is over then the focus can shift back to Europe with the French Revolution and Napoleanic Wars and any possible outcomes. | ||
| Justin Green |
Franklin was very anti-slavery. | ||
| Sean Swaby |
Okay, let's not get into any discussion on whether or not the Americans were or weren't boorish. I am basing New York's claims and disputes from the following maps: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/united_states_1783_1803.jpg http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/british_colonies_1763-76.jpg http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/united_states/us_terr_1790.jpg That last map states that New York ceded the Erie triangle to Congress in 1781 and that Pennsylvania bought it in 1792 (I think Penn. claimed it before that). The maps at http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/histus.html are really excellent. I never said anything about a Prince-President, the Albany Union would have a President-General. Though the idea that the southern colonies upon being forced out of the Empire by French and Spanish troops would select a British Prince or Duke or Noble as the first President-General is an interesting concept.... So Franklin doesn't move south. That can work, but wasn't his son a Loyalist and didn't his son go to Britain? Maybe Franklin can do the same. | ||
| Shawn Endresen |
If New york has no claim on Ohio, what, exactly, did it cede to Congress in 1781? The problem comes from my favorite waffling Stuart, Charles II; he chartered Connecticut with pretty much all of North America shortly after his accession, then in later life Chartered New York, in the process expressly nullifying Connecticut's charter in an attempt to declare British North America the personal property of the Stuart family rather than a posession of the Crown proper. Connecticut appealed to William and Mary, who upheld their charter and denied New York's; New York appealed to Queen Anne, who took their side against Connecticut. As if all this wasn't absurd enough, the Englishmen in the disputed territory at the time could be counted on one's extremities. It was entirely a matter of pride and spite between New York and Connecticut; I doubt any of the monarchs understood or cared about the dispute, really. Of course, your monarch has undoubtedly already ruled on it before the Revolution in some manner or another. As for New England's reversing position, well, once they were nominally sovereign they had no particular beef with England; a valued business partner is rather different from a would-be overlord. I believe they felt it was that simple. So who's the first Prince-President? I still see full independence just down the road, but this intermediary step makes an American monarchy look likely and possible... And on the matter of boorish Americans, while the British commands look fairly reasonable in retrospect, they were substantially more than any of the colonists' parents or grandparents had been asked to shoulder. In practice if not on paper, they already had political sovereignty, and then George and friends took it away. | ||
| David S. Poepoe |
If Pennsylvania rejected the Revised Albany Plan Franklin would not move south. There was no way near the fluidity of movement or habitation then that we have now. Each colony was very much its own nation since regards to society and tradition. Franklin would just go about his business in Philadelphia. Your comment about New England agitating for secession from England and then the United States is interesting and I use it for an POD in an ATL soon to be posted. | ||
| Sean Swaby |
Oh right, Franklin! I almost overlooked him and his role in the Plan in all this. He comes from Pennsylvania right? Well he would of course be trying to convince everyone to accept the Plan. Hmm...this requires a slight modification to my last post, but my last post can still work. I can have Franklin be the sole Penn. delegate to vote for the plan and changing the result to 36-19 in favour of rejecting the Plan. I could also have Franklin leave Penn. and go to South Carolina after the accepting states walk out of Congress and lead the south into forming an Albany style Union. And since the British might be more favourable to having Indian representation then let's just have the British declare that there would be no Indian representation in order to try and sweeten the Plan for the colonists. That would be the main reason for no Indian representation. About the traders and merchants in Boston wanting to stay in Empire...that can still happen. For them its about business. Its just that the other people of Massachusetts are becoming more anti-British due to a series of small incidents, events and spates over somewhat unrelated matters. These petty arguments and grievances just end up causing bad blood between non-merchants/traders and the British. Some of these merchants and traders will probably go north later as Loyalists. I never quite understood how New England bascially lead the American Revolution against the British from 1776-1783 and between just 29 to 31 years later, this same area is against having war with Britain and even considers leaving the Union it helped create because of that. "It is amazing how ungrateful and boarish Americans always seem to come off in ATLs, and in OTL as well. It practically appears that the word compromise is not in the American dictionary." Well I did have the Americans compromise, just not all the American colonies. Some did, some didn't and some were undecided. And if you think is joke about my computer freezing, wait til you get this: my internet line died today and I have to temporarily hook up my regular line just to connect. Modern technology: you hate it but you need it. | ||
| David S Poepoe |
Where is Benjamin Franklin? He would be the Crown's best salesman of the Revised Albany Plan - particularly since he drew it up originally. Sean your mention of Quebec and its special rights and laws etc. is a little out of place when considering the Albany Plan. The laws and governments of the individual states would still stand. London would probably lump Quebec and Canada into the Union just to save money - fewer ministries and bureaucrats to employ. But this point isn't important. The Iroquois and Cherokee would be the first to probably qualify for admission into the Union. The British would probably think nothing of admitting indians, it is really the white American colonists that have the problems with it - really. Some how I think the merchants and traders of Boston, London and Amsterdam will prefer to stay in the Anglo-Dutch Union, it would just make good business sense. The same forces that threatened to take New England out of the Union in OTL 1814 may be the same forces that will protest to keep New England in the Anglo-Dutch Union. It is amazing how ungrateful and boarish Americans always seem to come off in ATLs, and in OTL as well. It practically appears that the word compromise is not in the American dictionary. Anyway, keep up the good work and defrost that computer of yours quickly. | ||
| Sean Swaby |
I was writing up what I thought to be a workable continuation to the TL when my computer froze today. I can't re-write the whole thing as I don't remember it but I am sure if I leave out anything it will come back eventually. Anyway, in response to your posts: Canada would not initially be a part of this Albany Union. Quebec has a separate status with its French Catholic laws and traditions being allowed by the Crown. "Canada" will not join in any rebellion either as the Quebecois are suspicious of what the Americans could possibly offer in the United States that would be better than what they have with the British, and besides the American rebels are Protestant and English-speaking just like the British against which they are rebelling, so again suspicions are raised. Nova Scotia has no gripe with England and the Congress was initially set up to communicate the problems that the colonies had with the Crown (none of which Nova Scotia shared). If the Albany Union were to be accepted by all the colonies then later on what is now Canada would join. Yes, voiding all the colonial claims would be the smartest solution, and no, I also doubt that solution would be favoured by any party (except maybe the Native Americans). You are correct David, in that an Anglo-Dutch Fleet should clear the seas of the Franco-Spanish Fleet. And the southern colonies can't be forced to join the USA through just peace negotiations. I was indeed thinking of having Franco-Spanish troops intervene in the American Rebellion and try to force the southern colonies out of the Empire with the threat of continued occupation or being handed over to the USA. And I have decided on a rebellion of sorts but a rather different rebellion. Remember we still have Lexington coming up. Oh and New York had no claim to the Ohio area, so no dispute with Virginia. And there will be no Indian representation. This is 1775, not 1975 and equality and civil rights were not the main items of the day. Having the Indians being represented would essentially mean acknowledging them as equal to the white colonists and this was not going to happen. John II would probably be more inclined to setup British Protectorates over the areas in which the Indians lived and make some of these areas limited to settlement. But that is about as far as I think they would go in those days. I will see if I can outline what I have in mind after the short continuation: 1775- In January the King is still undecided and Lord North's ideas are gaining favour in Parliament. Add to that, the fact that almost every member of Parliament seems to have their own personal reply to the questions and this creates a tumultuous situation for King John II indeed. First the King begins his reply by ruling out his options. According to him, there will be no representation of the Indians in the Grand Congress. The Indians would be allowed to live in peace in their own communities (British protectorates) that would be under the government of the Albany Union. Parliament agrees with that part of the reply and it is officially adopted. In Parliament some parliamentarians propose that all colonial claims west of the 1763 line be voided and that all the claimed land be placed under the control of the Albany Union govt. These proposals however were discarded once it was argued that 9 of the 13 colonies being debated about would not like such a settlement and could very well reject the Plan because of it. Many in Parliament also felt that Massachusetts should be punished, but other colonies rewarded to set an example to the as yet unrebellious colonies that following Mass.'s path would not be worthwhile. Finally Lord North's ideas became accepted with some limitations. All the claims of Massachusetts and Conneticutt in the claimed lands in the west would be voided, as would Virginian claims north of the Ohio and the area would be turned over to the Indians as a British protectorate. Limited settlment could occur in this area under the direction of the Albany Union govt. and the Imperial govt. Virginia would be paid compensation for her northern claims. All Virginian claims south of the Ohio river would be recognised, though this recognition would be provisional as new colonies could be formed in the area. All of New York's claims would be recognised which meant voiding the claims of Mass., New Hampshire and the small claim of Pennsylvania. North Carolina's claims would also be recognised, as would South Carolina's claims. Georgia's claims not in conflict with South Carolina's would be recognised partially. Half of her claimed area (the western half) would not be voided with the intention of setting up a full penal colony in the future in the area. The eastern half of her claim would be recognised and she would be paid compensation for her western claim. The King agreed to this proposal and by the end of January the reply had been drawn up and was sent. April 1775- General Cage, the British commander in the Mass. area received reports that the colonists were storing arms in Concord. He decided to seize the arms in a night raid, however, the people of the surrounding area got word of his advance and blocked his path at Lexington. There a battle occurred between the British soldiers and the Massachusetts minutemen. Both sides suffered casualities, but the British advanced onto Concord and managed to seize some of the arms. May 1775- The Second Continental Congress met in Philadelphia again (this time Georgia sent delegates). However the situation was now very different and Mass. was firmly against the Crown and her legislature had instructed her delegates to inspire rebellion in the other colonies. Conneticutt sided with Mass. very early after finding that its claims would be voided. New Hampshire also joined with Mass. since its claims against New York would be voided. These 3 colonies voted to reject the Revised Albany Union Plan and they managed to get Rhode Island to vote with them. Pennsylvania voted to reject it after the Parliament had refused to get involved in the claims between her and Conneticutt, stating that the dispute was "petty and ridiculous". Pennsylvania also voted to reject it as Conneticutt had promised to drop all claims to northern Pennsylvania if Pennsylvania rejected the Plan and supported Conn.'s claims in the west. South and North Carolina accepted the Plan, as did New York (which stated "the Plan could still be improved upon but was adequate"). Georgia's delegates were divided over the issue of their claim being only partially recognised and having a penal colony being set up to their immediate west, but due to the promise of compensation and the recognition of the eastern area of the claim they voted for the Plan. Mass., Conn. and New Hampshire managed to get the undecided colonies of New Jersey, Maryland and Delaware to vote against the Plan when they accused the Imperial Parliament and the Plan of favouring the large colonies like New York and North Carolina at the expense of the small colonies. Virginia (which had sent 6 delegates this time) was completely undecided and its delegates completely divided. On one hand they were pleased that some of Virginia's claims would be recognised and that compensation would be forthcoming for the rest. On the other hand, they were not pleased with their southern claim being called provisional and having their northern claims completely voided and be possibly turned over to the Indians. So 3 Virginians voted for and 3 against the Plan. The final vote was 37-18 in favour of rejecting the Plan. The rejecting colonial delegates attempted to get the remaining 18 over to their side and stated that the Plan could not be implemented anyway since the majority had voted against it. The accepting colonies refused to reject the Plan and their delegates left the Congress. Virginia's delegates stayed on and encouraged further negotiations. In the meantime the rejecting delegates, looking at the example of Concord and Lexington began discussing the raising of a Continental Army to defend against possible British action and seeking an alliance with France. George Washington of Virginia was favoured to lead the Army (he was against the Plan) and after assurances to the Virginian legislature that this Army was defensive only, Washington was permitted to become the commander. 1776- In July the remaining delegates of the Congress (the colonies in the Congress now referred to themselves as "states") drew up the Declaration of Independence, which they had been authorised by their own legislatures to accept and indeed encourage. Virginia opted not to sign on until the British took any offensive action against any of the colonies in the Congress (she still hoped for a peaceful resolution). News of this reached Britain and of course the people and govt. were outraged, though not totally unprepared. Over the last half of 1775 and first half of 1776 the British had been sending more soldiers to the American continent as a precautionary measure to subdue any revolts. With the help of the Dutch Fleet more British troops arrived per month than was possible in OTL. The British meanwhile had been very friendly over the past year with New York, the Carolinas and Georgia and had received reports of support against the rebel colonies from the Carolinas and Georgia and a pledge by New York that it would not aid the rebel colonies but that it had no wish for war to take place in its own colonial territory. New York was faced with rebel colonies on two sides and it feared that the port of New York may be captured and ransomed. So in August the British made their first move and blockaded the port of Boston. A British army coming out of Quebec came down into New Hampshire with the intent of reaching Boston..... The American Revolution had begun and it was to be a long struggle indeed. Well that's it for now. I was thinking of having the French and Spanish intervene later to help the American rebels and have them land troops in the southern colonies from Louisiana and Cuba and from the blockade ships (before their blockade is broken by the Anglo-Dutch Fleet). Then at a peace conference the southern colonies are forced to separate from the Empire, however these colonies implement the Albany Union Plan (without references to the Crown of course) and try to maintain close links with the British as an independent nation. Sort of semi-colonial in a sense. | ||
| Shawn Endresen |
Voiding the colonial claims of New york, Virginia and North Carolina would be the smartest solution to the problem of Transappalachia, of course, but I doubt the assembled company has that foresight. It's just the ticket to push the more-or-less pro-Crown South into the Rebel camp, which is something i think will weigh more heavily on the Crown and Parliament. And what we call Canada would be part of the Union, unless we gave Quebec some seperate status (not necessarily a bad idea or impractical). it's always been my impression, though, that Canada was settled en masse by departing Loyalists at first and then by persons recruited with incentives unusual to the Empire, in order to check developing America. Prior to independence, there's not much reason to settle Canada when you can move west to Missouri, Kentucky et al. And to be quite clear, it looks like you've decided to have a rebellion of some sorts? Or is New England/Canada looking like an acceptable loss to keep the rest? Just as a thought, New England will industrialize anyway; in time, the South will belong to it, not London. From the British perspective, perhaps I'd make a good Tory...Lord North's counsel looks like the way to go to benefit Britain. I even think it would work, for a decade or two. A Union dominating the north and continuing colony status in the South? If London takes aggressive action, though, the colonies will unite in rebellion, so this had best happen at the table. The Indian question...the colonists at this early point would rather give up Ohio and keep Transappalachia; particularly since smallpox left T-A virtually uninhabited. in any case, the colonists won't obey a proscription of this territory even if they agree to it (it was settled in contradiction of London's wishes OTL). They'll kick themselves later, of course, if that's how things go. There's no good solution to the Cherokee problem, but I think the colonists wouldn't stand for Red representation, and I doubt John II is so racially enlightened that he wants to make an issue out of it. I'm really interested to see how you untangle this one. | ||
| David S. Poepoe |
Sean, very interestingly there is a British-Netherlands ATL posted on soc.history.what-if titled "Trans-Atlantic UK (was: Re: WI The British had allowed American)". The entry by Jorg Raddatz is worth looking at. Tho I have to admit that I don't quite see enough Dutch influence in the ATL, compared to Raddatz's. Regarding the Southern colonies, frankly I can't see why the combined military might of the Anglo-Dutch Union could wipe the Spanish and French from the seas. The Southern colonists can't be forced to join the US if they want to, unless the Spanish and French are going to occupy them. Perhaps the Franco-Spanish will create two independent nations. The US certainly can't occupy them or even force them into line if they don't want to. Its either remain British or be independent. Regarding the settlement of Transappalachia. The imperial parliament should just void all colonial claims west of the Appalachians and conpensate the colonies for that. Settlement will be under the direction of London and Philadelphia, principle negotiations with the indians should be done by a Joint-Commission. For Example: The Cherokee. The tribe applying for admission will hold a plebiscite on "statehood", the results being passed onto a Joint-Commission. The Joint-Commission will review the application for admission into the Grand Union. Their findings will be presented to the President-General who will advise the Crown. The Crown will introduce the recommendation of admission to the Grand Congress. If admission is granted then it becomes a state with all benefits and responsibilities. If admission is refused it will become a British Protectorate until such time that admission will pass. Of course territorial claims will have to be settled and then boundaries drawn. | ||
| Sean Swaby |
Okay, now we are getting somewhere. Instead of having two irreconcilable viewpoints we have some more agreement. However I think my idea on the Spanish and the French may have caused confusion. I wasn't thinking that any of the 13 colonies would seriously become part of the French or Spanish Empires, but that the idea would be floated at a peace conference to the British as an option (one which they would never pick). My idea was that the French and Spanish intervene and that the British, being weary of war, accept a peace conference. At this conference the French and Spanish would want to bring British power down by ensuring that the British do not have control over any of the 13 colonies and also would want to even up the balance of power in the Caribbean by ensuring that there is no major British colony on the mainland near the Caribbean (this would even things up in the Caribbean just a bit) such as Georgia and the Carolinas. The Americans (from the colonies that rebelled) would probably also not want major British colonies to their north (in the future lands of Canada) and south (in the southern colonies) as they would be boxed in and be vulnerable. The southern colonies also cotain most of the agricultural land of the 13 colonies and the Americans would probably not want these lands to be in British hands. The Americans could also claim lands to the direct west of the colonial borders and offer to drop claims to these lands if the southern colonies were handed over. So essentially I was thinking of having the southern colonies be forced by the French, Spanish and Americans into leaving the Empire and joining the USA or having the southern colonies be bartered into the USA. Well I will move on once I get a response on that idea (south being forced or bartered into USA) but in the meantime you guys have given me an idea for a more intriguing Revolution and a short continuation: 1774- Near to the end of 1774 the Congress was still divided over the King's Revised Albany Plan. Eventually questions from the New York, Virginia, Massachusetts, Conneticutt and New Hampshire delegates stalled a decision and the Congress agreed to postpone a decision until the King has responded to these questions. The questions were mainly on the status of the Indians in the Union (would they be represented or not) and the settlement of disputed lands between colonies. 1775- These questions reached King John II and Lord North and both were unsure what they should do. John II did not want to rule in favour of any particular colony and have it become anti-British, yet the idea of letting the new proposed Colonial Federal govt. settle the disputes, tempting as it was, could not be adopted as it would begin to make the colonies less attached to Britain. In anycase small colonies like Conn. would have less representation in any such govt. and would claim any ruling would be due to the influence of larger colonies in the govt. Conneticutt would then therefore appeal to the Crown leading to the situation John II faced at the moment. Lord North, feeling that the Imperial government was already acting too softly said that this was just one more sign of the colonies getting out of line. He said that once John II offered to give them an inch they wanted a mile. In North's opinion the colonies were just looking for an excuse to rebel and that since some would most likely rebel anyway, then the King should plan his response around that premise. He proposed that the King rule in favour of New York against New Hampshire and Conn., Pennsylvania and Massachusetts and rule in favour of Virginia against Massachusetts and Conneticutt. He also proposed that Virginia and New York share the Ohio area which could be divided between them at a later date. Massachusetts should be punished anyway for bringing this situation about with that whole "Boston Tea Party" and inspiring dissension in the other colonies. This would definitely bring Virginia and New York over to the British side and would have the added effect of dividing any rebellious colonies so they could not form a contiguous whole. If the King ruled in favour of South Carolina against Georgia this would divide the colonies into 4 sections as opposed to 3. Then the British could carry out that old saying of "divide and conquer". King John II was still unsure what his response should be however.... Meanwhile across the Atlantic the delegates of the Congress awaited His Majesty's Reply..... | ||
| David S. Poepoe |
Ohio will not be a great flashpoint until the fact that the lands west of the Appalachians are suppose to be an Indian Reservation has been settled. The crux of the matter will be the Indian Question. If representation is also extended to the Iroquois League,the Cherokee Nation and the Muskogee Confederacy in the Grand Congress. London should keep the standing army on the frontier to divide the colonists and indians until something can be worked out. The gradual opening of the Old Northwest and the organization and education of the indians would work best. Things may later still come to a head and you'll have Tecumseh's Rebellion, but there must be somewhat to peacefully expand westward. I would also extend representation to Quebec and the Canadas. Knighthoods and American peerages will work well also, they may not had done anything like it in OTL, but theres nothing to say that they wouldn't figure out to appeal to one's vanity. Really peerages will work. And if there wasn't a colonial aristocracy that would not have gotten a thrill out of that than American history has censured. | ||
| Shawn Endresen |
Well and good. My take on the 13 originals under Albany, around 1820: Georgia: The Georgia Colonial Authority in London had say over whether an individual would or would not be accepted into the Colony. So if Parliament does not revoke the Authority, Georgia will still take SOME prisoners, they want them, just not as many as London would like them to. Georgia, however, is the only Southern colony which is still not turning a profit. It's self-sufficient at best. it will stay loyal so long as London has the deepest pockets. The Carolinas: probably like the Union. Economically, they are dependent on London as a market for their agriculture, politically they have evolved a plantation/creole culture which no longer meshes with the mother country as well. I suspect the union is enough autonomy to keep them fairly quiet for now. Virginia: Getting rather too wealthy and uppity to put up with much. The South, on the whole, joined the rebellion for moral reasons, as their economic interests clearly lay with London. Call it wanting to be the biggest fish in the small pond. The power of the House of Burgesses had also been growing relative to the colonial administration, as it was composed of local luminaries who effectively ruled with the consent of the governed, unlike London's appointees. I can see Virginia rebelling over some conflict between local law and imperial law which the Virginians are unwilling to bend on. New York and New Hampshire are still arguing over who owns Vermont. I suspect this will go all the way to the King; however he chooses, he angers a colony. Maryland is still mostly Catholic. After Cromwell, Catholics are perennially uncomfortable within the Empire. The fact that the Albany government won't actually change anything may well escape them. All of these places are growing like mad, though. A large part of their desire for independence from parliament will come from knowing that England has fewer people, a different culture and experiences and eventually fewer real pounds (albeit perhaps a higher per capita income). Without the disruption of our Revolution, America's growth will be even more pronounced; men like John Calhoun and Andrew Jackson will be arguing that Americans should not be taking orders from a nation no better than them. Ohio's still your flashpoint. Virginia and New york's charter both encompass the area; The King or parliament had better rule on this one, and somebody will be peeved. This, I think, is how you get a major colony to side with New England and make a revolution. I always figured that, without the intercession of a Revolution, a central bank would be easier to make and New England could industrialize faster. Certainly England's reluctance to invest in America 1783-1833 OTL was a result of the percieved instability of our finances (3 national banks chartered and then disbanded). No instability, more London money. And yes, I'm aware substantial investment happened anyway, but on a per capita basis it was less than any of their colonies or European nations, about on par with English investment in Mexico or Argentina. Maybe even in Poland. | ||
| David S. Poepoe |
Being a fan of the Albany Plan and a devoted Anglophile, I think that with their demands met by London the Revolutionaries will agree to remain British subjects. On the other side of the arguement, its really remain British or independence. If the American colonials don't like their situation under the British are they really going to accept a similar under the French or Spanish? Not by a long shot. The French wouldn't want them - they are just to rebellious and American ideas will just get to France awhole lot sooner. The Spanish will find themselves having to digest a huge population of protestants, which just isn't going to go down. On the whole, I think every colony Virginia and south will benefit from remaining British. Maryland to New York unknown. Massachusetts and much of New England, with the exception of Vermont, being a hotbed of revolutionaries will probably opt out of the Empire. | ||
| Sean Swaby |
So any opposition to having the colonies disunited over the King's Plan and possibly forming a less solid (i.e. weaker) Union after any Revolutionary War? This would occur mainly with Franco-Spanish intervention saving an American Revolution that looks set for a stalemate or even a defeat at Anglo-Dutch hands. Then with the French and Spanish totally committed to curbing British power in America, they insist that all 13 colonies leave the British Empire and either become independent as the USA or join the French or Spanish Empires. So faced with a choice such as that the more reluctant (more pro-British) colonies would join the USA rather than the French or Spanish. This would give us a USA that was essentially the same size as in OTL but that was weaker and more divided. And which colonies would have the most to gain from (and therefore be more willing to accept) the revised Albany Union Plan proposed by the King? | ||
| Sean Swaby |
Okay wkwillis, your points are well noted, though your posting would seem to indicate that the British would use Australia as a dumping ground for criminals regardless of whether they held the 13 colonies or not. Even if Georgia was created as a refuge for bankrupts and to drop off criminals, I rather doubt that any Union Colonial govt. is going to appreciate Georgia still being used as a dumping ground without their permission. Nor is such a new Colonial govt. going to appreciate having to basically pay to keep these criminals alive and behind bars. As you yourself wrote: "After 1776, a British captain tried to dump a bunch of indigents in an American port, IIRC. When the Americans stopped laughing they told him to piss off or they would burn his ship. People in America didn't want indentured servants, bankrupts, petty criminals, indigents, elderly, or handicapped people that required support." And since people in America didn't want petty criminals I doubt any new Colonial American govt. is going to want them or accept them into any part of the new Union/Republic. | ||
| B T Ridge |
With Anglo-Dutch unity it would be even more likely Australia would end up under their control. The dutch had already bumped into the west Australia coast and Abel Tasman had reached Tasmania and New Zealand. Another dutch captain Torres had explored the northern parts of Australia by the early 1700's. So in your time line Captain James Cook could accually lead an British settlement fleet in 1770 to the east coast of Australia to protect british pacific interests. Rather then just exploring the coast as in our time. | ||
| wkwillis |
Sean Swaby. After 1776, a British captain tried to dump a bunch of indigents in an American port, IIRC. When the Americans stopped laughing they told him to piss off or they would burn his ship. People in America didn't want indentured servants, bankrupts, petty criminals, indigents, elderly, or handicapped people that required support. The Massachusetts Colony fined ship captains that tried to land any. That's one of the reasons Georgia was created, as a refuge for bankrupts. Virginia would take indentured servants. Pennsylvania did not recognise indenture and you were free if you escaped there. They couldn't use Canada against their will because it would have been very easy for Canada to accept America's public invitation to join America. | ||
| Sean Swaby |
Well to try and get back to the TL a bit, I was thinking of having the American Revolution start and then have John II propose the Albany Union as a compromise. Then we could have the Congress being divided over this (not to mention the Parliament in London). Some colonial delegates would accept it as a just plan, others would argue that it doesn't go far enough. This could lead to a disagreement among the colonies whilst the Revolution is young. Now my question is, if some colonial delegates accepted it as just, which colonies/states would be in favour of the plan and which would oppose it? I have a feeling the Carolinas and Georgia would be in favour as there were many loyalists there, but which other states/colonies would the plan specifically be seen as beneficial locally? It doesn't even have to be whole states, we could have some cities and districts being in favour and others opposing. Well here is a continuation of the TL from 1765 to 1774: 1765- Stamp Act imposed on British north American colonies 1767- Townshed duties imposed. The duties, however, were raising no revenue because of the colonial non-importation agreement and so no goods whatsoever were being sold in America. British trade was hit very badly. 1770-Lord North decided on conciliatory measures and in 1770 he decided to repeal the all duties except for the tax on tea which he retained to maintain Britain's right to tax the colonies. The Americans refused to import tea from Britain and the Netherlands. The result was that more coffee was drunk in America. On the same day as the repeal of the Townshend Duties, 5 March 1770, the Boston Massacre took place. Four regiments of British regular soldiers had been stationed in Boston since September 1768 and had been subject to verbal and physical attacks from the Bostonians for eighteen months. There had been a number of minor clashes in 1769. In February 1770 a mob attacked the home of a customs official who fired a gun from an upstairs window and shot an 11-year old. Troops had to be called out to defend the customs-man and his home. On 2 March a fight broke out between soldiers and workmen. The fight was broken up but the men involved agreed a resumption of the fracas on 5 March. On 5 March a Boston mob was out, looking for trouble. Fifty to sixty men surrounded the customs-house; Captain Preston sent seven soldiers to support the sentry. The mob attacked the soldiers who fired, killing five and wounding six - mostly onlookers behind the mob. The colonial press made the most of the event: black-edged newspapers were published and the British troops were maligned. It is debatable what actually happened. Every contemporary report tells a different story. The British troops had to be withdrawn from Boston to Castle William and did not return to Boston until after 1776. Preston and seven soldiers were tried in America for murder; they were defended by John Adams and all were acquitted. However, by this time the non-importation agreement began to break down and the Sons of Liberty, now calling themselves the 'Patriots' had a difficult time in maintaining the conflict between colonies and Britain. 1772-1795- In Europe Poland is partitioned between Russia, Austria and Prussia. 1772- The government decided in the autumn of 1772 that Judges of the Massachusetts court were to be paid from custom-house receipts, not by the colony. The British hoped that this would make judges more independent because one colonial ploy was to withhold judges' salaries if the judges did not follow popular opinion. The colonists said that the British decision deprived them of their liberties. The result of this in the American colonies was the setting up of Committees of Correspondence which provided the political machinery by which thirteen separate colonies came to act together against Britain. The first Committee of Correspondence was the work of Samuel Adams, Joseph Warren, James Otis and eighteen other Boston men. They stirred up the other colonies against Britain. Only Massachusetts wanted a struggle with Britain at this point, but the 1773 Tea Act changed all that. By the Autumn of 1773 all the colonies had active Committees of Correspondence. The Committees of Correspondence and the Sons of Liberty decided not to let the tea from India be landed; if it was, it would sell because it was so cheap. 1773- The Tea Act is passed. Some colonists in Boston on 16 December prevented the tea from landing at the port by 340 chests of tea worth £9,000 into Boston harbour but those responsible ensured that all the damage to the ships was repaired. Elsewhere - Philadelphia, New York, Charlestown - the consignees were "persuaded" not to accept or to sell the tea through threats of - or actual - violence. Tarring and feathering was one colonial means of persuasion, as was pouring castor oil down the victim's throat. 1774- King Louis XVI begins his reign of France. News of the Boston Tea Party reached England very quickly. The press had published the story before Lord North even knew about it because the ship docked in Plymouth and riders took the news to London faster than the ship could sail there. The reaction in Britain was one of anger and a feeling that Massachusetts must be punished, as an example to the other colonies. The government rushed a series of pieces of legislation through parliament. In Britain they were called the Coercive Acts, in America they were known as the "Intolerable Acts". These including the Boston Port Act (closing the port to most traffic), the Massachussets Bay Regulating Act, the Administration of Justice Act and the Quatering Act. The Quebec Act was passed on 16 June. It was not a Coercive Act but the timing was poor. The Boston Sons of Liberty and Committee of Correspondence had persuaded delegates from all the colonies to meet, to decide on measures to defend their liberties. This resulted in the The First Continental Congress (6 September - 26 October 1774) where 56 delegates from 12 colonies met in Philadelphia: Georgia did not send any delegates. The Congress comprised a distinguished body of men. Many of them were lawyers and all were fit to rule. The New England colonies favoured confrontation with Britain; the middle colonies favoured conciliation with Britain; the southern colonies were fearful of action against Britain. No colony had ever moved against the mother country so Congress had no precedent to follow. The Americans also knew that Britain was one of the most powerful nations on earth. The colonists could be defeated easily: the Americans had seen the power of the British army in the Seven Years' War. In October 1774, the Declaration of Rights was passed by Congress, demanding that Britain should recognise the liberties of Americans. It demanded: 1) a repeal of all the laws passed since 1763 - a return to the status quo of the "golden age" of salutary neglect 2) the removal of the standing army 3) the removal of the Vice-Admiralty courts Congress also imposed another boycott of British goods until their demands were met. The non-importation took effect on 1 December 1774. Many of the delegates wanted to remain in the British Empire and most wanted a settlement with Britain. In Britain meanwhile, Lord North and King John II were in disagreement over the official governmental response. Lord North had wanted to make a firm stand and refuse. North said Britain had a moral right to expect the Americans to pay for their own defence and there were more Loyalists than Patriots in America anyway. John II agreed with him on that issue but John II wanted to give a more conciliatory response. He said that if the Americans should pay for their own defence and wish to do so then it should be done, only now the colonies would have to clean up mistakes and pay for debts on their own. After some more arguing the King managed to persuade Lord North to accept his proposed response and if some or all of the colonies were still being uppity then a harder response would be dealt. In Parliament, King John II meets more resistance to his personal response but with the rather reluctant backing of North his measure is approved. And thus the Imperial govt.'s response to the Continental Congress was: 1) All laws passed since 1763 would be up for negotiation with the Imperial authorities, though the colonial delegates must understand that some laws were quite necessary and should be implemented to some extent (though the extent would be negotiable). 2) Some of the standing army would be sent on duty to India, some would go to the West Indies and a small number would go to Britain, some would be moved further out west to the unsettled territories. However of the standing army that remained the delegates themselves would have to decide where they should be garrisoned (though Britain retains final authority). The present Vice-Admiralty courts would be dissolved and the delegates would have to decide upon the members of new Vice-Admiralty courts. The colonies, which now send delegates to the Continental Congress, will form a Union of colonies and the government of this colonial union would be granted certain powers by the Imperial government: the power to approve or reject the Vice-Admiralty selected by the Imperial govt., the power to make laws which will directly affect the union of the colonies and will not contradict with any Imperial laws or will conflict with the interests of the Imperial govt. in other parts of the world, the power to pay and house the local standing army and dictate the areas where the local army garrisons will be deployed only in times of peace, not in wartime (total control will then revert to the Imperial govt.). This Union of Colonies will be based off the Dutch Republic and the Albany Plan with a President-General appointed and supported by the Crown. The present Continental Congress would be renamed the Grand Congress (and still meet in Philadelphia) and its delegates would be chosen by the representatives of the people of the several Colonies met in their respective assemblies. The Grand Congress would members from each colony in the following proportion: Massachusetts- 7, New Hampshire- 2, Connecticut- 5, Rhode Island- 2, New York- 4, New Jersey- 3, Pennsylvania- 6, Maryland- 4, Virginia- 7, North Carolina- 4, South Carolina- 4, Georgia (should it join)- 3 for a total of 51 delegates. There would be new Congressional elections every 3 years. (For the rest of the Plan just type look for Albany Plan of Union on the net, as the plan is too long to be outlined here.) King John II's proposed names for this new Union was the United Colonies of America (after the United Provinces of the Netherlands) or the American Republic (after the Dutch Republic). In Philadelphia the delegates received the plan and a fierce discussion began. The opinions and views of all delegates from one colonu did not correspond exactly so some delegates from New Hampshire supported the plan whilst others opposed and some South Carolina delegates opposed whilst other approved........ to be continued..... Well that's the filler section up til the American Revolutionary period. I was thinking of having most or all of the New England colonies oppose the plan while some middle colonies opposed and others approved and have all or some of the southern colonies approve. This could lead to a war in which the Continental Army is composed mainly of supporters from the colonies opposed to the plan while colonies approving the plan aid Britain in the war. Of course this could leave the problem of having the Slave South remain in the Empire, though a thought just came to me... we could have British war weariness especially after Franco-Spanish intervention and this leads Britain to give up the 13 colonies (maybe the French and Spanish are adamant about all the 13 colonies leaving the Empire and forming the USA), but due to the differences the colonies do not get along as the United States of America as they did in OTL but essentially form two or three rather opposing groups in the Union which could lead to trouble in the future....... | ||
| Sean Swaby |
Sorry I haven't said anything in a while. I'm much freer now than in the first week of July. Wait a minute, if Britain was just looking for someplace to dump her criminals then why choose Australia over Canada? Canada is much closer than Australia so cost-saving cannot be said to be a factor (unless you mean saving costs on British prisons). Space to house the criminals was a bigger factor since British prisons were becoming overcrowded. And Canada has a lot of open space like Australia with the added benefit of being in roughly the same latitude as Britain and so having a climate more reminiscent of "home". Now with all these factors working against Australia to become a penal colony, the British still used Australia for a few of reasons to my knowledge: 1) It was FAR away, so the hardened criminals (and minor ones too) would not be coming back to Britain anytime soon and with the increased distance any chance of some of them sneaking back declines as they are sure to be discovered if they stowaway on a ship from Australia to Britain. 2) It had lots of open space, more than Canada or Georgia has and was called "empty"(of course they had to ignore the Aborigines to call Australia "empty"). 3) As a far distant possession the British claim to the area could only be strengthened by having SOME form of settlers there, even if the settlers are convicts. And if the Albany Union Plan comes into effect as a compromise peace then who says that the American Republic/Federation is just going to allow Britain to export her criminals wholesale into the new Union of Colonies? After all, then the prisoners would be the responsibilty of the new autonomous American Union govt. and I don't think they would stand for vast numbers of prisoners being dumped and then having to pay for them. As Australia has no settler govt. in place (and the Aborigines being ignored) there wasn't anyone there to protest the arrival of the prisoners, save for some kangaroos and cassowaries. Now about the Dutch and Brazil... I know that the Dutch had a colony on the section of Brazil extending furthest into the Atlantic (pretty near to the Amazon's mouth) and that this area was eventually taken by the Portuguese (or was it taken by Brazil after its independence in 1822?, hmmmm...must check again). I didn't know however that the Dutch had tried to go all out for the rest of Brazil. I would have to venture that the British back up the Dutch in retaining their little portion of Brazil and only use the threat of backing up a Dutch conquest of the restof Brazil to maybe milk some concessions from the Portuguese in any dispute. | ||
| Shawn Endresen |
That's a "may" Sean; I sort of agree with wkwillis on Australia. IIRC the English created a small colony there in 1770 but didn't really pay any attention to it until they could no longer dump undesireables in Georgia. If North America stays British another twenty to thirty years, then British interest and investment in Australia is much lower; someone else (like the French being squeezed out of India) might take it out from under them, and they may not care enough to start a war over it. My money would have been on the Dutch, but since the Dutch and the English are the same people in TTL, the Dutch attention may be similarly directed elsewhere, leaving it open for the French. Or not. Or the French start a colony where Perth is without initially disrupting the English one. On a similar note, with English backing can the Dutch take Brazil by force, as they tried and failed OTL? Or will England tell them to be satisfied with what they've got? | ||
| Sean Swaby |
Okay, thank you all for your contributions. Now wkwillis, why do you say we will have a French Australia if the British keep America? If the British and the Dutch are united then Dutch interests in the East Indies may help strengthen British interests in the surrounding areas (i.e. Australia). I will have G4 take over straight from John II, I may have the beginnings of the American Revolution and I'll play it along and see what results. I promise I will get straight back to the TL (hopefully in my next post) but I am a bit busy this week. | ||
| Shawn Endresen |
David, the Robber Barons were rather different creatures than the European aristocrats. Robber Barons ran the American government because they had proven that they, as individuals, were intelligent and ruthless; not that 'ristos never displayed either trait, but the foundation of their position was the proven willingness to use their private resources, families and lives in support and defense of their region. I can see some effort to enshrine the social order of the Gilded Age in law succeeding, but turning an industrial capitalist into a lord is a tricky proposition, and even if it succeeds it's an artificially constructed mockery of the European social order a century after the revolution and two centuries after New England's colonization. It's hard to prove your fitness to be a lord when the closest thing to an external threat you ever face are the occasional Indian raid or a slave uprising. | ||
| wkwillis |
Without an American revolution you get a French Australia. Britain was just looking for someplace to dump her habitual criminals to save on costs. That was before they found all the gold, of course... | ||
| David S Poepoe |
There would be the development of an American Aristocracy, not just in the South which would be where it would be firmly grounded but it will eventually spread North. The early industrialists and the following "Robber Barons" will toss de Tocqueville out the window. The typical stratification of society will happen as the 19th century progresses. Not even recently has there be any demonstration that in their hearts of hearts Americans have been anti-monarchical, there has always been a fascination with what we only had by proxy. There would be American Peerages in short order by the 1850s. | ||
| Shawn Endresen |
Most excellent site, there. Your second citation appears to support my position more than refute it; the first looks like an excellent PoD to delay it a generation. I mention in passing that "Adoption of Franklin's Albany Plan" and "Complete Capitulation to Colonist Demands" are awfully similar. Note how the second may play in Parliament. Regarding A de T, here's a stab: de T. held that a Republic was the only possible form of government in America because Americans consisted of a single class, and thus could not even grasp the concepts behind aristocracy and monarchy. All Americans were descended from members of the middle class and retained its values in large part; all Americans had approximately the same level of education and approximately the same level of wealth (compared to Europe, standard deviation was much lower). They could not accept a monarch because, while some Europeans were demonstrably better than others from birth, no American was demonstrably better than another from birth. Thus they could not believe the King was fit to lead them by an accident of birth. Additionally, the relative lack of diversity within a colony (not necessarily between colonies) meant that government by a consensus of a widely enfranchised electorate was actually possible, while it was not in any European nation of the time due to irreconcible internal differences. As a further supporting point, because of the equality of opportunity and education, the only elite Americans really produced were their wealthy, who were distrusted by the rest of the population and thus could not be sole governors of a colony. New England, further, had created a decentralized democracy under Britain's nose, which was already in place and functioning at the time of the ARW. New Englanders governed themselves in townships, and seldom thought of even a Colonial authority; the authority of the town council was derived from spiritual authority and thus absolute (see the Salem trials). The Colonies paid a commision on administrative tasks to local luminaries rather than maintain permanent and seperate staff; this saved overhead costs but further strengthened the idea of the town council as the final (and consensus-driven, elected) authority. The differences between North and South were of degree rather than kind, and the Southron planter had more in common with a New England councilman than a European lordling; they were the upper edge of the middle class, no true upper class. As a further aside, the Napoleonic reconstruction taxes would likely be far more punishing, and thus the boom will still be lowered. Imagine having to put down a major rebellion shortly after Waterloo, with a Union Army already constituted... | ||
| Sean Swaby |
Good questions there Justin. I doubt Hannover will remain connected to the British Empire til the 1900s, so German unification may not be hampered. Then again if Britain and Hannover have a perpetual alliance then this may prevent Prussia from annexing it in 1866. We will cross that bridge when we come to it. As you can see from the 1866 date, that part of the discussion is about 100 years from where I have paused.I am also trying to figure out if the British monarchy will come to rule what is now Belgium and Luxembourg and what any result may be. Now this is why I wanted your opinions before I continued. Here we have two exactly opposing viewpoints: David's argument is that American independence is not inevitable and that any Albany Plan Union will encompass all of Britain's North American colonies. However on the other side of the ring we have Shawn who says American independence is inevitable and will occur most likely before the 1840s. Well you both present convincing arguments, though Shawn I must tell you I have no access to Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" . I would have to order it from Amazon and that is going to take a little while since I don't exactly have a Amazon outlet in Jamaica (not to mention the price- its summer and everybody is broke) so if you could give the main convincinf points...that would be good. Now I have a recommendation for you, Shawn: http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/adw03/c-eight/amnorth.htm http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/adw03/c-eight/amorigin.htm and here is a quote from the first site (which I hope can be my POD for the American Revolution): The First Continental Congress (6 September - 26 October 1774) Fifty-six delegates from twelve colonies met in Philadelphia: Georgia did not send any delegates. The Congress comprised a distinguished body of men. Many of them were lawyers and all were fit to rule. The New England colonies favoured confrontation with Britain; the middle colonies favoured conciliation with Britain; the southern colonies were fearful of action against Britain. No colony had ever moved against the mother country so Congress had no precedent to follow. The Americans also knew that Britain was one of the most powerful nations on earth. The colonists could be defeated easily: the Americans had seen the power of the British army in the Seven Years' War. In October 1774, the Declaration of Rights was passed by Congress, demanding that Britain should recognise the liberties of Americans. It demanded a repeal of all the laws passed since 1763 - a return to the status quo of the "golden age" of salutary neglect the removal of the standing army the removal of the Vice-Admiralty courts Congress also imposed another boycott of British goods until their demands were met. The non-importation took effect on 1 December 1774. Many of the delegates wanted to remain in the British Empire and most wanted a settlement with Britain. I will have G4 go straight ahead then instead of G3 succeeding. | ||
| Justin Green |
Ive a question. IS Hannover going to remain connected to the British Empire all the way up to the 20th Century. Will this hamper German Unification? Is it possible for the English monarchy to gain control over Belgium and Luxembourg? Could Hannover and Benelux be a Buffer state between Germany and France? | ||
| Shawn Endresen |
straight to G4 is best for England and doable if John decides it and Parliament agrees, yes. I expect I've already indicated I think the independence of British North America inevitable; I recommend Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" as the view of a non-American reasonably close to ground zero. The Albany Plan would allow for a peaceful seperation, not unlike Canada's and Australia's, probably in the 1830-1840 neighborhood, rather than a pointless war, but I think that's all it would do. And Emancipation in 33 will cause a fuss. 19 pounds is a fraction of the market value, but England has no 5th amendment so there's nothing untoward about that, but the South won't like it. And even to pay that, the UK had to take out a rather large loan from the Rothschilds. With the US still in the picture, the repayment drops to something like 7 pounds a slave, which is an insult. To the South, that's rather worse than taxation without representation I think. But I agree with what you're doing so far, Sean. Carry on. | ||
| Sean Swaby |
Hmmm...guess you have a point about the succession. I was just thinking that Parliament would go along with the traditional line of succession but still find a way not to have George III rule directly. Okay, I will have George IV come in directly instead. | ||
| David S Poepoe |
I would think it likely that all of British North America would be included into the Grand Plan of Union (or whatever it is called). Someone in Whitehall will probably just look at the bottomline and figureout it would be cheaper to lump all colonial offices together. I've just read the chaper on the Jamaica Rebellion of 1865 in Ian Herron's "Massacre and Retribution", I would suggest that reform finely arrives in Jamaica following the Rebellion when the white plantation dominated Assembly is voted out of existence and the governance of Jamaica becomes the responsibility of British North America. I would consider this as a likely POD to improve race relations within the British Empire, or at least the starting point of necessary reforms. Why not just skip George III of Hanover and have his son chosen to succeed King John? Both father and son would be kings, and George IV/I would gain alot of experience before becoming King of Hannover. The whole deal with George III being chosen and then his reign being a regency is really odd - its like electing someone president and having the vice president govern instead. When George IV is chosen as Heir Apparent King John invests him with the title of Prince of Wales. George is sent not only to England for schooling, but even makes a tour of British North America - perhaps chosen as the King's representative to open the American Grand Council one year. The idea is that George actually visits America before he becomes king and when on the throne has interests in how things are going in North America. At his eventual coronation his position as "King of America" is added to his title. Industrialization takes place in America, and there is also an industrialization of the South with the money that the planters received for their slaves. Expansion westward will be accomplished through the Napoleonic Wars with the conquest of Louisiana by the Royal America Army. The Republic of Texas gains its independence from Mexico, but with two years goes bankrupt. They appeal to Britain to annex them, but Britain refuses in order to maintain good relations with other Latin American countries. Someone figures out another method, the Texans offer the "crown of Texas" to Queen Victoria and she becomes the Texan Head of State. There is eventually the Anglo-Mexican War, which ends with the annexation of the Western provinces, including California. In California the same thing happens, Sir John C. Fremont heads the Bear Flag Revolt which offers the Crown of California to Victoria. Because of their unique relations with the Crown Texas and California have their own Ministers to London and send Ministers Plentipotentary to the American Parliament at Georgetown. The North American continent is dominated by three seperate British colonies: British North America (OTL Canada and US); Texas and California. During the 1870s there would be an attempt at unifying all three colonies, this would be the idea of the President of California Joshua Norton. He will campaign for Victoria to be made "Empress of America" with the formation of the Viceroyalty of America. His long tenure in office, and close friendship with both Queen Victoria and Benjamin Disraeli (as well as his "Grand Plan") gain him the nickname of "Emperor". Sorry about that but I do so love to through Norton in where ever I can. | ||
| Sean Swaby |
Alright then. I'll have the beginnings of an American Revolution but then have King John II be reasonable and listen to the demands of the Continental Congress and propose a Union of the colonies based off the Dutch Republic and Albany Plan. This Union will be of the coastal colonies only. Nova Scotia, PEI, Upper and Lower Canada and the Caribbean colonies will not take part as they didn't have the same gripes as the Americans. Also the Native American "Indians" will be given a better deal through this Union, maybe even forming their own autonomous regions in the Union. Thanks for the input wkwillis, though I am not sure I agree with "If Britain had held on to America they would not have been politically able to impose the slave blockade on the African export ports". Why would this be? After all the colonies still have no say in Parliament and the colonies do not run the Royal Navy and as David pointed out: "The political demands of the American colonies would appear to have been satisfied by then. I also consider that interest in New England to remain within the larger economical sphere of the British Empire would outweigh the unknowns of independence. The abolition of slavery throughout the Empire will probably only run into little resistance in the Southern Colonies. The British Government is compensating the slaveholders for their slave, at about 19 pounds each. With the greater number of slave present in the American colonies I would think another method that would be fair to the slaveholders will be figured out. The South is also economically tied to the linen mills of Britain and recognizes who pays their bills. The North will stand by Britain because of trade and commerce connections." Now I really would like to continue this and it would be nice to have the opinions of David, Shawn and wkwillis with regards to what I outlined in my first paragraph above in this post about the American revolution. I would also like your opinions about the succession of the Hannoverian Line to the British throne if we have John II die childless as I would like him to. In case you can't find the posting about my idea for succession: "Have Parliament declare that George III is King of Britain but due to his inabilities to govern properly his son, George will be Regent of Britain in his place. Now the future George IV (of Hannover in this TL and Britain in OTL) was not mad like his father and by 1813 I think everyone could see that. So we could have a Regency for 7 years at most and then George I of Britain (aka George IV of Hannover and Stadholder George I) would officially begin his reign in 1820." As well as " Having the mother of George III's children send them to Britain to be educated (and also for their own safety from the mad daddy)." Because I wouldn't want to put in the TL and then find everyone comes up with reasons to change it. Better to know the reasons to scrap it now so I can choose from the remaining options. | ||
| wkwillis |
In 1776 the slave population of New York State was about 10%. This was not proportionately as large as South Carolina, (with a slave majority) but it was big enough to be politically important, especially as the rich and influential people owned the slaves. The cultural differences between the North and South were not so much economic at that time. Kevin Phillips wrote about this in "The Cousins Wars". The economies were very similar in economic occupations, wealth distribution, class relationships, etc. The economic differences were mostly created by the evolution of the North, the South changing more slowly. This was because the North was not industrialized in 1776, because the British harrassed and punished attempts to manufacture in the colonies. They did all they could to prevent metal working, textile manufacture, glass making, etc. Not successfully, as the name Valley Forge shows. America had too much cheap charcoal from forests, and the British were just learning how to make coke for blast furnaces. Attempts to restrict textile manufacture were better managed, which is why there was so much homespun, homeweaved, and of course homesewed clothing. | ||
| Sean Swaby |
So wkwillis are you saying that the British would be able to compensate the slave-holders due to lower prices since the American colonies stayed in the Empire? After reading up on the Albany Plan of Union, I think it seems likely that with a few adjustments the British King could propose an American Republic modelled off the Dutch one that would use the Albany Plan. Or if "republic" is too strong a word then an American Confederation or something that would be like the Dutch Republic without the name of a Republic. As we discuss I begin to realise how different North and South were from the start and now I wonder if the North and South would create two separate unions based off the Albany Plan (especially after any American Revolution that reaches a compromise or during the 1830s when the issue of slavery is taken up). Thanks for the website, David, and thanks all for the ideas. So any comments now? I think we can narrow down the possible outcomes of an American revolution to either American independence by the 1780s, no revolution occurring due to an Albany style Union or the revolution reaching compromise with an Albany style Union. So anyone object (on reasonable grounds) to my having George IV of Hannover become King-Regent in the 1810s and becoming King by 1820? I was also thinking of having the mother of George III's children send them to Britain to be educated (and also for their own safety from the mad daddy). | ||
| wkwillis |
When the British compensated the slave owners for their slaves they were really buying out the people who owned the mortgages on the plantations. The mortgage owners were mostly in Britain and politically important. The plantation owners were mostly in the colonies. Also, the lower rate paid for the Caribbean slaves was because the market rate for slaves was lower than in America. The Caribbean slaves grew suger, which was exposed to competition from suger beets in Europe, from the former Spanish colonies, and in the islands Spain still held. American slaves mostly grew cotton, and the ones in America that grew suger were protected by a tariff against the cheaper overseas suger. The British blockade had increased the price of slaves, but not as much as in America. Americans could not buy slaves overseas after 1808, so the price had risen over the cost of transportation and the smaller cost of purchase. The Caribbean islands were also easier to smuggle slaves into, and among. If Britain had held on to America they would not have been politically able to impose the slave blockade on the African export ports, and the price of slaves in America would also have been very low, much lower than it was. | ||
| David S Poepoe |
I find the idea of a late American War of Independence from Britain, say in the 1830s, to be highly unlikely. The political demands of the American colonies would appear to have been satisfied by then. I also consider that interest in New England to remain within the larger economical sphere of the British Empire would outweigh the unknowns of independence. The abolition of slavery throughout the Empire will probably only run into little resistance in the Southern Colonies. The British Government is compensating the slaveholders for their slave, at about 19 pounds each. With the greater number of slave present in the American colonies I would think another method that would be fair to the slaveholders will be figured out. The South is also economically tied to the linen mills of Britain and recognizes who pays their bills. The North will stand by Britain because of trade and commerce connections. There are alot of articles online about the Albany Plan of Union and I think it is a good outline to work with. The President-General will still be appointed by the Crown, but some local government will be established. | ||
| David S. Poepoe |
Well, By George, I found something on him: http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/adw03/c-eight/freddie.htm a pretty good biography, the longest that I've seen so far, on Frederick. | ||
| Sean Swaby |
Ypur points about George III are well taken Shawn and I know in any TL George III will be quite mad, however in this TL without the defeat of the American Revolution he might'n go as mad. He will still be mad and probably do just about every crazy thing he did in OTL. Just read the following quotes from www.britannia.com and judge for yourself. "George was afflicted with porphyria, a maddening disease which disrupted his reign as early as 1765. Several attacks strained his grip on reality and debilitated him in the last years of his reign." "The Peace of Versailles, signed in 1783, ensured British acknowledgment of the United States of America. The defeat cost George dearly: his sanity was stretched to the breaking point and his political power decreased when William Pitt the Younger became Prime Minister in 1783" I have very little reason to believe that Parliament will want to accept George III as King George I if John II dies childless. The marriage to Anne would virtual make it impossible to bar the Hannoverian line though as you said. Now I have John II being born one year after George III and you would think George would die before John, however looking at the site I realise George III lived to a whopping 82 years of age! His grandfather lived to only 77 and his son to only 68. However I might have thought of a loophole. Lets say we have John live to be older than 70, say around 74 or 76. So we would have him dying between 1813 and 1815. That would still leave George III as potential heir for another 5 to 7 years. But we can have Parliament declare that George III is King of Britain but due to his inabilities to govern properly his son, George will be Regent of Britain in his place. Now the future George IV (of Hannover in this TL and Britain in OTL) was not mad like his father and by 1813 I think everyone could see that. So we could have a Regency for 7 years at most and then George I of Britain (aka George IV of Hannover and Stadholder George I) would officially begin his reign in 1820. David, your idea could work provided we have Frederick not die in 1751. If we have him live til about say 78 then he will die in 1779. The American Revolt might still be ongoing by then. The only other problem is having Frederick (born in 1701) outlasting John (born in 1739) naturally. How did Frederick die by the way? He died awfully young. Okay, now for the American Revolution. I guess we can assume that any King other than Mad George III will be a bit more reasonable than he was. There will be less casualities on either side for sure with a sane King. I won't have the American colonies being given seats in Parliament, though we can have the idea of a seat representing ALL the colonies (Have a Colonial Parliament send a representative to the Parliament in London), though I doubt anything will come of it since all the other colonies will want the same thing. So representation looks out. Surrendering the power of tax will never happen. Now how about this Albany Plan of Union? Can you give some more info on that? As you said the experience with the mild form of republicanism by the Dutch may persaude a sane and reasonable King to allow an American Republic to be set up incorporating ideas from the Albany Plan and from the Dutch Republic (as well as any other ideas that are not too radical that the colonists come up with). This might be a solution to rebellion or would prevent rebellion. France will keep Louisiana (on paper as you said, but American colonists will be moving in) at least until the Napoleanic wars or French Revolutionary Wars(if they occur). I won't know what Ohio will be like in 1810 until we get past any American Revolution. If rebellion happens later then an American rebellion in the 1820s or 30s should be interesting indeed. Also if the Americans revolt in 1776 as in OTL will the colonies be split with the North becoming independent and the south (south of Virginia) staying in the Empire? And what if the rebellion occurs in 1830s with the North having no slaves and the South being slave-holding? Might the South this time try for independence and the North stay loyal? | ||
| Shawn Endresen |
I apparently didn't make my ideas very clear. Sorry. The Hannover line is not barred in OTL; but King George III's madness was exceptionally unpretty by the end. He was chasing courtiers about with blades, ordering arbitrary executions and engaging in lewd acts up to and including rape. A trifle excessive even for a man of his position. Fortunately, he was confined to the palace and no one who mattered was paying attention to him; the establisment of the Regency was, IMHO, an unusually sensible, practical and humane act; and if I'm not mistaken, the only person with the authority to do that to the Elector is the Holy Roman Emperor, who won't. I think G3 will be acting Elector to the bitter end in all his raving, furious glory. By the 1810s the rest of Europe will be watching the collapse of the House of Hannover with sick fascination. I think Parliament and William V or John II would be willing and able to bar the line in TTL. Although with Anne, perhaps they can't. Another King could conclude the ARW with lessened casualties on either side, certainly. If another King had a different PM than Pitt, anyway. But he very well may. I was under the impression G3 and Parliament were mostly in step on this one OTL, though. As for diplomatic solution to the crisis, well, it's possible, but I think BNA was bound to try for independence by 1830 at the latest, like I mentioned. Giving BNA seats in Parliament is impractical because of communication times and travel times; surrendering the power to tax unilaterally is, well, pretty incredible for the King and Parliament. | ||
| David S. Poepoe |
Sean, for a different king during the possible American Revolt I would consider looking at Frederick, the Prince of Wales, son of George II and father of George III. I doubt that there is a whole lot available about him except that his mother and father disliked him and considered it a blessing when he died. One can put him on the throne for a few years to allow George III get a few more years under his belt before becoming king. | ||
| Sean Swaby |
Well thanks. I would like to know though how the line of succession has been barred. I don't remember stating anywhere that the the Hanoverian line has been barred. If I remember rightly I think the Succession after Mary II was supposed to be Mary II's children by marriage and failing that then Anne's children by marriage and failing even that then William III's children and after that then the Hanoverian line via George I. Now if Will and Mary have a kid and their line continues to a point and then ends when one of their descendants has no children, then the next closest relative of their line would automatically inherit the throne, no? Afterall Britain has to have a monarch, preferably one most closely related to the one that is recently deceased. And from what I can see of this very complex and varied family tree that would be someone from the Hanover branch. Technically their would be no George IV of Britain since there never was a George I of Britain to begin with. We would have an alternate George I of Britain who would be George IV of Hanover and Stadholder George I. You all may not have noticed and I also forgot to mention the importance of the fact that Anne of Hanover married William V. Now in OTL Anne was the Grandmother of the first King of the Kingdom of the Netherlands established in 1815, King William I. What you said about the American Revolution is true, that taxation would be imposed anyway to pay for the war with France, but I though maybe it would be different after reading the article on George III at http://www.britannia.com/history/h6f.html The following is a quote from the article on George III at that site: "The Peace of Paris (1763) ended the Seven Years' War with France, with the strenuous, anti-French policies of the elder Pitt emphasizing naval superiority in the colonial warfare. Great Britain emerged from the conflict as the world's greatest colonial power. England thrived under peacetime conditions, but George's commitment to taxing the American colonies to pay for military protection led to hostilities in 1775. The colonists proclaimed independence in 1776, but George obstinately continued the war until the final American victory at Yorktown in 1781. The Peace of Versailles, signed in 1783, ensured British acknowledgment of the United States of America. The defeat cost George dearly: his sanity was stretched to the breaking point and his political power decreased when William Pitt the Younger became Prime Minister in 1783. George reclaimed some of his power, driving Pitt from office from 1801-04, but his condition worsened again and he ceased to rule in 1811." So from that I was wondering if a different King would have led to a different outcome. Well looking slightly ahead to after the the 1780s, I personally think the French Revolution might be the same with a similar outcome. In spite of the fact that the British have experience and ties with a Dutch Republic, that particular republic was protestant and was not revolutionary and calling for the abolition of monarchy. So all the monarchies of Europe will oppose the French revolutionaries and in the 1810s the anti-revolutionary alliance will be victorious. But before we come to that bridge we need to cross the one of succession of Alternate John II and the possible ascension of the Hanoverian line to the British throne and any possible American Revolution. | ||
| Shawn Endresen |
First thought: 18th century Germany is a weak spot of mine, but...would a mad Elector be treated with the same deference as a mad King of England? There may be no George IV because the line of sucession has been barred... Second thought: All depends on who's running the British War Office, really; I hold that the war was won or lost, depending on which side you were on, by the memos and orders that various incompetents there misfiled or failed to send to Generals in the field. Land wars have never been England's priority, though, so it's reasonable to assume the general caliber of employee would be the same. Third thought: The rebellion was sparked by raised tariffs, and tariffs were raised to pay the debts associated with that 1750s war. Figure out how TTL British finances stack up to OTL British finances. The rebellion may not happen as quickly. Perhaps as a reaction to punishing duties following the Napoleonic debacle? Or the 1833 Emancipation (OTL, Britain scraped up the cash to compensate slaveholders for their "losses" to some extent. With North America still in the Empire, that's flatly impossible; Emancipation on the heels of the Napoleonic conflict ought to start the rebellion at the very latest. Andy Jackson, CinC rebel forces...God help us...but the Indians will get a better break, I think. England was determining Indian policy for longer. Late rebellion is bad for everybody, the English because the rebels have more bodies and more money, the rebels because more money and resources are concentrated in New York, Philadelphia and Boston...there are now vital spots where the rebels CAN be crippled... Will a more reasonable King than G3 (he is more reasonable, right?) adopt something like Franklin's Albany Plan to forestall rebellion? Their Dutch experience gives them more experience with and tolerance for mild forms of Republicanism, after all. Will France be keeping Louisiana? (on paper, yes.) I've heard that England forbade development of the area across the Appalachians because they were afraid of colonists in a place they couldn't possibly exercise force or be sure of collecting taxes; not sure how much alarmist jingoism that is, but if true, what does Ohio look like 1810 or so? Anglo-Dutch Empire looks vast and terrifying to the other European Powers of the day, I should think. Perhaps a power friendly to them in OTL sees the wisdom of neutrality or opposition TTL... Oh, good job, BTW. John, heh. | ||
| Sean Swaby |
I have an idea in my mind whereby the Hannoverian kings can still ascend the throne of Britain, only at a later date. I'll run the idea by you all before I reach the historical date I have in mind to have the House of Hannover rule Britain. Anyway to contine the ATL : 1715- The late Queen-regent Anne's half brother, James the Old Pretender, claims the throne as his own and a group of legitimist Tories starts a rebellion in northern England in his name. James is in France however, and by the time he arrives in Britain, William had put down the rebellion. Even worse for the Old Pretender, French backing dried up with the death of Louis XIV. In Britain and in the Dutch republic William is rather popular and his popularity rises when he finally marries at the age of 23 to a Danish duchess (this duchess is not in line to inherit any duchy so this means no Anglo-Dutch involvement in Denmark). They have 2 children. One son and one daughter, named William and Margaret. 1716- With the rebellion over for a year, Britain settles into a period of peace with internal politics and foreign affairs being focused on by Britain's govt. Along with a period of peace came more time for William IV to go to the Dutch Republic to fulfil some of his duties as a stadholder. 1722- With William having to travel back and forth between Britain and Zeeland and Holland, he decided to create a post of Premier (Prime Minister) to run his affairs in England whilst he was in the Netherlands. The first Premier was Sir Robert Wadpole. Whilst in Britain he had Friso's widow help run his affairs in his provinces. Meanwhile William IV makes an alliance with his second cousin once removed, George the Elector of Hanover (George I on OTL). 1727- George, Elector of Hanover dies and is succeeded by his son also named George. William IV continues the alliance between Britain (and the Dutch Republic) and Hanover with his third cousin (George II of Hanover). In Britain Premier Wadpole thinks George II is a bit more rash than his father but in the interest of alliance keeps his tongue. He is vindicated however when George II declares war on Spain... 1738- Prince William of Britain (who now acts as stadholder in some of the Dutch provinces when his father is in Britain) marries a Anne of Hanover (daughter of George II of Hanover) and in 1739 he has his first son, John. The couple will have 5 children (2 die at birth). The other 2 surviving children are a boy and a girl named Willem and Augusta. The marriage to Anne reaffirms the British-Dutch-Hanoverian alliance. 1739- The period of peace in Britain and the Dutch Republic comes to a close as William IV follows through on his alliance with Hanover and declares war on Spain in 1739. The war with Spain was a component of the war of the Austrian Succession. Britain, the Dutch Republic and Hanover at this time are fighting Spain and France and the war lasts into the 1740s. The fighting came to nothing (a stalemate) and peace once again broke out until the 1750s.. 1742-Wadpole retires. 1744- William IV dies and is succeeded by his son William V. William V becomes stadholder of the provinces in the Dutch Republic over which William IV was stadholder due to William IV's will. One of these provinces begins to debate whether to appoint a new stadholder, but William V (by a narrow margin in a vote) manages to retain the title of stadholder. The other provinces (Holland among them) also have voices of dissent, but with France so nearby and with a war with France so recently over, they decide to keep William V (and British automatic support) and affirm him as stadholder in a vote. His experience as a stadholder during his princehood was the second reason he was retained as stadholder. 1747- Another French invasion of the Dutch Republic is threatened and it seems for sure the French mean business. Groningen and Gelderland appoint William V as stadholder. The remaining provinces where William is not stadholder follow suit and William V becomes the first stadholder of all 7 provinces. The office of stadholder is then made officially made hereditary in the male and female lines. After this declaration the French stop threatening to invade, mostly out of fear and weariness of yet another war with Britain and Hanover so shortly after the end of the 1739 one as opposed to just punishing the Dutch. 1750s- Britain and France go to war again over imperial claims and Hanover and the Dutch republic dutifully declare war on France. There is intense fighting in Europe and some fighting in North America and India. Britain and her allies win this war against France. Britain now has dominance in North America and India and it seems that the French "threat" in Europe has been greatly diminished for now. 1758- Prince John (acting stadholder following the tradition of his father) marries his cousin, Elizabeth Caroline, daughter of Frederick Louis (son of George II of Hanover). He geniunely loves her, however Elizabeth dies within a year, childless. John withdraws in sorrow and it is not until 1765 at the urging of his father that he marries again, this time to a British noblewoman. He has no love for her and when the two children he has by her die shortly after birth, he becomes more estranged from her and focuses a lot on the Dutch Republic. 1760- George II of Hanover dies and is succeeded by his grandson, George III. 1767- William V dies and Prince John becomes King John II. In the spirit of his father he keeps the alliance with Hanover... I'll stop here for now. Now to have the Hanoverian kings come to the throne, we could have John II die childless and thus have the throne inherited by his closet relative, George III's sons. Now that the stadholder office is hereditary then the Hanoverian kings would also be the stadholders. I know there may be a mistake or two in the above TL but after looking at some LONG familt trees and looking at many side branches and links, I think George II would have turned out the same way (after all he and his father were devoted to Hanover even as kings of Britain). So I could have George IV and his brother William become Kings of Britain. Hanover and Britain will probably split as in OTL when Ernest Augustus inherits the throne/electorate of Hanover while his niece, Victoria is chosen as the new Queen (and due to Salic Law she can't be Elector or Queen of Hanover and so the Hanover line splits between Britain and Hanover after only two kings as opposed to 5 kings in OTL). Having no George III on the throne however could affect the American Revolution so that is the second reason I stop here. This way we can discuss the effects of no George III on the American revolution before I move on. Comments, thoughts and ideas welcome. | ||
| David S Poepoe |
Sean, the only thing that I have given any contemplation about for this ATL is to speculate on the size and breadth of the Far East holdings of an Anglo-Dutch Union. If the governance of these Eastern Realms are united it would be a terrific trading zone from the border of Persia to the New Zealand. | ||
| Sean Swaby |
Thanks all. I think we have some persons from the Netherlands (I know there are two Belgians) who contribute to this site. It would be nice to hear their opinions as well as the opinions of others who have studied this period. Until then I will continue with the first POD (and first link) where William III might have son. After the World Cup I think I will also have to focus on the Ulster ulcer discussion again so don't expect a posting every few hours. I am using two sites to gather info on this (if anyone knows any more sites, then please share them). They are: http://www.koninklijkhuis.nl/UK/monarchy/monarchy.html?geschiedenis.html and: http://www.britannia.com/history/h6f.html The first site is the website of the Dutch royal house and the second site is a website on British history. From what I gather it seems that only males could inherit the title of Stadholder (governor) so let's have William and Mary have a son (William IV for simplicty's sake). Good questions Shawn, I would think that there would be some reluctance to appoint a sitting monarch of another country as stadholder (and then make it hereditary), but with threat of another French invasion in 1747 (after the previous French invasion in 1672) the provinces might decide that having the sitting monarch of a fellow protestant nation as stadholder of all seven provinces would be a good thing, especially as this fellow protestant nation is France's archrival Britain. Who better to garner help from? Having the King of Britain as stadholder would ensure British support. Making the status of Stadholder officially hereditary for the House of Orange (in males and females) would also ensure continued British support against France. Now for a bit on the stadholder office: "Although the stadholders were not ruling princes, they did play an important role in the Republic's political life. They were in the service of the States General and the individual provinces, which invested them with military responsibilities. They were thus closely concerned with matters of war and peace and hence with the Republic's foreign policy. The court of the Orange branch of the family in The Hague reflected this semi-royal status better than the court in Leeuwarden of the stadholders of Friesland,..." Some (or all as far as I can gather) stadholders were princes nonetheless. Now Mary died of smallpox in 1694, possibly we could have her die in say 1698 of smallpox so the children are born later, but let's work with 1694. I'll have the POD be 1692: So William and Mary are married (Will being 12 years older than his cousin) and in 1688 James II is deposed. Parliament is then faced with a dilemma: they want the throne to be the sole possession of Mary with William as Prince Consort, but Mary refused due to her self-imposed subservience to her husband (at first after marriage under duress she thought him repulsive but came to love and respect both William and his country). William was reluctant to accept the throne by means of conquest, preferring to be named king by Parliament through birthright. Parliament succumbed to the wishes of William and Mary, and the pair acceded as co-rulers. In early 1690 William and Mary have a child, a daughter, but she dies of birth complications. In 1692 Mary again gives birth, this time to a son, named William. William III is still having an affair with one of Mary's ladies-in-waiting which shows the marriage is still not perfect(this affair ends after the birth of his son). Two years later Mary dies of smallpox leaving William III sole ruler of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland (as well as a stadholder in some Dutch provinces). In 1702 William III died after being thrown from his horse (just as another war with France was starting). Parliament by now has established its supremacy with the Settlement Act of 1701. As William and Mary's son is only 10 now, Parliament names his aunt, Anne as Queen-regent. She is charges with ruling the country until William IV is old enough to rule on his own. Queen Anne rules from 1702 until 1710 when William IV finally reached 20 and accepted the Crown. The most prominent acheivement of Queen Anne's reign was the Act of Union between England and Scotland creating Great Britain. After 1710, Anne continued to advise her nephew until her death in 1714 (which can be considered the real "start" of William IV's sole rule). William IV is also a stadholder of some of the Dutch provinces as William III's will left his titles and estates to his son. As William is rather busy governing Britain, he leaves some of the work of Stadholder to his kinsman Johan Friso. However Friso drowned in 1711 and hos widow carried on his work and upheld the status of the House of Orange-Nassau. Will stop there for now. | ||
| Shawn Endresen |
I'd be happy to see where it goes, sure. Would the states really appoint a sitting monarch of another country, though, and then make it hereditary? They're essentially selling their future forever, even if Bill Orange is a wonderful man (of course he is) and a reasonable facsimile of a Dutchman. His son may be appointed stadtholder as well, but I think paranoia would prevent the Dutch from committing the idea that it's hereditary to writing in this circumstance. | ||
| Derek |
Encouragement only. This is way beyond my expertise but I've often considerd a marriage between England and the United Provinces (once they stopped being rivals) to be s natural. I can't evaluate the reasonableness of your POD's but I'd like to see them work. | ||
| Sean Swaby |
This one is rather tenuous as I can find roughly two links between the Dutch royal house (or at least its predecessor stadholders) and the British monarchy. However, what if the links between the rulers of Britain and the Netherlands/Dutch Republic were greater? What if it eventually culminated in a union of the Netherlands and Britain? Oh the two links I found between the Dutch and British are as follows: William III, stadholder in the Dutch Republic and cousin and husband to Mary Stuart who was James II's daughter. As we should all know James II was kicked out and Mary and William became co-rulers of Britain. They had no children and the pair were succeeded by Mary's sister Anne who also had no children (and she was the last Stuart monarch of England and Scotland (it was under her that the Act of Union came about by the way)). After that the House of Brunswick, Hanover line came to rule Britain starting with George I from Hanover. I seem to remember that Parliament had passed some Act so that I think William's children would be the last to succeed to the throne after Mary's kids (provided she had any from another marriage apart from with William I think) and after Anne's kids. Now none of these people had children, so lets assume that William and Mary had a child. Wouldn't this child succeed as monarch of Britain? Most likely Anne would be Queen or maybe Regent until her death or until the child is old enough to rule on his/her own. Also when the Stadholder-King William III died in 1702 without any heir, this ushered in the second stadholderless period in the history of the Dutch republic which lasted til 1747 (except in Friesland). In OTL William III's will left his estates and titles to his kinsman, Johan Willem Friso (1687-1711), of the Frisian branch of the family. The will was challenged, however, by King Frederick William I of Prussia, a descendant of Frederik Hendrik. Agreement still had not been reached when Johan Willem Friso drowned near the Moerdijk on his way to The Hague to negotiate a settlement. His widow, Maria Louisa of Hesse-Kassel (1688-1765), succeeded in upholding the status of the House of Orange-Nassau. The agreement on the inheritance reached with the Prussians in 1732 provided her son, Prince William IV (1711-1751), with the basis for his marriage in 1734 to Anne of Hanover (1709-1759), daughter of King George II of Great Britain. (This is the second link by the way). So let's say William and Mary have a son (I don't think a woman could be stadholder could she?) or maybe a son and a daughter. Then this child (or these children) would inherit the position of stadholder(s) in the Dutch Republic. To make it interesting let's have this(these) kid(s) be around 5 or under at the time of William III's death in 1702. So Anne is Queen-Regent from 1702 until say around 1715 or so. The Act of Union has gone ahead in 1707 as in OTL and when the kid(s) is (are) old enough then we have a period of Stadholder-monarchs in Britain and the Dutch Republic. Meanwhile in the Dutch Republic Johan Willem Friso is Stadholder of Friesland and while the Stadholder-monarch(s) is(are) in Britain is probably managing the other Orange-Nassau estates. The Prussians probably challenge William III's will (which left his estates and the throne to his children and after them to Johan Friso). Then by 1734 a new agreement with the Prussians allows Johan Friso's son to marry the son of George, Elector of Hanover (whose name is also George) a distant relation of James I. In OTL Groningen and Gelderland appointed William IV as their stadholder, and in 1747, faced with the threat of another French invasion, the other provinces followed suit, making him the first member of the family to be appointed stadholder in all seven provinces of the Republic. Shortly afterwards, the office of stadholder was made hereditary in the House of Orange, in the male and female line. So how about Groningen and Gelderland appointing the son of William III (probably named William IV) as stadholder (or maybe this alternate William IV's son since Will the IV would be 50 by then as stadholder). Then faced with a French invasion the other provinces follow suit and make the Stadholder-king/queen the first stadholder of all seven provinces. So afterwards the stadholder-office is made hereditary in the House of Orange in the male and female lines, thus ensuring a continuing link between the position of stadholder of the Dutch Republic and Monarch of Britain? Failing that we can probably try the second link: marriage in 1734 of Anne of Hanover (1709-1759), daughter of King George II of Great Britain to a stadholder's son. I know this one will probably not work out, but it might be interesting to see where it goes. Any ideas, comments, anyone want to continue with it as I would like to? |
