I've mused on this for a while.

POD 1812 is that the War of 1812 ends with the
United States surrendering to reincorporation into
the British Empire.Andrew Jackson and William Henry
Harrison and Winfield Scott do NOT become heroes,
even if they survive.

A Viceroyalty of British North America is set up,
with its capital in London,Ontario (originally planned
by its founder as Canadian capital).The Viceroy is a
member of the Royal Family not in immediate line to
the throne...initially the Duke of Clarence,and after
the 1827 (as OTL) death of the Duke of York made him
Heir Presumptive,the Duke of Cumberland.

The various colonies in BNA send representatives to
its House of Assembly,which can propose laws but not
override the Viceroy's Executive Council on their
disposition...some of the representatives are chosen
by the Viceroy in Council as a small delegation to
the Parliament of the United Kingdom,so the claim of
"taxation without representation" can not be made but
the representatives can not prevent the taxation if
they fail to sway minds against it.

Effort is made to ensure that prominent colonials
feel they have a stake in a united Empire,with
knighthoods and baronetcies dished out to the
likes of Sir John Astor,the fur magnate,though
the devotees of the vanquished USA continue to
chafe,led by the deposed,paroled,ex-president
Madison,the notorious republican ideologue.

In 1834,as in OTL,
SLAVERY IS ABOLISHED THROUGHOUT THE EMPIRE.
Madison and Calhoun and their cronies have their
issue on which to base a new Revolution in the
colonies to which slavery is important...leaders
in more northerly colonies like John Quincy
Adams and Martin Van Buren may want to expand
self-government but are not inclined to hang
their hats on that banner,and abolitionists are
inclined to join the stationed British military.

The rebel states are not quite the same as OTL's
later Confederacy...Texas is still part of Mexico
(which borders BNA) and I haven't decided if
East Florida is still Spanish or what colonial
charters might have been added after W1812.

How do you think the war would go?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2021 00:54:14 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein
<le@top.put.com> wrote:

>
>I've mused on this for a while.
>
>POD 1812 is that the War of 1812 ends with the
>United States surrendering to reincorporation into
>the British Empire.Andrew Jackson and William Henry
>Harrison and Winfield Scott do NOT become heroes,
>even if they survive.

Just for starters I probably wouldn't care as I'd be butterflied out
of history as my 6x and 7x great-grandfathers in the direct male line
served in the NY state militia in the war of 1812 (My Canadian
ancestors who are basically my maternal line were still in the UK at
that point) But no question that POD can't happen without a lot of
dead NY state militiamen. (Think "total collapse of the Niagara front)

>A Viceroyalty of British North America is set up,
>with its capital in London,Ontario (originally planned
>by its founder as Canadian capital).The Viceroy is a
>member of the Royal Family not in immediate line to
>the throne...initially the Duke of Clarence,and after
>the 1827 (as OTL) death of the Duke of York made him
>Heir Presumptive,the Duke of Cumberland.

All of these are plausible candidates.

>The various colonies in BNA send representatives to
>its House of Assembly,which can propose laws but not
>override the Viceroy's Executive Council on their
>disposition...some of the representatives are chosen
>by the Viceroy in Council as a small delegation to
>the Parliament of the United Kingdom,so the claim of
>"taxation without representation" can not be made but
>the representatives can not prevent the taxation if
>they fail to sway minds against it.

Given how few Canadian governor general vetos of Canadian legislation
in OTL I shouldn't think there would be too many in OTL either.

>Effort is made to ensure that prominent colonials
>feel they have a stake in a united Empire,with
>knighthoods and baronetcies dished out to the
>likes of Sir John Astor,the fur magnate,though
>the devotees of the vanquished USA continue to
>chafe,led by the deposed,paroled,ex-president
>Madison,the notorious republican ideologue.
>
>In 1834,as in OTL,
>SLAVERY IS ABOLISHED THROUGHOUT THE EMPIRE.
>Madison and Calhoun and their cronies have their
>issue on which to base a new Revolution in the
>colonies to which slavery is important...leaders
>in more northerly colonies like John Quincy
>Adams and Martin Van Buren may want to expand
>self-government but are not inclined to hang
>their hats on that banner,and abolitionists are
>inclined to join the stationed British military.

GIven 20 years of British rule I don't see the North joining the CSA.

Without that support I would think such a rebellion would be nasty,
brutish and short. I would think Wilberforce would have even more
support than he did in the real USA in this TL.

>The rebel states are not quite the same as OTL's
>later Confederacy...Texas is still part of Mexico
>(which borders BNA) and I haven't decided if
>East Florida is still Spanish or what colonial
>charters might have been added after W1812.
>
>How do you think the war would go?

Again without Texas and facing the combined British Army, Royal Navy
and northern states, such a war would be nasty brutish and short.

(One side effect of this is that the Baptist church in the *USA would
still be united as in this TL you don't have the walkout of the
Southern Baptist Convention - which has in our TL successfully shed
it's racist past but if it WERE to break away from the Northern
Baptists in these circumstances I doubt they'd lose that reputation
today. This probably butterflies away Billy Graham amongst others.)

Another main question would be whether in this TL you would have
British restrictions on US expansion west of the Appalachians since as
I understand it the two main grievances of the Colonists (in OTL) were
(1) taxation without representation and (2) British restrictions on
settlement west of the Appalachians in respons to the Royal
Proclamation of 1763 (which in my opinion has been so interpreted by
Canadian courts who say it still is part of Canadian law means
Canadians should hate King George III even more than Americans!)

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2021 00:54:14 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein
> <le@top.put.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>I've mused on this for a while.
>>
>>POD 1812 is that the War of 1812 ends with the
>>United States surrendering to reincorporation into
>>the British Empire.Andrew Jackson and William Henry
>>Harrison and Winfield Scott do NOT become heroes,
>>even if they survive.
>
> Just for starters I probably wouldn't care as I'd be butterflied out
> of history as my 6x and 7x great-grandfathers in the direct male line
> served in the NY state militia in the war of 1812 (My Canadian
> ancestors who are basically my maternal line were still in the UK at
> that point) But no question that POD can't happen without a lot of
> dead NY state militiamen. (Think "total collapse of the Niagara front)
>
>>A Viceroyalty of British North America is set up,
>>with its capital in London,Ontario (originally planned
>>by its founder as Canadian capital).The Viceroy is a
>>member of the Royal Family not in immediate line to
>>the throne...initially the Duke of Clarence,and after
>>the 1827 (as OTL) death of the Duke of York made him
>>Heir Presumptive,the Duke of Cumberland.
>
> All of these are plausible candidates.
>
>>The various colonies in BNA send representatives to
>>its House of Assembly,which can propose laws but not
>>override the Viceroy's Executive Council on their
>>disposition...some of the representatives are chosen
>>by the Viceroy in Council as a small delegation to
>>the Parliament of the United Kingdom,so the claim of
>>"taxation without representation" can not be made but
>>the representatives can not prevent the taxation if
>>they fail to sway minds against it.
>
> Given how few Canadian governor general vetos of Canadian legislation
> in OTL I shouldn't think there would be too many in OTL either.

The Viceroy (or his Governor-in-Chief lieutenant) may have
a light hand in BNA but the minority of reps of the BNA
serving in the UK would have hills to climb at times.
>>Effort is made to ensure that prominent colonials
>>feel they have a stake in a united Empire,with
>>knighthoods and baronetcies dished out to the
>>likes of Sir John Astor,the fur magnate,though
>>the devotees of the vanquished USA continue to
>>chafe,led by the deposed,paroled,ex-president
>>Madison,the notorious republican ideologue.
>>
>>In 1834,as in OTL,
>>SLAVERY IS ABOLISHED THROUGHOUT THE EMPIRE.
>>Madison and Calhoun and their cronies have their
>>issue on which to base a new Revolution in the
>>colonies to which slavery is important...leaders
>>in more northerly colonies like John Quincy
>>Adams and Martin Van Buren may want to expand
>>self-government but are not inclined to hang
>>their hats on that banner,and abolitionists are
>>inclined to join the stationed British military.
>
> GIven 20 years of British rule I don't see the North joining the CSA.
>
> Without that support I would think such a rebellion would be nasty,
> brutish and short. I would think Wilberforce would have even more
> support than he did in the real USA in this TL.
>
>>The rebel states are not quite the same as OTL's
>>later Confederacy...Texas is still part of Mexico
>>(which borders BNA) and I haven't decided if
>>East Florida is still Spanish or what colonial
>>charters might have been added after W1812.
>>
>>How do you think the war would go?
>
> Again without Texas and facing the combined British Army, Royal Navy
> and northern states, such a war would be nasty brutish and short.

So what would Reconstruction be like?
Would defeated slaveholders flee to Mexico and
make the Texas question worse?

> (One side effect of this is that the Baptist church in the *USA would
> still be united as in this TL you don't have the walkout of the
> Southern Baptist Convention - which has in our TL successfully shed
> it's racist past but if it WERE to break away from the Northern
> Baptists in these circumstances I doubt they'd lose that reputation
> today. This probably butterflies away Billy Graham amongst others.)

So would BNA be a province of the C of E in Episcopalian terms?
I suppose the Catholic dioceses established by W1812 would continue
and Catholic Emancipation in the UK extend to BNA,with Quebec's
accommodation perhaps expanded.(The first Bishop of New York was
a French-speaker).

> Another main question would be whether in this TL you would have
> British restrictions on US expansion west of the Appalachians since as
> I understand it the two main grievances of the Colonists (in OTL) were
> (1) taxation without representation and (2) British restrictions on
> settlement west of the Appalachians in respons to the Royal
> Proclamation of 1763 (which in my opinion has been so interpreted by
> Canadian courts who say it still is part of Canadian law means
> Canadians should hate King George III even more than Americans!)

Kentucky,Tennessee,Ohio,and Louisiana were all admitted to the Union
by the War so would presumably get royal governors and whatever limitations
on settlement could be imposed.As for the territories there might be a
moratorium on new colonial charters.
The Erie Canal would be convenient to the BNA government.
This would be the first time the Louisiana Purchase was part of the
Empire but would river trade be seen as convenient?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2021 07:47:07 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein
<le@top.put.com> wrote:

>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Oct 2021 00:54:14 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein
>> <le@top.put.com> wrote:
>>
>> (One side effect of this is that the Baptist church in the *USA would
>> still be united as in this TL you don't have the walkout of the
>> Southern Baptist Convention - which has in our TL successfully shed
>> it's racist past but if it WERE to break away from the Northern
>> Baptists in these circumstances I doubt they'd lose that reputation
>> today. This probably butterflies away Billy Graham amongst others.)
>
>So would BNA be a province of the C of E in Episcopalian terms?
>I suppose the Catholic dioceses established by W1812 would continue
>and Catholic Emancipation in the UK extend to BNA,with Quebec's
>accommodation perhaps expanded.(The first Bishop of New York was
>a French-speaker).

Why not? For a long time the original name of what is now called the
Anglican Church of Canada was 'The Church of England in Canada'.

The history of the Episcopalian Church USA is more twisted - after the
American Revolution they had the problem of consecrating bishops since
it takes 3 bishops to make another.

In OTL what happened is that Episcopalians in the USA went to their
counterparts in Scotland (who were theologically linked to Westminster
but did not have the link to the British Crown) and got 3 American
bishops consecrated by them. All bishops of the Episcopalian Church
USA come via them.

In this scenario this convoluted sequence isn't needed though in OTL
this was after 1783 but before the war of 1812. Presumably the
existing American bishops would stay in place so there would be no
change from OTL.

>> Another main question would be whether in this TL you would have
>> British restrictions on US expansion west of the Appalachians since as
>> I understand it the two main grievances of the Colonists (in OTL) were
>> (1) taxation without representation and (2) British restrictions on
>> settlement west of the Appalachians in respons to the Royal
>> Proclamation of 1763 (which in my opinion has been so interpreted by
>> Canadian courts who say it still is part of Canadian law means
>> Canadians should hate King George III even more than Americans!)
>
>Kentucky,Tennessee,Ohio,and Louisiana were all admitted to the Union
>by the War so would presumably get royal governors and whatever limitations
>on settlement could be imposed.As for the territories there might be a
>moratorium on new colonial charters.
>The Erie Canal would be convenient to the BNA government.
>This would be the first time the Louisiana Purchase was part of the
>Empire but would river trade be seen as convenient?

In your scenario would Britain acquire Florida (1819) or Louisiana
(1804)? (Presumably the British would not disavow the Louisiana
purchase though obviously the 1815 Battle of New Orleans doesn't
happen)

On 10/16/21 7:54 PM, Louis Epstein wrote:
> POD 1812 is that the War of 1812 ends with the
> United States surrendering to reincorporation into
> the British Empire.

Not even remotely plausible. To begin with, Britain
had no interest whatever in this outcome.

In the second place, Britain was heavily engaged
with Napoleon.

And in the third place, the US was far too large
to be conquered by Britain: about 4M sq km, an
area greater than Europe west of Russia, with about
8M inhabitants, almost as many as Britiain.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2021 07:47:07 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein
> <le@top.put.com> wrote:
>
>>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Oct 2021 00:54:14 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein
>>> <le@top.put.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> (One side effect of this is that the Baptist church in the *USA would
>>> still be united as in this TL you don't have the walkout of the
>>> Southern Baptist Convention - which has in our TL successfully shed
>>> it's racist past but if it WERE to break away from the Northern
>>> Baptists in these circumstances I doubt they'd lose that reputation
>>> today. This probably butterflies away Billy Graham amongst others.)
>>
>>So would BNA be a province of the C of E in Episcopalian terms?
>>I suppose the Catholic dioceses established by W1812 would continue
>>and Catholic Emancipation in the UK extend to BNA,with Quebec's
>>accommodation perhaps expanded.(The first Bishop of New York was
>>a French-speaker).
>
> Why not? For a long time the original name of what is now called the
> Anglican Church of Canada was 'The Church of England in Canada'.
>
> The history of the Episcopalian Church USA is more twisted - after the
> American Revolution they had the problem of consecrating bishops since
> it takes 3 bishops to make another.
>
> In OTL what happened is that Episcopalians in the USA went to their
> counterparts in Scotland (who were theologically linked to Westminster
> but did not have the link to the British Crown) and got 3 American
> bishops consecrated by them. All bishops of the Episcopalian Church
> USA come via them.
>
> In this scenario this convoluted sequence isn't needed though in OTL
> this was after 1783 but before the war of 1812. Presumably the
> existing American bishops would stay in place so there would be no
> change from OTL.

I'm assuming the American bishops would be swept into one
jurisdictional pool with the Canadian ones.
>>> Another main question would be whether in this TL you would have
>>> British restrictions on US expansion west of the Appalachians since as
>>> I understand it the two main grievances of the Colonists (in OTL) were
>>> (1) taxation without representation and (2) British restrictions on
>>> settlement west of the Appalachians in respons to the Royal
>>> Proclamation of 1763 (which in my opinion has been so interpreted by
>>> Canadian courts who say it still is part of Canadian law means
>>> Canadians should hate King George III even more than Americans!)
>>
>>Kentucky,Tennessee,Ohio,and Louisiana were all admitted to the Union
>>by the War so would presumably get royal governors and whatever limitations
>>on settlement could be imposed.As for the territories there might be a
>>moratorium on new colonial charters.
>>The Erie Canal would be convenient to the BNA government.
>>This would be the first time the Louisiana Purchase was part of the
>>Empire but would river trade be seen as convenient?
>
> In your scenario would Britain acquire Florida (1819) or Louisiana
> (1804)? (Presumably the British would not disavow the Louisiana
> purchase though obviously the 1815 Battle of New Orleans doesn't
> happen)

I did say above that I hadn't decided on the fate of East Florida.
West Florida (Louisiana NE of Lake Ponchartrain and the seaboard
east of there to Mobile Bay) had been taken over by Americans 1810-13
so would presumably be in with the rest of the reincorporated USA
(including Louisiana is how BNA gets the border with Mexico,and
presumably clears up the claims all the way to the Oregon-California
line).

Would Spain be as likely,more likely,or less likely to sell E Florida
to Britain compared to the USA?...would the 1821 independence of
Mexico fare any differently?

I'm generally assuming no extreme butterflies until the abolition
of slavery sets off the second Revolution and its likely defeat...
but I realize things could be quite different depending on policies.
(In 1834 OTL's Abraham Lincoln was elected to an Illinois Legislature
that in TTL might not exist).

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Rich Rostrom <rrostrom@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 10/16/21 7:54 PM, Louis Epstein wrote:
>> POD 1812 is that the War of 1812 ends with the
>> United States surrendering to reincorporation into
>> the British Empire.
>
> Not even remotely plausible. To begin with, Britain
> had no interest whatever in this outcome.
>
> In the second place, Britain was heavily engaged
> with Napoleon.
>
> And in the third place, the US was far too large
> to be conquered by Britain: about 4M sq km, an
> area greater than Europe west of Russia, with about
> 8M inhabitants, almost as many as Britiain.

Even now,larger than it was then,it is smaller
than Canada,which was British then.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2021 18:38:07 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein
<le@top.put.com> wrote:

>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Oct 2021 07:47:07 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein
>> <le@top.put.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 17 Oct 2021 00:54:14 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein
>>>> <le@top.put.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (One side effect of this is that the Baptist church in the *USA would
>>>> still be united as in this TL you don't have the walkout of the
>>>> Southern Baptist Convention - which has in our TL successfully shed
>>>> it's racist past but if it WERE to break away from the Northern
>>>> Baptists in these circumstances I doubt they'd lose that reputation
>>>> today. This probably butterflies away Billy Graham amongst others.)
>>>
>>>So would BNA be a province of the C of E in Episcopalian terms?
>>>I suppose the Catholic dioceses established by W1812 would continue
>>>and Catholic Emancipation in the UK extend to BNA,with Quebec's
>>>accommodation perhaps expanded.(The first Bishop of New York was
>>>a French-speaker).
>>
>> Why not? For a long time the original name of what is now called the
>> Anglican Church of Canada was 'The Church of England in Canada'.
>>
>> The history of the Episcopalian Church USA is more twisted - after the
>> American Revolution they had the problem of consecrating bishops since
>> it takes 3 bishops to make another.
>>
>> In OTL what happened is that Episcopalians in the USA went to their
>> counterparts in Scotland (who were theologically linked to Westminster
>> but did not have the link to the British Crown) and got 3 American
>> bishops consecrated by them. All bishops of the Episcopalian Church
>> USA come via them.
>>
>> In this scenario this convoluted sequence isn't needed though in OTL
>> this was after 1783 but before the war of 1812. Presumably the
>> existing American bishops would stay in place so there would be no
>> change from OTL.

My whole point is that in OTL the US-Scottish bishop arrangement
happened after 1783 and before 1812. I have no reason to disbelieve my
priest's church history class on this point.

>I'm assuming the American bishops would be swept into one
>jurisdictional pool with the Canadian ones.

Presumably in this scenario New World diocesan boundaries would be up
in the air. I don't consider it a major influence on your scenario.

In OTL I am not aware that there was ANY US-Canadian interaction in
Episcopal circles. There certainly was none at the level of Bishops.
Again - the US Episcopal church's first bishops were ordained by
Scottish bishops who were not subject (and this is important) subject
to oaths to the Crown.
>>>> Another main question would be whether in this TL you would have
>>>> British restrictions on US expansion west of the Appalachians since as
>>>> I understand it the two main grievances of the Colonists (in OTL) were
>>>> (1) taxation without representation and (2) British restrictions on
>>>> settlement west of the Appalachians in respons to the Royal
>>>> Proclamation of 1763 (which in my opinion has been so interpreted by
>>>> Canadian courts who say it still is part of Canadian law means
>>>> Canadians should hate King George III even more than Americans!)
>>>
>>>Kentucky,Tennessee,Ohio,and Louisiana were all admitted to the Union
>>>by the War so would presumably get royal governors and whatever limitations
>>>on settlement could be imposed.As for the territories there might be a
>>>moratorium on new colonial charters.

I see no hope at all of any British re-incorporation if the portion of
the 1763 Royal Proclamation barring settlement west of the
Appalachians was not axed. That and the 'no taxation without
representation' were the two largest grievances of the Founding
Fathers.

Even if by some miracle Britain had the troops to occupy America while
fighting Napoleon there would have to be negotiation to reach this
scenario.

>>>The Erie Canal would be convenient to the BNA government.
>>>This would be the first time the Louisiana Purchase was part of the
>>>Empire but would river trade be seen as convenient?
>>
>> In your scenario would Britain acquire Florida (1819) or Louisiana
>> (1804)? (Presumably the British would not disavow the Louisiana
>> purchase though obviously the 1815 Battle of New Orleans doesn't
>> happen)
>
>I did say above that I hadn't decided on the fate of East Florida.
>West Florida (Louisiana NE of Lake Ponchartrain and the seaboard
>east of there to Mobile Bay) had been taken over by Americans 1810-13
>so would presumably be in with the rest of the reincorporated USA
>(including Louisiana is how BNA gets the border with Mexico,and
>presumably clears up the claims all the way to the Oregon-California
>line).
>
>Would Spain be as likely,more likely,or less likely to sell E Florida
>to Britain compared to the USA?...would the 1821 independence of
>Mexico fare any differently?
>
>I'm generally assuming no extreme butterflies until the abolition
>of slavery sets off the second Revolution and its likely defeat...
>but I realize things could be quite different depending on policies.
>(In 1834 OTL's Abraham Lincoln was elected to an Illinois Legislature
>that in TTL might not exist).

I don't see any *Confederate rebellion lasting more than 18 months in
this scenario. Imagine Lincoln with 50k British troops and enough
Royal Navy ships to force a more effective blockade.

On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 00:15:53 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein
<le@top.put.com> wrote:

>> And in the third place, the US was far too large
>> to be conquered by Britain: about 4M sq km, an
>> area greater than Europe west of Russia, with about
>> 8M inhabitants, almost as many as Britiain.
>
>Even now,larger than it was then,it is smaller
>than Canada,which was British then.
>
Uh no - Canada in the 1770s was pretty much the St Lawrence valley
including parts of Lakes Erie and Ontario plus what became Nova
Scotia, PEI and New Brunswick. The northern and western parts of
present day Ontario weren't added until about 100 years after that.

Depending on when specifically you mean the United States was the
entire east coast extending westwards somewhere between the
Appalachians and Mississippi

On 10/17/2021 10:16 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2021 18:38:07 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein
> <le@top.put.com> wrote:
>
>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Oct 2021 07:47:07 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein
>>> <le@top.put.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 17 Oct 2021 00:54:14 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein
>>>>> <le@top.put.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> (One side effect of this is that the Baptist church in the *USA would
>>>>> still be united as in this TL you don't have the walkout of the
>>>>> Southern Baptist Convention - which has in our TL successfully shed
>>>>> it's racist past but if it WERE to break away from the Northern
>>>>> Baptists in these circumstances I doubt they'd lose that reputation
>>>>> today. This probably butterflies away Billy Graham amongst others.)
>>>>
>>>> So would BNA be a province of the C of E in Episcopalian terms?
>>>> I suppose the Catholic dioceses established by W1812 would continue
>>>> and Catholic Emancipation in the UK extend to BNA,with Quebec's
>>>> accommodation perhaps expanded.(The first Bishop of New York was
>>>> a French-speaker).
>>>
>>> Why not? For a long time the original name of what is now called the
>>> Anglican Church of Canada was 'The Church of England in Canada'.
>>>
>>> The history of the Episcopalian Church USA is more twisted - after the
>>> American Revolution they had the problem of consecrating bishops since
>>> it takes 3 bishops to make another.
>>>
>>> In OTL what happened is that Episcopalians in the USA went to their
>>> counterparts in Scotland (who were theologically linked to Westminster
>>> but did not have the link to the British Crown) and got 3 American
>>> bishops consecrated by them. All bishops of the Episcopalian Church
>>> USA come via them.
>>>
>>> In this scenario this convoluted sequence isn't needed though in OTL
>>> this was after 1783 but before the war of 1812. Presumably the
>>> existing American bishops would stay in place so there would be no
>>> change from OTL.
>
> My whole point is that in OTL the US-Scottish bishop arrangement
> happened after 1783 and before 1812. I have no reason to disbelieve my
> priest's church history class on this point.
>
>> I'm assuming the American bishops would be swept into one
>> jurisdictional pool with the Canadian ones.
>
> Presumably in this scenario New World diocesan boundaries would be up
> in the air. I don't consider it a major influence on your scenario.
>
> In OTL I am not aware that there was ANY US-Canadian interaction in
> Episcopal circles. There certainly was none at the level of Bishops.
> Again - the US Episcopal church's first bishops were ordained by
> Scottish bishops who were not subject (and this is important) subject
> to oaths to the Crown.
>
>>>>> Another main question would be whether in this TL you would have
>>>>> British restrictions on US expansion west of the Appalachians since as
>>>>> I understand it the two main grievances of the Colonists (in OTL) were
>>>>> (1) taxation without representation and (2) British restrictions on
>>>>> settlement west of the Appalachians in respons to the Royal
>>>>> Proclamation of 1763 (which in my opinion has been so interpreted by
>>>>> Canadian courts who say it still is part of Canadian law means
>>>>> Canadians should hate King George III even more than Americans!)
>>>>
>>>> Kentucky,Tennessee,Ohio,and Louisiana were all admitted to the Union
>>>> by the War so would presumably get royal governors and whatever limitations
>>>> on settlement could be imposed.As for the territories there might be a
>>>> moratorium on new colonial charters.
>
> I see no hope at all of any British re-incorporation if the portion of
> the 1763 Royal Proclamation barring settlement west of the
> Appalachians was not axed. That and the 'no taxation without
> representation' were the two largest grievances of the Founding
> Fathers.
>
> Even if by some miracle Britain had the troops to occupy America while
> fighting Napoleon there would have to be negotiation to reach this
> scenario.
>
>>>> The Erie Canal would be convenient to the BNA government.
>>>> This would be the first time the Louisiana Purchase was part of the
>>>> Empire but would river trade be seen as convenient?
>>>
>>> In your scenario would Britain acquire Florida (1819) or Louisiana
>>> (1804)? (Presumably the British would not disavow the Louisiana
>>> purchase though obviously the 1815 Battle of New Orleans doesn't
>>> happen)
>>
>> I did say above that I hadn't decided on the fate of East Florida.
>> West Florida (Louisiana NE of Lake Ponchartrain and the seaboard
>> east of there to Mobile Bay) had been taken over by Americans 1810-13
>> so would presumably be in with the rest of the reincorporated USA
>> (including Louisiana is how BNA gets the border with Mexico,and
>> presumably clears up the claims all the way to the Oregon-California
>> line).
>>
>> Would Spain be as likely,more likely,or less likely to sell E Florida
>> to Britain compared to the USA?...would the 1821 independence of
>> Mexico fare any differently?
>>
>> I'm generally assuming no extreme butterflies until the abolition
>> of slavery sets off the second Revolution and its likely defeat...
>> but I realize things could be quite different depending on policies.
>> (In 1834 OTL's Abraham Lincoln was elected to an Illinois Legislature
>> that in TTL might not exist).
>
> I don't see any *Confederate rebellion lasting more than 18 months in
> this scenario. Imagine Lincoln with 50k British troops and enough
> Royal Navy ships to force a more effective blockade.
>
And competent generals willing to actually prosecute the war.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 05:56:49 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>> I don't see any *Confederate rebellion lasting more than 18 months in
>> this scenario. Imagine Lincoln with 50k British troops and enough
>> Royal Navy ships to force a more effective blockade.
>>
>And competent generals willing to actually prosecute the war.

My whole point is that in 1860 the scales were heavily against the CSA
and my opinion is that they did better than expected OTL.

And that in this scenario the deck would be even more heavily tilted
against the *CSA since even if Britain contributed no troops at all,
the more effective naval blockade would have been even more
devastating to the *CSA than in 1861-65.

With respect to the Army that would depend on whether the *USA had
something like Dominion status or direct rule from London. In my
opinion the odds on that would be 50/50 for each option. When you
consider the changes in OTL Canada between Lord Durham's report in the
1830s and the conferences in the 1860s that formed Canada

(I've been in the Charlottetown conference meeting room which is not
particularly an achievement if one has ever visited PEI - it's called
"visiting the PEI legislature and being nice to the commissionaire who
was quite happy to give directions". This is the site of the 'red room
picture' every Canadian schoolkid would have seen - it's at least as
important to Canada as Independence Hall was to the USA)

https://www.canadashistory.ca/explore/politics-law/the-foundering-fathers

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 00:15:53 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein
> <le@top.put.com> wrote:
>
>>> And in the third place, the US was far too large
>>> to be conquered by Britain: about 4M sq km, an
>>> area greater than Europe west of Russia, with about
>>> 8M inhabitants, almost as many as Britiain.
>>
>>Even now,larger than it was then,it is smaller
>>than Canada,which was British then.
>>
> Uh no - Canada in the 1770s was pretty much the St Lawrence valley
> including parts of Lakes Erie and Ontario plus what became Nova
> Scotia, PEI and New Brunswick. The northern and western parts of
> present day Ontario weren't added until about 100 years after that.
>
> Depending on when specifically you mean the United States was the
> entire east coast extending westwards somewhere between the
> Appalachians and Mississippi

In both cases,territory claimed far exceeded that governed & settled.

I'm talking about circa 1814...the Hudson's Bay Company was ranging
far and wide and the British certainly considered it under their
aegis...and have already mentioned the Louisiana Purchase and
Oregon Territory claims.BNA is most of North America,though not
Alaska.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
> On 10/17/2021 10:16 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Oct 2021 18:38:07 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein
>> <le@top.put.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 17 Oct 2021 07:47:07 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein
>>>> <le@top.put.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Oct 2021 00:54:14 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein
>>>>>> <le@top.put.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (One side effect of this is that the Baptist church in the *USA would
>>>>>> still be united as in this TL you don't have the walkout of the
>>>>>> Southern Baptist Convention - which has in our TL successfully shed
>>>>>> it's racist past but if it WERE to break away from the Northern
>>>>>> Baptists in these circumstances I doubt they'd lose that reputation
>>>>>> today. This probably butterflies away Billy Graham amongst others.)
>>>>>
>>>>> So would BNA be a province of the C of E in Episcopalian terms?
>>>>> I suppose the Catholic dioceses established by W1812 would continue
>>>>> and Catholic Emancipation in the UK extend to BNA,with Quebec's
>>>>> accommodation perhaps expanded.(The first Bishop of New York was
>>>>> a French-speaker).
>>>>
>>>> Why not? For a long time the original name of what is now called the
>>>> Anglican Church of Canada was 'The Church of England in Canada'.
>>>>
>>>> The history of the Episcopalian Church USA is more twisted - after the
>>>> American Revolution they had the problem of consecrating bishops since
>>>> it takes 3 bishops to make another.
>>>>
>>>> In OTL what happened is that Episcopalians in the USA went to their
>>>> counterparts in Scotland (who were theologically linked to Westminster
>>>> but did not have the link to the British Crown) and got 3 American
>>>> bishops consecrated by them. All bishops of the Episcopalian Church
>>>> USA come via them.
>>>>
>>>> In this scenario this convoluted sequence isn't needed though in OTL
>>>> this was after 1783 but before the war of 1812. Presumably the
>>>> existing American bishops would stay in place so there would be no
>>>> change from OTL.
>>
>> My whole point is that in OTL the US-Scottish bishop arrangement
>> happened after 1783 and before 1812. I have no reason to disbelieve my
>> priest's church history class on this point.
>>
>>> I'm assuming the American bishops would be swept into one
>>> jurisdictional pool with the Canadian ones.
>>
>> Presumably in this scenario New World diocesan boundaries would be up
>> in the air. I don't consider it a major influence on your scenario.
>>
>> In OTL I am not aware that there was ANY US-Canadian interaction in
>> Episcopal circles. There certainly was none at the level of Bishops.
>> Again - the US Episcopal church's first bishops were ordained by
>> Scottish bishops who were not subject (and this is important) subject
>> to oaths to the Crown.

Integrating BNA would likely involve forming shared ecclesiastical
structures.

>>>>>> Another main question would be whether in this TL you would have
>>>>>> British restrictions on US expansion west of the Appalachians since as
>>>>>> I understand it the two main grievances of the Colonists (in OTL) were
>>>>>> (1) taxation without representation and (2) British restrictions on
>>>>>> settlement west of the Appalachians in respons to the Royal
>>>>>> Proclamation of 1763 (which in my opinion has been so interpreted by
>>>>>> Canadian courts who say it still is part of Canadian law means
>>>>>> Canadians should hate King George III even more than Americans!)
>>>>>
>>>>> Kentucky,Tennessee,Ohio,and Louisiana were all admitted to the Union
>>>>> by the War so would presumably get royal governors and whatever limitations
>>>>> on settlement could be imposed.As for the territories there might be a
>>>>> moratorium on new colonial charters.
>>
>> I see no hope at all of any British re-incorporation if the portion of
>> the 1763 Royal Proclamation barring settlement west of the
>> Appalachians was not axed. That and the 'no taxation without
>> representation' were the two largest grievances of the Founding
>> Fathers.
>>
>> Even if by some miracle Britain had the troops to occupy America while
>> fighting Napoleon there would have to be negotiation to reach this
>> scenario.
>>
>>>>> The Erie Canal would be convenient to the BNA government.
>>>>> This would be the first time the Louisiana Purchase was part of the
>>>>> Empire but would river trade be seen as convenient?
>>>>
>>>> In your scenario would Britain acquire Florida (1819) or Louisiana
>>>> (1804)? (Presumably the British would not disavow the Louisiana
>>>> purchase though obviously the 1815 Battle of New Orleans doesn't
>>>> happen)
>>>
>>> I did say above that I hadn't decided on the fate of East Florida.
>>> West Florida (Louisiana NE of Lake Ponchartrain and the seaboard
>>> east of there to Mobile Bay) had been taken over by Americans 1810-13
>>> so would presumably be in with the rest of the reincorporated USA
>>> (including Louisiana is how BNA gets the border with Mexico,and
>>> presumably clears up the claims all the way to the Oregon-California
>>> line).
>>>
>>> Would Spain be as likely,more likely,or less likely to sell E Florida
>>> to Britain compared to the USA?...would the 1821 independence of
>>> Mexico fare any differently?
>>>
>>> I'm generally assuming no extreme butterflies until the abolition
>>> of slavery sets off the second Revolution and its likely defeat...
>>> but I realize things could be quite different depending on policies.
>>> (In 1834 OTL's Abraham Lincoln was elected to an Illinois Legislature
>>> that in TTL might not exist).
>>
>> I don't see any *Confederate rebellion lasting more than 18 months in
>> this scenario. Imagine Lincoln with 50k British troops and enough
>> Royal Navy ships to force a more effective blockade.
>>
> And competent generals willing to actually prosecute the war.
>

So what British generals would be most likely tasked with quashing
the attempt to secede from BNA in 1834-5?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

> Louis Epstein
>
> In 1834,as in OTL,
> SLAVERY IS ABOLISHED THROUGHOUT THE EMPIRE.

Or maybe not.

With the U.S. back in the UK, the Brits are going to continue
to be dependent on those slavery produced agro products and
I'm guessing quite a few of those knighthoods and baronetcies
being dished out will go to rich and powerful members of the
southern plantation class.

The UK keeping the U.S. probably means the UK keeps slavery,
at least for X number of years.

On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 20:13:38 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein
<le@top.put.com> wrote:

>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 00:15:53 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein
>> <le@top.put.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> And in the third place, the US was far too large
>>>> to be conquered by Britain: about 4M sq km, an
>>>> area greater than Europe west of Russia, with about
>>>> 8M inhabitants, almost as many as Britiain.
>>>
>>>Even now,larger than it was then,it is smaller
>>>than Canada,which was British then.
>>>
>> Uh no - Canada in the 1770s was pretty much the St Lawrence valley
>> including parts of Lakes Erie and Ontario plus what became Nova
>> Scotia, PEI and New Brunswick. The northern and western parts of
>> present day Ontario weren't added until about 100 years after that.
>>
>> Depending on when specifically you mean the United States was the
>> entire east coast extending westwards somewhere between the
>> Appalachians and Mississippi
>
>In both cases,territory claimed far exceeded that governed & settled.

Well in fairness you're talking about territory claimed by Great
Britain which is decidedly NOT what was in the 18th and 19th centuries
known as "Canada"

Though no question by 1870 I don't think anybody other than Canada
could have effectively administered the Hudsons Bay Company territory
- certainly the United States which was still dealing with
Reconstruction had little chance of extending their territory from the
Rockies through Lake Superior to the Arctic Ocean effectively. Maybe
by 20 years after the Civil War but even with British encouragement
(which is difficult to imagine Washington getting) While the Canadian
transcontinental railway was finished in 1885, something resembling
the modern railway network didn't exist until around 1920-25.

[At least with respect to reaching the northern end of the Canadian
prairies which I would arbitrarily consider being a line roughly from
Edmonton to Saskatoon which is an area still being homesteaded as late
as WW2 (My source on this is my father in law's parents who immigrated
from Poland in 1939 and homesteaded near Rose Valley. SK which is
about 2 hours drive from Saskatoon)]

Fundamentally the only way to control that size of territory was to
build railways to / across it. The Canadian Pacific Railway started
westwards (and eastwards from what is now Vancouver) in 1871 and
completed in 1885. The American transcontinental railroad started
roughly 1863 and was completed in 1869 - over MUCH easier terrain and
climate than the CPR route.

>I'm talking about circa 1814...the Hudson's Bay Company was ranging
>far and wide and the British certainly considered it under their
>aegis...and have already mentioned the Louisiana Purchase and
>Oregon Territory claims.BNA is most of North America,though not
>Alaska.

See above.

Who owns the Louisiana territory in the proposed TL is anybody's
guess? Spain? France? Britain? And did ANY of these have effective
control? Yes I know the so called boundaries of Quebec under the
British 1770 Quebec Act as well as what France claimed pre-1763.
Certainly there is no connection between pre-1763 New France and the
Louisiana territory.

One aspect to this scenario is that if what is essentially Canada and
the United Stated merged as a result of the *War of 1812, that almost
certainly changes the ethnic balance in Canada and equally certainly
means an ethnic settlement along the lines of Lord Durham's report
never happens. That leads to a radically different present day outcome
for the present territory of Quebec than now exists.

I can't see either Britain or your version of America offering
French-speaking Quebecers a deal remotely as good as what they got and
I especilally see no way for a dominantly French-speaking state on
mainland North America in your scenario.

On 10/17/21 7:15 PM, Louis Epstein wrote:
> Even now,larger than it was then, it is smaller
> than Canada, which was British then.

90% of Canada is essentially uninhabited now.
98% of Canada was uninhabited then.

Britain's claim to the vast empty spaces was uncontested.
That's very different from establishing control over
_inhabited_ territory.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On 10/18/21 12:19 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> Uh no - Canada in the 1770s was pretty much the St Lawrence valley
> including parts of Lakes Erie and Ontario plus what became Nova
> Scotia, PEI and New Brunswick. The northern and western parts of
> present day Ontario weren't added until about 100 years after that.

Britain claimed all of modern Canada. "Prince Rupert's Land" was
controlled by the Hudson Bay Company, but so what.
> Depending on when specifically you mean the United States was the
> entire east coast extending westwards somewhere between the
> Appalachians and Mississippi

In 1812, the US included all of the present-day US east of the
Mississippi except East and West Florida, and all of the Mississippi
Valley west of the river. Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Ohio
were states; Alabama, Mississippi, Indiana, and Illinois were
organized Territories; so was Missouri.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 19:27:20 -0500, Rich Rostrom
<rrostrom@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 10/17/21 7:15 PM, Louis Epstein wrote:
>> Even now,larger than it was then, it is smaller
>> than Canada, which was British then.
>
>90% of Canada is essentially uninhabited now.
>98% of Canada was uninhabited then.
>
>Britain's claim to the vast empty spaces was uncontested.
>That's very different from establishing control over
>_inhabited_ territory.

We're talking about the Hudsons' Bay Company lands right? Which were
held by Royal charter until they were transferred to Canada not sure
the date but roughly 1869-70.

On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 19:40:52 -0500, Rich Rostrom
<rrostrom@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 10/18/21 12:19 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> Uh no - Canada in the 1770s was pretty much the St Lawrence valley
>> including parts of Lakes Erie and Ontario plus what became Nova
>> Scotia, PEI and New Brunswick. The northern and western parts of
>> present day Ontario weren't added until about 100 years after that.
>
>Britain claimed all of modern Canada. "Prince Rupert's Land" was
>controlled by the Hudson Bay Company, but so what.
>> Depending on when specifically you mean the United States was the
>> entire east coast extending westwards somewhere between the
>> Appalachians and Mississippi
>
>In 1812, the US included all of the present-day US east of the
>Mississippi except East and West Florida, and all of the Mississippi
>Valley west of the river. Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Ohio
>were states; Alabama, Mississippi, Indiana, and Illinois were
>organized Territories; so was Missouri.

Which to me says that while the HBC lands (basically the entire
drainage system that drained into Hudsons' Bay were British claimed
(but not part of either Upper or Lower Canada or the British Maritime
colonies - e.g. future NB, NS, PEI, NL) but that the United States was
solidly in control of east of the Mississipi plus the unorganized
territories remaining from the Louisiana purchase. (Which was 1804 and
therefore before the POD for your scenario)

Meaning that the US territories at that time were lightly controlled
by the US government while the future Canadian HBC lands were NOT held
by Canadian colonial authorities or the British government and were in
fact "controlled" only by a very few HBC trading posts.

And if we're talking 1812 (rather than 1850-1860) those quotation
marks are entirely appropriate.

The Crown Colonies of Vancouver Island and British Columbia (two
separate British colonies not merged together till the 1860s in OTL -
the Crown colony of Vancouver Island was built around two things: the
HBC trading post in Fort Victoria and the coal deposits found around
present day Nanaimo - obvious coal did not become a serious fuel till
after your POD) were not formed until after your POD.

Nor were there by 1812 any established US claims to lands north of
"Mexico" (which in that time included modern day CA, NV etc as far
north as the 42nd parallel which is the present CA / OR boundary)

(At that point Jefferson had sent the Lewis & Clark expedition but not
yet made any territorial claims)

On 10/18/2021 2:18 PM, Louis Epstein wrote:
> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On 10/17/2021 10:16 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Oct 2021 18:38:07 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein
>>> <le@top.put.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 17 Oct 2021 07:47:07 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein
>>>>> <le@top.put.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Oct 2021 00:54:14 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein
>>>>>>> <le@top.put.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (One side effect of this is that the Baptist church in the *USA would
>>>>>>> still be united as in this TL you don't have the walkout of the
>>>>>>> Southern Baptist Convention - which has in our TL successfully shed
>>>>>>> it's racist past but if it WERE to break away from the Northern
>>>>>>> Baptists in these circumstances I doubt they'd lose that reputation
>>>>>>> today. This probably butterflies away Billy Graham amongst others.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So would BNA be a province of the C of E in Episcopalian terms?
>>>>>> I suppose the Catholic dioceses established by W1812 would continue
>>>>>> and Catholic Emancipation in the UK extend to BNA,with Quebec's
>>>>>> accommodation perhaps expanded.(The first Bishop of New York was
>>>>>> a French-speaker).
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not? For a long time the original name of what is now called the
>>>>> Anglican Church of Canada was 'The Church of England in Canada'.
>>>>>
>>>>> The history of the Episcopalian Church USA is more twisted - after the
>>>>> American Revolution they had the problem of consecrating bishops since
>>>>> it takes 3 bishops to make another.
>>>>>
>>>>> In OTL what happened is that Episcopalians in the USA went to their
>>>>> counterparts in Scotland (who were theologically linked to Westminster
>>>>> but did not have the link to the British Crown) and got 3 American
>>>>> bishops consecrated by them. All bishops of the Episcopalian Church
>>>>> USA come via them.
>>>>>
>>>>> In this scenario this convoluted sequence isn't needed though in OTL
>>>>> this was after 1783 but before the war of 1812. Presumably the
>>>>> existing American bishops would stay in place so there would be no
>>>>> change from OTL.
>>>
>>> My whole point is that in OTL the US-Scottish bishop arrangement
>>> happened after 1783 and before 1812. I have no reason to disbelieve my
>>> priest's church history class on this point.
>>>
>>>> I'm assuming the American bishops would be swept into one
>>>> jurisdictional pool with the Canadian ones.
>>>
>>> Presumably in this scenario New World diocesan boundaries would be up
>>> in the air. I don't consider it a major influence on your scenario.
>>>
>>> In OTL I am not aware that there was ANY US-Canadian interaction in
>>> Episcopal circles. There certainly was none at the level of Bishops.
>>> Again - the US Episcopal church's first bishops were ordained by
>>> Scottish bishops who were not subject (and this is important) subject
>>> to oaths to the Crown.
>
> Integrating BNA would likely involve forming shared ecclesiastical
> structures.
>
>>>>>>> Another main question would be whether in this TL you would have
>>>>>>> British restrictions on US expansion west of the Appalachians since as
>>>>>>> I understand it the two main grievances of the Colonists (in OTL) were
>>>>>>> (1) taxation without representation and (2) British restrictions on
>>>>>>> settlement west of the Appalachians in respons to the Royal
>>>>>>> Proclamation of 1763 (which in my opinion has been so interpreted by
>>>>>>> Canadian courts who say it still is part of Canadian law means
>>>>>>> Canadians should hate King George III even more than Americans!)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kentucky,Tennessee,Ohio,and Louisiana were all admitted to the Union
>>>>>> by the War so would presumably get royal governors and whatever limitations
>>>>>> on settlement could be imposed.As for the territories there might be a
>>>>>> moratorium on new colonial charters.
>>>
>>> I see no hope at all of any British re-incorporation if the portion of
>>> the 1763 Royal Proclamation barring settlement west of the
>>> Appalachians was not axed. That and the 'no taxation without
>>> representation' were the two largest grievances of the Founding
>>> Fathers.
>>>
>>> Even if by some miracle Britain had the troops to occupy America while
>>> fighting Napoleon there would have to be negotiation to reach this
>>> scenario.
>>>
>>>>>> The Erie Canal would be convenient to the BNA government.
>>>>>> This would be the first time the Louisiana Purchase was part of the
>>>>>> Empire but would river trade be seen as convenient?
>>>>>
>>>>> In your scenario would Britain acquire Florida (1819) or Louisiana
>>>>> (1804)? (Presumably the British would not disavow the Louisiana
>>>>> purchase though obviously the 1815 Battle of New Orleans doesn't
>>>>> happen)
>>>>
>>>> I did say above that I hadn't decided on the fate of East Florida.
>>>> West Florida (Louisiana NE of Lake Ponchartrain and the seaboard
>>>> east of there to Mobile Bay) had been taken over by Americans 1810-13
>>>> so would presumably be in with the rest of the reincorporated USA
>>>> (including Louisiana is how BNA gets the border with Mexico,and
>>>> presumably clears up the claims all the way to the Oregon-California
>>>> line).
>>>>
>>>> Would Spain be as likely,more likely,or less likely to sell E Florida
>>>> to Britain compared to the USA?...would the 1821 independence of
>>>> Mexico fare any differently?
>>>>
>>>> I'm generally assuming no extreme butterflies until the abolition
>>>> of slavery sets off the second Revolution and its likely defeat...
>>>> but I realize things could be quite different depending on policies.
>>>> (In 1834 OTL's Abraham Lincoln was elected to an Illinois Legislature
>>>> that in TTL might not exist).
>>>
>>> I don't see any *Confederate rebellion lasting more than 18 months in
>>> this scenario. Imagine Lincoln with 50k British troops and enough
>>> Royal Navy ships to force a more effective blockade.
>>>
>> And competent generals willing to actually prosecute the war.
>>
>
> So what British generals would be most likely tasked with quashing
> the attempt to secede from BNA in 1834-5?
>

Do you even assume that everyone had to be trained in the UK proper?

I'd think you'd sooner look at the list of Mexican-American War generals
from points north of Virginia--you're more likely to see the big
British-born names of the period still stationed in Asia, I'd think.

Plus potentially Winfield Scott even though he *was* Virginian--if he
sides with his colony instead, he's the rebels' supreme commander.

I'm not sure if "we were independent once before DURING MY CAREER even"
would be enough to shift his loyalties, since IOTL he would eventually
go Union during the ACW.

> -=-=-
> The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
> at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
>

--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!

On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 06:16:51 -0600, Chrysi Cat <Chrysicat@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Do you even assume that everyone had to be trained in the UK proper?

One wonders if that would be true in this TL. One of the lesser
grievances of the colonies was that George Washington had not been
given General ranking due to his efforts 1756-63. That he was
considered a militia colonel not a regular and that only regulars
could attain general rank.

In this scenario I'm doubtful this could have been maintained. This
would presumably mean you could get someone like Andrew Jackson in the
Crimea - and it is scary to think of him commanding the Light Brigade
(and even scarier someone like Winfield Scott who was certainly no
Raglan)

>I'd think you'd sooner look at the list of Mexican-American War generals
>from points north of Virginia--you're more likely to see the big
>British-born names of the period still stationed in Asia, I'd think.
>
>Plus potentially Winfield Scott even though he *was* Virginian--if he
>sides with his colony instead, he's the rebels' supreme commander.
>
>I'm not sure if "we were independent once before DURING MY CAREER even"
>would be enough to shift his loyalties, since IOTL he would eventually
>go Union during the ACW.

I can't imagine Britain treating the Confederate leaders in this *ACW
kindly at all. I would expect to see a tamer version of the reprisals
of 1857 in India - while I can't see the alt-Confederates doing the
atrocities that the Indians did particularly against women, I would
expect the *ACW to be shorter and much nastier than ours. I'm thinking
more of the sort of reprisals done in Ireland 1797-98 and Scotland
1745 here. Remember I previously described the actual war as nasty,
brutish and short.

On 10/19/21 1:04 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> Which to me says that while the HBC lands (basically the entire
> drainage system that drained into Hudsons' Bay were British claimed
> (but not part of either Upper or Lower Canada or the British Maritime
> colonies - e.g. future NB, NS, PEI, NL) but that the United States was
> solidly in control of east of the Mississipi plus the unorganized
> territories remaining from the Louisiana purchase. (Which was 1804 and
> therefore before the POD for your scenario)
The scenario is not mine, it is <Louis Epstein>'s. (I have
decided to use <> to denote a "handle", whicc may or may not
be a name. As such I will always write it in full.)

I asserted its implausibility on various grounds, including the
extreme impracticabilty of 0ritain conquering an area as large
as the 1812 US.

<Louis Epstein> countered by pointing out that "Canada" was
larger, and was controlled by Britain at that time.

I responded by noting that almost all of "Canada" was uninhabited.

Both of us used "Canada" to refer to all the British-controlled
territories now included in the Dominion of Canada. The pedantic
distinction between the provinces of Upper Canada and Lower
Canada, and the other territories, is irrelevant to both our
points.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 12:46:25 -0500, Rich Rostrom
<rrostrom@comcast.net> wrote:

>The scenario is not mine, it is <Louis Epstein>'s. (I have
>decided to use <> to denote a "handle", whicc may or may not
>be a name. As such I will always write it in full.)

Well unless one believes my first name is Horny and my Surname Goat
then for sure your point is made! :)

My true name is in e-mail line and anyone who knows what western
Canadian city I live in can quickly find the real me on Google - I've
been associated with enough groups who post stuff on websites that one
can get a decent snapshot of who I am and the HG is only a small
portion of it! :)

>I asserted its implausibility on various grounds, including the
>extreme impracticabilty of 0ritain conquering an area as large
>as the 1812 US.

I completely agree - if this scenaro is going to happen at all it
would be early than 1812 (my guess would be 1806-1811 when the British
army was engaged mostly in Portugal and Spain and virtually nowhere
else). By 1812 the British Army was more or less fully deployed and
stretched. This is why the Upper Canada militia played the role it did
particularly after the burning of York aka Toronto.

It probably means a lesser force in Spain and therefore that my
mother's 3x great-grandfather doesn't get wounded at Toulouse in 1814.

><Louis Epstein> countered by pointing out that "Canada" was
>larger, and was controlled by Britain at that time.
>
>I responded by noting that almost all of "Canada" was uninhabited.

Whereas my argument would be that most of present day Canada (e.g.
pretty much everything west of Sault Ste Marie) was terra incognita in
1812-1814.

While Cook explored the west coast of Vancouver Island en route to the
Arctic and Captain George Vancouver and his Spanish counterpart met in
the early 1790s off modern day Vancouver, the mouth of the Fraser
River was not discovered till after 1808 which is when Simon Fraser
was turned back by local natives nearly present day Hope BC - which
nearly 100 miles from the coast and even today is a 2 hour drive. (For
those unfamiliar with the Fraser river, look at a map - the town of
Hope is where the Fraser is heading directly N-S then abruptly turns
W-E for the final approach to the Fraser estuary where it branches
into several arms.

No question Capt Vancouver knew there was a major river mouth near
where he sailed but he had no idea where the river flowed except in
the broadest possible terms.

The next explorer around that area was David Thompson who discovered
the headwaters of the Columbia river and followed them to the sea thus
discovering that the mouth of the Columbia was far south of the mouth
of the Fraser.

ALL of this was happening in the 1790-1810 era which is precisely the
time of the scenario.

)In my opinion a more plausible scenario for British Columbia would be
that during the Barkerville gold rush (1855-57 more or less) Judge
Mathew Begbie loses control of mainland British Columbia and the
territory falls into anarchy which the US then gains via a Texas like
filibuster since in the 1850s during the rush there is no question the
majority of the population in the Crown Colony of British Columbia
were Americans)

A *Canada ending at the Rockies would be a VERY different place since
there would be no incentive to build a transcontinental railway
meaning much slower development of the Canadian prairies.

I would expect in an American British Columbia development would go
about the same time as OTL and given when Whatcom Co. (the one whose
north boundary is 49N) was organized most of the towns were founded
around 1875-77 which is about when first settlement in present day
Vancouver was starting. I would expect in an American BC Whatcom Co
would be a backwater with the Seattle Vancouver RR (Can't remember -
it was either the Northern Pacific or Union Pacific that got tracks
into Seattle first) being an important link from the beginning since
Vancouver has a far better natural harbor than Seattle.

>Both of us used "Canada" to refer to all the British-controlled
>territories now included in the Dominion of Canada. The pedantic
>distinction between the provinces of Upper Canada and Lower
>Canada, and the other territories, is irrelevant to both our
>points.

My whole point is that the difference is NOT pedantic since the HBC
lands were NOT directly controlled by the Crown pre 1867 and thus
while those who ruled it owed allegiance to Britain it was not
directly a British colony any more than the British East India Company
lands were truly British until after 1857 when the crown directly took
over those lands. No question both territories (e.g. Ruperts' Land and
British India) flew the Union Jack - but neither was directly ruled by
the British government directly.

In Canada that meant that while the colonies of "British North
America" produced troops for the Crown the HBC lands (aka Ruperts'
Land) did not and that's not an insignificant difference particularly
when we're discussing war.

But for sure I do not believe in a wholesale British conquest of the
United States after 1783 PARTICULARLY after the Louisiana purchase in
1804. Not even an 1815 complete British victory at New Orleans could
bring that about.

I do not believe the British parliament would have supported a war in
North America continuing after Waterloo and without that will see no
way the US could be conquered with any size army or budget. Small
concessions maybe (the British were known to want Maine) but nothing
on a grand scale.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 06:16:51 -0600, Chrysi Cat <Chrysicat@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Do you even assume that everyone had to be trained in the UK proper?

Would the USMA become a BNA institution or would the promising
or best-connected military men be sent to the UK to train at
Woolwich or Sandhurst?
> One wonders if that would be true in this TL. One of the lesser
> grievances of the colonies was that George Washington had not been
> given General ranking due to his efforts 1756-63. That he was
> considered a militia colonel not a regular and that only regulars
> could attain general rank.
>
> In this scenario I'm doubtful this could have been maintained. This
> would presumably mean you could get someone like Andrew Jackson in the
> Crimea - and it is scary to think of him commanding the Light Brigade
> (and even scarier someone like Winfield Scott who was certainly no
> Raglan)

For Andrew Jackson to be sent to the Crimea he would have to reach
age 86 (in OTL he died years earlier,in 1845).Even in the 1834 war
he'd be a bit past active service.
>>I'd think you'd sooner look at the list of Mexican-American War generals
>>from points north of Virginia--you're more likely to see the big
>>British-born names of the period still stationed in Asia, I'd think.
>>
>>Plus potentially Winfield Scott even though he *was* Virginian--if he
>>sides with his colony instead, he's the rebels' supreme commander.
>>
>>I'm not sure if "we were independent once before DURING MY CAREER even"
>>would be enough to shift his loyalties, since IOTL he would eventually
>>go Union during the ACW.
>
> I can't imagine Britain treating the Confederate leaders in this *ACW
> kindly at all. I would expect to see a tamer version of the reprisals
> of 1857 in India - while I can't see the alt-Confederates doing the
> atrocities that the Indians did particularly against women, I would
> expect the *ACW to be shorter and much nastier than ours. I'm thinking
> more of the sort of reprisals done in Ireland 1797-98 and Scotland
> 1745 here. Remember I previously described the actual war as nasty,
> brutish and short.

So some grisly fate would await Calhoun?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 20:13:38 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein
> <le@top.put.com> wrote:
>
>>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 00:15:53 -0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein
>>> <le@top.put.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> And in the third place, the US was far too large
>>>>> to be conquered by Britain: about 4M sq km, an
>>>>> area greater than Europe west of Russia, with about
>>>>> 8M inhabitants, almost as many as Britiain.
>>>>
>>>>Even now,larger than it was then,it is smaller
>>>>than Canada,which was British then.
>>>>
>>> Uh no - Canada in the 1770s was pretty much the St Lawrence valley
>>> including parts of Lakes Erie and Ontario plus what became Nova
>>> Scotia, PEI and New Brunswick. The northern and western parts of
>>> present day Ontario weren't added until about 100 years after that.
>>>
>>> Depending on when specifically you mean the United States was the
>>> entire east coast extending westwards somewhere between the
>>> Appalachians and Mississippi
>>
>>In both cases,territory claimed far exceeded that governed & settled.
>
> Well in fairness you're talking about territory claimed by Great
> Britain which is decidedly NOT what was in the 18th and 19th centuries
> known as "Canada"
>
> Though no question by 1870 I don't think anybody other than Canada
> could have effectively administered the Hudsons Bay Company territory
> - certainly the United States which was still dealing with
> Reconstruction had little chance of extending their territory from the
> Rockies through Lake Superior to the Arctic Ocean effectively. Maybe
> by 20 years after the Civil War but even with British encouragement
> (which is difficult to imagine Washington getting) While the Canadian
> transcontinental railway was finished in 1885, something resembling
> the modern railway network didn't exist until around 1920-25.
>
> [At least with respect to reaching the northern end of the Canadian
> prairies which I would arbitrarily consider being a line roughly from
> Edmonton to Saskatoon which is an area still being homesteaded as late
> as WW2 (My source on this is my father in law's parents who immigrated
> from Poland in 1939 and homesteaded near Rose Valley. SK which is
> about 2 hours drive from Saskatoon)]
>
> Fundamentally the only way to control that size of territory was to
> build railways to / across it. The Canadian Pacific Railway started
> westwards (and eastwards from what is now Vancouver) in 1871 and
> completed in 1885. The American transcontinental railroad started
> roughly 1863 and was completed in 1869 - over MUCH easier terrain and
> climate than the CPR route.
>
>>I'm talking about circa 1814...the Hudson's Bay Company was ranging
>>far and wide and the British certainly considered it under their
>>aegis...and have already mentioned the Louisiana Purchase and
>>Oregon Territory claims.BNA is most of North America,though not
>>Alaska.
>
> See above.
>
> Who owns the Louisiana territory in the proposed TL is anybody's
> guess? Spain? France? Britain? And did ANY of these have effective
> control? Yes I know the so called boundaries of Quebec under the
> British 1770 Quebec Act as well as what France claimed pre-1763.
> Certainly there is no connection between pre-1763 New France and the
> Louisiana territory.

There is no POD before 1812 so the Lousiana Purchase and Lewis & Clark
expedition happen as in OTL.Orleans Territory has become the state
of Louisiana before it becomes a crown colony.The rest of the Purchase
is Missouri Territory.
> One aspect to this scenario is that if what is essentially Canada and
> the United Stated merged as a result of the *War of 1812, that almost
> certainly changes the ethnic balance in Canada and equally certainly
> means an ethnic settlement along the lines of Lord Durham's report
> never happens. That leads to a radically different present day outcome
> for the present territory of Quebec than now exists.
>
> I can't see either Britain or your version of America offering
> French-speaking Quebecers a deal remotely as good as what they got and
> I especilally see no way for a dominantly French-speaking state on
> mainland North America in your scenario.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.