Typho
Banned
Oregon/Columbia was Russian and Spanish claimed, so they did bulldoze, it's more that no Russian it Spanish colonist lived there that made it possible.
Could the British Empire have continued with the American colonies dominating it over Great Britain?
- Thread starter Malone
- Start date
there needs to be a rebellion for glory hunters to show up, you admit that. now why would people rebel?
cultural and legal system problems are not problems. at least they weren't in cases of otl anglo immigration in spanish colonies
100% irrelevant
can be a problem if that happens, but you've yet to bring proof that it would necessarily happen, otherwise your point (so far) that there'd be a rebellion and annexation to the british empire rests on a contingency
hard agree, if Spain wants to give it up and there's nothing acceptable to fill the void, the brits would take it
Glory Hunters HAVE shown up repeatedly in the past to attack Mexican territories to the North including Texas before the rebellion.
The Anglos in Texas were literally rebelling because of legal and cultural problems lmao. How do you explain them rebelling?
Mexican government feared Anglos settlers taking over Texas, sends Hispanic cultured settlers. Culture is totally irrelevant. They totally weren’t trying to reverse Anglicisation of Texas and they totally didn’t fear Anglicisation of Texas as well.….
I literally showed you prove of an actual case of illegal Anglo settlers migrating into Texas and how that helped a rebellion taking over and you said that’s not a prove that it happened?
Another thing to keep in mind (and this is if one wants to go towards a TL project where, post-failed ARW, the British decide to govern America like the Raj) is that if they wanted to govern British America like a unified entity, that does not mean that it would be one single colony, with all the problems that would entail. Even in India's case, each of the Presidencies and the later Provinces were basically separate colonies on their own with some form of administrative decentralization (e.g. the Dublin Castle administration for Ireland). In that case, the Colonial Office would be the nexus point for British America, as was originally designed. Which is why:
In which case, to make life easier for the bureaucracy, it's easier to keep multiple separate colonies, even if it means a considerable amount of reorganization to make it work. After that, should there be enough compliance in the colonies, then it could be possible to do baby steps towards bring back some form of colonial representation within the existing divisions, but only within the limits set by the Office. (Canada and the HBC territories, of course, would be the exemptions - but if the British end up tinkering with the structures set up by the Quebec Act to bring the Province of Quebec more in line with the rest of British America, that would be another problem that shouldn't have to happen through exacerbating tensions.)
Hey, there's a New York Rangers, why not a Texas Yankees?Texas... Yankees... What in Daniel Boone's coonskin cap is going on here?
Edit: come to think of if, this turn of events could send more Irish to "Quebec" (which would include Ontario), as they are the only part of the British Empire where the Catholic religion is guaranteed. Given that Ontario would be significantly less populated compared to OTL, and it was already over half Irish from around 1850-1870 OTL, Toronto (or Fort-Rouville) may be seen as North America's "Irish" city, rather than Boston - and all of New England might be more associated with, well, the English.
Last edited:
Now that would be interesting, certainly. In that case, to make up for it - well, there's an idea I've had in my head wondering what would happen if New England's English (or at least most of the region) sounded more, well, South African. Apart from the sheer difficulties of making a Northern Hemisphere dialect sound more Southern Hemisphere, there's also conditions that simply wouldn't be there, including the presence of a Dutch/Afrikaans-speaking community and the migration patterns would be very off.
Until I remembered Quebec. Yes, it would probably be hard to pull off the southward migration ITTL unless things went supremely off, but something like that would have to provide some framework for getting New England into really accepting some rounded vowels in places other than the back of the mouth. There's also the original settlers/colonizers of the Falklands, many of whom came from Wales, Scotland, and southern/southwestern England (as far east as Hampshire and as far west as Devon - so partially overlapping with the English component of Newfoundlanders). It's been reported in the linguistic communities about how Falkland Islands English sounds distinct except in Port Stanley, where it's reportedly Australian-sounding, so there's one possibility. (It also helps that Falkland Islands English is not that far off, from what I can tell, from North American English vowel phonology, which shows not only its conservatism but also the Falklands' late settlement.)
In that case, considering the two different Anglophone settlement patterns in South Africa (one from London and the Southeast towards the Cape, the other from the Midlands and North of England towards Natal), I have some idea of what components I need. I just have to make it work and yet appear recognizably, well, North American (and specifically New England) at the same time.
There's also Dutch in New York and East Jersey and Pennsylvania, although I don't know how long the language lasted.
In a TL where the USA remains part of the British Empire, I'd expect non-rhoticity to spread further in the Americas (especially among the upper classes).
Canadians (of the wealthiest variety) had a noticeably more British accent before the advent of radio (and the consequential "invasion" of American accents into Canadian ears)
So, while the working classes of Boston may still "Pahk the cah in Hahvahd Yahd", the Brahmins may "Pawk the caw in Haw-ved Yawd"
Edit: for reference, Canadian dainty was considered to be a "Mid-Atlantic" accent, so...like Frasier or Niles (from the show Frasier).
Come to think of it, the Mid-Atlantic accent may be considered the prestige English accent.
Last edited:
In America, Dutch mostly died out in the early 1700s, but remained in rural communities for another hundred years. A few isolated pockets survived to the early twentieth century.
Not long enough to make am impact, I'm afraid - and also the wrong region. Hence why I thought French could work as a substitute on a pinch.
Perhaps, but I keep thinking of how even in Canada, despite the British-esque dressing (which has largely died out), rhoticity still endured as a basic function of Canadian speech. So there would be that split between a Transatlantic/Mid-Atlantic speech and General American. What we now call Midland speech could probably spread out more widely at the expense of Western New England, New York City, and Southern speech (the latter case, except for some peripheral varieties, the Tidewater and Charleston upper classes, and African-Americans). Everything else depends on other variables, such as regional origin of later British colonizers. Hence why, for example, if New England somehow received a bout of Scottish immigration, it would actually reinforce elements that already existed in New England speech. A good indicator here would be women, who tend to conform more towards standard language than men.
Kudos for you for trying to come close; the Brahmins, contrary to popular belief, actually spoke a regular traditional "Yankee" regional dialect, just with the vowels all remapped to approximate RP.
The problem is that you look at how the spanish treated its portion of the new world through the idea of colonizing and all this. Spain‘s new world didn’t have as much settler population because they largely left the places alone and so most of it was always ran and worked due to the high class natives that were let in charge. Positions like Viceroys where not often from the places themselves but that was actual hapsburg policy to always put foreigners in charge of viceroyalties, and even then there were a fair share of criollo viceroys throughout the spanish new world period.
As for the resources part, this notoriety is mainly because of the bourbon reforms which made Spain take a more extractionist approach and focused in more on mining and stuff of the like. But this came with a lot of benefits as well, just like how it was mentioned in this thread how US salaries were high despite being subservient to the UK, the same thing happened in the spanish new world with its mines. Mines like Potosí had salaries comparable to that of Philadelphia and London in the early 19th century.
Also likewise as it affected that sector the bourbon reforms also actually opened things like the common hispanic market in 1778. This is what allowed places like Argentina and more specifically buenos aires, to actually become relevant and rich due to the trade in leather. And that in itself is interesting because this common hispanic market is set up 2 years after the supposed Pod. And considering the people mentioning about a Britain helping Portugal in the whole brazil rio de la plata conflict, I wonder how that would be affected. Before all this however, yes there were a lot of protectionist laws and a monopoly on trade, like how Cataluña and the basque country had on Venezuela for manufactured goods for example.
About the institutions that’s where thats also not very right. The Spanish set up 26 universities from 1551 to the very end of its empire and many hospitals as well and all throughout the entire spanish new world. For reference that 1551 is already many decades before Harvard was founded, and even the first university in the Philippines the Santo Tomas de Aquino is 20 years older than Harvard. Keep in mind as well that since most of the people that even lived there were either open to mestizaje and/or were the natives and their descendants themselves, they were well integrated into these institutions and even slaves could be sent to universities to learn how to read and write for administrative purposes for their owners.
The problem with the territory of louisiana, California, Texas, etc, is that they’re all part of new spain before Mexico was just itself alone, and managing all of that humongous amount of land is just simply not possible when it’s so far away and so underpopulated. As far as the effects of how they were culturally however, even Lewis and Clark in their expeditions among the retellings of many others who would go into those parts of what would later be the US. The natives would often speak fluent spanish rather than any native language, its why so many places from florida to texas to alaska have spanish names, its why the first native reserves were located in the southwest to begin with, its interesting, even Geronimo himself was actually a spanish speaker despite how he’s often portrayed by the media. It’s just that although the method that Spain had to integrate its lands worked to make people be apart of it without huge genocides and overwhelming it with foreign settlers the likes of the US, Canada, Australia, etc, the amount of people that lived there was already small and since nothing is truly done about it thats it for them really.
But for point of reference and something interesting to bring up despite it being a little offtopic, considering how something of this nature had already happened in south america beforehand in history. Buenos Aires, Cartagena, Santiago, these were all peripherals to the main viceroyalty of Peru in Lima before the bourbon reforms. Then when the bourbon reforms came about they split the viceroyalty of Peru into multiple pieces so they could centralize more on themselves and not rely on Lima for everything, and it’s what made them legitimately prosper for the most part. What would’ve been the effects had Spain split New spain’s northern territories also into different viceroyalties so they wouldnt have to rely on Mexico city for everything. What if something akin to this happens with an early discovery of california gold atl, or Spain itself finding e.g lousiana or Texas needing to be more self reliant to not fall to settlers/better deal with them? We’re already mentioning how the US not splitting with the UK leads to less population, and considering how many people iotl now live in Texas, California, etc, would these places being independent provinces of Spain lead to something of this effect than them being tied perpetually to mexico city?
you brought up glory hunters when you said people would migrate west specifically to take over lands for the empire. I said they were all unsuccessful. you said as a counterpoint that in Texas they were successful. but in Texas glory hunters showed up and succeeded because the country was already rebelling
so glory hunters mean nothing, unless there's a rebellion going on
now that we've resolved this problem, let's move on to the rebellion
no? "lmao". the mexican government had abolished slavery, was overtaxing the settlers and tried to expel squatters. these aren't problems of culture or conflicting legal systems
I say legal systems because that's what you brought up in your initial post so let's avoid getting sidetracked into a more generic "legal" which you didn't bring up
I meant the settlement of hispanics is irrelevant as a cause for the rebellion: anglo texans didn't rebel because more hispanics had been settling Texas
no. you're trying to prove the inevitability of manifest destiny (not otl's Texas rebellion) on a contingency and I'm reminding you that that is wrong
Sorry I guess I didn't make myself clear.
The OTL Canadian dialect was originally more British because there were a much higher percentage of British immigrants. The broadly American accent we have now developed under influence of American accents.
In an alt TL where the colonies remain part of Britain, British immigration and prestige dialects will have more influence in America, whereas American dialects will have less influence in Britain.
So the overall American accent is likely to be more muted;
And if the Boston Brahmins are now part of an Imperial elite and spending lots of time amongst the wealthy of the UK, they will likely develop an accent which approximates RP or Mid-Atlantic English.
My post made no reference to OTL Boston Brahmins speech.
I found that Kudos quite condescending, not sure if it was your intention.
Last edited:
That's OK - and I apologize if you found that Kudos condescending. I never intended it to be that - I was actually astonished that your respelling not only recognized actual differences in speech in Boston, but came pretty close to how the Brahmins actually speak. So although your post had no reference to OTL speech, I was surprised at how close it came to OTL. So I meant it as positive reinforcement as a thank you for recognizing that people in New England in general and Boston in particular don't sound like the stereotype. I'm very sorry that you took it the other way and I apologize.
Makes sense. I know the base for the OTL Canadian dialect was similar to the base for how the Western US supra-dialect emerged, which was why it had some US elements under the Britishness of the speech. Otherwise, I get what you're saying - and, for that, I would assume that Midland speech, which originally encompassed a wider area than now, would provide a base for a more British-sounding accent for that same reason, and hence expand.
In her book on American stage speech for actors, Classically Speaking, the speech coach Patricia Fletcher actually divides General American into two sub-types -
>Neutral American, which is basically a formalized version of what we're familiar with as standard American broadcast speech,
>and Classical American, which blends in some British rhythmic elements to some archaic elements of General American give it a more old-fashioned, formal flair intermediate between Neutral American and RP/Conspicuous General British (which she calls Standard British; Conspicuous General British comes from the latest edition of Gimson's Pronunciation of English, which defines contemporary RP as General British, old-fashioned/trad RP as Conspicuous General British, and light regional approximations of RP as Regional General British).
>Starting from the 2nd edition of that book onwards, IIRC, she began mentioning Mid-Atlantic English as old-fashioned semi-British speech that - despite it being taught in acting schools in the US - Americans recoil act because it sounds too foreign, but is appropriate for settings pertaining to Britain.
I would assume something similar alongside Transatlantic/Mid-Atlantic speech to level out some of the distinctions, although regional variation could still exist within General American (which could be a Broad versus *General distinction) and there would be peripheral dialects that would escape that informal, haphazard standardization. Mid-Atlantic English and Classical American (in Fletcher's terminology) could function as Cultivated (near-RP) and *General American English.
No harm/no foul; based on your posting history I assumed that it wasn't the intention; I've just never heard Kudos used in a non-sarcastic way. But of course, that's not your fault Thank you for clarifying and I'll make sure to give you full benefit of the doubt in the future
Britain had a good relationship with the US, given the circumstances, almost immediately after the ARW. If Britain were to win the war, they would have been more conciliatory towards the colonists than other Empires in the past. While the proclamation restricting westward expansion was a major cause for the war, I don't see it lasting past a successful suppression of the Revolution. British parliament would have most likely opened up Ohio and the eastern Mississippi basin to Colonial expansion, but maybe they would have left lands further Northwest (Minnesota, Ontario, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc.) to the Native tribes. Not sure to what extent they would do that, but Louisiana is most definitely going to be colonized by British/American settlers eventually.
Considering 80% of the US and Canadian population lives on a line east of Winnipeg to San Antonio, just dominating this half of the continent will prove that British North America will probable dominate the whole of the continent in TTL.
Considering 80% of the US and Canadian population lives on a line east of Winnipeg to San Antonio, just dominating this half of the continent will prove that British North America will probable dominate the whole of the continent in TTL.
As far as areas that were specifically part of the Province of Quebec by law are concerned, at this point it would be easier for the Colonial Office, before any large-scale settlement takes place, to:
a) provide some sort of Treaty framework for the Aboriginal peoples; even if they get violated, at least there's a legal framework in place to allow for the coexistence of European and Aboriginal settlement;
b) and make a serious effort to codify Quebec's laws. IOTL, there was an actual Civil Code created soon after Confederation, which helped out a lot, although it was structurally influenced by not just the Napoleonic Code, but also efforts in the US to start codifying common law. Most likely, French colonial-era law will - as provided in the Quebec Act - be retained for private matters and English law for public matters (such as criminal law), so the law is not a big issue. The main issue here is codifying it all (plus the appropriate statutes applying to Canada following the Conquest) so that there's an easy to access form of the law, in English (as well as French), for the legal profession and the judiciary. Without the Napoleonic Code as a framework, the closest I can think of - mainly because of its experience as what is termed a "mixed jurisdiction" - is modelling Quebec law on Scots law; while there's no single codified form of Scots law, elements of it were used in OTL to form the Civil Code of Lower Canada when translating from French. So it can be done ITTL. That would provide a more comprehensive legal framework for the Province that could follow the same trajectory as Roman-Dutch law in South Africa.
So it wouldn't be colonial expansion as we'd figure it (as those areas are part of the Province of Quebec), but something more different and methodical.
One thing your Afrikaner analogy strikes for me is the potential for a "Patriot migration" in the event of a loss in the American revolutionary war.
IOTL it seems that most historians estimate that Loyalists were about 15-20% of the colonial population, with Patriots being 40-45%.
So hypothetically, there are twice to three times as many potential Patriot migrants as there were Loyalists, who were in the neighbourhood of about 70,000.
Mitigating factors are that the Loyalists were being moved with financial assistance from Britain; which the Patriots wouldn't have; but it still seems reasonable to me that maybe 50,000 to 100,000 Patriots, (especially those who lost property during the war, were facing treason charges, or were religious dissenters, or also just frontiersmen being frontiersmen), might make a trek over the Appalachians and Alleghenies. They'd be, likely, moving toward Louisiana (an early "Texas"?), settling on the west bank of the Mississippi from New Orleans to St Louis.
That could definitely well be a possibility, as well as a potential headache for Britain at the same time (which could then reframe the North American version of the Boer Wars as being police actions to restrain illegal migration). OTOH we also have, in this case, precedent in terms of the Mormon migrations to Utah IOTL as they're trying to find a place of safety from what they perceive as persecution by the state - only for the state to catch up with them - and they do so by going to the most remote areas possible (well, remote for non-Aboriginal people).