Talk:Commonwealth of America

From Alternative History

What is the story here? Failed Revolution? Or some kind of change in 1876? -- Nik 06:33, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)

A failed Revolution results in British rule. 1876 is an arbitrary date chosen for granting responsible government to America, much like that in Canada and Australia. I may change the date to 1867 because that is the date Canada gained independence, and it would make sense for all the North American colonies to be granted independence simultaneously. - Cprhodesact

Is Canada part of this Commonwealth? I would think it would be earlier than Canada in OTL, since the American colonies were more developed than Canada. How did the Revolution fail? That's an important question, since a short revolution would lead to a far more gentle response from London than a long one. -- Nik 17:03, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be logical that Canada would be included in this Commonwealth... the sepperation in OTL is somewhat random--H2o-s 20:55, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)

although remember that Newfoundland stayed a separate dominion until 1949 and only because it went tits up economicaly. There would be nothing weird about having 2 separate british dominion close by (also think of australia and new-zealand). It pretty much depend on how strongly they might wish (or object) to union and this in turn would depend on how much common purposes they feel they share.--Marcpasquin 02:33, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I would imagine that they would tend to see each other as close relatives, unless the American Revolution had lasted long enough to provoke harsh retaliation from the British government. Then the loyal colonies would bend over backwards to demonstrate their loyalty and difference from the rebellious colonies. How the failed rebellion went would play an important role in this. -- Nik 03:04, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Something that just occured to me is that without a victory of the revolutionaries, there would have been no mass influx of United Empire Loyalists into canada wich in turn would mean no spliting the province of Quebec in Upper and lower canada. This would make for a very different kind of canada ethnicaly wise.--Marcpasquin 01:11, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Much less populous, too, since many of the immigrants who in OTL came to Canada during the 19th century would probably end up in OTL's US instead Nik 04:01, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

That would be true for the ones that came from Great-britain but on the other hand, being the only catholic dominion might attract even more irish (*here*, irish are the second largest ethnic group in Québec). If yes, this would have made the place being seen with more suspicions--Marcpasquin 23:42, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point. Might there be Irish-speaking communities, then? Nik 02:57, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)

*here*, the vast majority of catholic irish ended up speaking french but I guess if you have a big enough concentration of them it would be possible.

One way that this could come about would be for a certain number of immigrants from a particular region of ireland to settle in the same village. Without the need for most of them to speak to the majority, the language could have been kept.--Marcpasquin 11:22, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the United Empire Loyalists (or a large number of them) might migrate to Canada and the Maritimes (after all, New Brunswick seperated from Nova Scotia because of the increase in population in that area) in protest of the formation of the Commonwealth, which they might not agree with. Alternetively, settlers might come from the original 13 colonies into Canada anyway, and this might only delay settlement of the more western areas.

And what about Mexico, California, New Mexico, Texas and the rest of the Carribbean? How is the formation of the Commonwealth going to affect the rest of the Empire, as well as the rest of the world?--Sikulu 14:36, 12 Oct 2005 (BST)