For All We Have and Are: Britain in the Great War - (1901 Series)

[J_Master]

Well...in parts it was. But the British didnt want it to be and did everything in their expansive power to stop it being a guerilla war.

It's more that I disoute that the war IRL was a guerilla. The Boers fought in their traditional way of warfare (collumns of wagons and horsemen) and avoided direct confrontation after the initial stages of the war. It's more of a Fabian Tactics type of deal than the whole "hide behind the bushes" guerilla. What is desribed here sound more like a actual guerilla because it lacks the initial conventional stage, but it might just be the Anglo-bias of the author

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

It's more that I disoute that the war IRL was a guerilla. The Boers fought in their traditional way of warfare (collumns of wagons and horsemen) and avoided direct confrontation after the initial stages of the war. It's more of a Fabian Tactics type of deal than the whole "hide behind the bushes" guerilla. What is desribed here sound more like a actual guerilla because it lacks the initial conventional stage, but it might just be the Anglo-bias of the author

It was one of those wars that was so embarrassing yet so limited in scope and stake (relatively) that the british had every reason and oppuritnty to lie their arses off about what was going on and what went on. So getting to the bottom of what happened is a little tricky.

 

[DensleyBlair]

As has been said, thank god for no Nancy Astors. The awful spectacle of people trying to triangulate how awful she was with her convoluted pioneer status is a pretty sickening part of the contemporary Westminster merry-go-round, so nice that we have some decent figures in this timeline. (Though I'm slightly disappointed by the absence of Connie Markievicz.)

I am looking forward to Lloyd George's government. It's going to be a real watershed either way I think.

 

[slothinator]

A very interesting overview of some thoroughly impressive MPs!
Double digits for women this early is very impressive. Is the rest of Europe this progressive or mainly along OTL lines?
I’m looking forward to the effect that the Great War will have.

 

[mad orc]

Wow
Women get the vote and the overall political atmosphere is looking good
Good updates!

 

[BigBadBob]

The war is going to be a game changer. Hopefully not too many people and too much money is lost.

Game changer indeed.

Bit of luck the first batches of Female MPs were all amazing and wonderful Parliamentarians with not a single Nancy Astor-esque liability amongst them. If they can keep up that impressive record things will be very different.

That said there is the sad news that Lloyd George will be in power in and around the war, which is definitely an ill-starred omen for that conflict.

Yeah, a lot of this timeline for Britain has 'thread the needle' things going better than IOTL, but hey, still got a Great(er) War coming up.

Maybe he'll take the sea mine for Kitchener.

Idea filed away in a secret drawer.

A very determined group of new MPs, eager to make their mark.

Though I am sure some Liberals took some time getting used to the fact that giving women the vote meant they might vote Tory.

The age old problem that just because your party is set up to appeal to a certain voter base doesn't mean that they will vote for you, or that your policies automatically appeal/benefit them.

This has been a huge problem for pretty much every party that isn't the conservatives since the split between whigs and tories. And even they struggle at times when a particular policy becomes incredibly divisive.

In this case however the outlook seems bright. Multiple good MPs with influence over parliment, and a diverse vote share for women means all parties view them as fair game rather than lost causes 'destined' for one party. This should therefore make parliamentary discourse and the country itself more feminist and push an equality agenda. Or at the least, minimise the inevitable backlash and pushback from traditionalists (that is to say in this case, sexists) trying to roll back to prior status quo.

Very much easier to be the 'Bad things could happen. Do you really want change, after all?' party when humans are loss-averse.

Just read up on this, and altough I always dislike the description of the (Second) Boer War a a guerilla, with how it is described here I can kinda agree with it

Well...in parts it was. But the British didnt want it to be and did everything in their expansive power to stop it being a guerilla war.

It's more that I disoute that the war IRL was a guerilla. The Boers fought in their traditional way of warfare (collumns of wagons and horsemen) and avoided direct confrontation after the initial stages of the war. It's more of a Fabian Tactics type of deal than the whole "hide behind the bushes" guerilla. What is desribed here sound more like a actual guerilla because it lacks the initial conventional stage, but it might just be the Anglo-bias of the author

It was one of those wars that was so embarrassing yet so limited in scope and stake (relatively) that the british had every reason and oppuritnty to lie their arses off about what was going on and what went on. So getting to the bottom of what happened is a little tricky.

I was actually hoping it would be more like the (Second) Boer War IOTL, but the in-game result was a curb-stomp, so I had to revert to proper guerilla warfare as the narrative to get things where I wanted them. So not so much Anglo bias as it was Vicky II robbing us of Mafekings and Magersfonteins for TTL.

As has been said, thank god for no Nancy Astors. The awful spectacle of people trying to triangulate how awful she was with her convoluted pioneer status is a pretty sickening part of the contemporary Westminster merry-go-round, so nice that we have some decent figures in this timeline. (Though I'm slightly disappointed by the absence of Connie Markievicz.)

I am looking forward to Lloyd George's government. It's going to be a real watershed either way I think.

I have no doubt Connie was part of the 1905 INP intake, even if I forgot to write her in. Thankfully, your reminder means I definitely won't forget her when Ireland and the Great War are tackled.

Yes, there's much potential and pitfall in both peace and war for a man whose chief defects are (1) Lack of appreciation of existing institutions, organisations, and stolid, dull people...their ways are not his ways and their methods are not his methods. (2) Fondness for a grandiose scheme in preference to an attempt to improve existing machinery. (3) Disregard of difficulties in carrying out big projects...he is not a man of detail.

A very interesting overview of some thoroughly impressive MPs!
Double digits for women this early is very impressive. Is the rest of Europe this progressive or mainly along OTL lines?
I’m looking forward to the effect that the Great War will have.

I would imagine the rest of Europe is a bit further down the road with one of - well, the - major power bombing down it so much faster than IOTL.

I've still got to get the war in sketch before I start putting it into writing, but I've already got some juicy developments and chapters in mind.

Wow
Women get the vote and the overall political atmosphere is looking good
Good updates!

Thanks!

Luckily, there's nothing like a soul-crushing, generation-destroying, empires-collapsing, globe-spanning war to turn the atmosphere sour.

 

[BigBadBob]

THE MAPLE LEAF FOREVER?
Canada, Newfoundland, and the Early Federation Debate
Juliette Taylor-Trudeau​

Canada on the eve of the Great War was not yet a nation, but neither could it be considered a mere extension of Britain. Responsible Government had existed in the old territories of Canada, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia since the late 1840s.* In 1867, these territories had been given the right to Confederate as the Dominion of Canada. In the process of transitioning to Dominion status, they had gained the right to consultation on legislation affecting them, and on the appointment of the federal Governor-General. In 1887, the British North America Act of that year passed the territories west of Ontario and Quebec to the Dominion; in fact, the administration of these territories had been the de facto responsibility of the Dominion for years.

For the entirety of its early existence, Canada was defined by its position between the United Kingdom and the United States. The first stirrings of what could be called Canadian nationalism are to be found in the American attempt to wrest the colony from Britain during the War of 1812. The decision to hand over more effective powers and responsibility via the Canada Act 1867 was in large part due to a desire to foster more independent defence thinking as the UK grappled with the consequences of imperial overextension and a resurgent post-Civil War USA in the 1860s.

While the Dominion would quickly create its own standing army, and war plans that, while still ultimately reliant on Britain, assumed Dominion troops would be the frontline for most of the conflict, this did not mean that Canada had become separate from the Mother Country in the eyes of its inhabitants, still considered British subjects. Many of the early figures of Confederation went to their graves considering themselves British alone. For them, Dominion was an administrative, not emotionally substantive, concept.

For Canada, the 1900s had two developments that caused it to engage for the first time in real contemplation of where the Dominion was headed. The first was the signing of the Entente Cordiale. To Canadians, the United States was still the threat du jour. The last war scare had been as recently as 1891. Little remarked upon in England – outside of Whitehall, where the Admiralty and War Office had simply pulled existing defence plans, little changed since the 1870s, out of their drawers while waiting for the Foreign Office to smooth things over – in Canada the first calls had gone out to reinforce the regulars with the militia. The sudden reversal of US-Canada relations from constant tension to apparent allies was a fundamental shock.

Canada, Newfoundland, and the Northern United States, 1900
The external borders in North America had remained unchanged since 1887​

To many, this was proof that Confederation had outlived its purpose. With British North America safe from invasion, the Dominion could reintegrate with the UK. Of course, most advocates of reintegration maintained that the consultation rights (and slowly gathered precedents of non-intervention) given to Canada would revert not to the Crown, but to the reinstituted Responsible Government. Others found themselves, with the supposed raison d’être of Confederation gone, more attached to it than they thought. Canada, they found, had become an emotionally substantive concept. Canada was thus debating its place in the Empire before the Federation Debate sparked the same internal soul-searching elsewhere.

Imperial Federation, however, intensified this debate from musing in the papers to outright political issue. It was sheer luck for Prime Minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier that the IFL was formed so late into the campaign period of the 1904 Canadian Federal Election. The splits within the Westminster parties had not quite yet shaken out to the point that it was clear the next year’s election would be fought on the question of Federation. Though the last weeks up to November saw heated arguments at the hustings, on the national scale Laurier and Conservative Party leader Sir Robert Borden were able to avoid the question.

The following term, however, was dominated by Federation. When it became clear that Imperial Commonwealth was a status closer to Dominion than many expected, with legislative autonomy to a great extent (if not quite equal to the accumulated precedents of Dominion), but with representation in Westminster, the conversation was set alight. Returning to the position of a Crown Colony or the old Responsible Governments had seemed too high a price to pay for an emotional connection to the Mother Country. Commonwealth Status though, had distinct gains and drawbacks.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier, 1907
From Quebec, Laurier, Prime Minister from 1896-1908, was naturally sympathetic to the anti-Federation side of the Canadian debate​

Unlike in the UK - where the only major regional divide in the debate was between the rest of the Union and Ireland, and that over a separate, long-running, but related, issue – in Canada the argument over Federation was defined by region. Commonwealth Status enjoyed strong support in the old Responsible Governments that felt the strongest connection to Britain, although there were divides over the exact form.** Opposition was strongest in Quebec, already worried about Anglo-Canada overriding its French-inherited traditions, and terrified of becoming part of an even smaller minority in a British Imperial Federation. In the sparsely populated new territories, opinions were mixed. If a pattern could be discerned, then it was support for Commonwealth Status waning further west.

Laurier, being Quebecois, argued against Federation in government. He appealed to the separate traditions that Canadians (as he now invariably referred to what were variously known as Britons, Anglo-Canadians, Canadian Britons, French-Canadians, Franco-Britons, and many other designations) had developed since the War of 1812. He designated the, previously unofficial, anthem of The Maple Leaf Forever as the National Anthem in the National Anthem Act 1906. Day-in, day-out he tried to find legislation and acts of government that would be impossible if Canada could not gain special terms on accession.

Sir Robert Borden, on the other hand, argued pretty much the opposite. He appealed to the long history of British North America and the Mother Country. He emphasised how many of the people Laurier ‘pretended had no connection with Britain’ had, in fact, been born there, and even retained cherished memories of London, Dublin, or Glasgow. He argued ceaselessly that Canadian Britons would find increased security and rights in closer association with Britain. He even argued that Federation, with its attendant representation in Westminster, would bind Britain to Canada so tightly that the inevitable, as many still believed, return of the American threat would never again be answered by making Canada defend itself.***

Sir Robert Borden, 1908
As Prime Minister of Canada from 1908 to 1920, Borden was the foremost champion of Canadian Accession to the Imperial Federation​

The Federal Election of 1908 thus came to pivot on the question of Accession. After a heated debate, Borden achieved the slimmest of majorities on the promise that he would call a convention to determine the terms on which Canada would seek to accede, and then call a new election to endorse the proposition of that convention. The Convention was convened in mid-1909, but quickly became deadlocked for two reasons. The first was the news that the Responsible Government of Newfoundland had requested to accede to the Imperial Federation. The second was the deepening of the ongoing parliamentary battle in Westminster over Ireland and the House of Lords. Borden could hardly force the Canada Convention to come to a conclusion when two developments with such profound implications for the form and future of the Federation had not resolved themselves.

Finally, in May 1910, the electric ripple of news swept through Canada that Asquith had won his battle with the Lords, and Newfoundland had begun the process of accession; most importantly, the latter would receive five representatives, to be elected as extra members until reapportionment of the Commons at the next election, and two representative peers in the Lords. Proportionally, it was a coup for the soon-to-be Imperial Commonwealth of Newfoundland. For the Convention, this answered the most vexing question; to accede as Canada or individual governments.

The form of accession that Borden brought to the Federal Election of 1910 was thus built on two propositions. Each Province would accede as if individually, but Westminster would recognise for each the same extensive rights of consultation and non-intervention that had built up for Canada since 1867. In Quebec, the Federation would respect the inherited traditions that had become convention under Confederation. On this promise, Borden swept into power.

Prime Minister Borden with Minister for the Federation Winston Churchill, 1911
Over the course of the Accession Negotiations, Borden developed a friendship with the young Boer War veteran that would last until the former’s death​

Though this was to be a much larger and more complicated undertaking than the Accession of Newfoundland, London at first adopted the same attitude as to the latter. It sent the Under-Secretary for the Federation to Ottawa, and handed Canada carbon copies of the Act of Federation passed by Newfoundland, with the latter’s name replaced by the various provinces. Borden patiently explained to Under-Secretary Fitzgerald that, if such high-handedness were to continue, much less get out into the Canadian press, London would torpedo the entire talks overnight.****

Upon being telegrammed the Dominion’s response, Winston Churchill, Minister for the Federation, immediately told newly appointed Prime Minister Lloyd George that he would go over himself. The Prime Minister agreed, thinking Churchill intended to browbeat Borden into accepting there would be no special treatment for Canada. Unbeknownst to him, what Churchill meant by needing ‘quite significant autonomy, and faith that what [he would] come back with will go through,’ was that he intended to get Canada roughly what it wanted. He had gone on a four-month trip across the Dominion shortly after his return from the Boer War, and fallen quite in love with the place.

Churchill arrived in November 1910, and proceeded to do no negotiating for three months. Instead, in a ploy to appear intransigent to London, but without burning bridges in Canada, he went on a month-long tour of the Eastern Provinces and another month-long tour of every drinking hall and politician’s house in Ottawa. To No 10, he sent reports of tough negotiations, to Parliament Hill, he sent himself, a copious amount of whisky, and a collection of fine cigars. By February, he and Borden had developed a rapport that would mature into a lifelong friendship post-negotiation.

W. L. M. King, Civil Servant and later Chairman of the Council of Canada, 1911
At Churchill’s insistence, the final day of Accession Negotiations was turned into a ceremony replete with imperial splendour, a development he had planned so far in advance that his court dress was already packed on the Atlantic voyage​

Finally, in March 1911, Churchill felt negotiations had gone long enough to reveal to Borden, during a late-night drinking session, that he intended to give Canada what it had asked for. The Prime Minister later recalled being so shocked that his whisky was ruined by the cigar that had, only seconds earlier, been firmly ensconced in his mouth. Churchill asked only that Borden not take advantage of his partiality to ask for anything more, ‘lest I [Churchill] be forced to become the utterly immovable object I have presented myself as to London.’

In truth, Churchill asked for another favour from Borden. Accession talks should continue long enough to make their last day a formal celebration of Canadian Accession. Churchill had dreams for the Federation that extended farther than those of most, and so hoped to create a set, splendorous, imperial form of pomp for Accession. Borden, still in shock from his unexpected victory, agreed without a second thought.

What Churchill referred to as Accession Day ended up as April 3rd. In full court dress, Borden and Churchill signed a declaration of understanding in front of the Governor-General. News reached London the next day of Churchill’s agreement. Lloyd George was furious, but knew that he could not undo what had been done so publicly. He also could not outright sack Churchill upon his return in late May, but the Minister for the Federation was given a private tongue-lashing and, a supposedly lateral, reassignment to the Admiralty.

The Canadian Accession Act received Royal Assent on September 3rd, 1911. Only seven of the 35 new seats in the Commons had been filled, and only 4 of the 12 new representative peers had taken their seat, a month later, when the world went to war. The strength of this new bond would be tested much sooner than anyone could have expected.


* 1846 in Canada, 1847 in New Brunswick, and 1849 in Nova Scotia. The first was divided up into Ontario and Quebec upon Confederation.

** Some wanted a three-tier status of Province-Canada-Federation, while others wanted to accede as, essentially, individual Commonwealths.

*** It was during the Federation debate that this interpretation of the purpose of Confederation, previously only broached cautiously by the most iconoclastic academics, became a matter of spirited public debate.

**** In his memoirs, Borden conceded that he himself experienced a great bout of panicked doubt at such an inauspicious start for his signature policy.

 

[J_Master]

He also could not outright sack Churchill upon his return in late May, but the Minister for the Federation was given a private tongue-lashing and, a supposedly lateral, reassignment to the Admiralty.

Churchill, in the Admiralty, during World War I? Some things are just meant to be now are they?

As for a more technical question, what exactly does this all mean in game terms. Are the Commonwealths puppets or is Canada now directly reintegrated into the UK?

 

[DensleyBlair]

A mad rush to get the Empire sorted out before war breaks out, with Winnie galavanting round Canada on a wild boozing tour. Yep, sounds like the 1910's are getting off to a fine start.

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

Aw shit...Churchill involved in a war ministry? That won't end well.

So Canada devolved into provinces and then they each became an imperial commonwealth? Not quite sure whats going on here. If it is that though the US is going to have a heart attack now it has four or five new borders to manage, even if it is all one straight ish line.

 

[stnylan]

That is a very Churchillian response to an assignment I must say

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

I was actually hoping it would be more like the (Second) Boer War IOTL, but the in-game result was a curb-stomp, so I had to revert to proper guerilla warfare as the narrative to get things where I wanted them. So not so much Anglo bias as it was Vicky II robbing us of Mafekings and Magersfonteins for TTL.

Whilst the Boer Republic did have a few things going for it, they mostly did so well because the british really didn't prepare or engage well with them for far too long. You sending a good force down immediately and smashing them to bits before moving into their territory and rounding everyone up promptly is basically doing the otl campaign right the first time round.

Does this mean Baden Powell doesn't get the cred and puff to launch the Scouts Association???

 

[DensleyBlair]

Does this mean Baden Powell doesn't get the cred and puff to launch the Scouts Association???

We can only hope.

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

We can only hope.

That means he'd still be in the army and probably fighting in the middle east...since there is no German east Africa.

 

[Specialist290]

I do have to admire Churchill's panache here. It takes a special sort of audacity to turn an important government assignment into what amounts to a cross-continental pub crawl with a bare minimum of actual work

I have to admit that I'm curious about what is to become of "Canada" down the line. Has it been effectively dissolved as a country, now that the provinces themselves are directly linked to Westminster? Or does it still exist in some legal sense, if an increasingly amorphous one?

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

I do have to admire Churchill's panache here. It takes a special sort of audacity to turn an important government assignment into what amounts to a cross-continental pub crawl with a bare minimum of actual work

I have to admit that I'm curious about what is to become of "Canada" down the line. Has it been effectively dissolved as a country, now that the provinces themselves are directly linked to Westminster? Or does it still exist in some legal sense, if an increasingly amorphous one?

This is what I wonder about. Canada is so huge and far flung in-between various cities that there isnt much point (aside from dealing with the US) in being one whole state. Especially if Newfoundland is already a commonwealth, and Quebec would never accept anything less than separate control if it were an option. So what I think will happen is the commonwealths of each province have a shared history and culture, at least for now, and are pretty much by default in a big close knit economic and poltical unit within Parliament, because the US still exists.

This does however start a precedent that implies provinces of Australia (I think especially Western Australia) and other OTL 'whole' dominions can go it alone under the new system if they want. New Zealand and Australia may well not take that option, at least for a few centuries, but South Africa may very well want, or be forced to split up. Could potentially be a solution to the Raj as well if the British carve up India again rather than keep it whole for tax reasons...

 

[slothinator]

Oh my, what happened in 1891? I understand that the Canadians would be reticent to fight alongside the Americans.

Interesting to see so many Canadas all in the Federation. I'm curious to see how they will act in Westminster especially with the war so near.

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

Interesting to see so many Canadas all in the Federation. I'm curious to see how they will act in Westminster especially with the war so near.

It's going to make an amercian alliance a little harder to be sure. The US is going to have a much harder time being the master of the amercias if canada is actually running imperial policy there. Stuff like Alaska, the Carribean and the pacific islands are no longer simple done deals...

 

[BigBadBob]

Churchill, in the Admiralty, during World War I? Some things are just meant to be now are they?

As for a more technical question, what exactly does this all mean in game terms. Are the Commonwealths puppets or is Canada now directly reintegrated into the UK?

It was a series of serendipities. First, I decided to keep Borden as a major player instead of creating a character, then I stumbled on the picture of him and Churchill, and then I clocked that Churchill's actions would have consequences, but they couldn't be too publicly punishing, and Bob's your uncle.

Incidentally, for anyone who hasn't come upon this funnest of facts, the Bob in 'Bob's your uncle' is Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, better known to history as Lord Salisbury, whom we have encountered already in this AAR. IOTL, he appointed his nephew, Arthur Balfour (later to be PM from 1902-05), as Secretary of State for Ireland in 1887. It was widely assumed that, of all his qualifications, the one that truly mattered and clinched it was 'Bob's your uncle.'

In game terms, it would be as if Canada had become a puppet the usual way, but then a special event had the UK inherit it as states.

A mad rush to get the Empire sorted out before war breaks out, with Winnie galavanting round Canada on a wild boozing tour. Yep, sounds like the 1910's are getting off to a fine start.

Shame about the rest of the decade.

Aw shit...Churchill involved in a war ministry? That won't end well.

So Canada devolved into provinces and then they each became an imperial commonwealth? Not quite sure whats going on here. If it is that though the US is going to have a heart attack now it has four or five new borders to manage, even if it is all one straight ish line.

I have an update on the knitting together of Anglo-America, so I will hold my tongue on the US reaction. I will say that it is one border (technically two, due to Alaska), as foreign affairs are one of the areas where there is absolutely no ambiguity about whether the Federation or the Commonwealth holds the right to decide.

In essence, the Imperial Commonwealths should be thought of like the devolved governments the UK currently has IOTL. There's some constitutional quirks around who is part of 'The Union' (the UK and Ireland), and who is part of the Imperial Federation (the UK and the Imperial Commonwealths, with the UK parliament being the sovereign parliament of the Federation), but the real major difference to OTL's Scotland and Wales is that the Commonwealths, except for Ireland, have come into the framework with their own laws. This means that the battle will less be over the extent to which the Commonwealths can diverge from the UK, but to the extent the UK should - as, strictly legally speaking, it could - harmonise regulation and law across the Federation.

That is a very Churchillian response to an assignment I must say

Turns out getting Andrew Roberts' biography of Churchill for Christmas wasn't about having a fun and informative read, but preparing me for this.

Whilst the Boer Republic did have a few things going for it, they mostly did so well because the british really didn't prepare or engage well with them for far too long. You sending a good force down immediately and smashing them to bits before moving into their territory and rounding everyone up promptly is basically doing the otl campaign right the first time round.

Does this mean Baden Powell doesn't get the cred and puff to launch the Scouts Association???

We can only hope.

That means he'd still be in the army and probably fighting in the middle east...since there is no German east Africa.

Well, TTL got the smashing right, but came to the rounding up as slowly as OTL.

I have many good friends who Scouted, and may have to admit to having been a Cub Scout myself, so the Association will exist, but spring from a different source (in fact, it is explained in today's essay).

I do have to admire Churchill's panache here. It takes a special sort of audacity to turn an important government assignment into what amounts to a cross-continental pub crawl with a bare minimum of actual work

I have to admit that I'm curious about what is to become of "Canada" down the line. Has it been effectively dissolved as a country, now that the provinces themselves are directly linked to Westminster? Or does it still exist in some legal sense, if an increasingly amorphous one?

Winnie gonna Winnie.

Strictly speaking, Canada has dissolved, but Laurier wasn't talking total tosh when he argued that it had become a thing of emotional substance. The Council of Canada (obliquely mentioned in this update, and given a sentence in the concluding remarks), essentially an annual gathering of the First Ministers of the various ex-Canadian Commonwealths, will evolve into an unofficial Canada-level government over the course of the war. Its head will become unofficially known as the Prime Minister of Canada, hence Sir Robert being noted as serving as Canadian PM for 9 more years after the ostensible dissolution of the office.

Splitting the reply post into two to avoid the essay itself getting stuck at the bottom of the page.

 

[BigBadBob]

This is what I wonder about. Canada is so huge and far flung in-between various cities that there isnt much point (aside from dealing with the US) in being one whole state. Especially if Newfoundland is already a commonwealth, and Quebec would never accept anything less than separate control if it were an option. So what I think will happen is the commonwealths of each province have a shared history and culture, at least for now, and are pretty much by default in a big close knit economic and poltical unit within Parliament, because the US still exists.

This does however start a precedent that implies provinces of Australia (I think especially Western Australia) and other OTL 'whole' dominions can go it alone under the new system if they want. New Zealand and Australia may well not take that option, at least for a few centuries, but South Africa may very well want, or be forced to split up. Could potentially be a solution to the Raj as well if the British carve up India again rather than keep it whole for tax reasons...

I should note that NZ and Australia are already separate Commonwealths, but the various parts of Australia may indeed wish to explore alternate routes, especially as the Canadian settlement settles in.

A lot of this is stuff I haven't fully figured out yet (still got a whole world war to write, and little choices have big consequences down the line in such a new and somewhat undefined political settlement as the Imperial Federation), but these are all ideas that have been floating through my mind, and the minds of many in the colonies and Commonwealths.

Oh my, what happened in 1891? I understand that the Canadians would be reticent to fight alongside the Americans.

Interesting to see so many Canadas all in the Federation. I'm curious to see how they will act in Westminster especially with the war so near.

There's a longer explanation for 1891 in the Anglo-America essay, but I will say it has less to do with Canada itself than it does a certain waterway a good deal further south.

Not too many opportunities to act before the war, as so few of them had made it to take up their seats by October 3rd, but arriving at such a tumultuous time will certainly make their first joint moves interesting.

It's going to make an amercian alliance a little harder to be sure. The US is going to have a much harder time being the master of the amercias if canada is actually running imperial policy there. Stuff like Alaska, the Carribean and the pacific islands are no longer simple done deals...

All in good time, dear composer. Well, three weeks, when I get to Anglo-America.