Dominion of Southern America - Updated July 1, 2018

[Eurofed]

Otherwise there is too much richer, warmer and better supplied lands further south, especially with slavery banned as the large demands for lands by slavery are no longer present.

I object to this description and your conclusions. With regards to the "useful" belt of southern Canada that holds the bulk of the population IOTL and is going to be more settled ITTL, it is not that much colder or any really poorer than the northern OTL US states, and with US full control of the Great Lakes and Red River, they are just as well supplied. And even IOTL competition from slave labor was never really an issue in the bulk of states that make up this USA, apart from an handful of border states like Virginia and Kentucky. The only place where slaveowner settlers really tried to compete with freesoilers (all the way to undecalred civil war) were Kansas and Nebraska, and the slaveocrats got the beating of their lives.

[It is notorious how many people encouraged to settle in Canada who fairly quickly moved south to the US and, barring something like religious tension, there will be even less barriers to such moves in TTL]

There was also a large amount of American settlers that went to Canada and stayed. One of the reasons that Britain hurried to set up the Dominion in the 1860s was that American immigrants could simply outbred the Loyalists.

 

[Eurofed]

Well, in part that depends who is in power in the USA at the time of any such conflict, but it certainly will give them pause. It's funny, but if you think about it, in this scenario the roles are much reversed between the USA and Britain compared to OTL, with the British taking on the role and attitudes of the Union, and the US taking on British feelings about the whole thing (sympathetic but that whole slavery thing is icky).

True, however the US are going to be even more conflicted about the issue, since they both passionately dislike British colonial presence and slavery on their continent.

Doesn't everyone do better under the British Empire?

They do even better under the Stars and Stripes.

It's the outmoded and buggy prototype against the new & improved model.

Hmmm, so how do the Americans get through the British Caribbean?

They build a kickass Navy and dare the RN to interfere with US control of Panama, I suppose. Having their own transoceanic pathway seems far too much important for the USA, and well worth the price of an imperialistic confrontation with Britain, if need be. After all, by the time the US shall have the technological means to dig the Panama Canal (late 19th century), they shall also have the economic base to fully support a naval race with Britain.

 

[Eurofed]

About the issues of slaves availability, I have to state that I fully agree with Falastur about Britain being very efficient into suppressing slave trading. They were fairly efficient at that IOTL (for a romanticized example, look at the attitude and deeds of the British captain in the Amistad movie), and would be even more so ITTL for the reasons he said.

OTOH, I also have to state that IOTL Southern slave breeding was quite efficient, too, and quite able to keep the slave population stable and steadily expanding. Past an early point, which TTL probably has already reached, Dixie simply didn't need the international slave trade anymore (a reason why even the mainstream slaveocrat public opinion largely agreed with its banning).

 

[Glen]

Breeding is of course a factor. I'm not sure about the smuggling though. Yes, there will be some but I'm unsure about how successful it would be. I mean, the Royal Navy had a lot of ships (I believe the figure was around 1050 when NOT involved in a major war), and the vast majority of these - around 800 of them - were sloops or other small class one-deckers designed solely for doing routine patrols, both oceanic and coastal, or commerce raiding. The crucial thing here is that those ships can now base themselves in the very BSA they would need to prevent smugglers in, which gives them a huge advantage. There's also the nightly patrols that British militia made along the coastlines and such. And let's not forget that punishments for slave traders were severe - I can't remember this exactly, but I do believe that anti-slave trade patrolling captains had the authority, the orders even, to hang captains found shipping slaves from their own masts upon capture - no trial, no chance for defense, no amnesty for not being British; if they had slaves, the captains would be executed, hence why captains tended to throw their slaves overboard weighed down with weights when at risk of being caught.

You're right that there will still be smuggling, and the British won't have a 100% success rate. Of course the Americans must also have patrolled for smugglers, etc etc. But the difference is that slave traders are now trading their ill-gotten gains right into the premier colonies of the leading anti-slaving nation, and there's surely going to be the risk of being spotted and snitched upon transporting your slaves through the country. Considering that the initial point here was that I doubted that the merchant middle classes, the ones without their own supplies of slaves, would struggle to stock a new plantation, I think they would find it hard to suddenly acquire illegally transported slaves without someone noticing. A few will manage it, but I think the risks if not the actually being caught will put most of.

Just my opinion of course. You may disagree about the efficiency of the anti-slave patrols.

Agree that smuggling slaves will be a dying industry.

Entirely possible. Of course, if the British do have support, then giving power to the colonies may not be that bad, especially if the Assemblies reform themselves to kick out those slaveocrats who did the rebelling. But yes, true.

Well, if there's a revolt of a minority who favor slavery, and they lose, it goes to figure that they might be excluded from the government.

 

[Glen]

I object to this description and your conclusions. With regards to the "useful" belt of southern Canada that holds the bulk of the population IOTL and is going to be more settled ITTL, it is not that much colder or any really poorer than the northern OTL US states, and with US full control of the Great Lakes and Red River, they are just as well supplied.

I suppose it depends which OTL US states we're comparing to which OTL Canadian states in their new TTL American versions.

Perhaps it would help to compare a pupulation density map to a climate map?

And even IOTL competition from slave labor was never really an issue in the bulk of states that make up this USA, apart from an handful of border states like Virginia and Kentucky. The only place where slaveowner settlers really tried to compete with freesoilers (all the way to undecalred civil war) were Kansas and Nebraska, and the slaveocrats got the beating of their lives.

Interesting points. Stands to reason that the people who have to depend on slave power for their powerbase might be outnumbered....

There was also a large amount of American settlers that went to Canada and stayed. One of the reasons that Britain hurried to set up the Dominion in the 1860s was that American immigrants could simply outbred the Loyalists.

Because we all know that Patriots are more virile than Loyalists! But yes, there was population transfer in both directions across the border. In my wife's own family it appears that a branch of her family came to North America through the USA, migrated to Canada, then migrated back to the US!

 

[Glen]

True, however the US are going to be even more conflicted about the issue, since they both passionately dislike British colonial presence and slavery on their continent.

The British were passionate about it, they just weren't allowed to show it, Victorian Age and all that!

They do even better under the Stars and Stripes.

It's the outmoded and buggy prototype against the new & improved model.

Ha, I like that!

They build a kickass Navy and dare the RN to interfere with US control of Panama, I suppose. Having their own transoceanic pathway seems far too much important for the USA, and well worth the price of an imperialistic confrontation with Britain, if need be. After all, by the time the US shall have the technological means to dig the Panama Canal (late 19th century), they shall also have the economic base to fully support a naval race with Britain.

Well that sounds like a recipe for some hellacious sea battles!

 

[Glen]

About the issues of slaves availability, I have to state that I fully agree with Falastur about Britain being very efficient into suppressing slave trading. They were fairly efficient at that IOTL (for a romanticized example, look at the attitude and deeds of the British captain in the Amistad movie), and would be even more so ITTL for the reasons he said.

OTOH, I also have to state that IOTL Southern slave breeding was quite efficient, too, and quite able to keep the slave population stable and steadily expanding. Past an early point, which TTL probably has already reached, Dixie simply didn't need the international slave trade anymore (a reason why even the mainstream slaveocrat public opinion largely agreed with its banning).

Agreed on all three points (British effective at suppressing slave trade ITTL, Southerners effective at breeding more than enough slaves from current slaves, and they have the population base to do it by the time slave trade banned ITTL).

 

[DuQuense]

In the BSA the two groups probably overlap quite a bit. Also, I would caution you that the banning of the slave trade doesn't mean the end of it as there are still smugglers. It also doesn't mean necessarily a decrease in slave numbers as there will be slavers who just shift to breeding more slaves from the current stock.

I read somewhere that, by the 1830's~1840's most slavers Cargo where mostly Female, & were not Blacks.

 

[Glen]

I read somewhere that, by the 1830's~1840's most slavers Cargo where mostly Female, & were not Blacks.

And where were they going with that?

 

[Glen]

The Underground Canal was a term coined in the 1820s for the informal network of routes and safehouses that moved escaped slaves through the British Southern Provinces north to the United States and freedom. Towards the last stages of its existence, terms taken from canal travel like 'boatman' and 'locks' came to be used to stand for guides and safe houses for the 'canal' routes. The main routes were along the Tennessee and the Mississippi Rivers. The Tennessee route at first was the preferred one as the Indians there sometimes facilitated travel for escaped slaves, but as the civilized tribes began to adopt a Southern lifestyle, including slaveowning, this became a less reliable route.

While the US/British South border was a long one, it also was carefully watched on both sides to discourage Indian raids and the neighboring country from incursions. But it was impossible to watch everywhere along this lengthy border, in many places still wilderness. West of the Mississippi things were even more porous.

 

[stevep]

Well, I'll just say that for the near future, I don't think you'll see any huge anti-Catholic movement in the US, so there's a likelihood that more people head south. Then again there just may be more people period, so the north may not be entirely neglected. I've heard people express both opinions on the subject.

OK, what I would expect. However saying that might be the only way your likely to see a larger scale of settlement in the north - OTL Canada, rather than a lower one, TTL.

Less than the population when the same events occured OTL, but more than when the same year occured OTL, if you understand my meaning. The development of the USA is about 5-15 years ahead of schedule compared to OTL depending on the specific area and event type. So that means that there are probably more people in a given US location for any given year. But if you compare the population in most locations for the same type of event OTL versus TTL, there were probably less people there for that event type.

I don't get this? The population after the end of the ARW would be less as the US gets Canada and OTL Maritimes, both fairly thinly populated, but lose the southern states. While Georgia and Florida may be pretty thinly populated the Carolinas will have substantial populations. In both cases there will be a flight of loyalists to the rump British area. Apart the only way this will be less TTL is that you may not have many freed blacks who served in the British army and they may not want to go to the BSA.

After the war the US population was largely dominated by natural growth. In this case there's the additional factor that you will get less movement from the south as people struggling to complete with the plantations move north, because it involves crossing a national boundary and given their status as 'loyalists', actual or perceived, this may be more problematic.

Hence as far as I see it the US has more land, although a lot is rather cool, and a smaller starting population, plus less inflow into that region. If they push for bases on the NW coast and generally for more expansive rather than intensive development they may cover the area but more thinly and probably with overall less economic development. [Because the lower population density will discourage infrastructure development as the expected return is lower due to having less customers].

Here they are moving west, especially to north and west Louisiana (comparable to OTL Arkansas, Oklahoma).

Didn't that occur anyway, but others ended up moving further north, which is less likely now?

There could be some of this, but how successful do you really think such an effort could be?

I'm not saying it would be successful. However think because of the differing politics and geography it might seem a lot easier.

Cuba's too valuable to make a dumping ground. Jamaica's possible but rather small for that role. Hispaniola already has more freed blacks than most areas in the British New World.

Of course, there's always British Guyana....

Is Cuba that valuable after slavery is banned? While slavery is in place the Caribbean islands were some of the greatest wealth producers and most valuable real estate in the world. After it was banned they became improvished backwaters. Also, to be brunt, a lot of the white population may not care much about the status and living conditions of the blacks as long as their not living on the mainland and competing with them.

Basically both Britain and France retain fishing rights in the area in the treaties of 1783. In first the British accord with America and then the subsequent peace deal with France after the War of 1804, those fishing rights were surrendered. By that time 20 years later those fishing areas weren't looking as important.

I find that rather surprising given how rich the fisheries were.

Steve

 

[stevep]

I object to this description and your conclusions. With regards to the "useful" belt of southern Canada that holds the bulk of the population IOTL and is going to be more settled ITTL, it is not that much colder or any really poorer than the northern OTL US states, and with US full control of the Great Lakes and Red River, they are just as well supplied. And even IOTL competition from slave labor was never really an issue in the bulk of states that make up this USA, apart from an handful of border states like Virginia and Kentucky. The only place where slaveowner settlers really tried to compete with freesoilers (all the way to undecalred civil war) were Kansas and Nebraska, and the slaveocrats got the beating of their lives.

I think your seriously mis-reading the situation. The land/climate situation in the southern reaches of Canada are not drastically different from those immediately over the border. However their not competing with those lands but with those lands throughout the US.

Also by supplying I'm referring to the economic development of said areas. Canada's greatest problem in development OTL was that the US was not just warmer but more thickly settled and hence more developed. As such there's far more economic options in the bustling cities and even small towns of the US than in the thinly developed Canadian centres. Its a classic example of the flight to the cities that occurred throughout much of history because of the opportunities available in the latter. In TTL its even worse as 'Canada' a) - doesn't receive a flow of loyalists, b) Is a fairly backward an unimportant region of the US rather than the key British colony in the region, c) Is not across an international border and hence without the loyalist identity, reinforced by the 1812 conflict, or a French/Catholic one facing less hostility from the US even more likely to face a leakage of population southwards.

Also you mis-understand the point I make about slavery. OTL that pushed people from the south because they couldn't compete with the plantations. The fact that this time that requires crossing an international border will mitigate against this somewhat. Also as you say, the plantations that developed in the states that stayed in the US won't be existing with slavery being banned in the US so there will also be less competition there pushing people northwards. Hence the regions south of Canada are going to have less population so even less likelihood of population and development spilling over into OTL Canada.

There was also a large amount of American settlers that went to Canada and stayed. One of the reasons that Britain hurried to set up the Dominion in the 1860s was that American immigrants could simply outbred the Loyalists.

I think you will find that the only period when there was significant US movement to Canada was in the settlement of the peninsula, from the New England region, which was because it was the natural 1st stop in the movement west from the coast. This may well still occur, although could find some opposition from the French claims to the region.

What was the problem on the western plains later on, was that because of the very low population density, at least until improved wheat strains opened up more areas, there was very little economic development. To the south the US, with a higher population density, completed its trans-continental railways and started filling up the regions. Hence a lot of the supplies and trade for the fairly isolated setters in eastern Canada came from across the US border. That was the actual danger. Famously when there was the Red River Rebellion the forces from eastern Canada that defeated the rebels travelled via the US because there was no railway between the Ontario region and the Red River. There simply wasn't the economic demand for such development until the political need was seen. Similarly in TTL the area will be even more of a by-passed backwater because there is no political need to preserve its separate identity.

Steve

 

[Glen]

1783 populations, a DSA to OTL comparison:

• Newfoundland - US territory, less population due to no Loyalists relocating there. Mostly Irish descent.
• Quebec - US state, less population due to no Loyalists relocating there and some moving away. Mostly French descent.
• Nova Scotia (includes OTL Cape Breton, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick) - US state, less population (especially where New Brunswick would have been OTL) due to no Loyalists relocating there and some moving away. Mostly Yankee descended with some French descended.
• New England - US states, population about the same as OTL.
• Mid-Atlantic States - US states, population slightly more due to more Patriots relocating from the Southern colonies than Loyalists moving away.
• Virginia - US state, while part of the Mid-Atlantic States, population even more increased by influx of Patriots relocating there from the Southern colonies though some Loyalists move away as well.
• North Carolina - British province, population shifts as many Loyalists from Mid-Atlantic and even New England move in, though offset some by Patriots leaving.
• South Carolina - British province, shifting population as Loyalists from Mid-Atlantic and some New England, but loses many Patriots as well.
• Bermuda - British island, as an important link to the still Loyalist British South fared much better than OTL, being able to receive food from the Carolinas, and some better Royal Navy protection (IOTL Bermudans were in terrible condition and many starved or nearly so). Overall population stays like prewar population.
• Georgia - British province, relatively quiet compared to OTL. Had fewer Patriots to lose than OTL, received a few more Loyalists, so net gain in population for Georgia.
• East Florida - British province, doesn't have British population flee, significant gain in population compared to OTL.
• Bahamas - British islands, don't receive influx of Southern Loyalists like OTL, significantly less population than OTL.
• West Florida (OTL western Florida, southern Alabama, southern Mississippi, eastern Louisiana) - British province, British population doesn't flee, significant gain in population compared to OTL.
• Jamaica - British island, less Loyalist received, slightly less population compared to OTL.
• Tobago - British island, British pre-war population remains.
• United Kingdom - Slightly more Loyalists compared to OTL due to lack of Canada as a place to go for more northerly Loyalists.

I'm bumping this in part to start answering questions from stevep on population comparisons.

So reading the above, when you look at individual states/provinces, the population in the OTL Canadian Provinces is less at the end of the ARW than OTL. Also less is the population of British Caribbean. British Bermuda is more, East and West Florida are more, Georgia is more, South Carolina may be the same or possibly less, and North Carolina is the same or possibly more. Virginia is more, Mid-Atlantic States are more, New England States the same.

So, compared to OTL, the extremes (Caribbean South and Canadian North) have less population, whereas the OTL Old South and Mid-Atlantic States have more.

Now then, the question is, where do these people go as time progresses, how many kids do they have, and where do the immigrants go?

 

[Glen]

I'm bumping this in part to start answering questions from stevep on population comparisons.

So reading the above, when you look at individual states/provinces, the population in the OTL Canadian Provinces is less at the end of the ARW than OTL. Also less is the population of British Caribbean. British Bermuda is more, East and West Florida are more, Georgia is more, South Carolina may be the same or possibly less, and North Carolina is the same or possibly more. Virginia is more, Mid-Atlantic States are more, New England States the same.

So, compared to OTL, the extremes (Caribbean South and Canadian North) have less population, whereas the OTL Old South and Mid-Atlantic States have more.

Now then, the question is, where do these people go as time progresses, how many kids do they have, and where do the immigrants go?

Now then, more Highlanders/Conventers are going to the OTL Canadian Provinces than OTL, so there is some gain there. The Protestant Scots and Scots-Irish are tending to go to the Appalachians in both the US and the BSA, so not a lot of change there.

There are more French emigrees going to Quebec than OTL (and in fact there are more emigrees period from France), so there's another net gain for Quebec. Some are going to Nova Scotia and the Maine District as well. So there's an increase in Francophone population, Catholic Population in Quebec. However, there's also some of the emigrees who are going Deist, so small bump in that demographic later.

Not yet mentioned, but most people fleeing the Napoleonic Wars in Europe tend to go to the USA, and while the OTL South wasn't a big destination point for these people, they're going there even less, so slight increase in US population of Europeans.

The early end of slavery means in general less people of African descent in TTL's US, so net loss of population there.

Slaves being sold south as part of that means net increase in population in the British South, and even more black. There also is a very small increase in white population as slaveowners who won't give up slaveholding migrate.

Overall the British South is more populous and more black than OTL American South.

Overall this timeline's USA which is a combination of Canada, New England, and Mid-Atlantic is more white, more Catholic, more Deist, and has more population in the Mid-Atlantic, about the same in New England, and less (but not as bad with the immigration influx) in the Canadian states....hmmm, I think we might see them referred to as the Canadian States much like we have New England States and Mid-Atlantic States.....

This is only valid up to about 1820ish. There are other developments that in future will have further demographic impacts.

 

[Glen]

Now then, more Highlanders/Conventers are going to the OTL Canadian Provinces than OTL, so there is some gain there. The Protestant Scots and Scots-Irish are tending to go to the Appalachians in both the US and the BSA, so not a lot of change there.

There are more French emigrees going to Quebec than OTL (and in fact there are more emigrees period from France), so there's another net gain for Quebec. Some are going to Nova Scotia and the Maine District as well. So there's an increase in Francophone population, Catholic Population in Quebec. However, there's also some of the emigrees who are going Deist, so small bump in that demographic later.

Not yet mentioned, but most people fleeing the Napoleonic Wars in Europe tend to go to the USA, and while the OTL South wasn't a big destination point for these people, they're going there even less, so slight increase in US population of Europeans.

The early end of slavery means in general less people of African descent in TTL's US, so net loss of population there.

Slaves being sold south as part of that means net increase in population in the British South, and even more black. There also is a very small increase in white population as slaveowners who won't give up slaveholding migrate.

Overall the British South is more populous and more black than OTL American South.

Overall this timeline's USA which is a combination of Canada, New England, and Mid-Atlantic is more white, more Catholic, more Deist, and has more population in the Mid-Atlantic, about the same in New England, and less (but not as bad with the immigration influx) in the Canadian states....hmmm, I think we might see them referred to as the Canadian States much like we have New England States and Mid-Atlantic States.....

This is only valid up to about 1820ish. There are other developments that in future will have further demographic impacts.

I would speculate that the population of TTL's USA is smaller in 1783 than the same area OTL, but may be on par or even slightly increased by 1820.

 

[Glen]

OK, what I would expect. However saying that might be the only way your likely to see a larger scale of settlement in the north - OTL Canada, rather than a lower one, TTL.

Okay.

I don't get this? The population after the end of the ARW would be less as the US gets Canada and OTL Maritimes, both fairly thinly populated, but lose the southern states.

Having gone over the trends again, this statement is probably correct.

While Georgia and Florida may be pretty thinly populated the Carolinas will have substantial populations. In both cases there will be a flight of loyalists to the rump British area. Apart the only way this will be less TTL is that you may not have many freed blacks who served in the British army and they may not want to go to the BSA.

True, forgot that in the calculations. They are a small contingent, though it means that the OTL Canadian provinces that become the US states here are more white and lose even that small population bump.

After the war the US population was largely dominated by natural growth.

IOTL, and it will probably be the major factor ITTL as well, but there is some increased concentration of migration to this US (though not huge) and there is some additional migration especially to Quebec that just didn't happen OTL.

In this case there's the additional factor that you will get less movement from the south as people struggling to complete with the plantations move north, because it involves crossing a national boundary and given their status as 'loyalists', actual or perceived, this may be more problematic.

Right, these people will move west! So the population below 36-30 still remains larger than OTL, but now with increases in westward population growth.

Hence as far as I see it the US has more land, although a lot is rather cool, and a smaller starting population,

All true.

plus less inflow into that region.

Not exactly true.

If they push for bases on the NW coast and generally for more expansive rather than intensive development they may cover the area but more thinly and probably with overall less economic development. [Because the lower population density will discourage infrastructure development as the expected return is lower due to having less customers].

Doesn't take a lot of population to establish bases, so I don't think you need worry about it having huge impacts on population density in the east. Also remember that the US is getting those bases earlier than OTL, so there are more Americans in the Northwest in any given year than OTL, but less than when they went there IOTL - e if a base in the Pacific Northwest was established in 1840 OTL, but 1810 TTL, the 1810 base will likely start with less people than the 1840 base, but there will be more people in that base's location in 1810 ITTL than there was in 1810 OTL, since in OTL there wasn't anyone!

Didn't that occur anyway, but others ended up moving further north, which is less likely now?

Yes, but there are more people in the TTL's British South than OTL's Old South, and they're more likely to move west than north ITTL than in OTL, therefore there are more Southerners in the west below 36-30 ITTL than IOTL.

I'm not saying it would be successful. However think because of the differing politics and geography it might seem a lot easier.

Repatriating blacks to Africa might seem easier ITTL for the British, but less so for the USA.

Is Cuba that valuable after slavery is banned? While slavery is in place the Caribbean islands were some of the greatest wealth producers and most valuable real estate in the world. After it was banned they became improvished backwaters. Also, to be blunt, a lot of the white population may not care much about the status and living conditions of the blacks as long as their not living on the mainland and competing with them.

The short answer to this is yes, that land is valuable even if slavery is ended. The problem with many of them was management not resources. And no, the whites on the mainland may not care much about the plight of blacks on the islands, but they'll care about how whites on the islands are doing since they are all 'British' whites, and there's a lot of blacks on the mainland who might care about how their fellow 'British' blacks are doing in the islands.

I find that rather surprising given how rich the fisheries were.

Steve

I found a few references suggesting that even during the ARW there was starting to be a shift in the importance of the fisheries there. By 1804, while they are important (otherwise the US wouldn't have bothered to get them back), they are more important to the regional power than to the international ones.

 

[Glen]

And we have exceeded 10,000 views. Fabulous, my loyal readers, simply fabulous!

 

[Glen]

Buoyed by his success on the field of battle and his history of service in the American Congress, Andrew Jackson was chosen as first president of the Republic of Texas in 1827. The Republic almost didn't come into existence as some factions argued for annexation by America, and others argued for seeking status as a protectorate of the British Empire. However, the rank and file of the new nation were strongly British and there was a sizable slaveowner component, and neither wanted to enter the abolitionist independent United States. At the same time, others who had come from America, or left the British south to find new opportunities free of London's oversight, didn't want to become a mere pawn of Parliament. Jackson was able to unite a coalition of moderates behind his presidency as a pro-slavery, pro-independence coalition. However, his coalition was short lived and he was defeated in the Texan presidential election of 1830 by John Brown, his former subordinate.

Future President John Brown during the Texas Revolution:

The second president of Texas, John Brown, was aligned with the Pro-British faction in Texas. While President Jackson had kept Texas independent, he had done little to reduce the Texan debt. While President Brown began explorations to bring Texas under the protection of Britain, he also had to deal with the debt, and the United States of America.

For generations, the line 36-30 had come to represent a separation between free and slave in North America. While Americans had come to accept Southern slavery as a fact of life, any attempt to extend slavery north of the current border was psychologically unpalatable to many Americans. While Texas proper lay well below this parallel, and indeed had British Louisiana between it and America, the new Republics claimed territories of New Mexico and the Californias did stretch all the way to America's border at the 40th parallel north. While more a theoretical risk than a reality at such an early stage of the Republic's development, Brown saw a way to solve multiple problems and approached the Americans about purchasing the northernmost section of the Californias and New Mexico. So in 1832, the Americans bought Texas' claims to any territory north of 36-30, helping to relieve Texan debt and remove a barrier to the possibility of joining the rest of Southern America under the British aegis.

 

[Falastur]

Hmmm...interesting. Good to see Texas coming on board. You say that New Mexico and California are simply "claims" at present? Who governs those territories currently? Will there need to be another war with Mexico to turn what the Texans believe is their hinterland into actual legal possession?

 

[The Doctor]

I cant read those strange names on the ocean along the west coast.