Confederation of Southern America

Glen

Moderator
POD starts in the Southern America Act of 1774.

Many celebrate 1789 as the ending of slavery in the United States of America, though in actuality the ban of slavery in the Northwest Territory and later the Bill of Rights were only written into the legislation that year, but it wasn't until the early 1790s that the abolition of slavery really began to take effect. While many states of the union allowed slaves at the time, it was felt to be a dying institution, and counter to the spirit of freedom that the new nation wished to foster. While there was some federal funds voted for recompense for freed slaves, many slave owners chose instead to sell their slaves south to the British colonies there, getting a better price than that offered by Congress, even with the downturn in price by the flooding of the slave market.

While some slave owners migrated to the Southern Colonies with the passage of abolition, the majority preferred the loss of their slaves to living once more under the rule of the Crown. Even though many slaves were sold from Maryland and Virginia, a sizable number remained with their previous owners and continued to work the land, typically in return for some share of the crop. Some likened the relation to manorialism, with the plantation owners acting as feudal lords and freed slaves as serfs.

Obviously, the Southern Colonies saw a significant increase in their slave population, just in time for the onset of a massive growth in cotton cultivation with the invention of the Cotton Engine.

The War of 1812 did not go well for the young nation of the United States of America, though many wondered that it even survived, facing one of the greatest Empires ever known on multiple fronts. However, in reality the American acquitted themselves quite well in battle, and may have fared much better, if not for the Lion of the South, Old Hickory himself, Andrew Jackson.

Andrew_jackson_head.gif
Jackson had been born in the Carolinas only weeks after his father's death, and was raised by his mother alongside his brother. After the Southern America Act of 1774, his family moved west of the Appalachians to take advantage of the new frontier. Like many others on the frontier, they abstained from participation in the American Rebellion, though it is said that the young Jackson followed news of the fighting most avidly, even then showing his penchant for matters martial.

However, it was during the War of 1812 that he truly rose to prominence. Leading Southern militia and allied Indians they ravaged up and down the Mississippi and her western branches, towards the end of the war even threatening St. Louis.

Thus, while the Americans had held their borders in the North and South, in the West the newly acquired lands of Southern Louisiana were taken from them. Of course, with New Orleans well and truly lost, the other losses were of less value. In the event, the peace lost the United States all land South of 36-30.

1820 CSA.PNG
 
Last edited:

Glen

Moderator
The War of 1812 did not go well for the young nation of the United States of America, though many wondered that it even survived, facing one of the greatest Empires ever known on multiple fronts. However, in reality the American acquitted themselves quite well in battle, and may have fared much better, if not for the Lion of the South, Old Hickory himself, Andrew Jackson.

Jackson had been born in the Carolinas only weeks after his father's death, and was raised by his mother alongside his brother. After the Southern America Act of 1774, his family moved west of the Appalachians to take advantage of the new frontier. Like many others on the frontier, they abstained from participation in the American Rebellion, though it is said that the young Jackson followed news of the fighting most avidly, even then showing his penchant for matters martial.

However, it was during the War of 1812 that he truly rose to prominence. Leading Southern militia and allied Indians they ravaged up and down the Mississippi and her western branches, towards the end of the war even threatening St. Louis.

Thus, while the Americans had held their borders in the North and South, in the West the newly acquired lands of Southern Louisiana were taken from them. Of course, with New Orleans well and truly lost, the other losses were of less value. In the event, the peace lost the United States all land South of 36-30.

However, the British had little time to enjoy their successes....

The 1830s saw rebellions break in all of the neighbors of the United States of America. In the British Colonies, the spark was the Slavery Abolition Act of 1834. While the British had been moving incrementally towards restrictions of slavery for decades, the act was still jarring for the Southern Colonies of British North America. The linchpin of their whole economy was based on slavery in the form of the cotton trade. While the colonies had pled with Parliament to exempt them from the act and preserve their 'peculiar institution', they failed. Thus did rebellion spark anew in North America.

The heart of the rebellion was South Carolina, the only province of the Southern Colonies that had been forced to remain in the British Empire. However, the cry for revolution spread far and wide, and soon all the Southern Colonies were in armed revolt.

While slavery was a non-issue in Upper and Lower Canada, there were many grievances against the mishandling of colonial rule by the British government, and with the South rising, a militant minority was inspired to take up arms as well, first in Lower Canada but quickly spreading to Upper Canada.

Coincidentally, only a year later in 1835, a series of rebellions broke out in the United States of Mexico, especially in Texas. Texas had a disproportionate amount of English speaking settlers from the United States and the British Southern Colonies, and when several other states of Mexico rose up in protest to the Federalization of Mexico being forced from the government in Mexico City, they too joined the fray.
 

Glen

Moderator
However, the British had little time to enjoy their successes....

The 1830s saw rebellions break in all of the neighbors of the United States of America. In the British Colonies, the spark was the Slavery Abolition Act of 1834. While the British had been moving incrementally towards restrictions of slavery for decades, the act was still jarring for the Southern Colonies of British North America. The linchpin of their whole economy was based on slavery in the form of the cotton trade. While the colonies had pled with Parliament to exempt them from the act and preserve their 'peculiar institution', they failed. Thus did rebellion spark anew in North America.

The heart of the rebellion was South Carolina, the only province of the Southern Colonies that had been forced to remain in the British Empire. However, the cry for revolution spread far and wide, and soon all the Southern Colonies were in armed revolt.

While slavery was a non-issue in Upper and Lower Canada, there were many grievances against the mishandling of colonial rule by the British government, and with the South rising, a militant minority was inspired to take up arms as well, first in Lower Canada but quickly spreading to Upper Canada.

Coincidentally, only a year later in 1835, a series of rebellions broke out in the United States of Mexico, especially in Texas. Texas had a disproportionate amount of English speaking settlers from the United States and the British Southern Colonies, and when several other states of Mexico rose up in protest to the Federalization of Mexico being forced from the government in Mexico City, they too joined the fray.

The decline of the British presence in North America has been attributed to several factors, including the vehemence of Southern opposition to the abolition in the Empire, the entry of the United States into the conflict, and lastly the abominable timing of the Workingman Crisis in Great Britain (over the lack of inclusion of the working class in expansion of the franchise, which soon became intertwined with the anti-war movement against the fight in North America). Had any one of these elements been missing, it is far more likely that at least Canada, and possible all of North America would have remained under British sovereignty. However, as it was, the British Empire was fortunate to hold on to the Maritimes, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Rupert's Land. By the end of the conflict, it was no longer palatable to either side to continue the policy of joint administration, and the 49th parallel was continued past the Continental Divide to the Pacific. The border of Maine was also settled at this time in favor of the United States. It is believed that the USA also hoped to regain some of their lost territory in Southern Louisiana, but this was not to be.

Lower Canada gained full independence as the Republic of Quebec.

Upper Canada, whose rebellion largely succeeded due to American intervention, was unsurprisingly annexed to the United States of America after a short lived existence as the Republic of Canada (and whose name is still preserved in the US state of Canada).

The British Colonies of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, West Florida, East Florida, Lousiana, and Bahamas, along with the Arkansas Territory, joined together to form the Confederation of Southern America.

In Mexico, the Texians won a decisive victory against the forces of the Central Government and were granted their independence, in no small part due to assistance from the USA and the CSA. Immediately a debate began as to whether to remain independent, join the United States of America, or the newborn Confederation of Southern America. The first group was a minority, however, and the balance of the argument was between the Independence and CSA parties, with those favoring the Confederation of Southern America eventually throwing their support behind independence in return for support of legalizing slavery.

And thus was the Republic of Texas formed.
 

Glen

Moderator
The decline of the British presence in North America has been attributed to several factors, including the vehemence of Southern opposition to the abolition in the Empire, the entry of the United States into the conflict, and lastly the abominable timing of the Workingman Crisis in Great Britain (over the lack of inclusion of the working class in expansion of the franchise, which soon became intertwined with the anti-war movement against the fight in North America). Had any one of these elements been missing, it is far more likely that at least Canada, and possible all of North America would have remained under British sovereignty. However, as it was, the British Empire was fortunate to hold on to the Maritimes, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Rupert's Land. By the end of the conflict, it was no longer palatable to either side to continue the policy of joint administration, and the 49th parallel was continued past the Continental Divide to the Pacific. The border of Maine was also settled at this time in favor of the United States. It is believed that the USA also hoped to regain some of their lost territory in Southern Louisiana, but this was not to be.

Lower Canada gained full independence as the Republic of Quebec.

Upper Canada, whose rebellion largely succeeded due to American intervention, was unsurprisingly annexed to the United States of America after a short lived existence as the Republic of Canada (and whose name is still preserved in the US state of Canada).

The British Colonies of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, West Florida, East Florida, Lousiana, and Bahamas, along with the Arkansas Territory, joined together to form the Confederation of Southern America.

In Mexico, the Texians won a decisive victory against the forces of the Central Government and were granted their independence, in no small part due to assistance from the USA and the CSA. Immediately a debate began as to whether to remain independent, join the United States of America, or the newborn Confederation of Southern America. The first group was a minority, however, and the balance of the argument was between the Independence and CSA parties, with those favoring the Confederation of Southern America eventually throwing their support behind independence in return for support of legalizing slavery.

And thus was the Republic of Texas formed.

The Texan War of Independence left the newly formed republic in deep debt. Only a year after forming, the Texan Government sold all lands North of 36-30 to the United States of America and everything East of the Sabine to the Confederation of Southern America. However, it was clear that these sales would not be enough to keep the nation afloat, especially with Mexico still restive.

Meanwhile, in the new Confederation of Southern America, the commander of the victorious Southern Forces, General Andrew Jackson, was elected first president of the CSA. It would be in his second term as president that the Texas issue would come to resolution.

Andrew_Jackson.jpg
 

Glen

Moderator
Everyone, I have moved the discussion about the probability of an analogue to the War of 1812 in this family of timelines to the Southern America Act of 1812, where it is more apropos. The timeline here will continue under the assumption that there will be an 1812 analogue, though we might have to provide some more alternate history to explain that.
 

Glen

Moderator
The Texan War of Independence left the newly formed republic in deep debt. Only a year after forming, the Texan Government sold all lands North of 36-30 to the United States of America and everything East of the Sabine to the Confederation of Southern America. However, it was clear that these sales would not be enough to keep the nation afloat, especially with Mexico still restive.

Meanwhile, in the new Confederation of Southern America, the commander of the victorious Southern Forces, General Andrew Jackson, was elected first president of the CSA. It would be in his second term as president that the Texas issue would come to resolution.

Andrew_Jackson.jpg

The Republic of Texas faced crippling debts at the end of their War of Independence. While sales of territory north of 36-30 to the USA and of the Sabine strip to the equally newborn CSA helped, they were not nearly enough. Within a few years of independence, the forces of Southern Annexation gained ascendency in 1840 in the Texas Legislature, and the Jackson Administration was more than willing to oblige.

The Annexation of Texas led almost inexorably to the War of the Rio Grande, pitting the United States of Mexico against the Confederation of Southern America. Many military historians the world over use the Southron campaign as an example of brilliant military tactics and strategy in the 19th century, culminating in the conquest of Mexico City. The defeated forces of the Mexican government were forced to cede to the Confederation the land north of the Rio Grande and thence north of the 31st parallel running west to the 112th meridian and then following a line Northwest to where the paralllel 32-30 crosses the Colorado River, and thence due west along 32-30 to the Pacific. This gave Texas it's desired border at the Rio Grande, the Confederation of Southern America a Western corridor to the Pacific, and Mexico retention of most of its populated regions as well as a land corridor to Baja California, which it sought to keep out of Southron hands for fear of having the CSA along not only it's northern border but also western border, which might tempt the CSA towards further expansion south some day, or so the reasoning in Mexico City went.

Contemporaneously with the War of the Rio Grande, American expatriots in Northern Alta California rose up to declare their independence as the short lived Republic of California. The pro-American rebels in this region immediately sought their annexation by the USA, even writing it into their constitution.

Reaction to the Texan Annexation, War of the Rio Grande, and the Californian Republic was definitely mixed and threatened to lead to war between the USA and the CSA at one point.

While some Americans still longed to see the return of the Louisiana Purchase below 36-30, most Americans realized this was a forlorn hope, and Midwesterners were much more concerned with preservation of the Mississippi as an international waterway with Right of Deposit continuing in New Orleans, as had been ensconsed in the treaty ending the War of 1812 and reconfirmed by the CSA as part of the deal for recognition and aid by the USA during their successful revolution against Britain. The annexation of Texas, a fellow slave-owning republic with numerous Southron expatriots, was seen as a natural outcome and most Americans, if not thrilled with Southern expansion, accepted it after the Republic of Texas had sold their territory north of 36-30 to the United States. However, the treaty with Mexico ceding not only Texan claims but also Alta California en toto to the CSA was alarming to many Americans, to whom any extension of slavery north of 36-30 seemed unnatural. Thus many Americans were thankful and even enthusiastic when American expatriots declared the Republic of California and supported its annexation to the USA.

However, the CSA did not see why they should accept the closing of their Pacific corridor, ceded by treaty and won by Southron blood, to their neighbor to the north simply because of a few frontiersmen in the Sacramento River region and a few US warships in the Bay (an oversimplificated view of the CSA public as US troops had been on higher alert all along the border with the CSA and Mexico since the start of the War of the Rio Grande). While fire-eaters on both sides called for no compromise on California, cooler heads prevailed. On the Southron side it was recognized that the larger, more industrialized USA would be a more formidable opponent then it had been in 1812 and then Mexico had been in 1841, and that yet another war, this one likely more protracted, would be potentially ruinous to the CSA's finances. On the American side, the speed and ease with which the Confederation had brought Mexico to its knees was intimidating, and the potential closure of the Mississippi to Midwesterners untenable, even for the gamble of gaining all of California and maybe even the Louisiana region (the prospect of which also posed its own set of problems with how entrenched slavery had become there over the past generation).

So it was that cooler heads prevailed and the CSA and USA agreed to divide Alta California by extension of their natural border of 36-30. This allowed the Confederation the Pacific port at San Diego, and the United States the San Francisco Bay and points north, where the sentiment for American annexation were strongest. With this accord the final border between the CSA and USA emerged.
 

Glen

Moderator
The Republic of Texas faced crippling debts at the end of their War of Independence. While sales of territory north of 36-30 to the USA and of the Sabine strip to the equally newborn CSA helped, they were not nearly enough. Within a few years of independence, the forces of Southern Annexation gained ascendancy in 1840 in the Texas Legislature, and the Jackson Administration was more than willing to oblige.

The Annexation of Texas led almost inexorably to the War of the Rio Grande, pitting the United States of Mexico against the Confederation of Southern America. Many military historians the world over use the Southron campaign as an example of brilliant military tactics and strategy in the 19th century, culminating in the conquest of Mexico City. The defeated forces of the Mexican government were forced to cede to the Confederation the land north of the Rio Grande and thence north of the 31st parallel running west to the 112th meridian and then following a line Northwest to where the parallel 32-30 crosses the Colorado River, and thence due west along 32-30 to the Pacific. This gave Texas it's desired border at the Rio Grande, the Confederation of Southern America a Western corridor to the Pacific, and Mexico retention of most of its populated regions as well as a land corridor to Baja California, which it sought to keep out of Southron hands for fear of having the CSA along not only it's northern border but also western border, which might tempt the CSA towards further expansion south some day, or so the reasoning in Mexico City went.

Contemporaneously with the War of the Rio Grande, American expatriates in Northern Alta California rose up to declare their independence as the short lived Republic of California. The pro-American rebels in this region immediately sought their annexation by the USA, even writing it into their constitution.

Reaction to the Texan Annexation, War of the Rio Grande, and the Californian Republic was definitely mixed and threatened to lead to war between the USA and the CSA at one point.

While some Americans still longed to see the return of the Louisiana Purchase below 36-30, most Americans realized this was a forlorn hope, and Midwesterners were much more concerned with preservation of the Mississippi as an international waterway with Right of Deposit continuing in New Orleans, as had been ensconced in the treaty ending the War of 1812 and reconfirmed by the CSA as part of the deal for recognition and aid by the USA during their successful revolution against Britain. The annexation of Texas, a fellow slave-owning republic with numerous Southron expatriates, was seen as a natural outcome and most Americans, if not thrilled with Southern expansion, accepted it after the Republic of Texas had sold their territory north of 36-30 to the United States. However, the treaty with Mexico ceding not only Texan claims but also Alta California en toto to the CSA was alarming to many Americans, to whom any extension of slavery north of 36-30 seemed unnatural. Thus many Americans were thankful and even enthusiastic when American expatriots declared the Republic of California and supported its annexation to the USA.

However, the CSA did not see why they should accept the closing of their Pacific corridor, ceded by treaty and won by Southron blood, to their neighbor to the north simply because of a few frontiersmen in the Sacramento River region and a few US warships in the Bay (an oversimplificated view of the CSA public as US troops had been on higher alert all along the border with the CSA and Mexico since the start of the War of the Rio Grande). While fire-eaters on both sides called for no compromise on California, cooler heads prevailed. On the Southron side it was recognized that the larger, more industrialized USA would be a more formidable opponent then it had been in 1812 and then Mexico had been in 1841, and that yet another war, this one likely more protracted, would be potentially ruinous to the CSA's finances. On the American side, the speed and ease with which the Confederation had brought Mexico to its knees was intimidating, and the potential closure of the Mississippi to Midwesterners untenable, even for the gamble of gaining all of California and maybe even the Louisiana region (the prospect of which also posed its own set of problems with how entrenched slavery had become there over the past generation).

So it was that cooler heads prevailed and the CSA and USA agreed to divide Alta California by extension of their natural border of 36-30. This allowed the Confederation the Pacific port at San Diego, and the United States the San Francisco Bay and points north, where the sentiment for American annexation were strongest. With this accord the final border between the CSA and USA emerged.

A map of North America by 1861. Note that the borders of states and territories are tentative only and probably will change some. International borders should be accurate, however.

CSA 1861.PNG
 

Glen

Moderator
An early flag of the Confederation of Southern America, heavily inspired by the flag of the United States of America. Note the six six-pointed stars and six stripes symbolizing the original six colonies of the Confederation.

es~viver.gif
 
I thought you said the U.S./Canadian border was on the 49th parallel ITTL. That looks like the OTL 48th parallel.

As an aside, not only is *Canada* stillborn now, I don't see any way the British will ever really settle the Prairies. My guess is everything west of Ontario will eventually be sold to the U.S.
 
Last edited:
I think it'd be cool to see an independent, wanked British Columbia. :D

I honestly think without Canada, British Colombia will become American one way or another. IOTL, it was sparsely inhabited until the gold rush of 1858, when people flooded in, including 20,000 Americans, coming up from San Francisco. By the time the gold rush ran its course in the 1860s, the colony was massively in debt, which was the primary reason behind it moving towards union with Canada.

ITTL, there will be no Canada, and more importantly, no British railway crossing the continent (meaning no way to get British settlers to the west easily). Also, there will be no Fenians invading Southern Ontario, given it's part of the U.S. now. Britain could conceivably hold the island of Vancouver, but I think they'll be swamped by Americans (and thus pro-American sentiment) everywhere else.
 

Glen

Moderator
I thought you said the U.S./Canadian border was on the 49th parallel ITTL. That looks like the OTL 48th parallel.

Nope, that's the 49th. But thanks for checking!

As an aside, not only is *Canada* stillborn now, I don't see any way the British will ever really settle the Prairies. My guess is everything west of Ontario will eventually be sold to the U.S.

An interesting thought.
 

Glen

Moderator
I think it'd be cool to see an independent, wanked British Columbia. :D

That does sound cool....but is it doable?

I honestly think without Canada, British Colombia will become American one way or another. IOTL, it was sparsely inhabited until the gold rush of 1858, when people flooded in, including 20,000 Americans, coming up from San Francisco. By the time the gold rush ran its course in the 1860s, the colony was massively in debt, which was the primary reason behind it moving towards union with Canada.

Interesting points. Why was a province so recently flush with gold left massively in debt?:confused:

ITTL, there will be no Canada, and more importantly, no British railway crossing the continent (meaning no way to get British settlers to the west easily).

What about by ship?

Also, there will be no Fenians invading Southern Ontario, given it's part of the U.S. now.

Ah, but there's still Manitoba....

Britain could conceivably hold the island of Vancouver, but I think they'll be swamped by Americans (and thus pro-American sentiment) everywhere else.

Certainly one possibility.
 

Glen

Moderator
An early flag of the Confederation of Southern America, heavily inspired by the flag of the United States of America. Note the six six-pointed stars and six stripes symbolizing the original six colonies of the Confederation.

Another early flag of the Confederation. Many Southrons wanted to keep some echo of the Union Jack in their new national flag.

gb.gif
 
Last edited:
Interesting points. Why was a province so recently flush with gold left massively in debt?:confused:

Essentially, the colony (meaning the mainland at that time) was poorly managed, the choices made in terms of infrastructure and development were unsustainable (built on the assumptions the good times would always last). So once the gold rush ended, New Caledonia had debt it couldn't pay off. Merging it with Vancouver Island didn't even solve the issue.

What about by ship?

It's possible, but remember this is before the Panama Canal. Starting in 1855, there was a Panama railroad, which ran for 48 miles to transport passengers seeking a quick path to the West coast. However, given Americans (and Southrons - do they have a nationality name yet?) are starting closer to Panama than Britons, they'll likely make up the majority of the traffic to the Pacific from this route. In OTL the US finished the Transcontinental Railroad by 1869, but without the Civil War (it started in 1863) I'd expect it will be completed several years earlier.

Still, in OTL, the Prairies (minus the Red River area) weren't settled until 1896. Most immigrants were undoubtedly coming the "long way" to the Pacific, at least until 1885 when the OTL Canadian transcontinental rail was established. Which means I'm not convinced BC will be annexed when it goes broke around 1870, but as time passes, it will steadily be more overdeveloped and/or swamped with Americans.

Ah, but there's still Manitoba....

Yes. Manitoba will be interesting. At this time the population is still Francophone Metis. In OTL, the migration of Anglophones from Ontario lead to the Red River Rebellion under Louis Riel. ITTL, either American settlers will come (and Britain surely can't hold the area), or the Metis will be more or less left to themselves.

Oh, and my bad, I see the 49th is the historical parallel. I dunno why I got that wrong =/
 

Glen

Moderator
Essentially, the colony (meaning the mainland at that time) was poorly managed, the choices made in terms of infrastructure and development were unsustainable (built on the assumptions the good times would always last). So once the gold rush ended, New Caledonia had debt it couldn't pay off. Merging it with Vancouver Island didn't even solve the issue.

While we are keeping butterflies to a minimum, almost 100 years after the POD we might expect mediocre rather than poor management. Given the loss of so much in the East, the British also might show a bit more interest in preserving their possessions in the West.

It's possible, but remember this is before the Panama Canal. Starting in 1855, there was a Panama railroad, which ran for 48 miles to transport passengers seeking a quick path to the West coast.

True. On the other hand, given the Brits are going to know that their land route became more untenable, they might put some more effort into developing an isthmus route.

However, given Americans (and Southrons - do they have a nationality name yet?)

I've been going with the Southrons for the CSA nationality...I'm thinking also that Americans may go by the nickname of Yankees and Southrons have Gringo (bestowed on them by the Mexicans during the war).

are starting closer to Panama than Britons, they'll likely make up the majority of the traffic to the Pacific from this route.

I don't think that matters that much for settlement.

In OTL the US finished the Transcontinental Railroad by 1869, but without the Civil War (it started in 1863) I'd expect it will be completed several years earlier.

Probably. Ditto in the South.

Still, in OTL, the Prairies (minus the Red River area) weren't settled until 1896. Most immigrants were undoubtedly coming the "long way" to the Pacific, at least until 1885 when the OTL Canadian transcontinental rail was established. Which means I'm not convinced BC will be annexed when it goes broke around 1870, but as time passes, it will steadily be more overdeveloped and/or swamped with Americans.

Maybe, but quite frankly I would have expected that to happen OTL but it didn't. Here, I think the British are more keen to hold on to their last outposts in the New World.

Yes. Manitoba will be interesting. At this time the population is still Francophone Metis. In OTL, the migration of Anglophones from Ontario lead to the Red River Rebellion under Louis Riel. ITTL, either American settlers will come (and Britain surely can't hold the area), or the Metis will be more or less left to themselves.

And remember too there is a Francophone nation that might be sympathetic to them (Republic of Quebec).

Oh, and my bad, I see the 49th is the historical parallel. I dunno why I got that wrong =/

Happens. Thanks for the comments.
 
While we are keeping butterflies to a minimum, almost 100 years after the POD we might expect mediocre rather than poor management. Given the loss of so much in the East, the British also might show a bit more interest in preserving their possessions in the West.

That is a very interesting point. Given the events of this timeline, it seems like the preponderance of the empire lies along the pacific and Indian oceans. Western Canada would fit into the South Africa, India, Australia axis.
 
Top