Dominion of Southern America - Updated July 1, 2018

Glen

Moderator
{cut}

Well more in-topic: Obviously the USA gonna want the Pacific basin with the northern California area (the Red bluff and Eureka one if IIRC)

That was about the southernmost extent of US possessions after 1806 when Jefferson bought everything north of the 40th parallel from the Spanish....the purchase of the Texans' claim to all land north of 36-30 of course puts the San Francisco Bay potentially into American hands....

and the rest will be British but again... that depends on the decision of the British because if the (North)-Americans go alone for Mexico... maybe they will face the British against them (they will avoid tham their Dominion being surrounded by expansionist north-Americans...(that is post napoleon-early Victorian era, the British have supremacy for a lot of time)

Yes, that is rather complicated, how the British play off the Americans, the Mexicans (and its break-away, Texas), etc. There are a lot of ways to British could jump - time will tell which they do....

hey and how the manumission(or a equivalent to a gradual abolition of the slavery will take form), that gonna be a worm of can for the dominion...

Att
Nivek von beldo

You said a mouthful....:D
 

Glen

Moderator
{cut}
Frankly, I indeed find myself an isolated USA-Mexico war quite implausible, ITTL. At the most, I was expecting an opportunist US intervention in a Texan/BSA-Mexican War to snatch an extra bit of California.

Agree with the first, the second depends on the specifics of the situation.

Assuming that it may even happen peacefully, yeah. I am still seeing a secession attempt by BSA when London goes abolitionist as quite likely. Not certain, but likely.

Peacefully would be....nice....but I fear that slavery in British Southern America may have grown too large and the plantation owners too powerful to just go quietly....assuming the British have the moral fortitude to stand up to their lucrative colonials....
 

Glen

Moderator
I really like this TL, Glen. I've never seen anything quite like it, so IMO it scores big time on originality. I'm very interesting in seeing where this goes. :)

Thank you so much!

which is a rather nonsensical claim considering Canada has done quite well under British rule, being the one of the most developed nations in the world (and for a long time being the most developed), outranking both the United States and Italy on the so-called "Human Development Index". :rolleyes:

More developed may be too vague. We've been discussing whether it might be earlier/more (or even less!) populous, earlier/more industrialized (though that's more been hinted at). What I will say is that it will develop somewhat differently.:)
 

Glen

Moderator
but, but..... its such an ugly border! :eek:

I know, I know....there are many fine AHers with an utter aversion for a straight border of such horrendous lengths, yet that continuing, clear-cut, uncompromising line fits well the zeitgeist of this timeline, I feel.

I realize that OTL border with Canada sets a precedent on this but I find it hard to believe that the entire border between USA and BSA/Texas would be so unnatural and reflect so little on the terrain

Actually, looking it over, there aren't that many terrain features that would interfere with such a line; and if we are willing to stretch the point to include the 37th parallel alongside the 36-30 line and look at the borders of US states, we can see that there's almost a straight line across the US there already IOTL! There is one major natural feature that I have toyed with having put a kink in that 36-30 line, at least a little bit. I will leave the reader to guess what that might be. And of course, we also have to see if 36-30 will remain as a multinational border, or just the remnants of it....
 

Glen

Moderator
The farther west you go, and with pioneers from either the north or south intermixing I think terrain will win out over a eastern line in the sand. :eek:

In some ways, in some ways....:rolleyes:

Also whats with all the back and forth? A summary would be nice :D;)

Sorry about that....every once and a while one region gets ahead of itself. I am contemplating posting a condensed, organized version in Timelines and Scenarios now that we have reached enough material and interest to meet their relevance criteria, but would like to get just a little bit further from the POD before doing so....so please be patient with me!:)

Originally Posted by Eurofed
under American rule Canadian states shall get much more developed ... than OTL
Originally Posted by KingByng
which is a rather nonsensical claim considering Canada has done quite well under British rule, being the one of the most developed nations in the world (and for a long time being the most developed), outranking both the United States and Italy on the so-called "Human Development Index". :rolleyes:
(cant get this quoted right so forgive me)

So your saying TTL's USA will be more developed on that index like OTL Canada's?:D

Actually, that might not be as flip a statement as you think it is....:eek:
 

Glen

Moderator
Eurofed

The question is, if not brutal dictatorships, what are continental states of the sort you espouse except new forms of national identity?

Also my preference has always been more for smaller states because they tend to be more civilised because they need popular support. Once you start getting populations measured in large numbers its more difficult for the rulers to remember those figures are people with their own needs and desires. If they facing competition from other states, either military or otherwise its more likely to keep them honest. Basically summed up by William NcNeils "The Pursuit of Power: Technology, Armed Force, and Society since A.D. 1000". A very good book

An interesting thought, but I think the problem with that premise of small states being somehow more civilized is that even once you get past a few 10s of thousands, it becomes very easy for a human to lose track. What different in depersonalization between 100,000 or a billion, for example? So anything much beyond a city-state is going to have distance between its leader and its people, unless the leader(s) make a concerted effort to remember them, and that effort isn't thwarted by adding another 10 million here or there....

One other thing with your hostility to Britain. Don't forget, while we provided an example and some aid it was the people's of Europe that decided, repeatedly, that they would not be ruled by some distant tyrant. To paraphrase Pitt the Younger we maintained our liberty by our own efforts and inspired others to do likewise by our example.

Steve

Nice point, nice indeed....
 

Glen

Moderator
What annexation? They have made a deal for Texas's claim to those lands but have they yet moved to occupy them? Since barring a total collapse in Mexico or California having broken away completely already they are still claiming and ruling it. If their pissed-off about Texan claims the one thing that will make them madded with the US is if it seeks to actually move on those claims. Especially since, depending on the status of Mexico and California, without the south and Texas as bases the US could find it more difficult projected power, having only a small base in Oregon. I would expect them to possibly win in the end but it could be a lot more difficult.

The base in Oregon is small by our standards, but by the time of the purchase in 1832 is more developed than anything in Spanish California.

Also think how little it took to claim California IOTL....

Glen made remarks about the situation in California being complex but we will have to wait until we hear from him what's going on before we can judge.

Steve

You've got it!
 

Glen

Moderator
Good point, but just as the USA would be bound to respect the division made in the recent treaty as you argued beforehand, the same is true for Texas/BSA. As for as these three states are concerned, it is as close as an annexation as it could be for unsettled 19th century North American territory.

Point.

Mexico certainly doesn't acknowledge the partition, sure, but it is just an issue that needs to be on the battlefield in the next future if (when) overconfident Mexico presses his luck too hard. This would of course default to the Mexican gangpile, as Texas would fight to support their claims, quite likely supported by BSA colonial militias at least, since the Dixies would try to support what they regard as their proxy and would-be annexation (more so if the USA is involved, they would try to balance US getting close to Texas)

Well, it all depends on if/why Mexico would be overconfident? Having said that, more likely it would be individual volunteers from both the BSA and the USA rushing to the Texan banner as they did in the Texan Revolution. That is much more likely than any official government assistance from the US or Britain (though unofficial support may be forthcoming).

and some support from Mother Britain is not unreasonable, if not direct military intervention at least money and weapons for the colonials.

See above. But yeah.

And of course the USA would fight to support their own claims. This would turn out to be a case of otherwise rivals making an uneasy alliance against a common enemy (e.g. 1st Balkan War or Poland 1939). This would lessen the force projection problems for USA (and BSA) since they can move troops through the territory of their allies.

Well yes, your reasoning is sound, even if your historical examples are unflattering....:p

This would be a war that Mexico can't win, unless some European power steps in to support Mexico as a proxy. Likely France, although in this day and age they were much less eager to make foolhardy imperialistic adventures than under Nappy III). And this could of course run a risk of escalating to an Anglo-French colonial war.

It is even more unlikely at this time in this timeline to see another European power interfering in North America.
 

Glen

Moderator
Re: California.
The 1825 population of Europeans* in San Francisco was > 200, A couple of Frigates and a couple of Cargo ships with Soldiers and Supplies would more than double the European presence.

As Mexico doesn't have a Navy, any attempt to reclaim SF would require the Mexicans to March over 1000 miles North.

And that is a very important point. People should remember that the US did have a navy and ITTL its a bigger one than at the same point in time.


?What is Britains position on the Texican's claim to California, and the Sale to the US?

Britain officially is remaining neutral in the mess that is Mexico, so isn't officially recognizing Texan claims up to 1830, especially with the rather pugnacious and anti-British Jackson in control. However, President Brown's Texas gains a lot of popular support not just in British Southern America but in the UK as well, and thus so too is Texas' claim to California. The sale to the US is nowhere near current British areas of interest so is a topic of sublime indifference to the crown.

1825 San Deigo has >2000 Europeans, 45% Female [Nuns?], and a lot of the Males, are Priests and Monks.

Thanks for that. As it turns out, that number is even less ITTL....

Several Hundred Texicans [by Ship] backed by one of HM Warships can get you control of San Diego.
Maybe even without the warship....

Most of the Other Missions across the state had between 1 ~ 500 Europeans, with the average being 200. The entire European Population was just around 20,000.

Here they are even less because of the troubles in the South.

* I use European to distinguish from the Native Aboriginals.

Noted. Criolle would also probably work.;)
 

Glen

Moderator
That is bull. Canada under British rule was a backwater undemocractic place valorising the Anglo-Saxon race and persecuting francophones and Amerindiens. It was only in the 20th century and closer ties with the USA with its hegemonic economic power that Canada really took off. Canada also benefits from a low population inhabiting a vast land of natural resources. Expect the HDI for Canada to go down in the decades ahead as the population of Canada increases. In fact, it already has.

Sure. It was great for the Anglo-Saxon people but not so great for the indigenous people, especially in the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand in which the native populations have been either wiped out or completely subsumed by British stock.
{cut and paste}
Canada did and does not have a substantial Amerindien population, compared to the USA and other European settlements populations. The Amerindian population in the USA was larger than that in Canada, but both suffered persecution and complete control by the whites along with Australia and New Zealand who also did not have a substantial indigenous population like Canada.

Not according to Papineau, the leader of the Rebellion of 1837.

What an hypocritical statement. The British Empire certainly did not spread liberty. It subjugated people towards a distant tyrant living in Buckingham Palace.

There is a sad history of Anglophone nations being less than sterling in their history on racism. It is cold comfort to note that they weren't alone in this.

The native peoples of the New World definitely suffered from the clash of civilizations as the Europeans spread throughout the Western Hemisphere. Sadly, TTL can't prevent that, though it might be ameliorated in some ways.

Having said all that, post 1774 we can't hardly say that the British were persecuting the Francophones in Canada, at least no more so than the Anglophones in the same area as they both rose up in the same time basically.

Europe would certainly have been better off if Napoleon I did achieve in his dream for a united confederal European state instead of squabbling states. Europe would definitely have been spared all the devastating wars that came after the French Revolution and Napoleonic period. After WW2, Europe had been weakened too much and finally came together in the federal union now called the European Union. For the good.
{cut and paste}
This is all relative. He was a much better despot than his European contemporaries including Britain. Napoleon is often frequently regarded as an "enlightened despot".

Well, given a POD a century before the devastating wars of the 20th century, it is hard to say anything with certainty. Napoleon was a 'Great Man' of history, with a great ambition. He was a man of great virtues and great flaws, which is why some still honor him today and others still vilify him. BTW, since he moved to rescind the abolition of slavery in the French Empire that had occurred under the Republic, he is a good example that not only the British had flaws....

What francophone warring are you referring to? Napoleon? He only reacted to others warring against him.

Hardly, though he had no lack of those as well. Let us say rather that Napoleon was in a great struggle with the European establishment, and that each one in its turn struck when it saw an opportunity. Whether that is good or bad who can really say?

Nepotism was widespread at the time and continues to exist today. It is human nature that is unfortunately hard to stamp out. That said, Napoleonic France was certainly far less inclined to practice nepotism than his contemporaries elsewhere in Europe including Britain which was a rigidly class-stratified society.
{cut and paste}

Bull. Using the armies as an example, the French army was more egalitarian than the British or other European armies. Alessandro Barbero, in his book, the Battle a New History of Waterloo, marvels at how egalitarian the and meritocratic the Napoleonic French army was which upheld ideals of the French Revolution. According to him, about 3/4 of the officers that served Napoleon had come up through the ranks. Not so for the British in that only 5-10% of the officers had come up through the ranks; the rest were from the aristocratic class. The other European armies had better meritocratic rates than the British.

So yes, Napoleonic France practiced less nepotism than the other European nations including Britiain.

Maybe on some levels, and your example of the differences in the militaries is a good one, but it is hard to say that Napoleon didn't foster nepotism when he but his brothers on the thrones of the Netherlands and Spain and is brother-in-law on that of Naples....

His "despotic" system was more enlightened than others. The average French citizen had a better education and, as I demonstrated with the army example, could aspire to go up the ladder. This is not true for the other European nations, including Britain. If Napoleon's system was despotic, the others at the time were MORE despotic.

How are we defining despot here?:confused:

Well, you should be happy to know that in this timeline the restored Bourbon King of France idolized Napoleon....:D
 

Glen

Moderator
Okay, there is a lot of other interesting discussion that I just don't have the time/energy to comment on when its relevance to this timeline is tangential at best. I do thank you all for continuing to read this thread and post to it, which helped keep it in the public eye while my access online was limited this weekend (celebrating my anniversary).

However, at this point in time I am going to request that we try to get back to commenting on the specifics of this timeline, and while real world references are appropriate, please try to apply them to analysis of the timeline.

Thank you once again for your interest and energy one and all.:)
 

Glen

Moderator
The series of wars that make up the Mexican Wars of Re-Unification were a terrible period in early Mexican history. What had started out as a seemingly successful formation of a new federal republic in 1815 eventually shattered under political, regional, and racial pressures in 1825. Many of the states of Mexico vacillated between declaring their independence and declaring loyalty to the various factions that claimed legitimacy as the rulers of all Mexico, with the majority of states surrounding Mexico City being pulled into various schemes to restore the Mexican state, whereas the states in the north and the south were more likely to declare outright independence. The most notable of these independent states was, of course, Texas, but there were also declarations in the states lining the Rio Grande, in the Yucatan and Guatemala, as well as the states further south. Factionalism tended to break down into four basic camps along two axes, liberal versus conservative and federal versus centralist. The independent states tended to have federalist antecedents and sympathies, but fractured along liberal and conservative lines.

The regime that gained control of Mexico City during the Texan Declaration of Independence sent forces to battle them, but these were quickly dispatched by Jackson's forces, and the Mexicans were forced to concede Texan independence in 1827. That regime fell but it would be two years before another made a strong bid to claim control of Mexico.

In the meantime, the states south of the Yucatan had one attempt at uniting into a federated nation based loosely on the previous Captaincy General of Guatemala in 1828, but the Constitutional convention fell apart due to arguments between conservatives and liberals.

Yucatan considered itself a republic, with a liberal constitution and federalist leanings, but had its own problems as they not only had to worry about centralist aspirations from the north but native uprisings of Maya as well. There were some attempts to interest the British in establishing a protectorate, but the new Centralist government in Mexico City in 1829 was able to get the British to stay technically neutral, though British Southerners did a brisk business selling weapons and other supplies to the Yucatan government.

With the help of these weapons and a spark of military genius, a young general rose to prominence in the Yucatan after distinguishing himself in the suppression of the Maya insurgency. Jorge Quintana was the grandson of José Matías Quintana, an early patriot in Mexico's bid for revolution. General Quintana was named for the American founding father George Washington, and it is said that Washington was an inspiration for the young Quintana. Not only was Jorge Quintana able to decisively defeat the Maya in battle, but he was able to broker a peace with them after that brought the Mayans to his banner. In 1830 he was selected President of the Yucatan Republic, in defiance of the latest Mexico City regime's demands for loyalty. Quintana was able to put a coalition together in 1832 comprising most of the neighboring states with the notable exception of El Salvador, that was a bastion of conservatism, though they also rejected centralism.

General Statue.jpg
 
Last edited:

Glen

Moderator
The series of wars that make up the Mexican Wars of Re-Unification were a terrible period in early Mexican history. What had started out as a seemingly successful formation of a new federal republic in 1815 eventually shattered under political, regional, and racial pressures in 1825. Many of the states of Mexico vacillated between declaring their independence and declaring loyalty to the various factions that claimed legitimacy as the rulers of all Mexico, with the majority of states surrounding Mexico City being pulled into various schemes to restore the Mexican state, whereas the states in the north and the south were more likely to declare outright independence. The most notable of these independent states was, of course, Texas, but there were also declarations in the states lining the Rio Grande, in the Yucatan and Guatemala, as well as the states further south. Factionalism tended to break down into four basic camps along two axes, liberal versus conservative and federal versus centralist. The independent states tended to have federalist antecedents and sympathies, but fractured along liberal and conservative lines.

The regime that gained control of Mexico City during the Texan Declaration of Independence sent forces to battle them, but these were quickly dispatched by Jackson's forces, and the Mexicans were forced to concede Texan independence in 1827. That regime fell but it would be two years before another made a strong bid to claim control of Mexico.

In the meantime, the states south of the Yucatan had one attempt at uniting into a federated nation based loosely on the previous Captaincy General of Guatemala in 1828, but the Constitutional convention fell apart due to arguments between conservatives and liberals.

Yucatan considered itself a republic, with a liberal constitution and federalist leanings, but had its own problems as they not only had to worry about centralist aspirations from the north but native uprisings of Maya as well. There were some attempts to interest the British in establishing a protectorate, but the new Centralist government in Mexico City in 1829 was able to get the British to stay technically neutral, though British Southerners did a brisk business selling weapons and other supplies to the Yucatan government.

With the help of these weapons and a spark of military genius, a young general rose to prominence in the Yucatan after distinguishing himself in the suppression of the Maya insurgency. Jorge Quintana was the son of José Matías Quintana, an early patriot in Mexico's bid for revolution. General Quintana was named for the American founding father George Washington, and it is said that Washington was an inspiration for the young Quintana. Not only was Jorge Quintana able to decisively defeat the Maya in battle, but he was able to broker a peace with them after that brought the Mayans to his banner. In 1830 he was selected President of the Yucatan Republic, in defiance of the latest Mexico City regime's demands for loyalty. Quintana was able to put a coalition together in 1832 comprising most of the neighboring states with the notable exception of El Salvador, that was a bastion of conservatism, though they also rejected centralism.

Factional fighting broke out in Mexico City once again in 1833 over what to do about the Texans' arrogance in selling disputed territories to the north. The perception of an impotent central government was only made worse when the commander of the Presidio of San Francisco declared for the United States. California was known to be unreliable in its allegiance to Mexico City, but fear of enforcement of annexation by Texas had kept them paying at least lip service to Mexico. However, the United States of America was a stable republic which, while not Catholic predominant, had shown it could accommodate Catholics, and was slave free as well, thus the attraction to joining the United States.

Presidio of San Francisco:
Prsf_pres1850.jpg
 

Eurofed

Banned
Interesting. Glen, is there the slighest chance that Texas, BSA, and/or USA, can support the other breakaway Mexican republics in their secession bid from the central government ? A Texan-Rio Grande union surely looks very interesting.
 

Glen

Moderator
Interesting. Glen, is there the slightest chance that Texas, BSA, and/or USA, can support the other breakaway Mexican republics in their secession bid from the central government ? A Texan-Rio Grande union surely looks very interesting.

There is always possibilities. The British are taking a mostly hands off approach formally until they see some sort of equilibrium established, though this is not stopping various Southerners from making a killing (figuratively and literally) off the arms trade with various factions.

While the US has some interest in Mexico, they too just don't know who to support, and given how close the British territories are in the region, they have to tread lightly lest they trigger an Anglo-American war by seeming to threaten British interests in the region.
 
Agree with Steve on both of the above points, except to note it is still an open question whether the British would be willing to adopt this waif if it means taking on the US regionally. All depends what Britain perceives as in Britain's best interests.

Glen

Agree that Britain might not want to clash with the US over the issue. However they might accept an invitation from Texas to absorb that state. Possibly use a dispute over southern California as a bargaining counter with the US over something else.

Think that the US would be unwise to seek to push to take lands it has already implicitly agreed belong to Texas, or to deny them a Pacific coastline simply because it can. Likely to stir up a lot of resentment and until at least ~1870, if comparable to OTL, its going to be very vulnerable to a war with Britain.

Steve
 
Interesting. Glen, is there the slighest chance that Texas, BSA, and/or USA, can support the other breakaway Mexican republics in their secession bid from the central government ? A Texan-Rio Grande union surely looks very interesting.

Eurofed

I was considering whether this might be a possibility or not as well. However, especially with the Texas- Rio Grande combine has Texas made its mind up yet whether its free or slave? That could be a big influence as could how Rio G feeling about possibly being flooded by Anglos [using the OTL version of the world].

Steve
 
Glen

I see what you mean about Mexico being a mess. That could make it very difficult for anything coherent to emerge.

Just had another thought. Especially if their feeling penned in and given that their closer I suspect if there's any William Walker's pushing further on from Texas - which might be considered a version of this - their probably going to be from the BSA. However sounds like there might be a fairly strong government in central America plus I suspect that Britain would probably be more likely to oppose adventurism from one of its citizens because of the impact on trade and relations.

Steve
 
Top