Dominion of Southern America - Updated July 1, 2018

[Glen]

Another good update

Thank you! Glad to have your patronage!!

but I have to wonder how with all the westward expansion from the US and the Texans push, how overextended are they. Its one thing to claim territory but

There is no doubt that the US is somewhat overextended, and the Texans are very overextended. However, the US really has no one to challenge them in the area they are overextended in, and until the dust settles in Mexico, the Texans aren't quite as vulnerable as they should be....

are they able to exercise any kind of control in the region or is it more like securing frontiers for future expansion. I am fairly sure there isn't any large movement of people westward until the California gold rush.

They are securing frontiers for future expansion, other than in the region around the Columbia river and in the Willamette valley where there is a small US presence that can exert some reasonable level of control.

I mean people are heading west but for now most of the midwest is fairly hollow and people are settling there for the most part.

True, but the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain territory will mostly be bypassed in favor of the West Coast as IOTL.

Is the DSA consolidated into one administration or are there several regional governors, and the British divide and conquer to maintain control? Also if the DSA one administration is it just the territory on the mainland or does it include the Caribbean possessions as well?

So far there is no Dominion of Southern America, just British Southern America. Some people use the term Southern America to refer to the mainland and British Caribbean, while others distinguish between the two areas, and some include the Greater Antilles as part of British Southern America and refer to the British West Indies only as the Lesser Antilles (plus or minus Guyana). There's a lot of variation in the use of the term in this time period.

In answer to your original question, administration is divided. Though Guy Carleton recommended a Governor-General be appointed, it came to naught....

 

[Falastur]

And now it looks like a war would be USA/Texas v UK/BSA. I just hope that the British Southern Americans don't get into the habit of filibustering in TTL and leave it to the Americans - I always thought filibustering was a horrifically pigheaded and offensive way of expansion, especially when it is actively supported by states.

Of course, that's just me, and it is of course the product of a different age of thought. There's no doubting that it was popular to Americans at the time. I'll concede that I'll simply have to wait to see what happens in TTL.

 

[stevep]

And now it looks like a war would be USA/Texas v UK/BSA. I just hope that the British Southern Americans don't get into the habit of filibustering in TTL and leave it to the Americans - I always thought filibustering was a horrifically pigheaded and offensive way of expansion, especially when it is actively supported by states.

Of course, that's just me, and it is of course the product of a different age of thought. There's no doubting that it was popular to Americans at the time. I'll concede that I'll simply have to wait to see what happens in TTL.

Falastur

I suspect if there is going to be a war in the next decade it will probably be over a split in Texas that ends up being decided by lead. With both the US and the BSA, dragging Britain in, supporting their people in Texas. [In one way this might be better for Britain if as the price of support it forces some decision on the question of slavery - says he looking vigorously for a silver lining].

Steve

 

[Falastur]

You're quite probably right.

 

[Glen]

And now it looks like a war would be USA/Texas v UK/BSA.

What? Because Andy Jackson's back in the drivers' seat in Texas?

I just hope that the British Southern Americans don't get into the habit of filibustering in TTL

That wasn't really a British thing as far as I know, but then again who knows what those wacky Southern Americans might have changed!

and leave it to the Americans -

What makes you think the Americans of TTL will be filibustering?

I always thought filibustering was a horrifically pigheaded and offensive way of expansion, especially when it is actively supported by states.

Actually, it was very much an individual, cowboy way of doing things. And if you hadn't noticed, there wasn't anything that came of it (unless you count OTL Andy Jackson as a filibuster in uniform).

Of course, that's just me, and it is of course the product of a different age of thought. There's no doubting that it was popular to Americans at the time. I'll concede that I'll simply have to wait to see what happens in TTL.

Very good, sir.

 

[Glen]

Falastur

I suspect if there is going to be a war in the next decade it will probably be over a split in Texas that ends up being decided by lead.

Along what lines do you imagine such a split would be?

With both the US and the BSA, dragging Britain in, supporting their people in Texas.

Yankees versus Southerners? And what makes you think that Britain would allow the BSA to 'wag the dog' as it were?

[In one way this might be better for Britain if as the price of support it forces some decision on the question of slavery - says he looking vigorously for a silver lining].

Steve

By forces a decision I assume you mean Britain calling for some sort of deal to end slavery (eventually) in the BSA? Seems a steep price for Southerners to pay just for a slice of the action in Texas....not to mention how would you keep it from widening into an all-out US/UK war, which would put most of mainland BSA in jeopardy from the Americans....

 

[Glen]

And for those of you keeping track of such things, this thread now has enough replies to show up on the first page of threads when sorted by reply number. Thanks to all you who have commented in this thread and thus helped us achieve this milestone. Keep up the good work!!!

 

[Falastur]

What? Because Andy Jackson's back in the drivers' seat in Texas?

Short answer: Yes. Long answer: Erm... "yeeesssssss".

That wasn't really a British thing as far as I know, but then again who knows what those wacky Southern Americans might have changed!

It wasn't a British thing, certainly, but it was a Southern American (OTL) thing, no?

What makes you think the Americans of TTL will be filibustering?

RL history.

Actually, it was very much an individual, cowboy way of doing things. And if you hadn't noticed, there wasn't anything that came of it (unless you count OTL Andy Jackson as a filibuster in uniform).

Fair enough. I withdraw my comment.

Very good, sir.

I should say the same to you, for engineering this great thread.

 

[Glen]

Short answer: Yes. Long answer: Erm... "yeeesssssss".

Well, let's just say that Texas and London will be on the same side over Andy Jackson's cold, dead body!

It wasn't a British thing, certainly, but it was a Southern American (OTL) thing, no?

RL history.

Fair enough. I withdraw my comment.

While filibustering was a real life phenomenon IOTL USA it need not be in this timeline, and certainly not this early. Consider your comment on hold rather than withdrawn, for the future is always uncertain.

I should say the same to you, for engineering this great thread.

Thank you so much; it really is gratifying to hear that people are enjoying the timeline. Helps keep the will to write going, donchaknow!

 

[stevep]

Along what lines do you imagine such a split would be?

Possibly a deal to join the US, which the Brits won't like, or AJ loses a vote on asking to join BSA and tries something unconstitutional to get his way. A lesser version of a) might be some economic link to the US which isolates Texas from the BSA.

Yankees versus Southerners? And what makes you think that Britain would allow the BSA to 'wag the dog' as it were?

If a bitter fight starts in Texas with volunteers from both BSA and the US start piling in it could be difficult to avoid it. Especially if say the US reacts angrily with threats or actions against the BSA and its economic interests say.

By forces a decision I assume you mean Britain calling for some sort of deal to end slavery (eventually) in the BSA? Seems a steep price for Southerners to pay just for a slice of the action in Texas....not to mention how would you keep it from widening into an all-out US/UK war, which would put most of mainland BSA in jeopardy from the Americans....

If their under attack from the US, or even seeing Texas being annexed by the US, leaving them very isolated and possibly losing economic interests there, them may not have much choice. Also if there is a growing split in the BSA over slavery it may not be too difficult. Especially if it involves a sort of buy-out as I believe occurred historically.

Steve

 

[Glen]

Possibly a deal to join the US, which the Brits won't like,

By Brits, you mean Southerners here? Most of the Southerners wouldn't. The British in London would be far less discommoded.

or AJ loses a vote on asking to join BSA

By which you mean that they successfully vote to join British Southern America, as Jackson would die rather than be under British rule?

and tries something unconstitutional to get his way.

Which in that scenario he certainly would consider....

A lesser version of a) might be some economic link to the US which isolates Texas from the BSA.

Probably not enough to trigger a fight with Britain, but I suppose it could be enough to trigger a fight between Texan factions.

If a bitter fight starts in Texas with volunteers from both BSA and the US start piling in it could be difficult to avoid it. Especially if say the US reacts angrily with threats or actions against the BSA and its economic interests say.

Anything is possible, but I would think that both the US and the British would have to have more on the line to let a civil war in Texas turn into a continental battle....but then again, maybe there would be more....

If their under attack from the US,

Well, an attack by the United States on the BSA would certainly pull in Britain, though the real question is what will that take to cause the US to take such action?

or even seeing Texas being annexed by the US, leaving them very isolated and possibly losing economic interests there, them may not have much choice.

That's probably not enough to move Britain, or even the BSA for that matter given their access to a lot of other markets.

Also if there is a growing split in the BSA over slavery it may not be too difficult. Especially if it involves a sort of buy-out as I believe occurred historically.

Steve

Now that is a real possibility....

 

[Falastur]

Just one thing disconcerts me about this TL - particularly recent developments - and I mainly haven't spoken up before to avoid breaking up the conversations. What troubles me is that historically, the UK was very supportive of Mexico because it represented one vast untapped market opened up to them, which Spain previously had banned outside traders from entering. I can't see how London could view Mexico as anything differently in this TL. However, it does mean that surely the UK wouldn't/shouldn't stand idly by as Mexico is slowly shredded not only by the USA - who OTL would have persuaded them to stay neutral, as a war with the Americans (...again) would be bad for business, but also here with the colonists of Southern America. I would imagine there would be some massive conflicts of interest back in London, and though reaching the Pacific is surely a very important goal for the BSA, if for no other reason than to prevent the USA becoming just as dominant in TTL than OTL, then to me it still doesn't justify war with Mexico in either the short or medium term, which is where Parliament's focus was on in its politicking.

Of course, when I refer to the Southern Americans here, I am assuming that the Texans are largely in the British camp, and while they are not yet (if ever) British subjects, Britain would surely still take a hostile tone to Texas because of the wheelie-dealing with New Mexico and California.

On the other hand, Britain standing up for its best economic interests could screw this TL over right good and proper by backing the British into a situation where the only course of action to their sensibilities (that of supporting anything which gives them preferential treatment in Mexico's markets) also consigns the BSA to forever be an isolated and territorially minor state - that is, it would kind of force the BSA to reject any sort of union with Texas, and by extension would ban the BSA from westward expansion in perpetuity. As I rather see this TL requiring the BSA to expand somewhat (though how far and by which means, nobody knows yet) this does pose some big problems, so I can't exactly fault you (Glen) for deciding not to emphasise this point.

 

[Glen]

In the time between the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 and 1831, the Tories ruled in Great Britain for almost the entirety of that time period, but things were far from conservative on the home front. Reform movements abounded both in the middle and lower classes of the UK. Riots wracked the country intermittently every few years. Parliament was elected by few Anglican landholders in the country, often from small and corrupt boroughs. The Corn Law artificially maintained the price of food. In many ways, the assemblies of the British Southern Provinces were more liberal and the peoples of those western lands more free (other than the slaves, that is) than those of the mother country. Of course, both were considered terribly conservative politically by the United States.

Tory Prime Minister Arthur Wellesley:

The Parliamentary Election of 1831 saw the birth of the 'Reform Revolution' (also known by some as the 'Second Glorious Revolution', though this is seen by most historians as a misnomer). The new Whig government over the next decade was finally able to get the franchise expanded and more proportional regions for Parliament, repeal of the Corn Law, Catholic Emancipation, and eventually Jewish Emancipation.

First Parliament elected under the new reforms:

However, for all the great reforms of the 1830s, perhaps the most profound, and yet the most costly and controversial, was the culmination of the life's work of one man, William Wilberforce. A reformer all his life, even before the 1830s, his greatest crusade had been against the slave trade. While the British had managed to gain international acceptance for suppression of the slave trade on the high seas, the institution continued to thrive in the British Southern America/Caribbean region. A great deal of monied interests in the UK successfully forstalled further restriction of the institution, and even in the wake of the Reform Revolution, it took four more years to finally pass a law abolishing slavery throughout the British Empire.

William Wilberforce:

 

[stevep]

Light blue touch-paper and step [well] back.

Depending on the internal status in the BSA, comparing plantations with other members of the white population this could be explosive or pass over relatively quietly. [The latter is a possibility with a combination of the slavocracy being isolated, compensation which I presume will be forthcoming and depending on what happens to the freed blacks].

Steve

In the time between the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 and 1831, the Tories ruled in Great Britain for almost the entirety of that time period, but things were far from conservative on the home front. Reform movements abounded both in the middle and lower classes of the UK. Riots wracked the country intermittently every few years. Parliament was elected by few Anglican landholders in the country, often from small and corrupt boroughs. The Corn Law artificially maintained the price of food. In many ways, the assemblies of the British Southern Provinces were more liberal and the peoples of those western lands more free (other than the slaves, that is) than those of the mother country. Of course, both were considered terribly conservative politically by the United States.

Tory Prime Minister Arthur Wellesley:

The Parliamentary Election of 1831 saw the birth of the 'Reform Revolution' (also known by some as the 'Second Glorious Revolution', though this is seen by most historians as a misnomer). The new Whig government over the next decade was finally able to get the franchise expanded and more proportional regions for Parliament, repeal of the Corn Law, Catholic Emancipation, and eventually Jewish Emancipation.

First Parliament elected under the new reforms:

However, for all the great reforms of the 1830s, perhaps the most profound, and yet the most costly and controversial, was the culmination of the life's work of one man, William Wilberforce. A reformer all his life, even before the 1830s, his greatest crusade had been against the slave trade. While the British had managed to gain international acceptance for suppression of the slave trade on the high seas, the institution continued to thrive in the British Southern America/Caribbean region. A great deal of monied interests in the UK successfully forstalled further restriction of the institution, and even in the wake of the Reform Revolution, it took four more years to finally pass a law abolishing slavery throughout the British Empire.

William Wilberforce:

 

[Glen]

Just one thing disconcerts me about this TL -

Just one thing? Than I must be doing well!

particularly recent developments - and I mainly haven't spoken up before to avoid breaking up the conversations. What troubles me is that historically, the UK was very supportive of Mexico because it represented one vast untapped market opened up to them, which Spain previously had banned outside traders from entering. I can't see how London could view Mexico as anything differently in this TL.

And here too Britain was very supportive of the newborn republic in 1815. The problem now is figuring out who to support. The British are basically trying not to alienate any of the factions, instead waiting for a winner to emerge. In the meantime, they are trading there definitely....sadly a lot of it is war profiteering.

However, it does mean that surely the UK wouldn't/shouldn't stand idly by as Mexico is slowly shredded not only by the USA -

The US isn't exactly shredding them - the US did recognize Texas, but only after a Mexican government signed a peace treaty with Texas. And then they bought a strip of territory from a country whose sovereignty that the faction in power at the time made peace with and recognized as free (even if they weren't clear on borders, yeah that part's a little bad). So far the US has shown admirable restraint compared to OTL!

who OTL would have persuaded them to stay neutral, as a war with the Americans (...again) would be bad for business,

And it would be bad for business here too!

but also here with the colonists of Southern America. I would imagine there would be some massive conflicts of interest back in London, and though reaching the Pacific is surely a very important goal for the BSA,

Yes and no. The British are pinning their hopes of 'reaching the Pacific' on developing a route across Central America, though the unpleasantness in Mexico has made that concerning.

if for no other reason than to prevent the USA becoming just as dominant in TTL than OTL,

US is already on the Pacific Coast, so it's just not a big concern on early 1800s radar.

then to me it still doesn't justify war with Mexico in either the short or medium term, which is where Parliament's focus was on in its politicking.

Yep.

Of course, when I refer to the Southern Americans here, I am assuming that the Texans are largely in the British camp, and while they are not yet (if ever) British subjects, Britain would surely still take a hostile tone to Texas because of the wheelie-dealing with New Mexico and California.

Right now the British are treating the Texans as just one more faction in the Mexican Wars. They were coming closer to recognizing it as a country in its own right under President Brown, but Jackson makes them....nervous....

On the other hand, Britain standing up for its best economic interests could screw this TL over right good and proper by backing the British into a situation where the only course of action to their sensibilities (that of supporting anything which gives them preferential treatment in Mexico's markets) also consigns the BSA to forever be an isolated and territorially minor state - that is, it would kind of force the BSA to reject any sort of union with Texas, and by extension would ban the BSA from westward expansion in perpetuity. As I rather see this TL requiring the BSA to expand somewhat (though how far and by which means, nobody knows yet) this does pose some big problems, so I can't exactly fault you (Glen) for deciding not to emphasize this point.

I think one thing you are underestimating is how much the British dominate the Caribbean basin right now. Basically the Mexicans (of whatever faction) have to do business with the British or they would be in even worse shape. About the only competitor they realistically have economically in the Mexican region is the USA.

 

[Glen]

Light blue touch-paper and step [well] back.

Ya think?

Depending on the internal status in the BSA, comparing plantations with other members of the white population this could be explosive or pass over relatively quietly. [The latter is a possibility with a combination of the slavocracy being isolated, compensation which I presume will be forthcoming and depending on what happens to the freed blacks].

Steve

We shall see....

 

[Glen]

A view in the Falklands

The first permanent British installations in the far south Atlantic were established on the Falkland Islands and at Sandy Point along the Magellanic Strait during the Napoleonic Wars.

A lighthouse in the Magellanic Strait

Initially considered hardship posting by the Royal Navy, nevertheless these provided an important link in the British world-spanning empire. The first colonists did not head for the region until the 1820s, mostly for the purpose of raising sheep and assisting shipping. While considered a desolate region, it was an important link in transportation from the Atlantic to the Pacific by shipping.

 

[Falastur]

Just one thing? Than I must be doing well!

Well I did say "concerns". I don't usually take a whole lot of concerns with TLs. Queries over likelihood and veracity, sure, but not concerns

And here too Britain was very supportive of the newborn republic in 1815. The problem now is figuring out who to support. The British are basically trying not to alienate any of the factions, instead waiting for a winner to emerge. In the meantime, they are trading there definitely....sadly a lot of it is war profiteering.

Fair enough. I tend to forget the smaller details like this in TLs once I have read a number of updates, and I forgot the British had shown any support for Mexico at all.

The US isn't exactly shredding them - the US did recognize Texas, but only after a Mexican government signed a peace treaty with Texas. And then they bought a strip of territory from a country whose sovereignty that the faction in power at the time made peace with and recognized as free (even if they weren't clear on borders, yeah that part's a little bad). So far the US has shown admirable restraint compared to OTL!

Well true, but so far the US has had precious little chance to nip at Mexico's heels. I did say a slow shredding, after all. This, for all we know, could simply be the start of a very long rivalry, a gradual chewing up of land and resources. Without previous clashes it's hard for me to gauge.

Yes and no. The British are pinning their hopes of 'reaching the Pacific' on developing a route across Central America, though the unpleasantness in Mexico has made that concerning.

I actually hadn't counted on reaching the Pacific to be a goal of the British at all at this point. I was looking back more with hindsight at the need to make the growth of the USA in order to keep it in check. I'm aware that the British TTL would probably simply be interested in economic expansion of the colonies and not really on proclaiming any sort of scaled down Manifest Destiny, or Sea to Shining Sea poetry.

Right now the British are treating the Texans as just one more faction in the Mexican Wars. They were coming closer to recognizing it as a country in its own right under President Brown, but Jackson makes them....nervous....

Perhaps they need to unleash 007 to...clear up the matter?

I spent a while trying to think of a suitably 19th century pseudonym for a secret agent but ultimately gave up. However, bonus points for anyone who offers a good one, and double marks for fitting in a Scarlet Pimpernel reference. I would make a joke about persuading you (Glen) to incorporate such a figure into TTL, but I think that would derail the plot just a little too much

I think one thing you are underestimating is how much the British dominate the Caribbean basin right now. Basically the Mexicans (of whatever faction) have to do business with the British or they would be in even worse shape. About the only competitor they realistically have economically in the Mexican region is the USA.

Perhaps so, I certainly had largely ignored most of it all. However, while I acknowledge the necessity for the Mexicans to trade with the British, I question whether it would allow the British the comfort of becoming blas é over the Mexicans. They might become a little less concerned over who ultimately won a war, but I think they would still take a healthy interest in supporting the most pliant candidate for the Head of State role and would want to avoid involving themselves with candidates who were unnecessarily brutal or otherwise offensive to their British sensibilities. Similarly what I'm saying is, as regards Texas then I'm not sure they would stand idly by to a Texan annexation of half of Mexico (let's face it, Texas are claiming a whole lot more here than OTL) unless either the USA was forcing them to keep out of it (still no Monroe Doctrine, remember) or they were absolutely assured of gaining Texas out of the bargain and thus were willing to use their diplomatic leverage to offer Mexico a good deal to go along with the plan. Even then I think they would be unhappy if Texas does decide to blindly leap into a war, and multiply that unhappiness by 500% if Andrew Jackson is behind it.

But that's just my thoughts on the matter.

Incidentally, with British mastery of the Caribbean, how are the few remaining non-British outposts doing? By this, I mean the Netherlands Antilles (Dutch Windward Isles at this point IIRC) and the Danish West Indies. One the one hand they might be loving the increased trade around them, but at the same time surely the sheer output of the British now must be throttling their trade? It would be a shame to see them forced to sell up, though. I love the idea of tiny outposts of distant countries surviving long past the time they should have given in

Initially considered hardship posting by the Royal Navy, nevertheless these provided an important link in the British world-spanning empire. The first colonists did not head for the region until the 1820s, mostly for the purpose of raising sheep and assisting shipping. While considered a desolate region, it was an important link in transportation from the Atlantic to the Pacific by shipping.

So the British take Patagonia. Good, I always found it an interesting proposition, and it seems half of RL Patagonia is descended from Welshmen anyway. Perhaps the capital (when Patagonia gets properly claimed and colonised, which I assume is to follow) will be at Port Desire? It has a very neat little bay which makes it conducive to shipping and I've had an affection for it ever since I realised that it had been under on-off British claims (possibly even brief colonisation IIRC) since 1670.

 

[Glen]

Fair enough. I tend to forget the smaller details like this in TLs once I have read a number of updates, and I forgot the British had shown any support for Mexico at all.

Well true, but so far the US has had precious little chance to nip at Mexico's heels. I did say a slow shredding, after all. This, for all we know, could simply be the start of a very long rivalry, a gradual chewing up of land and resources. Without previous clashes it's hard for me to gauge.

So we can't project. Wait and see what this US does in this timeline. So far they've done very little compared to OTL. And while Britain has reasons to support an independent Mexico, they are waiting to see if there even will be one....

I actually hadn't counted on reaching the Pacific to be a goal of the British at all at this point. I was looking back more with hindsight at the need to make the growth of the USA in order to keep it in check. I'm aware that the British TTL would probably simply be interested in economic expansion of the colonies and not really on proclaiming any sort of scaled down Manifest Destiny, or Sea to Shining Sea poetry.

Good. Jacksonian Texas has an overinflated sense of Manifest Destiny. The British have no such as you do note.

Perhaps they need to unleash 007 to...clear up the matter?

I spent a while trying to think of a suitably 19th century pseudonym for a secret agent but ultimately gave up. However, bonus points for anyone who offers a good one, and double marks for fitting in a Scarlet Pimpernel reference. I would make a joke about persuading you (Glen) to incorporate such a figure into TTL, but I think that would derail the plot just a little too much

Funny, I thought of the Scarlet Pimpernel also! But if the British start assassinating national leaders, it will definitely make the US nervous in a bad way. Still, fun thought!

Perhaps so, I certainly had largely ignored most of it all. However, while I acknowledge the necessity for the Mexicans to trade with the British, I question whether it would allow the British the comfort of becoming blasé over the Mexicans. They might become a little less concerned over who ultimately won a war, but I think they would still take a healthy interest in supporting the most pliant candidate for the Head of State role and would want to avoid involving themselves with candidates who were unnecessarily brutal or otherwise offensive to their British sensibilities.

Ah, but first, hard to tell who is who until and unless they achieve real power. I'd imagine they'd favor pliability over appeasing to British sensibilities....which are not necessarily that refined at this point in history!

Similarly what I'm saying is, as regards Texas then I'm not sure they would stand idly by to a Texan annexation of half of Mexico (let's face it, Texas are claiming a whole lot more here than OTL)

Well, in fact the Texans did claim California IOTL (that was my inspiration), it was just so laughable no one bothered taking it seriously, since they didn't even have control of Santa Fe. Here they're more serious, especially with Mexico much weaker than OTL at this period.

unless either the USA was forcing them to keep out of it (still no Monroe Doctrine, remember) or they were absolutely assured of gaining Texas out of the bargain and thus were willing to use their diplomatic leverage to offer Mexico a good deal to go along with the plan.

US isn't the one doing it, it's Jacksonian obstinance and Mexican fragmentation.

Even then I think they would be unhappy if Texas does decide to blindly leap into a war, and multiply that unhappiness by 500% if Andrew Jackson is behind it.

But that's just my thoughts on the matter.

Um, yeah!

Incidentally, with British mastery of the Caribbean, how are the few remaining non-British outposts doing? By this, I mean the Netherlands Antilles (Dutch Windward Isles at this point IIRC)

Um, those were lost to the British, too....

and the Danish West Indies. One the one hand they might be loving the increased trade around them, but at the same time surely the sheer output of the British now must be throttling their trade? It would be a shame to see them forced to sell up, though. I love the idea of tiny outposts of distant countries surviving long past the time they should have given in

Um (shuffling through notes), didn't I say about those? I'll, um, get back to ya....

So the British take Patagonia. Good, I always found it an interesting proposition, and it seems half of RL Patagonia is descended from Welshmen anyway.

Could be....

Perhaps the capital (when Patagonia gets properly claimed and colonised, which I assume is to follow) will be at Port Desire? It has a very neat little bay which makes it conducive to shipping and I've had an affection for it ever since I realised that it had been under on-off British claims (possibly even brief colonisation IIRC) since 1670.

Interesting thought. Stay tuned to find out!

 

[Glen]

During the Napoleonic Wars, the royal family of Portugal had been driven out of that nation and to their New World colony of Brazil. There they declared the United Kingdom of Portugal and Brazil. During the Bonaparte reign in Spain, the Spanish colonies in the New World revolted and declared themselves Republics, in emulation of the United States, and ironically enough, sometimes France.

The Queen of Portugal

The Queen of Portugal, daughter of the abdicated Bourbon King of Spain, conspired to acquire the administration of the South American Spanish colonies, and worked to annex them to Brazil and thus her rule. In this she would fail.

A Brazilian-Portuguese force launched an attach into the Banda Oriental region to the South of Brazil along the east coast, and initially appeared on the verge of annexing everything north of the Rio Plata. However, the armed forces of the United States of South America were able to repel the invaders back to Brazil. In a counter-invasion, the forces of the UPSA swung around out of the west and were able to sever Santa Catarina and thus Rio Grande do Sul from Brazil proper.

By this time the situation in Portugal had become such that the Royal Family had to return or risk losing Portugal entirely. Thus did the King of Portugal order the evacuation of his entire family from Brazil, fearing in his absence what might occur should Brazil lose any more to the upstart republic to the South. And wise he was, for not even a year later the Republic of Brazil was declared.