Dominion of Southern America - Updated July 1, 2018

[Glen]

After the Slaver Uprising, the faithful Loyalists were again honored with the post-nomial, United Empire, after their names. The United Empire honor was raised in precedence, and divided into two orders:

• First Order - Loyal during the Slaver Uprising, not descended from American Revolution Loyalists
• Second Order - Loyal during the Slaver Uprising, descended from American Revolution Loyalists

In addition, for those who had served with especial distinction in America, a new order of knighthood was established, the Order of the United Empire, which was considered associated with the previously mentioned orders.

Military Coronet of the United Empire:

 

[Leistungsfähiger Amerikan]

After the Slaver Uprising, the faithful Loyalists were again honored with the post-nomial, United Empire, after their names. The United Empire honor was raised in precedence, and divided into two orders:

• First Order - Loyal during the Slaver Uprising, not descended from American Revolution Loyalists
• Second Order - Loyal during the Slaver Uprising, descended from American Revolution Loyalists

In addition, for those who had served with especial distinction in America, a new order of knighthood was established, the Order of the United Empire, which was considered associated with the previously mentioned orders.

Military Coronet of the United Empire:

Nice touch, I really like the Coronet. I am really wondering where the timeline will go from here. Now that the USA has a firm border with a culturally similiar southern neighbor, I'm not predicting a future war between them so much. But the USA is going to need to get to the Pacific ports to supply the American west. This will probably mean interest in a canal in Central America, just like OTL. The difference here is that the USA is cut off from the Caribbean by the British South, which could mean they will try and make a base in the area. This should be pretty easy--many Caribbean nations like El Salvador and the Dominican Republic wanted to join the USA at points in their history, and were turned down. With the USA wanting a base in the Caribbean more than ever, perhaps they won't.

Also, how large a presence do the Russians have in Alaska? I wonder if it will be sold as IOTL...

 

[Arachnid]

I disagree the reason why the US didn't want El Salvador is the same as they didn't take more of Mexico, they didn't want a area heavily populated with Hispanic Catholics. At this point the US is overwhelmingly Anglo-Protestant, bringing in an area dominated by Spanish speaking, Catholics is not going to be popular.

 

[Glen]

Why would they? The far western parts claimed by Texas at present probably have an Anglo population measurable by a 3 or 4 digit number, and with barely any government.

True enough. New Mexico especially is Indian Country.

In addition, the Texan factions, owing to the fact that Texas was largely colonised by British Southerners rather than Americans, favoured independence and only a small and defeated faction actually wanted to come into union with the USA. The vast majority may not have favoured Texas being annexed by the UK (although some did)

Perhaps a bit of an exageration, but essentially correct.

but I doubt there were many who would make any attempt at defection; they would just be smacked down by the majority population who were against. For any areas to defect to the north it would essentially require a charismatic figure with a private army to essentially filibuster a territory away, and that would mean war.

Texas no longer has a common border with the USA if we are talking about Texas proper rather than its New Mexico or California territory, so annexation by the US almost assuredly would mean war with the British to get there.

The Annexationists are pretty much a forelorn hope. The Independents have been defeated, and are having to keep a low profile. The Anglophiles are now firmly in control with British backing. Is there some bushwacking going on? Probably. Is it enough to bring Texas to the Union? Not likely. However, time will tell.

 

[eschaton]

It occurs to me the way the borders of Texas worked out, it's probably an overwhelmingly Anglo state, even at its current low settlement level. The historically Mexican areas of South Texas are still in Mexico, and the El Paso region (which was comparably unsettled, but probably had some Mexican presence by then), is in New Mexico.

New Mexico honestly is probably mostly Mexican. In OTL's 1842 census there were roughly 47,000 Hispanophones and only 16,500 Peublo. The borders are of course a bit different here, it includes West Texas and part of OTL Arizona. However, if I'm looking at the map correctly Juarez is also within the borders of New Mexico - meaning it's overwhelmingly Mexican in population at the moment.

 

[Glen]

Now this is interesting. I guess we have to view this as you attempting to veer completely away from Victorianism?

Not precisely. Just because a societal trend went under the name Victorianism doesn't mean it was solely due to the presence of the Queen. There will be some elements that are recognizably Victorianesque, but others will indeed diverge.

 

[Leistungsfähiger Amerikan]

]I disagree the reason why the US didn't want El Salvador [/B]is the same as they didn't take more of Mexico, they didn't want a area heavily populated with Hispanic Catholics. At this point the US is overwhelmingly Anglo-Protestant, bringing in an area dominated by Spanish speaking, Catholics is not going to be popular.

I didn't know why the USA didn't accept El Salvador until just now. In regard to the Dominican Republic, however, I know that was blocked by many Southern states, which won't happen ITTL(assuming the Dominican Republic asks to be annexed ITTL).

 

[eschaton]

But the USA is going to need to get to the Pacific ports to supply the American west. This will probably mean interest in a canal in Central America, just like OTL. The difference here is that the USA is cut off from the Caribbean by the British South, which could mean they will try and make a base in the area. This should be pretty easy--many Caribbean nations like El Salvador and the Dominican Republic wanted to join the USA at points in their history, and were turned down. With the USA wanting a base in the Caribbean more than ever, perhaps they won't.

Disagree. Consider the following.

1. All of the Antilles are now owned by Great Britain.

2. Everything down to Costa Rica is part of Mexico

3. There is no planter class in the U.S. anymore from which the "fruit barons" who were behind many of the OTL interventions in Latin America.

If I were to hazard a guess, it will turn out as follows:

The U.S. is going to cultivate a close relationship with Mexico. This is for several reasons. The US offers no threat to Mexico, as they lack a common border. The U.S. can serve as a check on potential British attempts to chip away at Mexico. And as international trade picks up, the U.S. is going to want to have a non-British source for tropical fruit like bananas, and Mexican-owned Central America is the most likely place. Thus, the U.S. will likely sponsor a "Mexican Canal" in OTL Nicaragua.

As a counterbalance, the British will probably be involved in Gran Columbia (can't remember the name TTL). Keeping them friendlier gives the British an option to build a Colombian canal. The relationship may be more like a client state than the U.S./Mexico relationship however, given Gran Colombia has comparably little to gain from the venture (but less to lose than Mexico of course).

 

[Glen]

Jorge Quintana was first President of the Second Mexican Republic. He worked tirelessly to knit together the Mexican states into a true Federal Republic, skillfully balancing state and federal power in his executive capacity, while his allies in the Mexican legislature did likewise. The Amnesty of 1839 did much to start restoring the nation, as did the peace. Mexican Yucatan especially was prospering with its vital Sisal crop, that the British Empire and USA bought in bulk for its use in rope and twine.

Sisal Plant

The Nicaraguan Pacific rail-line helped increase Caribbean-Pacific trade which in turn helped bring much needed money to the Mexican economy. Another Caribbean to Pacific railway was built by American interests in the Mexican state of Panama, and provided yet another trade route for the region again increasing the influx of business to the former war-torn nation. The Mexicans themselves planned a third Pacific-Caribbean railroad through the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.

While a few half-hearted insurrections were attempted during the Quintana years, they were not popular and easily crushed by the veterans who filled the ranks of the Mexican Army (much reduced from the time of the war, but still potent). President Quintana proved himself an able statesman, and in the mode of his role-model and namesake, George Washington of the United States of America, he served only two terms and then retired from public life, setting a precedent for the Mexican state. Sadly, within a year of his stepping down from office, Quintana was dead. It was commonly said that he had lived for the nation, having poured out his life in its service.

Jorge Quintana just prior to his death​

 

[Plumber]

Interesting... so Mexico has its Washington, ehh?...

 

[Glen]

Falastur, Glen

Agreed. Definitely very interesting. There is the problem with the comparison that George III was pretty autocratic in his early years but a king strongly supporting reform could change a lot.

Funny, I thought I'd seen somewhere that the autocratic streak developed later, but perhaps not. The comparison is meant to say that he's intelligent and interested.

The fact he actually produced so many new reforming lords would be a big bonus.

Indeed. This was threatened IOTL also, but here the Crown pulls the trigger.

Coupled with the reforms in BSA and obviously many of people in Britain will want at least as much this could go a long way to making Britain markedly more reformist compared to OTL. Especially if this echo's into avoiding the mistakes with education OTL you could see a much, much stronger Britain.

Steve

I agree on the reform portion (funny how things work out), but how do you see that translating into reform of education.

 

[Glen]

On factor to consider in the development of the British West is climate. Just as in OTL not many people wanted to live in Texas, Arizona and New Mexico until air conditioning simply because it was so hot and uncomfortable.

That is true. Then again, it's nowhere near as bad as how many people stayed away from northern Canada OTL because of climate (plus poor croplands). OTL Eastern Texas isn't too bad, West Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona a bit more.

 

[Leistungsfähiger Amerikan]

Disagree. Consider the following.

1. All of the Antilles are now owned by Great Britain.

2. Everything down to Costa Rica is part of Mexico

3. There is no planter class in the U.S. anymore from which the "fruit barons" who were behind many of the OTL interventions in Latin America.

If I were to hazard a guess, it will turn out as follows:

The U.S. is going to cultivate a close relationship with Mexico. This is for several reasons. The US offers no threat to Mexico, as they lack a common border. The U.S. can serve as a check on potential British attempts to chip away at Mexico. And as international trade picks up, the U.S. is going to want to have a non-British source for tropical fruit like bananas, and Mexican-owned Central America is the most likely place. Thus, the U.S. will likely sponsor a "Mexican Canal" in OTL Nicaragua.

As a counterbalance, the British will probably be involved in Gran Columbia (can't remember the name TTL). Keeping them friendlier gives the British an option to build a Colombian canal. The relationship may be more like a client state than the U.S./Mexico relationship however, given Gran Colombia has comparably little to gain from the venture (but less to lose than Mexico of course).

Forgot about Mexico. It's always the damn Mexicans who foil my plans! But your judgment on Mexico seems right; with border disputes with the British America, they will want an ally in the USA. And the USA will want an ally in Mexico for access to the Pacific. A match made in heaven.

 

[eschaton]

Forgot about Mexico. It's always the damn Mexicans who foil my plans! But your judgment on Mexico seems right; with border disputes with the British America, they will want an ally in the USA. And the USA will want an ally in Mexico for access to the Pacific. A match made in heaven.

Well, the one thing I got wrong is according to Glen's most recent updates, Panama is part of Mexico (for some reason - it wasn't part of New Spain). Couldn't really tell that on the map. So the British themselves are going to be shut out unless they play nice with Mexico as well (unless they try and do what the U.S. did with Colombia, which could trigger U.S.-British war).

 

[stevep]

Well, the one thing I got wrong is according to Glen's most recent updates, Panama is part of Mexico (for some reason - it wasn't part of New Spain). Couldn't really tell that on the map. So the British themselves are going to be shut out unless they play nice with Mexico as well (unless they try and do what the U.S. did with Colombia, which could trigger U.S.-British war).

eschaton

I must admit that surprised me as well. Mexico never reached that far OTL but given the date of the POD its possible that a more stable and stronger Mexico could expand in that direction. However, since Panama was part of Grand Colombria [and then Colombia OTL until the coup in ~1911] I would have expected Mexico would have faced opposition from there.

Steve

 

[stevep]

Funny, I thought I'd seen somewhere that the autocratic streak developed later, but perhaps not. The comparison is meant to say that he's intelligent and interested.

A long while since I read up on him but as a long man he was very much into the enlightened despotism - if I'm remembering the phrase rightly. His mother I think was telling him to 'rule as a king' and he was taking a strong line in both opposing reform inside Britain itself and certain tax-dodging activities. After the early Hanoverians who had been only partially involved in British politics he was determined to play a more active role and until the end of the American war played a pivotal role.

He was still significant later on, such as his opposition to Catholic emancipation, which lead to Pitt the Younger's resignation but seems to have settled down more and been less interventionist. Later reputation was more 'Farmer George' because of his work on improving agriculture and his long and happy marriage, and a strong sense of duty and responsibility.

Indeed. This was threatened IOTL also, but here the Crown pulls the trigger.

I agree on the reform portion (funny how things work out), but how do you see that translating into reform of education.

It might not do but possibly the single biggest failure of British policy from about 1815 onwards, possibly even greater than going for free trade, was the failure to get a decent educational system. This was partly because of a social turning against trade and industry and the development of ideas of amateurism and the gentleman mentality as you might call it, along with the opposition to government intervention. The other big factor is that there was a bitter dispute between the established Anglican church and the various dissenter churches [Methodists, Baptists etc] over control of religious education. This often meant various proposed reforms to establish a stronger education system often failed because neither would allow the other to have a say in educating their children.

As such Britain came to mass, organised education late and when it did there was a much higher emphasis on the humanities and culture. Which definitely had its uses and strengths. However it mean we lacked and continue to lack a serious foundation for a broad technological education system.

Steve

 

[The Doctor]

Stable Mexico huh? There goes Pancho Villa.

 

[Falastur]

eschaton

I must admit that surprised me as well. Mexico never reached that far OTL but given the date of the POD its possible that a more stable and stronger Mexico could expand in that direction. However, since Panama was part of Grand Colombria [and then Colombia OTL until the coup in ~1911] I would have expected Mexico would have faced opposition from there.

Steve

I also would like to know about this.

 

[Glen]

OTL the Texicans proposed [pre war] to build from Galavston north to Dallas-East to New Orleans and west thru Fort Worth to Santa Fe .
After the War this all got added in to the Southern Pacific.
Also OTL the original Terminus was to be San Diego, Till the LA people pulled a fast one. ITTL, with British Control the terminus remains SD,

Interesting stuff, DQ. Good point about San Diego. It is certainly a likely target for a Pacific terminus for a British rail.

and due to water concerns LA remains a Small Desert Town.

We'll see. Don't count LA out just yet.

I expect the US to build the Northern Pacific, from Chicago to Seattle [or Portand???] with N/S spurs, long before any Central Pacific, or Trans Canada RR.

Well, I can certainly imagine the Trans Canada RR will be a bit delayed ITTL. Not certain what you mean here by the Central Pacific - Do you mean from Sacramento to Ogden?

Love to see a Great Trans Continental Rail Race.

Does sound fun, doesn't it?

 

[Glen]

?I'm wondering if British control of California/Baja will mean more Asiatics on the West Coast?

Which Asiatics were you thinking of?

?And what more Japanese in Baja would mean to the Pearl Industry?

Okay. Why would you think that British control would equate to more Japanese in the area?