Dominion of Southern America - Updated July 1, 2018

[Glen]

IMO the blacks will try to move to developing industrial and Commerce centres like the *Birmingham complex and New Orleans, and/or become small farmers of less labour intensive crops (like cocoa).

They might not move very far at all, like the OTL Caribbean, its more they will no longer be willing to work plantation labour, much less move to do so and thus an region where plantations are expanding rather than pre-existing (Florida, parts of Texas and the Caribbean) will have labour shortages.

As mentioned before, I think this is an important point - a shifting of workforce and thus an industry based shortage, not a general population one. Should make for some interesting times.

 

[Ridwan Asher]

Sultan Selim III struggled his entire life to drag the Ottoman Empire into the modern age. Fearful that European nations were beginning to outstrip the empire, he instituted many reforms that were unpopular among the conservative powers in the Ottoman Empire. However, many credit his efforts with planting the seeds of the Ottoman Renaissance. There were several revolts and plots during his rule, with the most serious being in 1807. His rule was saved by the efforts of Alemdar Mustafa Pasha and Muhammad Ali. Alemdar Mustafa had been one of Selim III's key allies in reforming the military, and Muhammed Ali had distinguished himself just a few years earlier in the Arabian Campaign which exterminated the Wahabbi sect and their supporters, among them the Saud clan, thus freeing the Arabian Peninsula from their influence.

Selim III's death in 1822 sparked a civil war among reformers and conservatives that contributed greatly to Ottoman inability to defeat the Hellas Revolution. However, by 1830 the conservatives had been dealt their final defeat, and the empire was firmly in the grip of a new, young Sultan, Mustafa IV, and his Grand Vizier Muhammad Ali Pasha.

Good Ottoman news is a good news indeed !!

However, what happened to Muhammad Ali ? Did he even ever get to visit Egypt ITTL ?

 

[Vosem]

May I ask, Glen, who is Porter's VP? Remember, OTL Porter died in 1844.

 

[Nugax]

@stevep: Remember until the railroads opened up the west in the 1880s 'Canada' was effectively just Ontario for British immigrants - the BSAs regular farmland (before you get to the plains and desert) is roughly five to ten times larger. I think the British immigrants will only go to certain places though - the Coastal cities and the Piedmonts of Appalachia and Arkansas because they won't be interested in the work on offer in the gulf and atlantic lowlands and it'll be annoyingly hot .

 

[Glen]

Considering how hard a sell Confederation was in Canada its hard to imagine it going down smoothly with such varied Colonies, really its at least 3 or possibly 4 different "country's".

Glen

It sounds like, unless there's a big clash with the US giving a strong motive for it, its going to be unlikely a unified grouping of all the British territories in the region will occur. More likely that the mainland [or most of] and some of the islands will form a bloc while various areas may stay outside. Possibly joining later if the grouping proves successful.

Steve

I think both of you make cogent points about the difficulties in a 'United' British Western Hemisphere. Indeed, Canada had quite a few growing pains IOTL as well! As the title indicates, there will be a Dominion eventually, the real questions are where and when....

 

[Glen]

Pretty much. The option of returning was just the labour booking and paying ship back to India, which the regulations forced the plantation managers to allow. The paltry pay made this difficult however, and well under half didn't manage it/chose to settle down.

So it was bait and switch. I imagine we will see similar practices ITTL as well. The real questions will be to what extent, and where?

 

[stevep]

or convicts who go to Australia (and later, Patagonia).

Now there's an interesting hint.

Good points. The British will be there....just not alone.

Could make for an interesting situation.

Now then, let's not jump too far ahead! So far these are very small footholds, and the British have been somewhat distracted by the Opium War and the Slaver Rebellion. I'm sure there will be some paranoia engendered. How it will end up remains to be seen.

I don't think that's getting too far ahead. If the French are settling or making noises about settling either, let alone both, of NZ and W Australia there will be concern.

Steve

 

[Glen]

John Howe U.E. (pre-slaver post-nomial)

John Howe was the patriarch of one of the most prominant Loyalist families in North Carolina. Originally a native of Boston, he was an ardent supporter of the Crown during the American Revolution, printing broadsides against the Rebels that would see him banished from the State of Massachussetts. He fled with his family to the British Province of North Carolina in the closing days of the Revolution. There he set up a printing business and established two newspaper, the New Bern Journal, and magazine, the North Carolina Magazine, in the provincial capital, New Bern.

John Howe died in 1836, just prior to the declaration of the Confederation and the war. His son, John Howe, Jr. continued in his father's footsteps, remaining steadfastly loyal to the Crown. Their printing establishment was burned to the ground by rebels and he fled to Loyalist strongholds further inland. He continued printing throughout the war, lambasting the renegades with a crusading zeal. After the retaking of New Bern by the British, John Howe, Jr. restored the family business, and would play a leading role in the future of British Southern America.

John Howe, Jr. U.E.2.

 

[Glen]

Before getting too much into the replies, I'd like to start by first noting that I was answering about the Hispanic Upper Class in Cuba, not the population of Cuba as a whole. English is spreading in the Upper Class through Immigration and Assimilation much faster than in the Lower Class or even the Middle Class of Cuba at this point in the timeline. At least that is how I have been conceptualizing it. I could be wrong, however. Let us explore together through discussion....

Honestly, I can't see a language shift happening in a settler colony that rapidly, if ever. Look at Mauritius. The British seized it from the French in 1810, but the white upper class there is still francophone to this day.

The British also agreed to protect the French language when they took over there IOTL....ITTL they have made no such agreements.

I also was surprised by how fast it happened, and am not sure of the reality of such a happenstance, but I would counter your idea that it could never happen with such examples as (British) Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago and the Cape Colony (granted Afrikaans stayed a major language).

Thanks for the counter-examples.

Trinidad had a small Francophone population of mixed Spanish and French ancestry, and a larger population of free blacks and slaves. But it was still underdeveloped by Caribbean standards at the time, and the original culture was essentially expunged with the huge ramping up of the economy once the British took over.

Similar situation applies ITTL.

Guyana was even more clear cut, as British settlers started coming in in the mid 1700s. It was probably already Anglophone when the transfer took place.

I am surprised a bit as to how much British settlement you imply here. I still thought Guyana rather underpopulated in the first half of the 19th Century (not that I don't agree that English is rapidly coming to the fore.

As for the latter, I don't think any Boers switched over to English - they just left for the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. And of course, the Cape Coloured didn't ever switch to English.

Ah, but what of bilingualism? That I bet did go up at least among the Boers if not the 'Coloured' though even there I suspect some uptick.

Going around the world with some other examples:

1. The former Danish West Indies (our U.S. Virgin Islands), were never Danish speaking. A dutch creole used to be spoken, but the islands were never dutch speaking.

2. The Dutch West Indies, despite being Dutch to this day, never went over to speaking Dutch. The "ABC" Islands off of Venezuela all speak a Portuguese-based creole, and the northern islands like Saba, Sint Eustatius, and Sint Maartin (including the French side) all speak English, despite being continually occupied by the Dutch since the end of the Napoleonic era, if not before that.

Interesting. One suspects that a creole will continue ITTL as well, though with more heavy English influences. Why did the northern islands speak English?

3. The British have been the best at facilitating language transfer in the Caribbean. Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent, and Grenada all once had French Creole speaking populations, which have now been largely supplanted by English. People in Dominica, in contrast, are still almost entirely bilingual in Creole and English (except in the far north, where some residents from an anglophone island (Saint Kitts IIRC) were settled.

Regardless, in all cases we're talking about creole languages spoken by the lower classes, which might not be the best comparison.

And ITTL too the lower classes will lag behind in adoption of English. It's the 'Upper Classes' that I will mostly be referring to who are working towards English. Recall too that it is looking even more likely these islands will be staying English than it did OTL, so people are even more likely to try to at least become bilingual initially.

Off the top of my head, the only successful language shifts in settler states where populations being outswamped weren't the reason were in Canada (isolated francophone areas in places like Nova Scotia and Newfoundland), and New Orleans, which didn't see a decline in French until the 1880s.

These were, however, isolated islands within an English culture.

Good points.

Ultimately, the Hispanophone segments of the Caribbean were the earliest settled in the New World. By 1841 Cuba already has over a million people. To put this in perspective, Virginia had 1.2 million at the same time, despite having a much larger land area. By the standards of the time period, Cuba was pretty full.

Now, it is true that Britain seized the islands during a period that the white population was much, much lower (only around 45%, rather than the 66% or so today). Presumably Spanish migration to the area won't happen, and most of those who migrate will be English-speaking. But Anglophone people will have many other places to migrate as well.

45% of a million is still about 450,000! But Spanish Migration will be replaced by Anglophone migration, at least in the Upper and Middle Classes. Some of this has already happened by the time of the Slaver Rebellion, but perhaps I need to decrease proportion for this time period. However, the trend will continue.

I'd say a "divided" culture similar to Quebec under British rule is most likely, with an eventual resurgence of the Hispanophones.

Only if the British allow. So far the British are less inclined to coddle other languages/religions than it was in the case of OTL Quebec (the likelihood of Cuba being seized is lower ITTL than that of Quebec IOTL, but then again, they just had a rebellion and may need ways to mollify the masses).

Similar movements would probably happen in Santo Domingo and Puerto Rico. Haiti will probably shift over to English however to some degree - Creole languages just don't have as much prestige, and they are far more culturally isolated.

Yep - they're English bound, though again, the Upper Class will lead the way, and the Lower Classes will cling to Creoles for decades.

 

[eschaton]

Before getting too much into the replies, I'd like to start by first noting that I was answering about the Hispanic Upper Class in Cuba, not the population of Cuba as a whole. English is spreading in the Upper Class through Immigration and Assimilation much faster than in the Lower Class or even the Middle Class of Cuba at this point in the timeline. At least that is how I have been conceptualizing it. I could be wrong, however. Let us explore together through discussion....

A bilingual elite is of course highly likely. The rich switching over to English entirely is unlikely within a century if ever, both because they'll want to be able to converse with the lower classes (for economic reasons if not socially), and because they'll be well positioned to use their bilingual skills to further British trade in Mexico and South America.

I am surprised a bit as to how much British settlement you imply here. I still thought Guyana rather underpopulated in the first half of the 19th Century

It was. Under Dutch rule, they could find barely anyone willing to settle it. They let the British settle in the region in 1746. By 1760, the British comprised a majority of the white population along the Demerara River.

Ah, but what of bilingualism? That I bet did go up at least among the Boers if not the 'Coloured' though even there I suspect some uptick.

In modern South African, Boers are essentially those white Afrikaans speakers who migrated out of the Cape and became semi-nomadic farmers. Given they ran as far from British rule as possible, I'd say they didn't have fluency in English at the top of their list. I'm sure the ones who stayed behind (who today identify as Afrikaners more) were quite often bilingual however.

Why did the northern islands speak English?

It's not entirely clear. The three islands were exchanged through a series of wars between Britain, France, and the Netherlands numerous times before settling into the Netherlands orbit at the end of the Napoleonic wars. Britain settled people on the islands, particularly Saba, where a lot of people to this day have Scottish and Irish blood. The islands are also small, and surrounded by larger anglophone islands, so a large proportion of people may have come over, as slaves or freemen, from the adjoining islands like Saint Kitts. And the Netherlands probably didn't care enough to institute their culture again once they had firm control.

 

[Glen]

I am honored that Vosem has chosen to elaborate on the US presidential elections of this timeline. I'm reposting here his ideas on the discussion thread for comment. I think that there needs to be a couple small changes, but overall I don't see why it wouldn't stand mostly as is (have to look at some of the birthdates of that last few people, though).

I wrote a little piece for your timeline, Glen -- your choice if you wanna use it or not.

Presidential Elections of the USA:

[FONT=&quot]1789: George Washington/John Adams (I).[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]The election of 1789 occurred before political parties. General George Washington of Virginia, and his running mate, John Adams of Massachusetts, were elected President and Vice President with virtually no opposition.[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]1792: George Washington/John Adams (I).[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]Although some semblance of partisan structure was beginning to emerge by 1792, the presidential election was still nonpartisan, and Washington/Adams were reelected.[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]1796: John Adams/John Jay (F) vs. Thomas Jefferson/Aaron Burr (D-R).[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]The election of 1796 was the first truly competitive election, with the Federalists nominating John Adams of Massachusetts for President, and John Jay, of New York, for Vice President. The Democratic-Republicans nominated Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. However, since Adams and Jay technically tied, the election went to the House, where Jay dropped out, making Adams President. Nevertheless, this incident resulted in the Constitutional Amendment modernizing the election system.[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]1800: John Adams/John Jay (F) vs. Thomas Jefferson/Aaron Burr (D-R).[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]A rematch of 1796, the election of 1800 resulted in Adams winning reelection over Jefferson.[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]1804: Thomas Jefferson/George Clinton (D-R) vs. Aaron Burr/James Wilkinson (F).[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]After a vicious battle for the Democratic-Republican nomination between twice-nominee Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, Jefferson wins, and selects George Clinton his running mate. Burr switches parties and gets the Federalist nomination, making General James Wilkinson of Kentucky his running mate. Jefferson wins the election.[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]1808: Thomas Jefferson/George Clinton (D-R) vs. Alexander Hamilton/Oliver Wolcott, Jr. (F).[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]The popular Jefferson was easily reelected in 1808, when the Federalists nominated his former ally, Alexander Hamilton (who’d supported Jefferson in 1804!) of New York for President and Oliver Wolcott of Connecticut for Vice President. The Federalist Party would not recover from its poor performance in the late 1800s until the 1820s.[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]1811: George Clinton dies. There is some speculation over what happens now to the office of Vice President, but Jefferson, a strict constitutionalist, insists that it remain vacant, and it does. This begins a precedent.[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]1812: James Madison/Elbridge Gerry (D-R) vs. Rufus King/Jared Ingersoll (F).[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]James Madison of Virginia and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts were the Democratic-Republican nominees in 1812. They were elected easily over the Federalist ticket of Rufus King of New York for President and Jared Ingersoll of Pennsylvania for Vice President.[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]1814: Elbridge Gerry dies. The position remains vacant.[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]1816: James Madison/DeWitt Clinton (D-R) vs. John Eagar Howard/James Ross (F).[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]With the death of Elbridge Gerry, Madison selects DeWitt Clinton, a relative of the late George Clinton, to be Vice President; Clinton’s group of New Yorkers were in limbo between the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists, and Madison wanted to ensure they remained good Democratic-Republicans. The Federalists nominated John Eagar Howard of Maryland for President and James Ross of Pennsylvania for Vice President. Although a strong, experienced ticket, they were defeated in a landslide.[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]1820: John Quincy Adams/Richard Stockton (F) vs. DeWitt Clinton/William Plumer (D-R).[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]The Federalists bounced back rather suddenly in 1820 with the election of John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts (the son of the former president) and Richard Stockton of New Jersey President and Vice President, respectively. The Democratic-Republican ticket of DeWitt Clinton of New York and William Plumer of New Hampshire were defeated in the first D-R defeat since 1800.[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]1824: John Quincy Adams/Richard Stockton (F) vs. James Monroe/Daniel Tompkins (D-R).[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]The popular incumbents, Adams and Stockton, defeated their rivals, James Monroe of Virginia and Daniel Tompkins of New York, the Democratic-Republican nominees.[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]1828: Richard Stockton dies. The position remains vacant.[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]1828: John Andrew Shulze/Nathan Sanford (D-R) vs. Daniel Rodney/Richard Rush (F).[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]The Democratic-Republican ticket of John Shulze of Pennsylvania and Nathan Sanford of New York triumphed, defeating the Federalist ticket of Daniel Rodney of Delaware and Richard Rush of Pennsylvania. Shulze and Sanford were moderates, whilst Rodney and Rush were strong Federalists, and by the end of the campaign there was a sense that perhaps Shulze was the better candidate to continue Adams’ legacy.[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]1832: John Andrew Shulze/Nathan Sanford (D-R) vs. Richard Rush/William Wirt (F).[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]The popular Democratic-Republican incumbents Shulze and Sanford were easily reelected, defeating their Federalist opponents Richard Rush of Pennsylvania and William Wirt of Maryland.[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]1836: Peter Buell Porter/John Tyler (F) vs. Nathan Sanford/William Cabell Rives (D-R).[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]After the battle for the Federalist nomination deadlocked between four candidates (with two more minor ones), the party reached a compromise all could agree on: the former Secretary of War in the Adams government, Peter Buell Porter. Hoping to win the Democratic-Republican bastion of Virginia, Porter chose local Federalist Senator John Tyler as his running mate. The Democratic-Republicans did not have such a battle: Vice President Nathan Sanford was nominated without a fight, and experienced, prominent Virginia Senator William Cabell Rives became his running mate. Ultimately, Porter very, very narrowly defeated Sanford, and was inaugurated.
[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]​

 

[Glen]

Presidential Elections of the USA:

1789: George Washington/John Adams (I).
The election of 1789 occurred before political parties. General George Washington of Virginia, and his running mate, John Adams of Massachusetts, were elected President and Vice President with virtually no opposition.
1792: George Washington/John Adams (I).
Although some semblance of partisan structure was beginning to emerge by 1792, the presidential election was still nonpartisan, and Washington/Adams were reelected.
1796: John Adams/John Jay (F) vs. Thomas Jefferson/Aaron Burr (D-R).
The election of 1796 was the first truly competitive election, with the Federalists nominating John Adams of Massachusetts for President, and John Jay, of New York, for Vice President. The Democratic-Republicans nominated Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. However, since Adams and Jay technically tied, the election went to the House, where Jay dropped out, making Adams President. Nevertheless, this incident resulted in the Constitutional Amendment modernizing the election system.
1800: John Adams/John Jay (F) vs. Thomas Jefferson/Aaron Burr (D-R).
A rematch of 1796, the election of 1800 resulted in Adams winning reelection over Jefferson.

I would move the event where Jay had to drop out to ensure Adams election to 1800, not 1796. This would be more likely with the closer race that year, and also puts it in a better position for Condorcet to influence the method used in balloting in the amendment.

1804: Thomas Jefferson/George Clinton (D-R) vs. Aaron Burr/James Wilkinson (F).
After a vicious battle for the Democratic-Republican nomination between twice-nominee Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, Jefferson wins, and selects George Clinton his running mate. Burr switches parties and gets the Federalist nomination, making General James Wilkinson of Kentucky his running mate. Jefferson wins the election.
1808: Thomas Jefferson/George Clinton (D-R) vs. Alexander Hamilton/Oliver Wolcott, Jr. (F).
The popular Jefferson was easily reelected in 1808, when the Federalists nominated his former ally, Alexander Hamilton (who’d supported Jefferson in 1804!) of New York for President and Oliver Wolcott of Connecticut for Vice President. The Federalist Party would not recover from its poor performance in the late 1800s until the 1820s.
1811: George Clinton dies. There is some speculation over what happens now to the office of Vice President, but Jefferson, a strict constitutionalist, insists that it remain vacant, and it does. This begins a precedent.
1812: James Madison/Elbridge Gerry (D-R) vs. Rufus King/Jared Ingersoll (F).
James Madison of Virginia and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts were the Democratic-Republican nominees in 1812. They were elected easily over the Federalist ticket of Rufus King of New York for President and Jared Ingersoll of Pennsylvania for Vice President.
1814: Elbridge Gerry dies. The position remains vacant.

While this may be plausible, I don't really like it. It just sets things up for more mischief down the timeline and seems against the spirit of the times with an electoral amendment to ensure the proper election, why wouldn't they change the spare tire. The death is fine, its the precedent I don't like. Could still leave unfilled during Jefferson's presidency but that would then spur a movement towards an amendment overturning the precedent.

1816: James Madison/DeWitt Clinton (D-R) vs. John Eagar Howard/James Ross (F).
With the death of Elbridge Gerry, Madison selects DeWitt Clinton, a relative of the late George Clinton, to be Vice President; Clinton’s group of New Yorkers were in limbo between the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists, and Madison wanted to ensure they remained good Democratic-Republicans. The Federalists nominated John Eagar Howard of Maryland for President and James Ross of Pennsylvania for Vice President. Although a strong, experienced ticket, they were defeated in a landslide.
1820: John Quincy Adams/Richard Stockton (F) vs. DeWitt Clinton/William Plumer (D-R).
The Federalists bounced back rather suddenly in 1820 with the election of John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts (the son of the former president) and Richard Stockton of New Jersey President and Vice President, respectively. The Democratic-Republican ticket of DeWitt Clinton of New York and William Plumer of New Hampshire were defeated in the first D-R defeat since 1800.

Neither ticket in the 1820 election has a Virginian! This seems hard to believe for the time.

1824: John Quincy Adams/Richard Stockton (F) vs. James Monroe/Daniel Tompkins (D-R).
The popular incumbents, Adams and Stockton, defeated their rivals, James Monroe of Virginia and Daniel Tompkins of New York, the Democratic-Republican nominees.

Check on early life of Monroe. Somehow I seem to recall questioning him being a major political figure ITTL....also, tough to beat a ticket with Virginia on it without a Virginian to balance. Just a thought.

1828: Richard Stockton dies. The position remains vacant.

Again, don't like this idea of leaving Veep spots vacant due to death.

1828: John Andrew Shulze/Nathan Sanford (D-R) vs. Daniel Rodney/Richard Rush (F).
The Democratic-Republican ticket of John Shulze of Pennsylvania and Nathan Sanford of New York triumphed, defeating the Federalist ticket of Daniel Rodney of Delaware and Richard Rush of Pennsylvania. Shulze and Sanford were moderates, whilst Rodney and Rush were strong Federalists, and by the end of the campaign there was a sense that perhaps Shulze was the better candidate to continue Adams’ legacy.
1832: John Andrew Shulze/Nathan Sanford (D-R) vs. Richard Rush/William Wirt (F).
The popular Democratic-Republican incumbents Shulze and Sanford were easily reelected, defeating their Federalist opponents Richard Rush of Pennsylvania and William Wirt of Maryland.

Again I must ask, what's happened to Virginia? Also, I need someone to check the births of all these Veeps and defeated opponents. How far into the divergence were they born?

1836: Peter Buell Porter/John Tyler (F) vs. Nathan Sanford/William Cabell Rives (D-R).
After the battle for the Federalist nomination deadlocked between four candidates (with two more minor ones), the party reached a compromise all could agree on: the former Secretary of War in the Adams government, Peter Buell Porter. Hoping to win the Democratic-Republican bastion of Virginia, Porter chose local Federalist Senator John Tyler as his running mate. The Democratic-Republicans did not have such a battle: Vice President Nathan Sanford was nominated without a fight, and experienced, prominent Virginia Senator William Cabell Rives became his running mate. Ultimately, Porter very, very narrowly defeated Sanford, and was inaugurated.

I don't think you'd have OTL's John Tyler (unless this is a different Tyler). Also need to check those opponents for births. I like the bit about the nomination, feels right. Like having a Virginian on the ticket. If you're going to have Democrat ticket not have a Virginian at this point in time, there probably should be someone from a 'western' state, like Ohio.

Overall great effort. I will be interested to see what others think. Some of this will end up in the timeline officially, I am certain.

 

[Glen]

OTL neither the Northern Whites [economic reasons] nor the Northern Blacks [Social reasons] wanted The Southern blacks moving North.
I see no reason why this would be Different ATL. There is no Slavery/Abolitionism to muddy the Water. So I see lots of Anti Southern Black Immigration Legislation.

There will be barriers to black immigration to the North. However, labor starved America isn't going to say no entirely.

We are coming into the 1840's -- ?Will Whe see a Potato Famine in Ireland and Germany per OTL?

More or less.

[Germans into US, while Catholic Irish move into Texas and West]

Um, maybe....

 

[Glen]

How is the Francaphone population doing? Any French Presidents on the way?

They are doing well in Quebec, have a strong minority presence in Nova Scotia, Maine, Vermont, New York, and Ontario. Most of the Quebeckers who stray farther than that get assimilated into the Anglosphere. However, most Quebeckers who have anything to do with more than their local community are bilingual. conversely, there's a fair amount of bilingualism in French among American Elite, and even the common man in those Quebec border states. More French loan words are entering common English use (or not fading out).

On the other hand, no sign of a French president for the near future, no.

 

[Glen]

The USA needs a state named Mississippi, most likely an Iowa or Minnesota analogue. Mississippi was the name of a state IOTL, and would be ITTL too since the BSA hasn't taken the name for a province.

If any, I'd think the Iowa analogue might be a candidate.

Thoughts, comments?

 

[Vosem]

I would move the event where Jay had to drop out to ensure Adams election to 1800, not 1796. This would be more likely with the closer race that year, and also puts it in a better position for Condorcet to influence the method used in balloting in the amendment.

Sure. To be honest, I put it at 1796 just because I felt it being 1800 would be too much like OTL (and '96 had the potential to be as weird as '00 was in OTL).

While this may be plausible, I don't really like it. It just sets things up for more mischief down the timeline and seems against the spirit of the times with an electoral amendment to ensure the proper election, why wouldn't they change the spare tire. The death is fine, its the precedent I don't like. Could still leave unfilled during Jefferson's presidency but that would then spur a movement towards an amendment overturning the precedent.

Sure. It's just that since the amendment was OTL and didn't include a vice-presidential clause, I didn't think to include one ATL.

Neither ticket in the 1820 election has a Virginian! This seems hard to believe for the time.

OTL, New York was the most populous state in the USA starting with the Census of 1810 when it dislodged Virginia and ending 1970 when it was dislodged by California.

Check on early life of Monroe. Somehow I seem to recall questioning him being a major political figure ITTL....also, tough to beat a ticket with Virginia on it without a Virginian to balance. Just a thought.

Really? Monroe was part of the middle class, studied with John Marshall in his early life, got a good education, fought in the Revolution, elected to the House of Burgesses in 1782. I see no reason for this to be butterflied away.

Again I must ask, what's happened to Virginia? Also, I need someone to check the births of all these Veeps and defeated opponents. How far into the divergence were they born?

Some of the later ones definitely don't fit. I'll check in the morning.

I don't think you'd have OTL's John Tyler (unless this is a different Tyler). Also need to check those opponents for births. I like the bit about the nomination, feels right. Like having a Virginian on the ticket. If you're going to have Democrat ticket not have a Virginian at this point in time, there probably should be someone from a 'western' state, like Ohio.

Overall great effort. I will be interested to see what others think. Some of this will end up in the timeline officially, I am certain.

John Tyler was born 1790, but his parents married in 1761 (before the POD), and I see nothing butterflying away their use of the name John. It's not exactly the same person, but it's his name, same parents, a very, very similar upbringing. It's almost John Tyler, let's put it that way.

 

[Plumber]

If any, I'd think the Iowa analogue might be a candidate.

Thoughts, comments?

Yeah, the Iowa analogue would probably be called Des Moines (cooler ) or Mississippi (more plausible).

 

[Glen]

Out of curiosity, how will Mexican and Southern American culture affect British Culture in terms of Cuisine and Music?

Interesting question, and one that will be explored further once we get a bit further into the timeline. There will be effects from Southern America, be assured. Less so Mexico since it's not really 'British'.

 

[Glen]

Great TL!

Thanks for the shout out! Great to have you reading along.

One question, are we likely to see a major American religion grow up in this time like the Mormons?

Not the Mormons. Closest is the Deist movement in America, which is semiheretical, most popular among the educated classes in America (indeed, many a president will be of that tradition, though not the majority of Americans).

 

[Glen]

What is the European population of Australasia at this point and what is the free settler/convict ration in alt NSW? Historically it was about 4 free settlers to every convict, here I'm guessing that's not the case.

I don't really have firm numbers in mind, but I would venture to guess that perhaps the settler population is half that of OTL at this same point in history, putting the settler to convict ration at 2:1 rather than 4:1 - which would put the population at about 60% of OTL for 1840.

That sound about right to everyone?