Dominion of Southern America - Updated July 1, 2018

[Arachnid]

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.

The key issue for Australia is Gold Rushes. After Gold was discovered in Victoria the population tripled in 3 years and Transportation ended very soon after, as suddenly Australia seemed quite attractive.
Based on OTL you might see the first Gold Rush happen in 1851 but you might want to push that back a bit, or bring it forward, that sort of thing is very vulnerable to butterfly's. After that happens you are going to see a boom in population similar to OTL as people flock to the mines.

 

[Julius Vogel]

Regarding settler numbers - I have to shill a book on the general topic of English speaking colonisation by a NZ author - James Belich.

 

[Glen]

Good Ottoman news is a good news indeed !!

Glad you like.

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

No, in fact he never did. Instead, he came to the Sublime Porte's attention a bit earlier and was sent directly to Arabia to put down the Wahabbis and the Sauds. After that he spent most of his time intriguing in Istambul, though he was sent out as a fireman to put out revolts from time to time under Selim. And of course, as indicated, he eventually becomes the Grand Vizier of the Ottoman Empire.

 

[Glen]

@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.

Nugax is essentially correct in this part.

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 .

Ah, but don't forget mad dogs and Englishmen! The British have shown up in some surprisingly un-British climes. I think you are right that those will be settled first, but I think we'll see other British take advantage of the Gulf and elsewhere eventually.

 

[stevep]

The key issue for Australia is Gold Rushes. After Gold was discovered in Victoria the population tripled in 3 years and Transportation ended very soon after, as suddenly Australia seemed quite attractive.
Based on OTL you might see the first Gold Rush happen in 1851 but you might want to push that back a bit, or bring it forward, that sort of thing is very vulnerable to butterfly's. After that happens you are going to see a boom in population similar to OTL as people flock to the mines.

Aracnid

Very true but I did read that the trigger for the Victoria rush was someone who had gone to the Californian gold-rush remembering that there was very similar terrain in Australia. If that is the case then, especially with a smaller population the Australian rush may well be delayed if the Californian one is delayed. [Which it might be with a divided California and BSA recently split by the civil war. Alternatively, a desire by some to escape government control and/or a desire by the government to make sure they have a firm grip on distant lands, might see earlier settlement there.

Steve

 

[eschaton]

Just some random thoughts on settlement of the BSA:

IOTL, the U.S. South didn't see much immigration between the Revolutionary War and the modern era except in a few localized areas (Texas Hill Country and New Orleans mostly). Presumably, IITL there will thus be more migration into the DSA than our history saw. Still, it needs to be kept in mind that the climate is, while livable, not exactly the first choice for migrants from Northern Europe. Also, even with the end of the slaveocracy, sharecropping will probably remain the norm in many regions, meaning less opportunities for advancement for someone "fresh off the boat."

The question is, who is going to come?

While IOTL English, Welsh, and Scottish migrants mainly came to north, presumably Britain will be pushing them a bit more actively to come to the DSA (particularly to settle in formerly rebellious places). I'm not sure if the DSA will even be able to meet the immigration "pull" of the USA, but at least it could keep competitive. Say perhaps a 60/40 split in favor of the U.S. It would be interesting to see a larger Welsh population somewhere in North America - I think Britain's share of the Ozarks would be a prime settlement area, although the majority of the Ozarks are still in the U.S., and at least in the early days, the border there will be porous, meaning both sides will probably be fairly culturally similar.

What about the Irish? My gut instinct is they will still travel heavily to the U.S. Both states are somewhat Catholic-friendly now (USA has Quebec, DSA has/will have large Francophone and Hispanophone populations). Still, not only will the economic opportunities still be greater, there will be less of a desire to migrate to a British-ruled region than for Welsh, Scots, or English. You'd probably see something like a three to one ratio in favor of the USA.

The major place outside of Britain I see the DSA turning for migrants is Portugal, for a number of reasons. First, the two nations were historically close allies. Secondly, there was a fairly substantial migration (at least, substantial as European migration to the region goes) of Portuguese to some of Britain's Caribbean possessions IOTL. Thirdly, IOTL Brazil had a huge "second burst" of Portuguese migration, which ran from 1881 to 1960, but was greatest in the early 20th century. With Brazil looking to be somewhat in shambles, some of those people will be looking for other opportunities.

I'd also expect, assuming OTL's close relationship between the UK and Greece remains intact, significant Greek migration.

One unanswered question in all of this is will Hispano-America keep its shit together more than IOTL? If so, it's highly possible that one or more of the countries will be more of a pull for migrants, particularly from Catholic nations, and that the Irish, Italian, Portuguese, and Polish populations for the USA and the DSA both will be somewhat reduced.

 

[stevep]

Nugax is essentially correct in this part.

True the BSA has more easily settled land than Canada but it also has a substantially larger initial population. The south was traditionally an exporter of people to the rest of the US OTL. [While that was partly because of the difficulty of competing with the plantations prior to slavery being suppressed it also seems to have been the case afterwards]. As such while the total British settlement population may be less than OTL it probably wouldn't be greatly so. Hence still leading to significant numbers for S Africa and the S Pacific. The key point here is the relationship with the US. If generally good as OTL the bulk of the emigrants will probably still go there. If tension then you could see some or a lot of it being diverted elsewhere.

Ah, but don't forget mad dogs and Englishmen! The British have shown up in some surprisingly un-British climes. I think you are right that those will be settled first, but I think we'll see other British take advantage of the Gulf and elsewhere eventually.

Ah but. Those Brits who went to tropic regions were generally traders, civil servants or soldiers. Which meant that the survivors ended up going home on most cases. More to the point, there was relatively little settlement of tropical regions by Britons. Coupled with the substantial black population already in the islands I can't see many going to them and they might also struggle to complete with freed blacks for low tech jobs on the mainland.

Steve

 

[Glen]

Now there's an interesting hint.

Glad you liked it!

Could make for an interesting situation.

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

Indeed, but we've not really gotten to the point of writing about it is what I mean. And remember, there's always the events on the Continent to take into account....

 

[stevep]

Glad you liked it!

It depends on how it develops as to whether I like it or not but it definitely sounds the sort of rather unexpected change that makes a story more interesting.

Indeed, but we've not really gotten to the point of writing about it is what I mean. And remember, there's always the events on the Continent to take into account....

Events on the continent will dominate British actions and interests and also be very important, as it grows in importance to the US.

Just had an interesting thought. If something like Nappy III's intervention in Mexico occurs it will make for some potential for complexity. Would expect Britain to oppose it, which would probably be decisive given its naval power but might be situations where Britain is less hostile. [Say if Mexico has been an unpleasant neighbour and Britain thought a French backed monarchy might be less worrying but I suspect that would be unlikely].

Also, I can't remember. With Britain in control in the Caribbean and no 1812 conflict has there been a Monroe Declaration or equivalent? [Too many TLs I'm reading and the brain's getting too old].

I'm on holiday and away from the web for a week from Saturday but will try and catch up when I get back. [Which isn't the most appealing idea given the speed with which this and some of my other favour thread proliferate ].

Steve

 

[Nugax]

True the BSA has more easily settled land than Canada but it also has a substantially larger initial population. The south was traditionally an exporter of people to the rest of the US OTL. [While that was partly because of the difficulty of competing with the plantations prior to slavery being suppressed it also seems to have been the case afterwards]. As such while the total British settlement population may be less than OTL it probably wouldn't be greatly so. Hence still leading to significant numbers for S Africa and the S Pacific. The key point here is the relationship with the US. If generally good as OTL the bulk of the emigrants will probably still go there. If tension then you could see some or a lot of it being diverted elsewhere.

Whilst people did leave the South the states still experienced 10% or higher on decade population growth rates, and also lacked significant urbanisation. That implies to me that there was plenty of usable land in the South, its just people left for the imagined possibilities of the west, and Plantation land speculation drove the prices up. The rate of growth also increased post civil war.

I think that more immigrants would cause that unused land to come under cultivation sooner, thus easily having space for a influx well above the levels Canada saw, especially if Carleston and Arkansas adopt some pro-smallsteader policies. I still think the British will be offering subsidized transport to their American dominions, probably arriving at New Orleans and thus much more likely to go to Arkansas and Texas rather than the US as the nearest open land.

There is the fact that 1815-1850 was the time of the Great Migration to Canada, where over 800k Britishers moved to Canada. Australia is expensively far and lacks the capacity to absorb such an influx and people hadn't quite worked out how to handle South Africa. I think the only place for them to go is the northern tier of the BSA (this influx would also be twice as many as the US recieved in the same period and would doubtless create a counter reaction if they went there, the period of substantial British migration to the US is post 1850). Spread them out evenly and 30% of N. Carolina and Carleton will be recent British immigrants and >60% Arkansas - it'll be pretty funny if Arkansas is the most British of North American regions .

Additionally IMO you'll see vastly more and earlier industrialisation of the Southern Piedmont because of a) without less profitable plantations the rich will be wanting something new to invest in, b) more industrially skilled immigrants coming in from Britain, c) the land filling up quicker because of those immigrants, d) the need to provide more materials for railroads and e) being outside the USes tariff walls (which should be massive without the influence of the Southern states). These larger cities will be attractive to immigrants.

There is the unfortunate problem that the most attractive bits for development are in Indiana...

Ah but. Those Brits who went to tropic regions were generally traders, civil servants or soldiers. Which meant that the survivors ended up going home on most cases. More to the point, there was relatively little settlement of tropical regions by Britons. Coupled with the substantial black population already in the islands I can't see many going to them and they might also struggle to complete with freed blacks for low tech jobs on the mainland.
Steve

I fully agree with little British immigration to the Caribbean - the DSA will be a very interesting ethnic salad bowl.

 

[Glen]

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.

So maybe I'll emphasize the bilingualism more.

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.

Good to know - so Guyana will be Anglophone mostly.

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.

Noted. I don't know that we really have a parallel here, however.

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.

Good to know. If anything this will be more extensive in the surrounding islands.

 

[President Sam Houston]

In OTL, immigration to the US after the ARW and up until about 1830, was fairly insignificant. Historians estimate around 6000 immigrants a year until around 1820, with it upticking a bit then. The 1830s saw around a total of 300,000 immigrants as more and more Irish and Germans came.

The immigration explosion started in the early 1840s with the potato and crop failures in Ireland, and the political upheaval all over the continent. Well over 2 million immigrants came to America between 1840 and 1860.

As most people know, America's population growth in the first half of the 19th century was due mostly to the extraordinary birthrates. With so much land suitable for agriculture west of the mountains, people naturally kept moving that direction to fill up the "empty" spaces.

In this TL, I would imagine that immigration to the US will be similarly low throughout the first few decades of the 19th century, but that the US will still quickly expand to fill up the empty places. I also think that the US will still experience a huge influx of immigrants starting in the 1840s, as I believe Europe will still have the political instability it had in OTL. However the DSA should experience much greater immigration between 1790 and 1840 than did the Southern States in OTL, simply because most of those British subjects that immigrated to British North America in OTL will still want to go to British controlled lands - hence in TTL - the DSA.

As such, I look for places like Texas and Louisiana to really expand in population much more significantly and faster than they did in OTL. Plus, now that slavery has been abolished and with many opportunities available to the average German and Irish immigrant. I see many more coming down to the DSA in the 1840s and 50s. I think we will see significant population growth and industrialization throughout the DSA. Could we have two legitimate superpowers in North America come the 20th century. Things are really looking interesting.

 

[Nugax]

Well the DSA could easily become the equal of the British Isle or France, the idea of it being a superpower in the way the OTL USA or USSR were is very unlikely IMO. It could become part of a duoply within the British Empire very easily by the 1900s, but I don't see it striking out on its own as it most certainly not the equal of the US and the British navy being at its beck and call (without having to pay for a navy of its own) is an unqualified boon to its argicultural exports and secruity.

Hmm this gets me in the mood to do some population growth simulations...to the spreadsheets!

 

[Beedok]

I hope there's at least one Francophone President on the way for the USA. If the DSA can't be Canadised then the USA better be.

(though both would be better)

 

[Glen]

Shortly after the Slaver Uprising, a hysteria spread over the Civilized Tribes of the newly formed Indiana as rumors of witchcraft spread among the peoples. It is believed to have started with rumors of the killer witch, Raven Mocker, walking the battlefields at the end of the war. Soon, however, tribe members were accusing each other of being ordinary witches, and it did not stay confined to the tribes. The next known outbreaks were in the Southern Appalachians where the Scots Irish spoke of the evil eye and fear of curses. Newspapers picked up on the stories and spread them throughout British America. Soon, the people of colour of the mainland and the Caribbean were also actively scrutinizing their neighbors for signs of voodoo against them. Eventually, the panic died out, with only occasional stories by 1842. The more 'scientifically minded' Americans to the north scoffed at the superstition of the British colonies, but sales of witch stories from the South reached new records in the North. Some trace the birth of the Southern Gothic style of novel to this period.

 

[Glen]

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).

There are reasons why 1800 was weird in both timelines, so don't sweat it. Please make that change.

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.

I think we ought to ITTL. Has the right flavor for the changes that have occurred in the USA. It might wait until a Federalist administration, though.

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.

A fair point, but if anything Virginia is slightly more populous than OTL early on, so I'd imagine this overtaking not to occur until 1820 census ITTL.

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.[/QUOTE]

You are right about Monroe! I don't know what I was smoking.

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

Have you done this yet? If some of them come from prominent political families, we might see analogues if they were born too late.

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.

Well, his father, John Tyler Sr., was certainly a prominent enough politician to make one of his children going into politics possible, maybe even likely, though I only find reference to John Tyler Jr. as a politico out of all the family (granted, there were a lot of girl children). IOTL John Tyler Sr. had three male children, named Wat Henry, John Jr., and William, respectively. The first born male name was chosen by John Sr. from 'the two great British rebels in history' - Wat Tyler (yep, another Tyler!) and Patrick Henry. I suspect ITTL that John Sr. would continue this naming convention, and even pick Wat Henry again as the name of his first born child. If you want to have a Tyler prominent in politics ITTL, I suggest his name should be Wat Henry and have him born earlier (sometime in the 1780s). There's plenty enough butterflies to account for this. I look forward to your second draft.

 

[Glen]

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

Des Moines might be cooler, but I'm leaning towards Mississippi being more plausible as well.

 

[Glen]

The key issue for Australia is Gold Rushes. After Gold was discovered in Victoria the population tripled in 3 years and Transportation ended very soon after, as suddenly Australia seemed quite attractive.
Based on OTL you might see the first Gold Rush happen in 1851 but you might want to push that back a bit, or bring it forward, that sort of thing is very vulnerable to butterfly's. After that happens you are going to see a boom in population similar to OTL as people flock to the mines.

Aracnid

Very true but I did read that the trigger for the Victoria rush was someone who had gone to the Californian gold-rush remembering that there was very similar terrain in Australia. If that is the case then, especially with a smaller population the Australian rush may well be delayed if the Californian one is delayed. [Which it might be with a divided California and BSA recently split by the civil war. Alternatively, a desire by some to escape government control and/or a desire by the government to make sure they have a firm grip on distant lands, might see earlier settlement there.

Steve

You all make very good points and provide some interesting information. I agree that the timing of Gold Rushes is quite perturbable. We'll see how the timing works out ITTL.

 

[Glen]

Just some random thoughts on settlement of the BSA:

IOTL, the U.S. South didn't see much immigration between the Revolutionary War and the modern era except in a few localized areas (Texas Hill Country and New Orleans mostly). Presumably, IITL there will thus be more migration into the DSA than our history saw. Still, it needs to be kept in mind that the climate is, while livable, not exactly the first choice for migrants from Northern Europe. Also, even with the end of the slaveocracy, sharecropping will probably remain the norm in many regions, meaning less opportunities for advancement for someone "fresh off the boat."

The question is, who is going to come?

While IOTL English, Welsh, and Scottish migrants mainly came to north, presumably Britain will be pushing them a bit more actively to come to the DSA (particularly to settle in formerly rebellious places). I'm not sure if the DSA will even be able to meet the immigration "pull" of the USA, but at least it could keep competitive. Say perhaps a 60/40 split in favor of the U.S.

Tend to agree, but from what's been said maybe it is more that British Southern America will have more immigration to it in the first half of the 19th century, whereas USA will see its largest surge in the last half of the 19th century. Don't know about the '60/40' split.

It would be interesting to see a larger Welsh population somewhere in North America - I think Britain's share of the Ozarks would be a prime settlement area, although the majority of the Ozarks are still in the U.S., and at least in the early days, the border there will be porous, meaning both sides will probably be fairly culturally similar.

Quite possibly. Where did most of the Welsh go OTL?

What about the Irish? My gut instinct is they will still travel heavily to the U.S. Both states are somewhat Catholic-friendly now (USA has Quebec, DSA has/will have large Francophone and Hispanophone populations). Still, not only will the economic opportunities still be greater, there will be less of a desire to migrate to a British-ruled region than for Welsh, Scots, or English. You'd probably see something like a three to one ratio in favor of the USA.

Number 1 choice for the average Catholic Irish is the USA, without a doubt.

The major place outside of Britain I see the DSA turning for migrants is Portugal, for a number of reasons. First, the two nations were historically close allies. Secondly, there was a fairly substantial migration (at least, substantial as European migration to the region goes) of Portuguese to some of Britain's Caribbean possessions IOTL. Thirdly, IOTL Brazil had a huge "second burst" of Portuguese migration, which ran from 1881 to 1960, but was greatest in the early 20th century. With Brazil looking to be somewhat in shambles, some of those people will be looking for other opportunities.

Interesting thoughts about the Portuguese. We will have to see how the timeline develops to see how it unfolds ITTL.

I'd also expect, assuming OTL's close relationship between the UK and Greece remains intact, significant Greek migration.

Oh, some Hellenes will, I'm certain.

One unanswered question in all of this is will Hispano-America keep its shit together more than IOTL? If so, it's highly possible that one or more of the countries will be more of a pull for migrants, particularly from Catholic nations, and that the Irish, Italian, Portuguese, and Polish populations for the USA and the DSA both will be somewhat reduced.

Good question. Time will tell.

 

[Glen]

For a variety of reasons, the second conference on Southern Federation did not take place in 1842 as promised, but in early 1843 instead. The attendees were somewhat different than those of 1841. Hispaniola due to internal politics opted out entirely. Puerto Rico also did not send a delegate, though they had planned to, a storm had delayed their delegation's sailing. The Georgia delegation sent this year had an almost completely different delegation, but came nonetheless. Most of the rest of the attendees were from the same provinces as before, with one large surprise - Texas.

Many had assumed that Texas would remain an independent province under their agreement with the British, but the Texans of their own once again proposed a closer relationship with the South, this time under the British Crown rather than a rebel banner.

No solid agreement was reached by the delegates, but a number of principles for future talks were, including a number of concessions and caveats for federation. These principles included:

• Restoration of civil rights for rebels who swore allegiance to the crown
• Any representatives sent from Indiana to a future federal legislature would have to be elected, not appointed by the tribes.
• The rights of Aboriginal Americans to vote in Indiana would be preserved, but whites in the province would also be enfranchised.
• No landowner or renter would be denied the right to vote (those who worked the land in a manorial relation, 'sharecropping' as some vulgarly called it, did not qualify).
• Catholics would be enfranchised in Cuba, and any other province where they made up a majority of the population.
• The Territories of New Mexico and California would remain under the jurisdiction of Texas.
• The British Government should commit to a trans-continental railroad to connect the Pacific Coast of California with the rest of British Southern America.