Dominion of Southern America - Updated July 1, 2018

[Glen]

A fall line is the site between an upland region of continental bedrock and an alluvial coastal plain. A fall line is particularly important where a river crosses it, as this is often the point where a river can't be navigated due to the presence of rapids or falls. In the early industrial age, this point on a river was also important as it often provided the ideal location for water-wheel driven mills and factories. The two factors combined made for the almost guaranteed growth of towns and even cities where rivers crossed a fall line along the east coast of North America.

Cities and Towns along the Piedmont – Coastal Plain fall line in the United States of America and British Southern America include, from north to south:

United States of America:

• New Brunswick, New Jersey on the Raritan River
• Trenton, New Jersey on the Delaware River
• Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on the Schuylkill River
• Wilmington, Delaware on the Brandywine Creek
• Newark, Delaware on the Christina River
• Conowingo, Maryland on the Susquehanna River
• Baltimore, Maryland on the Patapsco River
• Laurel Factory, Maryland on the Patuxent River
• Georgetown on the Potomac River
• Occoquan, Virginia on the Occoquan River
• Fredericksburg, Virginia on the Rappahannock River
• Richmond, Virginia on the James River
• Petersburg, Virginia on the Appomattox River

British Southern America:

• Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina on the Roanoke River
• Johnston County Courthouse, North Carolina on the Neuse River
• Cornwallis, North Carolina on the Cape Fear River
• Chatham, South Carolina on the Pee Dee River
• Camden, South Carolina on the Wateree River
• Congarees, South Carolina on the Congaree River
• Augusta, Georgia on the Savannah River
• Wrightville, Georgia on the Oconee River
• Oldfield, Georgia on the Ocmulgee River
• Brocktown, Georgia on the Chattahoochee River
• Talisi, Indiana on the Tallapoosa River
• Wetumpka, Indiana on the Coosa River

 

[Falastur]

While there undoubtedly will be football games played ITTL, they will likely have different rules and forms that only vaguely resemble what we in the modern world are familiar with. The terms soccer and rugby probably will not even exist.

If you don't mind me asking, Glen, I have to ask what exactly you intend with this. To my mind it would be somewhat of a hard call having football truly end up nothing like modern football, largely because it had already taken shape into roughly the game we know now by the time it left the public schools and became a popular sport in its own right. After all, the Laws of the Game, as are recognised to this day, were written about a decade after football ceased to be a "public school thing", and they haven't changed radically since. I'll admit that other codes - such as rugby, American football, Aussie Rules etc - have formed and become popular in their own right, and I could give you this if that was your plan, but generally the splits happened because there were die-hard supporters of the original code, and people who wanted to introduce new ideas - such as running while holding the ball - and the two sides were irreconcilable due to the strong regard for the original form. In short, to my reckoning only by using butterflies to eradicate historical people who would shape the game to what it is now would football be unrecognisable, or perhaps by having another code of football overtake "real" football in popularity.

Of course, it may just be the fact that I am a huge football fan, and could hardly bare to see something more resembling rugby or another sport overtake The Beautiful Game Save our sport!


Edit: Oh, and Glen - may I be the first to congratulate you on 1,000 replies

 

[Glen]

In the mid 1780's, a plan was implemented to settle some of London's "Black Poor" in Sierra Leone in a "Province of Freedom." A number of black poor and, interestingly enough, white women were transported to the shore of Sierra Leone. This resettlement was preferred by many London philanthropists as a solution to continuing to financially support them in London. Many of the Black poor were stranded sailors of African and Asian descent inhabiting London. Sadly, disease and hostility from indigenous people eliminated this first group of colonists.

Freedom was resurrected in Sierra Leone in 1809 when the British chose to make it their main base of operations against the international slave trade which had been banned by Britain. Slaves from all over Africa, though predominantly Western Africa, would be liberated at sea and set free outside of Fort Freedom. They joined together and became known as Creole or Krio people.

Cut off from their homes and traditions by the experience of slavery, they assimilated some aspects of British styles of life, but were dissatisfied with the impoverished living conditions in the region, and a revolt broke out in 1813. The revolt was only put down by the arrival of over 500 Jamaican Maroons and Hispaniola Blacks, many of whom remained and settled after their service. They blended in to help form the Krio community and together they built a flourishing trade on the West African coast. African English quickly spread across the region as a common language of trade and Christian proselytizing. British and American abolitionist movements envisioned Fort Freedom as embodying the possibilities of a post-slave trade Africa. While small overall, Sierra Leone was still one of England's largest African colonies in the early 19th century.

Fort Freedom's relative prosperity and status as a European colony, however, attracted hostility from regional tribes, and in the late 1830s they struck, taking advantage of the United Kingdom's distraction in North America. Fort Freedom was razed and many Krio had to take to the hinterlands, abandoning their homes and businesses. However, as soon as the Slaver Rebellion was defeated, the British Empire turned her attentions back to Sierra Leone. The Sable Legion, already a famed fighting force blooded in America, was shipped to Sierra Leone to repulse the indigenous invasion. The Sable Legion with Royal Navy backing quickly regained the territory of British Sierra Leone, but did not stop there. Surviving Krio flocked to the Legion's Black Banner, enamoured of their liberators, and in some cases nostalgic over the stories of their Caribbean forefathers who had quelled the rebellion. Just as the Sable Legion had absorbed many freed blacks in continental North America, so too did continental Africans enter their ranks. The Sable Legion went on to invade the lands of the surrounding tribes, extending Fort Freedom's reach by hundreds of miles. The bulk of the Sable Legion would remain in the region to fight Britain's colonial wars and maintain the peace, and would add their numbers to the Krio settlers, though other forces under the Black Banner would take part in the Wild Indian Wars of the British American Southwest.

In the 1840s, many prominent whites in British Southern America would revive the vision of resettlement of freed blacks to Africa, with Sierra Leone their target destination. Other schemes would try British Guyana closer to home, or even Black-ruled Bahia. While these resettlement plans would add to the diversity of each area, sending a dash of the British American South overseas, they were never of sufficient numbers to change the demographics of British Southern America overall.

 

[Arachnid]

Funnily enough I've done something very similar in my Different Dragon tl.

 

[Glen]

Haha. If you think that frying fat and butter makes you bad, you should see the Scottish deep-fat frying Mars Bars (caramel-filled chocolate bars)...

And you've got me again...what is a hipster?

I will bow to Plumber's comprehensive definition.

You are, of course, right. The answer to your question, though I'm no expert so my analysis will probably be slightly off, but I believe it is in the origins of the sports. You have cricket, then you have football and rugby. Cricket originated - or rather, finally evolved in the 19th century - as a sport for gentleman of quality, and was particularly popular among British officers and the English elite. Thus, it spread to the colonies through these forms and was picked up by the countries which had particularly large numbers of well-to-do British upper classes - places like India, South Africa, eventually Australia, and the West Indies etc.....This didn't tend to spread to countries of other nationalities as it was always an elite sport, not widely played until later on and not the kind of thing to be played much abroad - British officers and the landed classes weren't likely to congregate in large enough numbers to play regularly outside of a war abroad, and who is going to concentrate on cricket when there's a war to be fought? From there, the sport filtered down to the rest of the population and became widely popular in those countries.

Cricket appears to be even older than that, but yes, the 19th century saw its world-wide 'boom'. The Southern upper classes look to England for most things, and cricket will be popular among them. From them it will tend to spread to the other classes in the BSA.

I suspect Canada failed to get into it largely down to their evolution of ice hockey and from their strong US influence.

And this will be true ITTL's northern states aka OTL's Canada.

Then there's football. Football evolved as a public school game, and that's where the Laws of the Game were formed, but I believe as the public school students left school they were in large enough numbers to continue playing the game, the game also spread like a virus across the public school of the north of England, and football players were then present in large enough numbers to keep playing the game frequently but tended to stay at home rather than spreading the game abroad to the colonies, not being of the upper classes so much. Eventually the game filtered down to the lower rungs of society so that in the 1870s and 1880s, when the first great clubs were forming, football had become the working man's game. Teams were regularly formed as teams representing the communities they came from and to this day even the biggest football teams in the UK are expected to represent their local communities and run charities and local development programs for children etc etc. This is also the reason why the American franchise model is so unpopular in the UK and Europe - because teams are seen as supposed to be representing their locales, not their owners. Anyway, because football became so widespread, because it was so easy to play, and because it was a common man's game, the sport spread to Europe rather than to the colonies, and from there spread to South America largely through British businessmen teaching the game to locals, and then spread to Africa and Asia later on.

I'm not certain that tracks - how does one explain the widespread adoption of association football this way but not cricket. Need to look into this part more.

Finally, there's rugby, which is the hardest game to decipher. Its origin comes from football, where a disagreement over the idea of holding the ball with your hands formed an irreversible split, but it developed much the same.

I would say, rather, that association football and rugby arose from the same 'pre-association' football games that existed in myriad forms before codification.

However, it never seemed to be so popular, probably because for a sport less played amongst the elite, it was harder to play on limited resources - i.e. you needed goalposts with a high bar between them, as in American Football, and a more irregular ball.

Perhaps, but I can tell you that we in the US play more simplified versions of football as kids and don't miss the goalposts at all.

I think, as a more aggressive and forceful game, it was probably more popular amongst the hardier communities - it was very big early on among Welsh mining communities, for instance - I guess it didn't spread to Europe largely because football was easier and got there first, though I'm really not sure. I guess from there it spread to the colonies because as the game became professional around the tour of the century, players tended to tour the British colonies and spread the game there, whereas they had less interest in going to foreign countries in less exotic locations, and where they were more likely to be treated as outsiders.

Maybe, but I think we need to explore this more. I suspect rugby would have been wildly popular in the US if we didn't have American football instead.

Notably France did pick up rugby (note France's location to the UK), and Italy though I can't explain that so well. Honestly, I'm really hazy on why rugby spread to the colonies better than football, but that's my best guess. In particular, note that Australia developed its own version of football/rugby which explains further the lack of interest in football there, though not the popularity of rugby.

Yep - I think this also goes to the fact that there were earlier versions of football during the colonization of America and Australia, and given their long distance from England, no need to codify the same rules as it became possible to play more regional games.

 

[Falastur]

You make some good points there, Glen, and undoubtedly my explanations had holes. Also I have to admit that they were written with a somewhat pro-football slant as, naturally being a born-and-bred English football fan I want to see football become the world's sport

Honestly I'm not sure about the solutions to the obvious flaws in my reasoning.

 

[Glen]

Thanks for the explanation, I thought it was probably something to do with class.

Well, hipster isn't really a class thing, but a lot of the upper and middle class youth do tend to gravitate to it, but there are opportunities in the subculture for lower classes as well - and of course, class is much more fluid in the US.

Another factor I've thought of that would act against football (soccer) becoming a major sport in BSA is immigration patterns. Without the southern slave states TTL's US will probably start to industrialise earlier (as AFAIW OTL US industrialisation didn't kick off until after the ACW),

Industrialize earlier, yes, but the north had some substantial industrialization before the ACW, which is one of the things that doomed the CSA.

so will attract more working class immigrants than the BSA which will still be a predominantly agricultural economy with limited job openings for new immigrants, thus making BSA not very open to European cultural influence (apart for elite British culture - including cricket and, to a lesser extent, rugby). This is obviously speculative as I'm assuming that economic development follows a similar pattern as it did IOTL.

It won't be as simple as that, but the general trends I think are okay, as is your extrapolation of their impact on sport.

Slightly more on topic, the larger size of Mississippi compared to its OTL analogue Iowa, initially surprised me but I suppose without the 49th parallel border, the Minnesota analogue can go further north, perhaps to Lake Winnipeg? Also, with more space will this mean that there'll be larger midwestern states generally?

Oh, sport is definitely on topic (as I am sitting in OTL watching USA - Ghana). Yes, your surmises are on target in general, though there will be other changes to state formation as well.

 

[Glen]

One thing I forgot to add earlier. Ice hockey may be butterflied entirely - in RL it was a game invented by the Scots-Irish immigrants to Canada in something like the 1870s.

Well, while we always have to take wikipedia with a grain of salt, it would appear that there was a reference to a game called hockey (and other names as well) as early as 1825, and it appears to be documented as played in the 1850s as well, so the 1870s date is way late for a starting date - though it probably became more popular and codified by then. Here we will have a very similar game referred to as Ice Hurley.

With predicted smaller immigration patterns there by British migrants, it's my belief that it's entirely plausible that by pure statistical chance, there won't be the right people to invent the game this time round. Of course, an alternative, non-RL ice game is entirely plausible to replace it, but as curling, will probably be nowhere near as popular.

See above - as for curling, it will be there in the north of the US as well.

As for football not spreading to the BSA, I have to unfortunately agree, though I do admit that as a typical British football-runs-through-my veins fan I am thinking of any way I can to argue for a boost in its popularity

We shall see....

 

[Falastur]

Well, while we always have to take wikipedia with a grain of salt, it would appear that there was a reference to a game called hockey (and other names as well) as early as 1825, and it appears to be documented as played in the 1850s as well, so the 1870s date is way late for a starting date - though it probably became more popular and codified by then. Here we will have a very similar game referred to as Ice Hurley.



See above - as for curling, it will be there in the north of the US as well.

Fair enough, Glen, but I think you missed the point of my post. My comment wasn't so much saying that the timing is wrong, I'm suggesting that the personnel are wrong. Yes, there was some early ice hockey being played earlier - I got my dates wrong - but I was thinking more about what we were discussing before we got onto sport - about migration patterns. When we were talking about British migrations to America I thought we were reasonably agreed that there were two likely patterns. If a migrant wanted to go to America, most likely he would go to a British colony - thus, the DSA. That is, after all, how the wastelands of Canada got the population they did in OTL. If they wanted to migrate away from British sovereign soil, as did the Irish migrants to New York etc and all the mass migrations to America in general, then since everything north of North Carolina is now American, surely they will migrate to a more natural climate - to New England or New York or thereabouts. Canada may receive migrations from more southern Americans over time, but European migration there is going to be dramatically lower.

Going on from there, my point was that ice hockey was a game which came about from the Scots-Irish Canadian migrants - this was because they brought hockey over with them, and hockey, as football, cricket, rugby etc was originally somewhat of a British game. In particular, it was played by the Scottish under the name of Hurley, as the sticks are still called in some codes of hockey. I'm not saying that Canada will be devoid of sport, or that the Scots-Irish were the first to invent skating on ice. Of course those things are false. But they were the first to make the connection between hockey and ice skating. Under the circumstances, it's my belief that Canada may see its own native ice sport, but I don't think it will have a hockey influence, or even a European sport influence. No idea what you would see though.

Of course, you are welcome to disagree with my conclusions. I just thought that we thought Canada wasn't really going to see the British migrations in this TL, and that somewhat butterflies the formation of an ice-based version of a British sport.

 

[Glen]

Plumber

I think rugby is a fairly minor game in Canada, in terms of support and finances, but could be wrong.

For cricket, as Falastur says much of it was reliant on being spread by the British colonial elite. Although actually I think the 1st international tour - apart from one to France called off because France was just entering revolutionary turmoil - was to Canada shortly after it became independent.

The other big issue here of course is the climate. The other dominions and places such as the sub-continent and Windies are much better placed for a game that requires long spells of good weather than probably much of Canada is. Another factor might be that the bulk of the Canadian settlement was still fairly thinly spread and in largely wooded lands in the east so there might have been insufficient population for players and spectators plus a lack of suitable grounds?

Steve

Well, it is true that I think the climate and conditions in the American North (OTL Canada) will not be as conducive to the development of cricket as British Southern America. On the other hand, baseball has fared reasonably well in the north, and it would fit the same weather parameters as cricket.

I think cricket has longer and deeper routes than you suggest as its been played in various forms for centuries.

From what I can tell, stevep is correct.

However agree that it was probably largely spread by the colonial elites, especially as they would have more time and resources than the average colonists, who are busy getting the crop in or working hard to earn their living.

It did however put down deep roots in places like the Windies and the sub-continent amongst the local population so might do similarly in the BSA, especially if it does remain overwhemingly agricultural.

Yep, pretty much.

Again football has been played, in some form or another, for centuries, although the codification of the rules may have been done in the 19thC public schools. It's big advantage, possibly the key factor in its spread is as you say its very easy to play. You need a rudimentary ball, a bit of open space and a few colleagues to play it with and that's about all. As such it has always been a more working class game, both in Britain and the wider world. Similarly this also means that it is easier for it to take root in new countries, both because its easier to play and because that means the nation can develop successful players and teams more easily. [Since success is always useful for boosting popularity].

Fair enough - I will say that there will be an association football analogue ITTL, though it's not going to be precisely association style.

I think the problem with rugby spreading might be less to do with the material required and more with the physical demands on the players. Especially for the forwards with the demands in the scrum. This really needs powerful and well fed players who are taught to work closely together as a team. As such its probably a lot more difficult to export to poorer countries because there's a much smaller pool of players. This is also probably why, along with the climate, it never took off in the sub-continent?

Interesting speculation. If we again use American Football as a parallel, though, I'm not certain this theory holds up since many bastions of American Football were in the poorer, rural south IOTL.

Rugby, or at least the union version, is becoming more widespread with teams from various places inside and outside Europe challenging the old strongholds related to the spread of the British empire. Argentina is now a prominent nation. Rumania were making progress before much of their team died in the revolution and Italy and Japan are showing promise, although a long way to go yet.

Steve

Wonder why now the spread?

All fair points. I was aware of the old origins of football and cricket, and I tried briefly to allude to it, but I ignored it as I believe that it was only around the vaguely 1850s period that both became the kind of sport likely to spread and become very popular in the way that both sports are now. Football before the current codes and before it became a public school game was a ludicrously rough game played by entire villages over "pitches" which were in reality all the land between neighbouring settlements. They were popular for sheer recreational value but they weren't the kind of thing likely to become organised sport. Eventually the sport tamed - largely because in its original form it kept being banned by royal decree and was in fact on several occasions considered to be rioting, and I think as time passed the increasingly firm arm of the government meant that its original form wasn't going to be allowed to carry on.

True enough for football I surmise.

As for cricket, you are of course right that it wasn't always the upper-class game stated, and I am aware that a number of football teams originated from cricket clubs wanting something to play over the winter months - Sheffield Wednesday F.C. for instance were the Wednesday cricket club of Sheffield, etc - but for the reasons stated before it was spread as an upper-class game, and because it was just that much more tame and patient, whereas late 19th century English working men wanted more rough and ready, energetic games to relieve their tensions.

Interesting information - thanks!

 

[Rubberduck3y6]

Well, it is true that I think the climate and conditions in the American North (OTL Canada) will not be as conducive to the development of cricket as British Southern America. On the other hand, baseball has fared reasonably well in the north, and it would fit the same weather parameters as cricket.

Does baseball get rained off though?

Rugby, or at least the union version, is becoming more widespread with teams from various places inside and outside Europe challenging the old strongholds related to the spread of the British empire. Argentina is now a prominent nation. Rumania were making progress before much of their team died in the revolution and Italy and Japan are showing promise, although a long way to go yet.

Wonder why now the spread?

I think it might have been in this thread that I read that the spread of rugby to Argentina has/had something to do with the large amount of British and Irish people who settled in Argentina.

 

[stevep]

Well, it is true that I think the climate and conditions in the American North (OTL Canada) will not be as conducive to the development of cricket as British Southern America. On the other hand, baseball has fared reasonably well in the north, and it would fit the same weather parameters as cricket.

Ah but how many days does it take to play a game of baseball.

Interesting speculation. If we again use American Football as a parallel, though, I'm not certain this theory holds up since many bastions of American Football were in the poorer, rural south IOTL.

I don't know enough about US football's history but again even the US south probably have more wealth and education levels than most of the colonial world. Thinking education is important in that a lot of rugby is learnt at schools and you need some such institutions to provide the material and training. Not something you can easily pick up the basics playing with a few mates on the local village green.

I was thinking why rugby it didn't take off in places like Indian and the Windies as cricket did.

Wonder why now the spread?

Could be simply that with news, wealth and travel abilities so much more widely spread its attracting interest in nations that were unfamiliar with it before and didn't have the facilities, material and social, to play it?

 

[Falastur]

Does baseball get rained off though?

I think it might have been in this thread that I read that the spread of rugby to Argentina has/had something to do with the large amount of British and Irish people who settled in Argentina.

You did read that here, yes. I believe that it was the Welsh immigration to Argentina which in large part spurred the uptake of the sport.

 

[Arachnid]

One reason for the popularity of Cricket as opposed to Rugby in the West Indies is heat. Rugby is a much more physically tiring game than cricket and in 30 degree heat its absolutely exhausting. That's why it played in the winter, however in places like Jamaica you don't have winter really.

 

[Plumber]

Buuuump.

Glen on break or something?

 

[Tom Veil]

Bump, bump, bump. I just discovered this a couple days ago, and I'm absolutely enchanted. I cannot let this die. In fact, if Glen doesn't resurface by Monday, then I might have to take on the task of collating the stuff that hasn't been posted in the Timeline forum. And then I will move on to voicing my opinion, and as Glen should know, I am difficult to shut up once I get started. I printed out the TL to read on the train, and now it's dripping with notes and ideas. (Among my notes-to-self: Georgetown! Pittsburgh! Capitol Hill! Great Basin International Peace Park! Francophone Missouri! War profiteers! 130 million! And other cryptic notes-to-self! )

The Timeline Shall Rise Again!

 

[Julius Vogel]

Glen is usually so good at updating too

 

[Tom Veil]

OK, for updating purposes, the following posts need to be folded into the Pre-Dominion (1766 - 1840) thread in the published TL forum:
732, 735, 783, 784, 828, 865, 866, 873, 986, 1003, and the map at 797.

The following posts appear to be post-1840, and so need a new thread in the published TL forum:
741, 742, 761, 769, 792, 804, 817, 829, 841, 853, 888, 891 (needs editing), 915, 920, 932, 937, 962, 997, 1001, and the map at 965.

I told you I wouldn't let this die.

 

[Falastur]

Glen is usually so good at updating too

Glen is usually good at logging in too, but he didn't for about three weeks, until recently.

I'd guess something important has distracted him and it's probably best to let him get back to this when he's ready.

Hope it's nothing bad, Glen. In your own time.

(Among my notes-to-self: Georgetown! Pittsburgh! Capitol Hill! Great Basin International Peace Park! Francophone Missouri! War profiteers! 130 million! And other cryptic notes-to-self! )

The Timeline Shall Rise Again!

Yes. That one was very cryptic. Don't have a clue what that means

 

[Tom Veil]

Yes. That one was very cryptic. Don't have a clue what that means

OK, I suppose "Francophone Missouri" is about as self-explanatory as it gets. And yes, my plan was to take the most painfully obvious path to getting French people into Missouri.
My thoughts were that St. Louis has about 1,000 Frenchmen when it is sold to the USA, and AFAIK it's the only significant French population in the USA's half of the Louisiana Purchase. A lot of the French in New Orleans are not going to take to British rule, and St. Louis is a lot more like home to them than Revolutionary France. By the same token, while city-dwelling immigrants from back in France may find Quebec more attractive, French farmers would prefer the rich soil and warm weather of the Missouri river valley. Heck, a lot of Quebecois would probably be willing to deal with the occassional Blackhawk attack in exchange for those benefits.

Glen is usually good at logging in too, but he didn't for about three weeks, until recently.

I'd guess something important has distracted him and it's probably best to let him get back to this when he's ready.

Hope it's nothing bad, Glen. In your own time.

I might be getting people mixed up (it's hard to remember the "real life" details about people you know online), but IIRC Glen works pretty long hours. So I'm assuming that's all it is, until he informs us otherwise. I am just flagging this thread so that when Glen does return and is trying to decide where to devote his attentions, he will know what at least one man's vote is.