Dominion of Southern America - Updated July 1, 2018

Eurofed

Banned
Hmm, given that TTL USA is going to be more liberal than OTL, both due to the prevalence of Deism among Protestants, and the lack of the conservative South, US Catholics shall be forced to embrace a rather liberal stance (and theology) in order to integrate with any degree of success in US society. This may lead to a lot of trouble with Rome, if the Church remains bound into the hidebound reactionary obscurantism that prevailed IOTL.
 

Glen

Moderator
A more Catholic USA, interesting.

Slightly more Catholic, yes. However, a lot of the people heading to the US at this time were Catholics in OTL too. And not a lot of Catholics were heading for the South OTL as far as I know.

The lesser Catholic immigration to the OTL South is rather offset in that land by the number of Catholics in the Caribbean.

BTW, if you look at maps of the US by majority religion, the South is Baptist and the North is Catholic. Here the South is Anglican and the North is Catholic. Minor change, really...
 

Glen

Moderator
Hmm, given that TTL USA is going to be more liberal than OTL, both due to the prevalence of Deism among Protestants, and the lack of the conservative South, US Catholics shall be forced to embrace a rather liberal stance (and theology) in order to integrate with any degree of success in US society. This may lead to a lot of trouble with Rome, if the Church remains bound into the hidebound reactionary obscurantism that prevailed IOTL.

Well, the Catholic Church in the Western Hemisphere has tended more to the Liberal side, so again, its more nuances than outright changes from OTL.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Well, the Catholic Church in the Western Hemisphere has tended more to the Liberal side, so again, its more nuances than outright changes from OTL.

Yep, but they need to go further towards liberalism than OTL, to integrate within a more liberal USA.
 
Hmm, given that TTL USA is going to be more liberal than OTL, both due to the prevalence of Deism among Protestants, and the lack of the conservative South, US Catholics shall be forced to embrace a rather liberal stance (and theology) in order to integrate with any degree of success in US society. This may lead to a lot of trouble with Rome, if the Church remains bound into the hidebound reactionary obscurantism that prevailed IOTL.

I wouldn't think the USA would be more liberal in this world... to be honest I dont think that the way the US is shaping up the right wing and left wing as we know them won't exist. I'm guessing that it may be more of a Populist vs. Libertarian split instead of Progressive vs. Conservative. Of course, we shall see.
 

Glen

Moderator
Yep, but they need to go further towards liberalism than OTL, to integrate within a more liberal USA.

I wouldn't think the USA would be more liberal in this world... to be honest I dont think that the way the US is shaping up the right wing and left wing as we know them won't exist. I'm guessing that it may be more of a Populist vs. Libertarian split instead of Progressive vs. Conservative. Of course, we shall see.

Well, the people who are Catholic in the USA might accept more liberal policies from their government than the Catholic Church might. On the other hand, the Catholics may gravitate towards TTL's version of conservatism at least relative to the TTL's USA.

I think thekingsguard makes a good point that trying to classify left and right as we currently imagine them may be a misnomer. Don't know that it will end up Populist vs. Libertarian, but different it shall be.
 
I din't mean to nitpick on the border, but like alot of AHer's I have an strange aversion to staight lines. As for Texas, I have always had the impression that the Rio Grande River made a good border.

No, this Texas actually has a better border. The land between the Nueces and the Rio Grande was at annexation, and essentially always has been, overwhelmingly Mexican. By setting these borders, Texas ensures it will be overwhelmingly *Anglo (what ever that comes to mean) through until the mid 20th century at least.

hopefully you would all be speaking something slightly more akin to the Queens English and have got more used to using the letter u....

British spelling certainly. British pronunciation - probably not. Look at OTL's Canada after all, where outside of Newfoundland pronunciation wasn't only closer to the American standard, but many American coastal prestige dialects were actually closer to British English.

I do think you'll see some differences though. Non-rhotic speech, which was IOTL common in the coastal south and the upper class, won't go into decline. The Charleston dialect, which IOTL was already heavily British influenced, will keep going strong (I think Charleston will be the DSA's Boston - not the biggest city, but the oldest, with a strong cultural and educational influence on the nation).

Hmm, given that TTL USA is going to be more liberal than OTL, both due to the prevalence of Deism among Protestants, and the lack of the conservative South, US Catholics shall be forced to embrace a rather liberal stance (and theology) in order to integrate with any degree of success in US society. This may lead to a lot of trouble with Rome, if the Church remains bound into the hidebound reactionary obscurantism that prevailed IOTL.

I wouldn't bet on it. Remember that until fairly recently, New England was actually one of the most conservative parts of the U.S. Perhaps swinging to the left was only because the South swung so far to the right economically in the latter half of the 20th century.

This begs the question of whether regional political blocks will form ITTL in the USA. I tend to doubt it but maybe I'm lacking imagination.

On a more general note, it's pretty clear that the DSA has reached close to it's final borders. IIRC, everything but Hispaniola (which could join later) is now part of its territory (this includes the guyanas I think). A war between the USA and DSA looks unlikely, Mexico look to be more stable than IOTL, and will probably form a close relationship with the U.S. I also don't see Britain just assigning land that's far off, like Patagonia or Australia, to the DSA, or it developing a truly independent foreign policy until some time in the early 20th century. Thus what you see will be what you get.
 
No, this Texas actually has a better border. The land between the Nueces and the Rio Grande was at annexation, and essentially always has been, overwhelmingly Mexican. By setting these borders, Texas ensures it will be overwhelmingly *Anglo (what ever that comes to mean) through until the mid 20th century at least.



British spelling certainly. British pronunciation - probably not. Look at OTL's Canada after all, where outside of Newfoundland pronunciation wasn't only closer to the American standard, but many American coastal prestige dialects were actually closer to British English.

I do think you'll see some differences though. Non-rhotic speech, which was IOTL common in the coastal south and the upper class, won't go into decline. The Charleston dialect, which IOTL was already heavily British influenced, will keep going strong (I think Charleston will be the DSA's Boston - not the biggest city, but the oldest, with a strong cultural and educational influence on the nation).



I wouldn't bet on it. Remember that until fairly recently, New England was actually one of the most conservative parts of the U.S. Perhaps swinging to the left was only because the South swung so far to the right economically in the latter half of the 20th century.

This begs the question of whether regional political blocks will form ITTL in the USA. I tend to doubt it but maybe I'm lacking imagination.

On a more general note, it's pretty clear that the DSA has reached close to it's final borders. IIRC, everything but Hispaniola (which could join later) is now part of its territory (this includes the guyanas I think). A war between the USA and DSA looks unlikely, Mexico look to be more stable than IOTL, and will probably form a close relationship with the U.S. I also don't see Britain just assigning land that's far off, like Patagonia or Australia, to the DSA, or it developing a truly independent foreign policy until some time in the early 20th century. Thus what you see will be what you get.

I'm looking foreward to seeing how it will change on a cultural level.
 
IMO urban centres in the ATL that I need names would be:
-Houston

TTL, depending on how good the Dominion's hurricane forecasting service is, Galveston may not be so devestated by the 1900 hurricane and Houston's preeminence will never come to be. Houston needed a large ship channel dredged to become a port, Galveston (and OTL Texas City, which may become closely associated with it like DFW or Minneapolis-St. Paul) does not.


One of whose founders was none other than Andrew Jackson. The city may not even exist TTL.
 
This begs the question of whether regional political blocks will form ITTL in the USA. I tend to doubt it but maybe I'm lacking imagination.

Well there will be the East Coast, Quebec, Great Lakes and West certainly, as they will all have very different economic bases and cultural and demographic history. If those see further subdivisions is up in the air though IMO.

@Hobelhouse: perhaps, but at the level of the map there is not that much difference between their positions, and they are very likely to become a very large merged city anyway - it is the DSA's chicago, where water transport from the east is hinged together with the western railways.

With the greater importance of the *Tennessee region, a gateway city on the Mississippi is pretty damn likely, and the Memphis site has a whole bunch of advantages.
 

Eurofed

Banned
I wouldn't bet on it. Remember that until fairly recently, New England was actually one of the most conservative parts of the U.S. Perhaps swinging to the left was only because the South swung so far to the right economically in the latter half of the 20th century.

I strongly expect that TTL New England shall not be anywhere so conservative as OTL, due to the influence of Deism.

On a more general note, it's pretty clear that the DSA has reached close to it's final borders. IIRC, everything but Hispaniola (which could join later) is now part of its territory (this includes the guyanas I think). A war between the USA and DSA looks unlikely, Mexico look to be more stable than IOTL, and will probably form a close relationship with the U.S. I also don't see Britain just assigning land that's far off, like Patagonia or Australia, to the DSA, or it developing a truly independent foreign policy until some time in the early 20th century. Thus what you see will be what you get.

I mostly agree (and think that Hispaniola shall join later) although I remain doubtful that current Mexican borders are necessarily the final ones. If nothing else, I'm very skeptical that the USA and the UK/DSA shall be any willing to leave control of (a) supremely important strategic asset(s) like the Panama/Nicaragua Canal(s) in Mexican hands, no matter how much they might otherwise become best buddies with Mexico. ITTL I would most likely expect that both canals end up built, one under US control and the other in UK/DSA control, and this involves wrestling control of southern Central America out of Mexican hands, by whatever means feasible and necessary.
 
Last edited:
If Conservatism does form, I think it would very much resemble Goldwater Conservatism, without the Moral Majority to distort it's previously libertarian social issues stances.
 
If nothing else, I'm very skeptical that the USA and the UK/DSA shall be any willing to leave control of (a) supremely important strategic asset(s) like the Panama/Nicaragua Canal(s) in Mexican hands,
OTL the UK and the US agreed on a joint Nicaraguan Canal, with Costa Rico & Nicaragua retaining sovereignty over their territories.
?Does Britain still control the Mosquito Coast?
 

Eurofed

Banned
If Conservatism does form, I think it would very much resemble Goldwater Conservatism, without the Moral Majority to distort it's previously libertarian social issues stances.

This I may very much agree. My point was that I expect TTL USA to be rather less socially conservative than OTL.
 

Glen

Moderator
No, this Texas actually has a better border. The land between the Nueces and the Rio Grande was at annexation, and essentially always has been, overwhelmingly Mexican. By setting these borders, Texas ensures it will be overwhelmingly *Anglo (what ever that comes to mean) through until the mid 20th century at least.

I agree. And TTL's British Texas will never notice the loss.

British spelling certainly. British pronunciation - probably not. Look at OTL's Canada after all, where outside of Newfoundland pronunciation wasn't only closer to the American standard, but many American coastal prestige dialects were actually closer to British English.

Exactly. There will be some drift, but citizens of the USA are going to sound pretty much the way the Northern States and Canada do OTL, and the citizens of the mainland DSA will sound much the way that Southerners did OTL (see below for more).

I do think you'll see some differences though. Non-rhotic speech, which was IOTL common in the coastal south and the upper class, won't go into decline. The Charleston dialect, which IOTL was already heavily British influenced, will keep going strong (I think Charleston will be the DSA's Boston - not the biggest city, but the oldest, with a strong cultural and educational influence on the nation).

Overall agree. The upper class in the DSA will have a more heavily British-influenced Southern Accent (ah, Vivian Leigh...), while the middle and lower classes will preserve much of the standard southern dialects of OTL. The Caribbean will develop in a way similar to OTL with some more Southern influence, especially among the upper and middle classes, but the biggest changes will be in the former Spanish islands.

I wouldn't bet on it. Remember that until fairly recently, New England was actually one of the most conservative parts of the U.S. Perhaps swinging to the left was only because the South swung so far to the right economically in the latter half of the 20th century.

I imagine that 'liberals' and 'conservatives' will both be found in TTL's New England.

This begs the question of whether regional political blocks will form ITTL in the USA. I tend to doubt it but maybe I'm lacking imagination.

Actually, they already have (the Northeast versus the Southwest), with the Anglophone/Francophone and Deist/Catholic axes adding some extra dimensions. There will be more regions of course as the USA grows. However, it remains to be seen whether a question as divisive as slavery OTL will ever rend the regions assunder...

On a more general note, it's pretty clear that the DSA has reached close to it's final borders.

Maybe....

IIRC, everything but Hispaniola (which could join later) is now part of its territory (this includes the guyanas I think).

Actually, British Guyana was not - it was too distant and underpopulated to really be considered.

A war between the USA and DSA looks unlikely, Mexico look to be more stable than IOTL, and will probably form a close relationship with the U.S. I also don't see Britain just assigning land that's far off, like Patagonia or Australia, to the DSA, or it developing a truly independent foreign policy until some time in the early 20th century. Thus what you see will be what you get.

I totally agree with the above - if the present political trends continue as is. Of course, radical changes are always possible. For example, who would have predicted a Totalitarian, Atheist, Socialist Nation forming out of the corpse of the Russian Empire?:eek:
 

Glen

Moderator
TTL, depending on how good the Dominion's hurricane forecasting service is, Galveston may not be so devestated by the 1900 hurricane and Houston's preeminence will never come to be. Houston needed a large ship channel dredged to become a port, Galveston (and OTL Texas City, which may become closely associated with it like DFW or Minneapolis-St. Paul) does not.

Yes, that is a possibility should a city arise there (won't be called Galveston, that's for sure...).

One of whose founders (Memphis) was none other than Andrew Jackson. The city may not even exist TTL.

Have to check the site again. It's likely there will be a city there or near-abouts, even if it goes by a name far different from that of OTL.
 
Well there will be the East Coast, Quebec, Great Lakes and West certainly, as they will all have very different economic bases and cultural and demographic history. If those see further subdivisions is up in the air though IMO.

Well, yes, except historically, outside of the south there was essentially as much division within the regions as between them. For example, New England was historically Republican up until the 1960s, but this was less true in Massachusetts because there was a Democratic machine in Boston (due to high immigrant populations, and later a larger union presence). So whatever the party development, I think, at least on the presidential level, at first the mercantile/agricultural split will be important. Later of course, an industrial/agricultural split, which would evolve into something approximating a left/right division in time.

I mostly agree (and think that Hispaniola shall join later) although I remain doubtful that current Mexican borders are necessarily the final ones. If nothing else, I'm very skeptical that the USA and the UK/DSA shall be any willing to leave control of (a) supremely important strategic asset(s) like the Panama/Nicaragua Canal(s) in Mexican hands, no matter how much they might otherwise become best buddies with Mexico. ITTL I would most likely expect that both canals end up built, one under US control and the other in UK/DSA control, and this involves wrestling control of southern Central America out of Mexican hands, by whatever means feasible and necessary.

I can't be bothered to find it right now, but Glen already posted some time ago that TTL's Mexico seems headed for a brighter future than OTL's - wealthier and more politically stable at least. Brazil is the basket case in TTL, balkanizing, while Hispano-America broke into only 3 or 4 states, IIRC.

The DSA will want to chisel Mexico a bit if they had the chance. Still, the USA has every reason to stop them. In Mexico, they have a potential ally with which they share no land border, but can be a source for numerous crops (sugar, cotton, fruit, etc), which would otherwise come from DSA territories. Ultimately, any action they take which strengthens Mexico draws it closer to the U.S., whereas any action to weaken them for the short-term benefit of the U.S. would only open them up more to the DSA.

?Does Britain still control the Mosquito Coast?

IIRC, no. In fact, I think they ceded Belize to Mexico as well.
 

Glen

Moderator
Well there will be the East Coast, Quebec, Great Lakes and West certainly, as they will all have very different economic bases and cultural and demographic history. If those see further subdivisions is up in the air though IMO.

See my note previously. Right now the biggest split is the Northeast versus the Southwest. As the nation grows, this undoubtably will evolve and perhaps proliferate.

@Hobelhouse: perhaps, but at the level of the map there is not that much difference between their positions, and they are very likely to become a very large merged city anyway - it is the DSA's chicago, where water transport from the east is hinged together with the western railways.

Good thoughts, good thoughts!

With the greater importance of the *Tennessee region, a gateway city on the Mississippi is pretty damn likely, and the Memphis site has a whole bunch of advantages.

Yes - just need to look at whether this is the most likely site for that gateway...
 

Glen

Moderator
I strongly expect that TTL New England shall not be anywhere so conservative as OTL, due to the influence of Deism.

Noted, noted - though it may be more a matter of the timing of the conservative - liberal shift rather than the degree.

I mostly agree (and think that Hispaniola shall join later) although I remain doubtful that current Mexican borders are necessarily the final ones. If nothing else, I'm very skeptical that the USA and the UK/DSA shall be any willing to leave control of (a) supremely important strategic asset(s) like the Panama/Nicaragua Canal(s) in Mexican hands, no matter how much they might otherwise become best buddies with Mexico. ITTL I would most likely expect that both canals end up built, one under US control and the other in UK/DSA control, and this involves wrestling control of southern Central America out of Mexican hands, by whatever means feasible and necessary.

Time will tell....
 
Top