Dominion of Southern America - Updated July 1, 2018

Glen

Moderator
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.

Maybe. Again, this is a question for later years - we're still dealing with Democrats vs. Federals!
 

Glen

Moderator
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?

And that could happen here.

Costa del Moskito is now a state of Mexico.:cool:
 

Glen

Moderator
Well, yes, except historically, outside of the south there was essentially as much division within the regions as between them.

The South was much less homogenous as you suggest here. Heck, West Virginia seceded! Talk about divisions!

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.

The Democrats are agrarian and states' rights. The Federalists are industrial and for a strong federal government.

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.

Well, yes - for now. We still have a about 150 years to go through - a lot can happen in that time!

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.

Good point. The Federalists have been traditionally pro-British, so they will favor strengthening ties with the DSA. The Democrats will want to strengthen ties to Mexico as a counterweight to the DSA, I suspect.

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

Yep - basically Britain divested of Central American Caribbean Coast holdings in return for access to the Pacific, if not territory.
 

Glen

Moderator
German immigration to the United States in the first half of the 19th century was driven by war, religious dissent, and political oppression.

8548-p%20copy.jpg


While there had always been healthy immigration to the United States of Germans (mostly Protestant) prior to the 19th century, it saw a significant upswing in this turmultuous period. First spurred by the chaos of the Napoleonic Wars, the Congress of Vienna only ended open warfare, but may have actually exacerbated the tensions in the region, especially in the West of the new German Confederation. This was first exemplified by the Wartburg Festival in 1817, which called for German Unity, but many there also called for the liberalization of such a new German state. Metternich would use this and other incidents to cajole the members of the Confederation to increase censorship and political oppression against the liberal opposition.

200px-Wappen_Koeln.svg.png


The next major event was the Cologne Uprising of 1833. Rhineland-Westphalia had been granted to the Prussians in the Congress of Vienna, including conglomeration of small states and free cities such as Cologne. The Uprising began as another festival, in homage to the Wartburg Festival. In this case, it was not just a call for a liberal German nation, but the admission of Rhineland-Westphalia to such a new nation as state indepedent of Prussia. The protesters at Cologne were inspired by their neighbors to the West in France, Belgique, and the Netherlands, as well as as the Reform Revolution in the United Kingdom (in Personal Union with their neighbor to the North, Hanover). There was also a religous friction element in Rhineland-Westphalia's conflict with Prussia, as the Rhinelanders were predominantly Catholic whereas the Prussians were Protestant. The troops loyal to Prussia who attempted to break up the festival triggered a riot and weeks of violence in the province. Riots broke out in several cities of the German Confederation in solidarity with them. However, the joint forces of Prussia and Austria were able to bolster the local forces in these hotspots and crush resistance before France or the United Kingdom could interfere.

Further oppression followed for the next decade, which when coupled by intermittant crop failures led to an increase in Germans seeking freedom and fortune in America. For the first time Catholic Germans made up a significant minority of the immigrants to the USA, but German migration still remained predominantly Protestant.

While the loss of the Germanies was America's gain, the Festivals and Uprisings would not be forgotten at home.
 

Glen

Moderator
These remain the capitols of these respective Provinces of the DSA. I need to get out the capitols of the other Provinces.

Well, I know that New Orleans is the Capital for Louisiana, and Austin is the Capital of Texas (but is Austin in the same place as OTL Austin?...can't recall, need to take a look...).
 

Glen

Moderator
Well, I know that New Orleans is the Capital for Louisiana, and Austin is the Capital of Texas (but is Austin in the same place as OTL Austin?...can't recall, need to take a look...).

Well, I'm guessing that TTL's Austin (named for Moses Austin) is roughly in the same locale as OTL's Austin (named after Stephen Austin).
 

Glen

Moderator
In the aftermath of the Slaver Uprising arose the new British colonial province of Carleton. Carleton was based primarily in the former trans-Appalachian North Carolina as well as Georgia north of the Cherokee River. The pre-Southern Civil War history of Carleton started with settlement by many of the same families who participated in the Regulator War. They would be followed after the American Revolutionary War by Loyalist families who had fled from Virginia and other northern states. The period between the American Revolution and the Slaver Uprising was dominated by clashes between the Loyalists and the First Nations who would raid across the USA-BSA border. Several prominent Loyalists of western North Carolina participated in British operations across the Mississippi during the Napoleonic Wars. While there was slavery in this region, it was not nearly as widespread as in some British provinces and in fact this area had the first abolitionist newspaper in continental British Southern America. The loyalists had driven the wild Indians away from the border between the Appalachians and the Mississippi, stood ever vigilant to repel any aggressions of the Yankees to the north, but were settling down to more prosperous times as the Civilized Tribes to their south turned from war to commerce, when the rebellion started. Loyalists in the region held fast to the Crown and were able fighters in the war, and were amply recognized and rewarded for their fidelity during the fight. When the Crown granted permission for them to form their own province, they chose to name it after the former governor of North Carolina who had done so much to hold their land loyal, and had been instrumental in helping so many of their ancestors migrate to the region, Guy Carleton. The first capitol of Carleton was established at Mulberry.

First house in Mulberry:
James-white-fort-knoxville-tn1.jpg

Ah, Carleton's first capital is Mulberry (site of OTL's Knoxville, TN). Note that the Tennessee River is called the Cherokee River ITTL as well...
 

Glen

Moderator
The British Province of Indiana was created to reward the steadfastness of the Civilized Tribes in repulsing the Confederationists and staying loyal to the Crown. The more jaded commentators of the time noted that it was in the their best interests to do so, but others point out that the civilized tribes had made their peace with the Empire long before the contingencies of the Slaver Uprising.

The most fierce fighting for the Loyal Tribes had been just west and north of the Chattahoochee River, though fighting also was seen along the border with West Florida, though here the Indians were more likely to take the battle into white held lands rather than the opposite.

The lines between native and British had been blurred significantly in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Many frontiersmen intermarried with the local tribes, so much so that many of the leaders of the tribes were more Scots than they were native! Similarly, there were not a few leaders in both the Loyalist and Confederation camps who might claim at least one ancestor of native extraction if they were so inclined.

When the Province of Indiana was established, the British made it clear that here, at least, the right of Indians would be upheld equal to that of any other British subject, with the right to responsible government. The first capitol of Indiana was established at Tuscaloosa.

The tribes that dominated the early history of Indiana were the Choctaw and the Cherokee. The other three main civilized tribes consisted of the Chickasaw, who prospered from trade along the Mississippi River where they were ensconced, the Creek, who were most notable for their successes in the invasion of West Florida, and the Cimaroan, who were closely allied with the Creek. Other than the Cherokee who spoke an Iroquoian dialect, these tribes were primarily speakers of the Muscogean language, though almost all knew some of the King's tongue, and many in the tribal leadership were as proficient in English as any Englishman.

While the tribes had been slaveowners, the line between slave and free in tribal society was vastly more fluid than in the rest of British Southern society, so it was not a hard transition from slave to free for this region, and the recompense offered by Parliament gave a needed boost to the region's economy. Also, once the war had ended, the province was able to benefit from the Gold boom in its eastern region. Whites still ended up prospecting the region as much as any native, but they now had to pay for the right, though some got around the restrictions by being adopted by a tribe. Whites who had fought for the Crown found this much easier than some who had fought bitterly against the Indians in the Southern Civil War, but even here a few former enemies who had earned respect in battle found the natives more receptive than some whites might have believed.

The new province's assembly was structured into a bicameral legislature, with an elected lower house and an upper house of representatives appointed by tribal leadership. Overseeing all of this was the Crown's appointed Governor.

Ah, and here is the capital of Indiana, basically OTL's Tuscaloosa.
 

Glen

Moderator
Capitals of the Provinces of the Dominion:

Bermuda - St. George's Town
North Carolina - New Bern
South Carolina - Charleston
Georgia - Savannah
East Florida - St. AugustineBahamas - Nassau
Cuba - Havana
Richport - St. John's
Jamaica - Spanish Town
West Florida - Pensacola
Indiana - Tuscaloosa
Carleton - MulberryArkansas - Petite Roche
Louisiana - New Orleans
Texas - Austin

Territorial Administrative Centers:
New Mexico - Santa Fe
British California - San Diego

I'd like to put links to the OTL sites wikipedia entries here as well as a map of the DSA with the Provincial and Territorial Capitals listed. But before we do the map, I need to write the entry for the Federal Capital of the Dominion...
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
Maybe. Again, this is a question for later years - we're still dealing with Democrats vs. Federals!

Well, for that matter it is perfectly possible that in TTL USA, the First Party System endures up to modern times. TTL Federalists seem to have avoided the fatal mistake of the A&S L, and this USA lacks the sectional tensions that drove many of the changes in the pre-ACW party system. The social tensions of the *Gilded Age may still cause the rise of the *Populist/*Progressive equivalents, and they may or may not get entrenched as a third party, or replace the Dems or the Feds, but this is far from guaranteed.
 

Eurofed

Banned
And that could happen here.

Perhaps, although even if the USA and the UK/DSA trust Mexico enough to let it keep sovreignty of the Canals, a la Suez, I surely expect that they would go for nothing less than a permanent concession that gives them ownership of the Canals themselves.

And I still expect both the Nicaragua Canal and the Panama Canal to be built, one by UK/DSA and the other by the USA. To expect both great powers to trust both Mexico and each other as to put all their eggs in a single canal under Mexican sovreignty IMO seems too much trust.
 

Glen

Moderator
Well, for that matter it is perfectly possible that in TTL USA, the First Party System endures up to modern times. TTL Federalists seem to have avoided the fatal mistake of the A&S L, and this USA lacks the sectional tensions that drove many of the changes in the pre-ACW party system. The social tensions of the *Gilded Age may still cause the rise of the *Populist/*Progressive equivalents, and they may or may not get entrenched as a third party, or replace the Dems or the Feds, but this is far from guaranteed.

All of the above are true - and of course the parties didn't have to deal with a man as polarizing as Andrew Jackson!:eek::)
 

Eurofed

Banned
Yes indeed. Instead, Jackson helped shatter the antebellum British South...:cool:

Given that it ushered in the early demise of the slaveocracy, the rise of the DSA, and the BSA-Texas union, I would say that everything went for the better. ;)
 

Eurofed

Banned
Glen, given that apparently in the USA, the First Party System thrives merrily and is going to do so at least up to the Gilded Age, what do we know about the party system in the DSA, in the aftershock of the Slaver Rebellion and formation of the Dominion ?? Parallels and differences would be most interesting.
 

Glen

Moderator
The debate over the location for the new Capital of the Dominion of Southern America was a heated one. While the strongest bastions of Loyalism had been in the interior and the north, these regions were less accessible to the rest of the Dominion and especially to London. On the other hand, the coastal regions of the mainland had been some of the most active in rebellion, presumably due to the large amount of the cotton trade that passed through the ports and the many plantations in the regions. On the other hand, enough Loyalists were in those regions (and backed by British regulars) to make these more accessible options viable. A location central to the DSA in general but accessible to sea and rail was most desired. Among the finalists for the location for the capital was a new city to be constructed along the Texas/Louisiana border (Texas needed to be accessible but many other DSA feared Texan dominance if the capital was placed there), New Orleans (gateway to the Mississippi) in Louisiana, Mobile in West Florida, and Pensacola in West Florida. However, the prevailing wisdom was that the location should not also be a provincial capital, provide ready access to the interior, west and east, and Caribbean, and that it should be relatively secure from fear of flooding. In the end, the location of Baton Rouge in West Florida was chosen to be the new Capital. Both West Florida and Louisiana contributed territory to establish the new Dominion's Capital.

DSA Capital.gif
 
Top