Dominion of Southern America - Updated July 1, 2018

[Glen]

Well while I agree that you'll probably have a very similar mythos due to shared cultural influences, its very possible to have different "western" models - look at the cultural differences between the US cowboy and the Llaneros, Gauchos and Stockmen.

Well, sorta - but if they were all translated into English, would there be that much of a difference?

The fact that Mexico appears to be having a much stronger rule of law will do considerable things to the wildness of the frontier.

Ah, but the Northern border is the most remote in the nation, so the law is more theoretical than anything...

Plus the earlier railroad developments will very much change things as well - the national governments will be able exert a stronger control before the cowboys would have taken off (since the movement of people to the frontier would work of population growth and economics).

Eventually, yes, but then again, it still is going to take a long time for civilization to extend much beyond the rails...

How the DSA ends up treating its western indians is very much going to be interesting if Indiana swings its influence in their favour.

Maybe....

Mapping was delayed by various things.

Huh?

 

[Glen]

The California Gold Rush overlapped with the series of gold strikes called the Oregon Gold Rush. There were persistent rumors of gold south of the Oregon in the hills north of the Central Valley of California in the last half of the 1840s, but it was not until 1848 that verified gold finds were made in the rivers flowing off the Sierra Nevada Mountains that started a major migration of miners and those who would supply them to the region, some coming down from the Oregon, but more coming by sea through San Francisco. The Oregon strikes would sputter on and off for a decade, but the California Gold Rush would burn white hot for several years steadily. Unlike in Oregon where the miners and the farmers were at odds, in American California the farmers who followed the miners united in common cause in their efforts to become a state in the Union.

 

[Glen]

The UK is the 9th biggest per capita wine drinker in the world .

Noted, my friend, noted.

 

[Glen]

South Carolina/North Georgia --- http://www.charlestonteaplantation.com/

Thanks! Will review link.

 

[Glen]

I never said for it to be the dominant drink... just more so than OTL

Also noted!

 

[Glen]

Thanks! Will review link.

Anyone know why it took until the 1880s to get tea growing in the American South?

 

[Falastur]

At a guess I would speculate that it's because the Clipper Races only got into full swing in about 1870, when suddenly tea merchants realised that there were now ships fast enough to mean that it was worth investing in every measure to reduce transportation times. I'd also say that the Civil War probably meant that the southern USA was viewed as in need of much economic redevelopment, with some prime and dirt cheap land, and after 100 years was less likely to react badly to British investment.

 

[Nugax]

Anyone know why it took until the 1880s to get tea growing in the American South?

Lack of demand meant it could never compete in cost with the much larger asian commercial enterprises, plus it was of average or less quality - the best tea general comes from higher elevations, but the American piedmont often gets too cold for consistent commerical production (you can coddle a small garden to survive but not a huge plantation), even the Coastal plain often gets cold enough in Jan or Feb that the plants are unhappy - not enough to perish, but enough to reduce yields compared with Asia.

You'd need a situation where the American south is more cut off from Asian markets and likes tea, and the former certainly doesn't occur here.

 

[eschaton]

I posted such much earlier in the thread, but here are my thoughts on the makeup of immigration in TTL's USA and DSA.

For the USA. there are only a few minor differences between OTL and TTL, given most of the area lost saw little immigration anyway.

First, there will obviously be little Hispanic migration, both due to the lack of a land border with Mexico, as well as the unlikelihood of anything like the annexation of Puerto Rico.

Secondly, the earlier acceptance of Catholicism should mean that immigration by all Catholic groups (Irish, Italians, Poles, etc) is slightly boosted compared to OTL.

It's also possible that if Quebec and the other Francophone-leaning states get better developed there might be a substantial amount of French immigration. It still wouldn't ever comprise a major U.S. ethnicity since the French birth rate was very low in the 19th century, thus there were always more opportunities there than elsewhere in Europe. Still, it would add more flavor.

Finally, there's the people the DSA will swallow up instead, discussed below. There's also the knock-off effects of a ruined Brazil, and the open question of whether a Latin American country will become dynamic enough to draw major numbers of immigrants.

Onto the DSA...

We've already seen the first wave of (mostly protestant) British migrate to the DSA (those who would have gone to Canada IOTL). We also know Indians are going to be brought into the DSA. The question is, who next?

Generally speaking, migrations to North America happened in one of two ways. Those who came as farmers or rural laborers looked for land with climate similar to home - hence Norwegians in the Dakotas, or Ukrainians in the Canadian Prairies, or Finns in the UP. On the other hand, people working in mines and factories didn't particularly care where they ended up.

British migration, except perhaps directly to California, will probably be spent by the 1850s. The climate just isn't as nice as other options like Australia, New Zealand, or South Africa. Hell, for a lot of people from Scotland, Patagonia might seem like a nicer place. So the DSA is going to turn south, to the Mediterranean, in order to find new migrants, including...

1. IOTL, hundreds of thousands of Spaniards migrated to Cuba and Puerto Rico. Presuming no independent Latin American nation gets its shit together, a goodly number of these are still going to want to come. This should reinforce the speaking of the Spanish language on both islands. I still say that Glen's idea of language shift isn't going to happen - Didn't for Quebec after all, but even if he goes with it, this should delay the shift by decades.

2. Brazil is a balkanized mess, so the migrants who came from Portugal (for that matter, also the Germans, Italians, and others) will be up for grabs to some extent. Portugal has always had a close relationship with Britain, and IOTL Portuguese settled to a limited extent in the Anglo-Caribbean.

3. While the lion's share of Italians will go to the USA as in OTL, the DSA should get a fair number as well. IOTL, Italians did settle in New Orleans, for example, and they migrated all over Latin America (particularly Brazil and Argentina). The DSA probably won't have a policy to attract Italians, but will get a fair share anyway.

4. Later on, I could see the DSA being a major attraction for both Greeks and Christian Arab groups. Again, this is mainly going by the climate, which, while not similar to home, is more tolerable for them than for the British. While Ashkenazi Jews will still mainly travel to the U.S., the DSA does already have a sizable Sephardic community in Charleston, and it's altogether possible the community will get itself together enough to attract significant migrants, particularly from the Ottomans.

One big plus for attracting these groups is many are Malaria-resistant to some degree, which will make them far less likely to fall ill in most lowland areas of the DSA.

 

[Nugax]

@eschaton: I disagree with you on a number of points

-Firstly the immigration to the US will be slightly decreased by the lack of all those who moved to Canada, especially on subsidised British shipping, and then went on to the US. With its better climate and approximately twenty times as much arable land I'd say those who take the funded boat to the DSA are much less likely to leave.

-Secondly I have no clue what you mean by British immigration to the DSA is done by 1850s, when OTL Britain managed to see a million people a decade move to North America from the 1860s onwards, and 600k in each of the two decades before that. I don't see that changing in ATL, and with DSAs more space the proportion will probably be much more in their favour than the OTL US:Canada ratio. Whilst the Brits might avoid the very humid parts of the DSA, there is plenty of other places for them to go there. South Africa and Oceania are not particularly attractive alternatives due to distance and difficulty farming.

-America barely got the plurality of Italian migrants in the OTL, certainly not a "lions share", Brazil and Argentina got over 80% of American numbers each. Where they go is certainly a question, and we'll have to see what Glen plans the conditions to be like in the various countries in the 1890s (if the La Plata state holds together I can see it getting the most by a good margin). Plus whilst Catholicism might be accepted, if that spurs immigration you might see a stronger Know-Nothingesque movement in the US.

-I think you're massively overestimating the effect of climate as a deterent and applying it very selectively, people moved from Northern Europe to Australia in huge numbers, and southern europeans to the US eastern seaboard. It just needs to be tolerable and have jobs.

 

[eschaton]

-Firstly the immigration to the US will be slightly decreased by the lack of all those who moved to Canada, especially on subsidised British shipping, and then went on to the US. With its better climate and approximately twenty times as much arable land I'd say those who take the funded boat to the DSA are much less likely to leave.

Do you have hard numbers on how many people this is? I do know that of the 100,000 Irish that migrated during the Great Famine, only 20% stayed in Canada. Still, from everything I have read the majority of Canadian migrants to the U.S. were Franco-Canadians, whose ancestors were of course not recent immigrants. Hell, between 1840 and 1930, half of Quebec's population migrated to the U.S. - most to New England. These people may still migrate (although I think they'll be more likely to go West than South), but since they are U.S. citizens it's all a wash.

-Secondly I have no clue what you mean by British immigration to the DSA is done by 1850s, when OTL Britain managed to see a million people a decade move to North America from the 1860s onwards, and 600k in each of the two decades before that. I don't see that changing in ATL, and with DSAs more space the proportion will probably be much more in their favour than the OTL US:Canada ratio. Whilst the Brits might avoid the very humid parts of the DSA, there is plenty of other places for them to go there. South Africa and Oceania are not particularly attractive alternatives due to distance and difficulty farming.

Mind you, I am not Canadian, but from everything I know, the second wave of immigration was immediately following the war of 1812, and overwhelmingly British. The third happened roughly at the same time as the peak of U.S. immigration, and the majority were continental. This makes a good deal of sense, as Britain, like the U.S., was industrializing during this period, so there were enough domestic draws for migration for the British to not migrate overseas to become factory workers or small farmers in great numbers.

-America barely got the plurality of Italian migrants in the OTL, certainly not a "lions share", Brazil and Argentina got over 80% of American numbers each. Where they go is certainly a question, and we'll have to see what Glen plans the conditions to be like in the various countries in the 1890s (if the La Plata state holds together I can see it getting the most by a good margin). Plus whilst Catholicism might be accepted, if that spurs immigration you might see a stronger Know-Nothingesque movement in the US.

Okay, I concede here. It's very plausible that the U.S. has lower numbers of Italians than OTL. OTOH, with Brazil a mess, numbers could be greater as well.

-I think you're massively overestimating the effect of climate as a deterrent and applying it very selectively, people moved from Northern Europe to Australia in huge numbers, and southern Europeans to the US eastern seaboard. It just needs to be tolerable and have jobs.

Well, as I said, typically migrants who are planning on working in factories or mines weren't particularly choosy. On the other hand, farmers who planned to settle the frontier indeed did look for places which were climatically somewhat similar to home, which makes sense given they'd want to apply as much of their existing farming knowledge as possible. Australia is an exception, but given it was part of the British Empire, and settled predominantly by the British (except for the South Australian Germans - but then there were so many Germans they ended up almost everywhere), the majority were incentivized to go there.

 

[Nugax]

Well the sources I've read have given 60-80% movement from Canada to the US for pretty much every group that turned up, though since emmigration wasn't counted much until the end of the century its hard to say for sure:

On this graph from the 1880s on you can see the emigration tracking the Immigration, and the majority of that went to the states. If we had 80% in 1850 and 60-100% in 1880 we can infer a rough rate through the century and apply it to the data from the rest of the century (taken from stats canada)

We can infer that the DSA will keep the whole of the red line in this TL, and thus reduce the blue line by 80% of the red line.

Plus thats before you get into the British who went straight to the US in the OTL, who here might be tempted by an industrialising Piedmont, British California, and jobs in the New Orleans-*Texas City urban strips. Even a quarter of that share is is a few million.

 

[Glen]

At a guess I would speculate that it's because the Clipper Races only got into full swing in about 1870, when suddenly tea merchants realised that there were now ships fast enough to mean that it was worth investing in every measure to reduce transportation times. I'd also say that the Civil War probably meant that the southern USA was viewed as in need of much economic redevelopment, with some prime and dirt cheap land, and after 100 years was less likely to react badly to British investment.

So are you postulating that the development of tea in North America would be faster or slower?

 

[Glen]

Lack of demand meant it could never compete in cost with the much larger asian commercial enterprises, plus it was of average or less quality - the best tea general comes from higher elevations, but the American piedmont often gets too cold for consistent commerical production (you can coddle a small garden to survive but not a huge plantation), even the Coastal plain often gets cold enough in Jan or Feb that the plants are unhappy - not enough to perish, but enough to reduce yields compared with Asia.

You'd need a situation where the American south is more cut off from Asian markets and likes tea, and the former certainly doesn't occur here.

What about the Caribbean? Plenty of warm but high places there!

 

[Faeelin]

-Firstly the immigration to the US will be slightly decreased by the lack of all those who moved to Canada, especially on subsidised British shipping, and then went on to the US. With its better climate and approximately twenty times as much arable land I'd say those who take the funded boat to the DSA are much less likely to leave.

-I think you're massively overestimating the effect of climate as a deterent and applying it very selectively, people moved from Northern Europe to Australia in huge numbers, and southern europeans to the US eastern seaboard. It just needs to be tolerable and have jobs.

Hrmm....

 

[Glen]

I posted such much earlier in the thread, but here are my thoughts on the makeup of immigration in TTL's USA and DSA.

For the USA. there are only a few minor differences between OTL and TTL, given most of the area lost saw little immigration anyway.

First, there will obviously be little Hispanic migration, both due to the lack of a land border with Mexico, as well as the unlikelihood of anything like the annexation of Puerto Rico.

Secondly, the earlier acceptance of Catholicism should mean that immigration by all Catholic groups (Irish, Italians, Poles, etc) is slightly boosted compared to OTL.

It's also possible that if Quebec and the other Francophone-leaning states get better developed there might be a substantial amount of French immigration. It still wouldn't ever comprise a major U.S. ethnicity since the French birth rate was very low in the 19th century, thus there were always more opportunities there than elsewhere in Europe. Still, it would add more flavor.

don't see any major problems with the points above.

Finally, there's the people the DSA will swallow up instead, discussed below. There's also the knock-off effects of a ruined Brazil, and the open question of whether a Latin American country will become dynamic enough to draw major numbers of immigrants.

Onto the DSA...

We've already seen the first wave of (mostly protestant) British migrate to the DSA (those who would have gone to Canada IOTL). We also know Indians are going to be brought into the DSA. The question is, who next?

Generally speaking, migrations to North America happened in one of two ways. Those who came as farmers or rural laborers looked for land with climate similar to home - hence Norwegians in the Dakotas, or Ukrainians in the Canadian Prairies, or Finns in the UP. On the other hand, people working in mines and factories didn't particularly care where they ended up.

No problems with the points mentioned above about the DSA.

British migration, except perhaps directly to California, will probably be spent by the 1850s. The climate just isn't as nice as other options like Australia, New Zealand, or South Africa. Hell, for a lot of people from Scotland, Patagonia might seem like a nicer place.

I disagree somewhat with this. I don't think that Australia nor South Africa offer better climates than those available in the DSA (I will concede New Zealand). Also, I believe the economic opportunities in the DSA will tend to be better than those other areas you mention. And just the sheer carrying capacity of the DSA is greater than those areas, so I think we see somewhat better immigration than OTL to the region, and of course that will continually be magnified by reproduction among the new arrivals.

So the DSA is going to turn south, to the Mediterranean, in order to find new migrants, including...

Possibly - let's look at it.

1. IOTL, hundreds of thousands of Spaniards migrated to Cuba and Puerto Rico. Presuming no independent Latin American nation gets its shit together, a goodly number of these are still going to want to come. This should reinforce the speaking of the Spanish language on both islands. I still say that Glen's idea of language shift isn't going to happen - Didn't for Quebec after all, but even if he goes with it, this should delay the shift by decades.

While you may be right about language (time will tell), I think you are wrong when it comes to continued immigration of Spanish to the Caribbean. There will be more attractive alternatives on the mainland of the Western Hemisphere, specifically the UPSA and Mexico.

2. Brazil is a balkanized mess, so the migrants who came from Portugal (for that matter, also the Germans, Italians, and others) will be up for grabs to some extent. Portugal has always had a close relationship with Britain, and IOTL Portuguese settled to a limited extent in the Anglo-Caribbean.

But recall that Portugal still has a colonial holding on South America for those who want to keep their nationality, and while Balkanized, some of those Brazilian splinter nations will be attractive to Portuguese.

I do agree that the other European groups may tend more towards other lands than they did OTL, though some may be attracted there nonetheless.

3. While the lion's share of Italians will go to the USA as in OTL, the DSA should get a fair number as well. IOTL, Italians did settle in New Orleans, for example, and they migrated all over Latin America (particularly Brazil and Argentina). The DSA probably won't have a policy to attract Italians, but will get a fair share anyway.

I think they will tend more to the USA overall, though the UPSA may gain some. However, the obvious place will be the USA for most of these.

4. Later on, I could see the DSA being a major attraction for both Greeks and Christian Arab groups. Again, this is mainly going by the climate, which, while not similar to home, is more tolerable for them than for the British. While Ashkenazi Jews will still mainly travel to the U.S., the DSA does already have a sizable Sephardic community in Charleston, and it's altogether possible the community will get itself together enough to attract significant migrants, particularly from the Ottomans.

Interesting and plausible. I shall keep these in mind.

One big plus for attracting these groups is many are Malaria-resistant to some degree, which will make them far less likely to fall ill in most lowland areas of the DSA.

Maybe, but I doubt people will be thinking "Gee, I should go there since I'll get less sick than other people!"

 

[Glen]

@eschaton: I disagree with you on a number of points

-Firstly the immigration to the US will be slightly decreased by the lack of all those who moved to Canada, especially on subsidised British shipping, and then went on to the US. With its better climate and approximately twenty times as much arable land I'd say those who take the funded boat to the DSA are much less likely to leave.

Agree for English. However, I will note that those of a more liberal/radical bent who want to get out from the class system and out from under the rule of the Crown will flock to the USA as the premiere republic in the World.

-Secondly I have no clue what you mean by British immigration to the DSA is done by 1850s, when OTL Britain managed to see a million people a decade move to North America from the 1860s onwards, and 600k in each of the two decades before that. I don't see that changing in ATL, and with DSAs more space the proportion will probably be much more in their favour than the OTL US:Canada ratio. Whilst the Brits might avoid the very humid parts of the DSA, there is plenty of other places for them to go there. South Africa and Oceania are not particularly attractive alternatives due to distance and difficulty farming.

True enough. However, I will point out that if people are coming to farm, then the USA is the more attractive option, having a lot more arable land available for small farmers.

-America barely got the plurality of Italian migrants in the OTL, certainly not a "lions share", Brazil and Argentina got over 80% of American numbers each. Where they go is certainly a question, and we'll have to see what Glen plans the conditions to be like in the various countries in the 1890s (if the La Plata state holds together I can see it getting the most by a good margin). Plus whilst Catholicism might be accepted, if that spurs immigration you might see a stronger Know-Nothingesque movement in the US.

Good points. I will have to think on this further.

-I think you're massively overestimating the effect of climate as a deterrent and applying it very selectively, people moved from Northern Europe to Australia in huge numbers, and southern Europeans to the US eastern seaboard. It just needs to be tolerable and have jobs.

I think you are both right. Climate is a factor but not the only factor that will drive patterns of immigration. One big butterfly-able factor is that many immigrants flock to a location where they know one or more person who has 'made it'. So wherever your cousin made a decent living farming or trading, that's the place that is most likely to attract you.

 

[Glen]

Do you have hard numbers on how many people this is? I do know that of the 100,000 Irish that migrated during the Great Famine, only 20% stayed in Canada. Still, from everything I have read the majority of Canadian migrants to the U.S. were Franco-Canadians, whose ancestors were of course not recent immigrants. Hell, between 1840 and 1930, half of Quebec's population migrated to the U.S. - most to New England. These people may still migrate (although I think they'll be more likely to go West than South), but since they are U.S. citizens it's all a wash.

I think it will be a mix. Irish Catholics will GREATLY prefer this USA, if they can get there (though once they do they might be surprised by some of the culture). The Franco-Canadians as you say will migrate as well, though it will be both South and West - the ones who move South will assimilate into Anglophones more often than those who go West, where they will tend to retain Francophone ways.

Mind you, I am not Canadian, but from everything I know, the second wave of immigration was immediately following the war of 1812, and overwhelmingly British. The third happened roughly at the same time as the peak of U.S. immigration, and the majority were continental. This makes a good deal of sense, as Britain, like the U.S., was industrializing during this period, so there were enough domestic draws for migration for the British to not migrate overseas to become factory workers or small farmers in great numbers.

You lost me on this one - you saying that the English are more or less likely to come to North America ITTL?

Okay, I concede here. It's very plausible that the U.S. has lower numbers of Italians than OTL. OTOH, with Brazil a mess, numbers could be greater as well.

Maybe they will be a wash. I don't think they will be greater for the DSA, that much I think is reasonable to say.

Well, as I said, typically migrants who are planning on working in factories or mines weren't particularly choosy. On the other hand, farmers who planned to settle the frontier indeed did look for places which were climatically somewhat similar to home, which makes sense given they'd want to apply as much of their existing farming knowledge as possible. Australia is an exception, but given it was part of the British Empire, and settled predominantly by the British (except for the South Australian Germans - but then there were so many Germans they ended up almost everywhere), the majority were incentivized to go there.

Again, as said, climate is a factor - just not the only one.

Interestingly, there's a lot of German immigration to TTL's USA - and it tends to be more liberal and protestant.

 

[Glen]

Well the sources I've read have given 60-80% movement from Canada to the US for pretty much every group that turned up, though since emmigration wasn't counted much until the end of the century its hard to say for sure:

On this graph from the 1880s on you can see the emigration tracking the Immigration, and the majority of that went to the states. If we had 80% in 1850 and 60-100% in 1880 we can infer a rough rate through the century and apply it to the data from the rest of the century (taken from stats canada)

We can infer that the DSA will keep the whole of the red line in this TL, and thus reduce the blue line by 80% of the red line.

Nice graphs!

Plus thats before you get into the British who went straight to the US in the OTL, who here might be tempted by an industrialising Piedmont, British California, and jobs in the New Orleans-*Texas City urban strips. Even a quarter of that share is is a few million.

There will be industrialization in the DSA, but the USA will certainly do more, and more important for this discussion, will do so far earlier.

 

[Glen]

Hrmm....

What, Hmmm? Get back here and contribute!!!