Dominion of Southern America - Updated July 1, 2018

[Glen]

Lord is more of a title than anything.

And actually, if they 'buy' their title (plenty of 'jumped up' new rich did so), then maybe.

As for people resenting it, its thier choice to move to the districts.

That's never stopped people from resenting things...

The Profits from Taxes still go to London. The Lords get profits from selling thier District off to individuals and no having to pay Taxes.

Not certain on this part.

As for the MP's these guys are never getting to Parliment of Austrailia (some might but this is not a guarinetee) Local colonial councils will have spots for these guys (and im sure some locals who are elected) Local like county, not state or country

You kind of lost me here - meaning that the 'lords' will only be in local politics, not London?

 

[Glen]

Just throwing it out there.

Where does that come from?

The northern line of Latitude for the border is lower than IOTL

Noted.

Eyre is lake in central austrailia which drains 1/6th of Austrailia

Ah, didn't know that. Thanks.

 

[Earl_of_Somerset]

Where does that come from?

Its the penninsula the capital of South Australia is on

 

[Cyrano]

One Fourth of the Population

I know this is back-tracking a bit, but the so-called Potato famine had numerous causes, far outside the simple blight. The neglect and outright hostility directed towards the Irish people by the English is simply not something that can be butterflied away, at least not by any PoD that has been given so far. You can of course work around that Glen, I'm just saying that SUBSTANTIAL reasoning has to be given for it. The administration that has come to power in England is more liberal then the one in place in OTL, but it should be noted that the liberal administration that came to power in the course of the famine actually made what was happening WORSE, not better. If anything, this means the famine will be more severe. The Irish just plain didn't like the English, and the English were a combination of contemptuous and scornful of their "backwards nieghbors". Without some fairly impressive flapping by those Butterflies, the Great Famine is still going done pretty much as per OTL. I don't mean any of this as criticism btw, I'm a huge fan of the TL, and I just want it to be as accurate as possible!

 

[Glen]

Its the penninsula the capital of South Australia is on

Ah, thank you for the explanation. Know how it got that name?

 

[Earl_of_Somerset]

No Clue , ill google it though

 

[Glen]

I know this is back-tracking a bit, but the so-called Potato famine had numerous causes, far outside the simple blight. The neglect and outright hostility directed towards the Irish people by the English is simply not something that can be butterflied away, at least not by any PoD that has been given so far. You can of course work around that Glen, I'm just saying that SUBSTANTIAL reasoning has to be given for it. The administration that has come to power in England is more liberal then the one in place in OTL, but it should be noted that the liberal administration that came to power in the course of the famine actually made what was happening WORSE, not better. If anything, this means the famine will be more severe. The Irish just plain didn't like the English, and the English were a combination of contemptuous and scornful of their "backwards nieghbors". Without some fairly impressive flapping by those Butterflies, the Great Famine is still going done pretty much as per OTL. I don't mean any of this as criticism btw, I'm a huge fan of the TL, and I just want it to be as accurate as possible!

Note that we've already had at least one post describing famines in Ireland - just not due to Blight. I am in agreement with you that it was not the blight alone that caused the problem, and indeed a Liberal administration didn't do that well IOTL with it. What will happen in this timeline remains to be seen, though we already have a hint of that, albeit on a lesser scale than OTL.

 

[Earl_of_Somerset]

You kind of lost me here - meaning that the 'lords' will only be in local politics, not London?

There can be lords outside of London, they will have heavy influence in thier local area and state, and maybe even in Port Jackson

 

[Earl_of_Somerset]

Ok that place was named after this guy

Charles Pierre Claret, comte de Fleurieu (2 July 1738, Lyon – 18 August 1810) was a French explorer, hydrographer and politician. He was Minister of the Navy under Louis XVI, and a member of the Institut de France, as well as the brother of the botanist Marc Antoine Louis Claret de la Tourette.

 

[stevep]

Could go Ottoman and instead of being exempt from taxes, have them collect taxes in the King's name and keep a cut.

Ugh! I would think that by now they would know how destructive and prone to corruption this was. It saves some organisation but is very wasteful and didn't work for the Ottomans, the French or other nations that tried it.

Maybe, but I could see trouble with recruitment for the tenants since there are greener pastures without overlordship out there.

True but if the landlord is willing to help fund the emigration and/or do a lot of work in organising and managing the move. Provided you trust the landlord a bit [and despite myth there were a number of landowners who tried to improve the condition of their tenants] it gives the emigrant some security rather than having to try and manage everything themselves.

Not saying it will be very common but might be a runner in some areas.

I do have a concern with the idea of using such a system to help man the frontier with the French. Given much of that is very barren desert I suspect that other than near the coastline any border marking, let alone settlement, will be superficial.

Steve

 

[stevep]

And why was that, and why was it the largest barrier? (though I can perhaps guess)

Glen

Because at the time the largest expense was on defence and while colonists mobilised in war-time the vast majority of the imperial defence, both army and navy were paid by the London government. [After all we know what happened when Britain tried to get some colonists to pay part of their defence bill.]. Hence there were problems getting the colonists to take a fuller share in the defence bill, both in terms of them being unwilling to pay more and in London being cautious about trying to force the issue.

Steve

 

[Julius Vogel]

Don't forget that most governments had severe capacity and capability issues with regards to setting and collecting tax up until the 20th century.

The colonial governments were no exception to this and they also had the issue of often being both very new (and therefore doing these things for the first time) and being controlled by the rich and powerful. So it isn't surprising that they did not want to substantially increase their defence contributions in the 19th century.

I get the impression that their ability and will changed signficantly after the Second Boer War and Australia & NZ both put a lot more effort and resource into defence at that point.

 

[stevep]

Don't forget that most governments had severe capacity and capability issues with regards to setting and collecting tax up until the 20th century.

The colonial governments were no exception to this and they also had the issue of often being both very new (and therefore doing these things for the first time) and being controlled by the rich and powerful. So it isn't surprising that they did not want to substantially increase their defence contributions in the 19th century.

I get the impression that their ability and will changed signficantly after the Second Boer War and Australia & NZ both put a lot more effort and resource into defence at that point.

Julius Vogel

I think you're right about increased spending from the dominions after the Boer war, although they still ran into problems such as the killing of the proposed Canadian dreadnoughts. However even for regional defence I think the dominions in the S Pacific were still paying less per head than the British people were contributing. [Could be wrong here but that's what I vaguely remember from reading in the past].

Partly of course this was habit in that the responsibility for defence was traditionally held by the metropolitan government plus after ~1814 and with the RN securing the seas the settlement colonies had no real external threat until the 20thC.

Steve

 

[Julius Vogel]

You might well be right on the defence spending per head point - it sounds like it would be right.

However, I do think that this does make sense for quite a couple of reasons

1. The per capita income of the colonies was often less than the British equivalent

2. The really expensive items of Imperial defence - the battle fleet, was largely of use for Home Waters, the Med and E Asia, in that order. The colonies of SA, Australia and NZ would have no real interest in the former, so why should they pay extra for this? Their interest would be keeping the sea lanes open - so maintenance of the cruiser fleet and naval stations to Europe.

Maybe Canada would have a real, near interest in paying for the battle fleet - although the western provinces not so much

 

[Falastur]

True about being less obvious about taxing. You know, this would sort of be like a baronet...

I don't think I get you, Glen. A Baronet was originally just the revised title for any Baron King John failed to summon to his Parliament. Baronets still remained part of the English nobility, and thus they are transferable down the generations. You are perhaps thinking of Knighthoods, which are single generation? Or perhaps you are just getting confused with the Life Peerage system of modern-day Britain?



Also, on the question of the name Fleurieu or whatever it was, he's more likely to be a man sent to French Greater Australia isn't he? I can't see him being likely to do any investigation into British Australia, and consequently I can't see him getting to put his name to a land subdivision on the British side of the border.




As for Darwin being on the French side of the border, now that's very interesting, I hadn't realised that. It should be noted that the British had extreme troubles settling the northern coast of Australia, and they simply failed every time before they managed to join up with the Aborigines at Darwin. Without access to those natives, I would venture that, in terms of European settlement, what is OTL North Australia is just going to be a desolate wasteland. This just furthers my conviction that my map is accurate - that the entire northern half of Australia would be made a single administrative subdivision, on the basis that there isn't even a settlement to administer a second one up there. In fact I think the northernmost settlement at this point is Maryborough (named after the tragically-killed wife of a Governor of New South Wales, if anyone was going to ask)

 

[eschaton]

A couple of thoughts on migration to Australia (Greater & Lesser)

I still say, on the whole, that North Island and much of the Australian coast is more attractive climatically than most of the land in the DSA. The DSA also has a high birth rate, with plenty of native-borne settlers who can take claim of western lands easier. If you're moving from Britain and looking to start a farmstead, Australia is by far a better bet.

For free settlers just looking for a cheap ticket elsewhere, there is no doubt they'll go to the DSA initially.

As to convicts, I don't think they'll play a particularly strong role in the British Australias. Sydney was founded as a penal colony in large part because Britain couldn't send convicts to North America anymore. Before the Revolutionary War, convicts were indentured servants, usually on plantations, so with the retention of most of the plantation colonies, there is no reason to assume Britain would stop doing this. At least until the DSA gets home rule - it's possible they'd then ask Britain to send them elsewhere because they were troublesome, but by then, Patagonia is open.

Instead, I think the developing Australian ruling and middle classes will look closer to home. There will be more "blackbirding" of natives of nearby islands, and more immigration of Indians, Chinese, and Malays. On North Island, the Maori will be ground down into being the laboring class for the British, one way or another.

But once the Gold Rush starts all bets are off. There will be a huge increase in British migration. However, I'm guessing half or more will come from the DSA, simply because it's far quicker for Southrons to get to Australia than Britons, and it will be far cheaper travel as well. Victoria* is liable to have a southern drawl to some extent.

Overall, I'd say you're looking at a majority-white *Victoria and *Tasmania, and a majority nonwhite *Queensland. New South Wales, South Australia, and North Island could go either way depending on how much of a later migration draw the British Australias become.

As to French Australia, it will be very white, outside of a dusting of South Indians and Blacks in the major cities. Nowhere is really suited for plantation agriculture, and native inhabitants are very thin on the ground. I actually think this will probably butterfly away French settlement in New Caledonia and Tahiti (assuming they own these) to some degree. It probably means there won't be more French migrating to the USA ITTL as I previously supposed as well, unless a French government institutes natalist policies unlike IOTL.

 

[Sovereign12]

As to French Australia, it will be very white, outside of a dusting of South Indians and Blacks in the major cities. Nowhere is really suited for plantation agriculture, and native inhabitants are very thin on the ground. I actually think this will probably butterfly away French settlement in New Caledonia and Tahiti (assuming they own these) to some degree. It probably means there won't be more French migrating to the USA ITTL as I previously supposed as well, unless a French government institutes natalist policies unlike IOTL.

After reading this and looking at the world map. France is going to need to up their claims on Africa just for Ports of Call for resupply. I'm sure they have them and are not shown on the map, but the British have huge claims which means more soldiers to defend those same territories. The French will not have as many men guarding their few ports or trading towns, and could be easily lost if they get into a conflict with the British. (The Dutch have the same problem, but even in TTL the Dutch still seem to have better relations with the British, so should have no trouble using the British ports.)

Glen, connected to the ideas above, in OTL ocean going steamships start to be built during the 1830s. Any thoughts on how their developement in TTL is going to proceed?

Two examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Royal_William
http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/maritime/collections/artsea/models/TO7765.aspx

 

[eschaton]

After reading this and looking at the world map. France is going to need to up their claims on Africa just for Ports of Call for resupply. I'm sure they have them and are not shown on the map, but the British have huge claims which means more soldiers to defend those same territories. The French will not have as many men guarding their few ports or trading towns, and could be easily lost if they get into a conflict with the British. (The Dutch have the same problem, but even in TTL the Dutch still seem to have better relations with the British, so should have no trouble using the British ports.)

If anything, post-Napoleonic war between France and Britain seems less likely ITTL than it did IOTL.

That said, I can't see a German/French/British alliance lasting forever. Someone is going to have to be on the outs.

 

[DuQuense]

Victoria* is liable to have a southern drawl to some extent.

OTL's traditional Southern Drawl, is due to the Irish in New Orleans/Gulf Coast. With More?/Less? Irish v the Caribbean [A Mon, don't forget us] I don't see the same Drawl developing

 

[eschaton]

OTL's traditional Southern Drawl, is due to the Irish in New Orleans/Gulf Coast. With More?/Less? Irish v the Caribbean [A Mon, don't forget us] I don't see the same Drawl developing

You might be referring to something more exact than I am (I was just using it as a euphemism for Southern English), but Glen has already said that people in the continental part of the DSA do talk much like OTL's South, with the exception of the upper classes being more anglicized (Ala Boston Brahmans).