Dominion of Southern America - Updated July 1, 2018

Glen

Moderator
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?
Little bit of all the above, never mind...
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.
Appears it was named for him by the explorer, and not he himself, but either way it will be butterflied away in terms of his name being attached to that peninsula.
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)
May be harder - then again, there's also going to be a lot more experience in hot climates from the DSA to import - Maryborough's name is likely butterflied. Your border is more likely than the OTL ones, at least so far - in the end, time will tell...
 
Last edited:
About Australia:

Hmmm... Australia will be less populated than OTL with Australia being ignored in favor of the DSA (the only reason Britain will want people even there is to keep out the bloody French!). I wonder how Asian immigration to Australia will be ITTL. I could see it being more encouraged. There is likely to be black migration there too, but probably not a majority in any colony. Yes, the DSA is better than OTL, but OTL had a very low bar. Blacks can always go to the USA, too.

Here's what British Australia would probably look like... New Georgia likely becomes a province so it will join Confederation.
1.png

I could see Langdon Cheves publishing his natural selection (he was basically Darwin before Darwin but didn't publish it) to redeem himself after leading the CSA. That would be interesting...

1.png
 

Glen

Moderator
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.
Maybe, but it just isn't as big!
For free settlers just looking for a cheap ticket elsewhere, there is no doubt they'll go to the DSA initially.
Maybe, unless someone is willing to subsidize trips elsewhere...
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.
Actually, they did ITTL.
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.
Once British Australia goes 'respectable', possibly, but I am saying that we will see the same amount of penal shipments as OTL with less free settlement at least initially, and thus a greater proportional penal presence.
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.
A possibility - time will tell....
On North Island, the Maori will be ground down into being the laboring class for the British, one way or another.
You mean like OTL?
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.
What an interesting thought...
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.
I suspect you are right on shifts, though not certain from recent demographics that it would be to the point of a non-white majority - I could be wrong, though...
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.
Possibly, possibly...
I actually think this will probably butterfly away French settlement in New Caledonia and Tahiti (assuming they own these) to some degree.
Too early to tell.
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.
Don't know about natalist policies, but remember that the USA will be the unopposed number one location for immigrants until the 1830s at least, and quite frankly only the most rugged or patriotic of immigrants will prefer French Australia to the USA. Rather I think this means less immigration to other parts of the Western Hemisphere from France.
 

Glen

Moderator
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.)
Good points, yes indeed....
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
It's a tad earlier than OTL.
 

Glen

Moderator
If anything, post-Napoleonic war between France and Britain seems less likely ITTL than it did IOTL.
Well, so far...
That said, I can't see a German/French/British alliance lasting forever. Someone is going to have to be on the outs.
Well, forever is a long time no matter who is in the alliance, but time will tell...
 

Glen

Moderator
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).

DQ, when I look up the Southern Drawl most sources note it is either of unknown origin or suspected to be adopted from African American English! I think we are safe in saying in any event that the Southerners of the DSA sound a lot like OTL's South.
 
On the subject of Van Diemen's Land versus Tasmania: I was going to use VD'sL too on my map until I looked a bit harder into it: it turns out that the term "Tasmania(n)" had been in steadily-increasing use for several decades by 1850 and was by this point pretty much being used as a substitute term for VD'sL wherever VD'sL might be used. Infact in roughly 1850 a petition was sent to London to have the name officially changed to Tasmania, and that petition was accepted. I can't see that TTL will be any different. I think the island is destined to be known as Tasmania.
 

Glen

Moderator
For my money I would see the French falling out. Germany is still pretty new at being a national state and aren't competition for the British, since they lack colonies at this time.
Still very early to say anything about this Germany, ja?
With things in Europe quieting down I would see the French starting to look outside of Europe again. Colonies, trade, and resources are going to be sought after. With such a big colony (Australia) they will want to extend their power to protect it.
Or sell it at a profit and avoid all that overhead?;) But you have sense; it is likely we will see some French colonial expansion where able.
The Russians, Austrians, and Prussians are not out of the game, they are justed taking a breather.
True that!
I could see Russia, Austria, and Prussia eventually going after the Ottomans. The Prussians and Austrians would want African colonies to compete with the British, French, and Dutch. Maybe the Greeks enter into this alliance to get the Ottomans off their back. Would the French, British, and Germans come to the Ottomans defense like similar nations did OTL during the Crimean War? With the addition of Prussia, Austria, and possibly the Greeks; the other European powers may not want a repeat of the Liberal War. Depending on when and if this did occur the French may side with them to gobble up Ottoman North African territory (or not join but move into the territory as a "protective intitative".).
Wow, that's a lot of speculation! Any one or two of those are possible (then again, so is the opposite!) - time will tell what really will happen, and in what combination.
I doubt you would see the Austrians trying to get colonies overseas. As a general rule they channelled their settlement and expansionists urges towards the Balkans and the Ottomans rather than outside Europe. That said odder things have happened.
Indeed.
Prussia is a second-rate power at best, and a dead man walking at worst. It lost all of the best resources for Industrialization outside of Silesia. Its population is now probably half Polish. The best it can hope for is it will become a slightly larger Belgium, where two groups stay wedded together despite huge differences. I think it will most likely be an appendage of Austria until they too fall apart. They might grab a single colony, but no more, and it will probably be something in Africa which doesn't seriously challenge the sphere of interest of the real powers.
That is certainly one big possibility. However, we've a lot of history left to go through - it could grow or shrink or even be devoured entirely - only time will tell...
eschaton
I would agree that it's very much in a corner now. Can't remember if it has any of Saxony
Not anymore.[/QUOTE] but if not it's got Silesia and a lot of fairly moderate agricultural land and a probably pretty autocratic system. [May be more so than OTL as the more liberal areas have been lost and the junkers will probably be extremely hostile to any spreading of power, fearing a desire to join Germany - which of course makes such desires even more likely. The high proportion of Poles in the state will also cause tension.[/QUOTE] Yep all true and good points. Also, there was a mild amount of population change, at least amongst the intelligentsia, with liberals migrating to Germany and conservatives to Prussia.
I don't think they will have the desire or resources for any territorial gains outside Europe, especially given that such colonies will be vulnerable to nations with a more powerful navy, which will be most major or moderate powers I suspect.
Steve
I wouldn't be too sure - look at OTL Netherlands, for example - but then again, they had plenty of shoreline...
Not to mention that Germany doesn't contain Prussia/Brandenburg in TTL. This means no leadership by a state obsessed with building itself up into a world leader, no leadership by a state with a "army with a country, not a country with an army" reputation, no strong conservative bent from the Junkers (not to mention that the entire country of "Germany" TTL is a result of the republican revolutions, so conservative is hardly a worse you could ever use for them. This Germany is likely to be a mixture of nervous and cocksure on the world stage, believing itself capable of anything right up until the point where it needs to do it, where it will probably get the willies and chicken out. Its large lack of former major states mean that even its greatest statesmen will be inexperienced and likely prone to being influenced or manipulated, or just plain tricked into believing heavy lies. Their army is going to take a long time to organise. This Germany is not a state to be feared in the way that OTL's Germany was, and it's not likely to be one pressing fervently for prestige and power like the Prussians did.
I agree to a degree - I think you overemphasize the lack of experience in diplomacy - size does not equal sophistication.
It will be interesting to see what does happen to Prussia. Given that they've just lost the Rhineland, their economic strength is forever broken, and as highlighted before they now will have an inferiority complex just from the way that the Poles in their land will almost outnumber the Germans. It does, however, still have its military tradition. If in the near future Austria comes to blows with the UK it's possible that the Prussians could join the conflict of their own accord on the British side and become heavily dependent on British subsidies - without the ability to fund themselves their ability to so much as really even have a foreign policy is virtually nil now, so they're unlikely to wage a war without British funding now unless their opponent is already looking likely to lose.
So second rate power but with a proud military tradition, an inferiority complex, but probably only able to go after someone with a powerful patron or have a surefire loser for an opponent...
In such a situation it's not impossible that Prussia could eventually fall into the position of essentially being a British puppet on the continent. Without financial support from a state - which really only Britain can afford to give -
Oh, just because they have the best ability to do so doesn't make Britain the only power capable of doing so.
they must otherwise choose one of two paths. Either they swallow their pride and become isolationist to protect their own existence, while silently acting to remove the future threat of a second revolution washing over them from within, which would result in their annexation to Germany,
I think they will definitely do some degree of this.
or they can choose to go out in style, acting dignified and strong but eventually destined to be overwhelmed as Poland was when it was divided, and to eventually be annexed/
This is possible but not required.
turned into a client state by either Germany, Austria or Russia. Either way, in the age of big states, their continued existence is now under threat.
A more possible alternative - and yes, they are under threat.
Well the Prussians could always use the fear of Russia on the Poles. Basically saying if you don't work with us, then Russia might step in and take over all of us.
I cannot see Prussia joining with the British. I think the nobility and military just couldn't allow themselves to do so; they would find it too degrading.
Why on earth would that be?
The same with joining with Germany, who they would see as upstarts.
Now THAT is something of an understatement.
While I think it unlikely with the mindset of the Prussian nobles, merging with Austria would strengthen their position in Europe, especially if Austria has internal troubles as in OTL that forced the formation of Austria-Hungary. With neither Prussia or Austria having influence over TTL's Germany both will have greater internal tensions. The possibility of a Triple Monarchy of Austria, Prussia, and Hungary would also show Russia that they are not to be bullied. Plus it would give this Triple Monarchy ports on the Baltic and the Mediterranean Seas. I'm not sure the two dynasties, Habsburg and Hohenzollern, would incorporate well together though. It would probably fall apart after about a decade of struggle.
This makes a surprising amount of sense - which is why it would take a rather remarkable series of events for it to actually come to pass.
I never meant to suggest any sort of "joining" of Prussia to Britain. What I meant to suggest was that Prussia might become so dependent on British subsidies to go to war that they (slowly, over the course of a few decades) come to the point where they enter any war the British suggest they enter for the cash, and they fight to secure British strategic goals. I never meant any sort of political union, nor that the Prussian government might become subservient to London/look to it for leadership. Just that Prussia might end up aligning her foreign policy with Britain's in exchange for cash.
Noted.
Interesting analysis and probably largely accurate. In the longer term and with their population base and industrial potential they will be a major power in Europe and there will be the national pull on the German parts of Prussia and Austria, regardless of what the ruling elite want.
True, but that's a ways away.
One other factor is that although Hanover provided the rallying point and probably the new royal family [if I'm remembering rightly] there will be other regional centres of power [Bavaria, Saxony possibly Westphalia]. Unless Hanover annexes large former Prussian lands it's going to be 1st amongst equals in prestige but not necessarily in power. Hence the new Germany is likely to be fairly decentralised and while a lot of the population are eager about a new state the ruling elites and regional groups will be looking to safeguard their own interests.
True enough.
It's not [I hope] going to become another HRE but likely to be a bit uncertain and disorganised in co-ordinated actions, both in foreign affairs and economic development and there could be clashes later on between regional and centralising interests.
Probably not enough to go all HRE, but some.
[Although with a Germany stuck in the centre of Europe and with potential and hostile powers all around it the centralising factors could win out for the purpose of survival].
Nothing like being surrounded to focus the mind, eh?
It's possibly that Prussia could go that way but at least initially I would say Britain would prefer good relations with Germany.
probably.
Also if Prussia became a satellite over clashes in Europe I would say it's more likely to be with Russia than Austria. The latter is pretty much a sated power and also have many internal problems so is unlikely to want to expand against Britain but Russia is more likely to clash with Britain in a number of ways.
Steve
A good point with Russia.
True enough, Russia is a very likely option politically. The only thing about Russia is they don't have the reserves of cash to fund Prussia going to war...and I think in this TL, Prussia is only going to have the funds to wage war for maybe 6 months - 1 year at a time before the government runs out of money. As war develops into a faster thing in a couple of centuries, this will evolve into an inability to raise a large army in the first place - they might be stuck with an army of, say, 10-15,000 in an era when states are starting to have modern-era large armies. If Prussia becomes a Russian satellite, they will either be a satellite that gets forced into constant and total bankruptcy to continue fighting Russia's corner, or they'll be the kind of satellite which keeps dropping out of the war for financial reasons just when Russia needs them most.
I think that this is all true in the short term, I think it may be too much projection.
Falastur
Sorry, I was a little unclear here. I meant if Prussia became basically a British auxiliary then they [and Britain] would probably be more likely to be fighting Russia rather than Austria. Britain has conflicts with Russia from the straits to the far east but no real conflict with Austria. Also having been repelled in the west the Prussian might think their only chance of expansion would be eastwards, possibly gaining control of the Baltic provinces and either more of Poland or possibly trying to make it a subject kingdom.
Does sound like taking a chunk out of Russia's Empire as an ally of Britain would be a more viable growth option for Prussia - if they are given the opportunity, that is - and of course their ruling families are rather entertwined at this point - not that that's ever prevented a war!
I still think the problem here would be that Britain and Germany would prefer each other as allies which would rather hamper close relations between Britain and a resentful Prussia.
Steve
Yeah, that's somewhat of a problem - but in a generation or so it may be in everyone's interests to get buddy-buddy - or maybe it won't - that's for the future!
Ah, I see. My bad. True enough, though so long as France is friendly to Britain (however long that is), a war on Russia probably is the same as a war on Austria. In the after-years after the (inevitable?) fall-out between France and the UK, Austria probably becomes Britain's most likely ally anyway, so there's a chance it could amount to the same thing. I only used Austria as my primary example originally because Prussia often chose the side which was opposing Austria in a war, and this is the likely spark point if Prussia is to be dependent on war subsidies.
Hmmm - so we'll see what happens with France and with Austria?
True that. I didn't give this enough consideration, but you're right. If Prussia becomes hell-bent on opposing, or even warring, Germany then it could scupper my ideas. Of course, Germany now has the ability to really hurt, or even destroy, Prussia, so one hopes for their sake that they don't keep being too aggressive towards Germany or it could be the death of them (something Germany would no doubt like). Hopefully the Prussians would learn from a couple of bloody noses to just give up on their vendetta, or at least shelve it for another time.
Might be a while before Germany was hitting that hard!
The more I think about it, I think Germany ITTL will be like the USA pre-WWI, or China in the current period - quickly developing into a huge economic power, but with comparably little interest in the world outside their own borders.
That is probably one of the most likely outcomes.
I think one could argue without Prussia's reactionary influence, and with the liberal foundations of the state, Industrialization will be earlier and progress more rapidly than IOTL. This probably means that emigration from Germany will be a goodly bit lower, both because there will be more domestic opportunities opening up, and socialists and trade unionists won't be repressed as badly.
On the other hand, developing nations tend to have a large increase in population until they hit the fully developed stage - so excess population might go elsewhere.
Regardless, I see Germany inward focused for awhile - a lot of work needs to be done on consolidation of the various princedoms. By the time the economy is humming, I don't see the need for colonies - Germany's IOTL were money drains anyway, and without the Prussian sense of national pride I don't think they would be bothered, or at most have one or two.
That may be the case, certainly likely in the short term.
Eventually though, they will get in another conflict with Austria, Prussia, or both. They will not instigate it, but they will assuredly win it, which will be the real introduction of Germany as a major power.

Agree with you. Germany will keep close ties with Britian for defense and trade, but otherwise will keep to themselves. Prussia on the otherhand I see keeping a smouldering grudge going against Germany. Eventually I think it will lead to another war. Prussia is basically TTL Poland caught between a powerful and agressive Russia and the powerful and indifferent British and their allies. Austria is the only other country that Prussia has a similar cultural tie to and with both being defeated in the Liberal War, both would strengthen their alliance for mutual protection and perhaps a need for revenge.
Maybe, maybe...
Whether they form a union as I have posited previously or not, Austria and Prussia are inside a vise. Stronger military ties and an increasing of both of their militaries may form an Iron Fortress in Middle Europe. This may stir up more problems with the various ethnicities within both countries. Both countries are also going to need more resources for their militaries. Colonialism may be the only way for them to ease the tensions while getting those resources. Africa has planty of unclaimed territory at the moment for them to take. I cannot see Britian or France going to outright war to prevent them from getting colonies. Austria in OTL had smal attempts at colonialism and gave up, but TTL has had some things butterflied away which may allow them to attempt different solutions to their problems.
That's a quite interesting thought - but can they pull it off?
 
I don't think Italy isn't going to be friendly with Germany for long. Germany has South Tyrol and that is going to put the fear of God into the Italians of invasion. With most historic invasions coming threw South Tyrol the Italians won't like it and will likely become beligerent about it looking for allies to take it away from Germany to protect Italy.
 

Eurofed

Banned
I don't think Italy isn't going to be friendly with Germany for long. Germany has South Tyrol and that is going to put the fear of God into the Italians of invasion. With most historic invasions coming threw South Tyrol the Italians won't like it and will likely become beligerent about it looking for allies to take it away from Germany to protect Italy.

Bah. As long as Italy has Austria on its doorstep, who bloody cares ?
 
About Australia:

Hmmm... Australia will be less populated than OTL with Australia being ignored in favor of the DSA (the only reason Britain will want people even there is to keep out the bloody French!). I wonder how Asian immigration to Australia will be ITTL. I could see it being more encouraged. There is likely to be black migration there too, but probably not a majority in any colony. Yes, the DSA is better than OTL, but OTL had a very low bar. Blacks can always go to the USA, too.

Here's what British Australia would probably look like... New Georgia likely becomes a province so it will join Confederation.

I could see Langdon Cheves publishing his natural selection (he was basically Darwin before Darwin but didn't publish it) to redeem himself after leading the CSA. That would be interesting...

I would imagine they would chop off the more habitable areas, and leave an unorganize remnant

Also the bulk Lake Eyre is outside of your Eyre state by a small bit :rolleyes:
 

Glen

Moderator
The Dominion of Southern America is now up against some pretty stiff competition in the Turtledove Best Timeline competition! Please dear readers, go and show your support for the DSA by voting for it in the poll!

Relevant links:

Best Timeline Poll Listings: Best Timeline Poll A----Best Timeline Poll B

We are a mere three votes behind the leading vote getter! Please make certain to vote for the DSA if you have not already done so, dear readers!
 
I would imagine they would chop off the more habitable areas, and leave an unorganize remnant

I'm not so sure. As Aracnid pointed out on the previous page, the British Empire never really utilised the idea of "unorganised territory". Unorganised territory just didn't exist in the British vocabulary. Rather than splitting off unsettled land from settled land to let the settled land focus on maximising its growth and administration, the British colonial administrations/Parliament far preferred to pin vast swathes of empty land onto the back of successful colonial cities for administration, until such a time as that empty land filled enough to deserve breaking up into more manageable chunks. Take for example North Australia OTL - when it struggled as an entity for a while and proved hard to manage, London just annexed it straight onto the colony of South Australia, even though this created a colony some 1,400 miles high north-to-south, and where transversing the centre of the colony was simply not an option but instead for the South Australian government to manage North Australia, they would have needed to send ships round half the entire circumference of Australia - a one way trip of over 4,000 miles sailing past numerous larger cities than South Australia could boast (also it kind of made a mockery of the name "South Australia" but that's beside the point, and North Australia was recreated a few years later anyway).

London just didn't want a large stretch of poorly-governed land to exist without a sizable city attached to it, and this is a major reason Australia was separated into so few, very-large colonies, too. To London, all land had to have some sort of home government based in the largest city the territory contained, and the territory wouldn't be broken up unless either the population grew large enough to require dividing up the territory between the population centres (a notable reason why I am suggesting that TTL Australia will not have more subdivisions that OTL Australia, and probably fewer) or exceptional circumstances required a territorial reorganisation - for instance to better accommodate dealing with native tribes, or if one area suddenly overnight became a hotspot of some sort and required government closer to home rather than 1,000 miles away in the "settled area" of the colony.
 
London just didn't want a large stretch of poorly-governed land to exist without a sizable city attached to it

What exactly is Sizeable?

Also this idea might be close to ASB but maybe the worthless deserts of the Austrailian north are made into a aborignial homeland
 
I would imagine they would chop off the more habitable areas, and leave an unorganize remnant

Also the bulk Lake Eyre is outside of your Eyre state by a small bit :rolleyes:
IMO New Georgia is de jure an organized territory, but large swathes of it are unorganized within that organized territory.

And my bad, should've changed your basemap more. Though that actually makes such a name more plausible IMO. By that logic Ontario should be Hudson, or Superior or even Huron.
 
Also something just dawned on me, Wasn't Darwin not founded until 1869? Since there were british attempts to settle in the region, whats to stop them from founding a town a few miles away on there side of the border?
 

Glen

Moderator
Back to Australia for a moment. I realized the British have another large pool of settlers to recruit - black southrons! Blacks in the DSA, although not slaves, will be looking for somewhere else to go, and once the transcontinental railroad is built, it will be just as easy for them to take a train to California and a boat across the Pacific. I think the British would actually prefer them over white Southrons, as they are probably super-loyal to the crown ITTL, and would be more likely to side with the government over Indians, Malays, or "Blackbirds." The DSA would probably also prefer blacks leave who are rootless and/or looking towards being upwardly mobile.
You'd probably be right, but sadly I think racism in some ways would limit this as an option. The closest you are likely to get is seeing more use of the Black Companies. Basically a black in uniform the UK will use, those outside the structure of the military (and under white officers) will be a little bit more suspect (wrongly so, but that's life). Some with skills may come, anyway. Also I think there will be other areas they will be recruited to....
The question is, what would the British do? I could see them subsidizing boat passage. I could also see them offering free passage for black convicts in exchange for a limited labor contract (couldn't call it indentured servitude here for obvious reasons). On the most extreme end, I could see the expressed founding of a colony for black southrons somewhere around North NSW/South Queensland.
Hmmm...where would they send black convicts...as for a specific black colony, I'm thinking more somewhere along the Atlantic...
On Australia, I don't really see why there will be massive differences in settlement and province forming. Despite people talking about its 'more hospitable climate', Australian soils and water problems are a real bitch.
See, that was my impression, though the same can be said for the DSA from West Texas to the California coast...
Therefore the vast majority of early settlement will be in the wet and relatively fertile New South Wales coastline between Brisbane and Canberra's latitude.
Likely, very likely.
The Gold Rush will bring a massive population explosion to the South East, who will get annoyed at rule from the east coast and push for separate governance. They'll split along some sort of significant barrier, like Australia's biggest river. The distant and geographically separated South Australia and Tasmania will run themselves as well, with some minor variance in positioning the South Australia/NSW+Victoria border.
Certainly sounds reasonable.
The only real question is what will happen to the north, as it could be cut off from NSW in lots of different ways depending on chance and whim.
And therefore subject to my whim...<bwahahahaha...>.;)

There is absolutely no need for any silly incentive scheme that is entirely divergent from the way Britain has previously run settler colonies - Britain has buckets of people to move, and if they need some pushing subsidised travel will work perfectly well. Besides trying to make small groups of people move into the Outback is rank foolishness. There is also no need to 'secure the border' with French Australia as it is a huge flipping desert with a clearly demarcated border in the case of resource conflicts – moving people there is just making targets within easy reach – an extra thousand miles of wilderness is all the protection you need. Its extra silly considering any conflict will be decided in the Channel, and Oceania will have to bow to whatever the results of the contest there will be.
Agreed.
I do agree that the *Ozzies won't be venturing quite so much into the outback in exploration or transport links, when there is no point to going west and no good ports in the north its not such a smart investment.
And thus we might see a longer refuge for the aborigine?
I'd say the divisions will be most like Falasturs map – a bigger NSW due to the slow development curve with a cut off *Victoria and Northland Territory, then South Australia, Tasmania and North Island as satellite colonies.
Noted, though the historical factors here remain to be seen.
I agree with Nugax, except that one thing strikes me (and it affects my map, too, I'll point out) - what is the administrative capital of your Northern Territory? A bigger NSW is fine and something I can agree with, except that it leaves the Northern Territory (or whatever it might be called TTL) with literally no European settler colony at all. With no Darwin, there is no successful settlement in the north of British Australia at this point, and nor is there likely to be for another generation or two - the area is just a wasteland and is incredibly hostile in terms of lack of resources for settlers to feed on. My map also was slightly wrong as the northernmost extant settlements were just south of my Northern Territory border. I can agree with NSW being enlargened (especially I agree with your reduced number of subdivisions) except that I realise it leaves the Northern Territory with literally no settlement to govern it at all. This means that there may be literally no northern subdivision until maybe the 1870s-1890s or even later - read that as "the NT continuing to remain as part of NSW", so you end up with an epic-sized NSW for far longer than OTL. When they finally settle the north it will likely result in a NT being created roughly along Nugax's lines though, as the sheer monolithic size of NSW incorporating the NT means that the Australian government will be intending on splitting it off as soon as it can govern itself.
So that's one person who agrees with Falastur's division, and one with Nugax's.
Umm *Rockhampton, *Townsville and *Cairns are all in the Northland of that Map, founded in the 1850s, 1860s and 1870s respectively. *Rockhampton probably being the administrative centre. It'll have a european population in the tens of thousands well before the end of the century, just never probably getting to self ruling status. They'd want to keep it under special military law anyway to ward French and other incursions from the North.
I saw it being split off because it had no population - so NSW can concentrate on its services whilst a territorial government stewards the north.
That makes a lot of sense, have *Vic and *NSW and *Coastal Qld as democratic states/colonies with responsible government and standard British policy of land distribution and assisted passage which provide services to a "real" economy while *NT and *SA are military run, border provinces with a different approach based not on settling the land and maximising return, but securing access to assets before the French get there.
For example you could have self rule by elected assemblies on the eastern coast from the 1850's while the border states/territories/colonies are run by military Governors for much longer.
Good to know, good to know.
I think we can possibly consider this as a compromise
We have popular divisions in the south. But one Mega Territory in the North (and a smaller Brisbane territory).
Also why does everyone leave out the Capital Territory :(
Do you guys hate Austrailias Capital! If So for what good reason!:mad::mad::mad:
Capital Territory? Seems superfluous...;)
Fair enough. I just plain didn't come across those places when I was looking around. My bad.
I left out the Capital Territory as I viewed it as being the product of an age yet to come. I didn't think a Capital Territory was likely to come into existence for a couple of generations, and I was focusing on what subdivisions might be created very soon/actually already be in place in 1850 or wherever we are up to exactly, so I conscientiously ignored it and left it for a future discussion when times are closer to 1900. Also, I thought that, with a DSA which has chosen a capital but hasn't IIRC made their capital extraterritorial, and with the USA less of an influence over the Pacific given the DSA's existence, I wondered whether those in charge of choosing a capital for Australia when (assuming) it federates may in fact decide that creating a Capital Territory is not actually necessary. Perhaps TTL, Sydney may never be surpassed by Melbourne, or perhaps one city will be clearly in the ascendancy come 1900, in which case that city may automatically be the best choice for a capital anyway?
Don't think there will be a capital territory, though I reserve the right to change my mind. I agree we ought to focus on 1850s era borders, not far future - however, I think most of the borders I have seen are likely to be later than the 1850s.
Although I have no issue with the newer map idea with less provinces (my map was more to show ways to draw better borders), I do want to say given ATL British Australia will be more culturally diverse, there's a chance that cultural divisions might make a big difference. For example, if in what you label northern New South Wales mostly black DSAers settle, I believe there will be a major push for an independent colony.
Indeed, in the longer run, I wonder if the cultural differences between the different parts of Australia will be too much for confederation to ever work. If you get a southern-fried Victoria, a majority-black colony, a plantation colony with hordes of Indian laborers, and a New South Wales, Tasmania, and North Island which are very English in character, they'll be divided by more than Australia and New Zealand were IOTL.
This is a possibility, though perhaps not as stark of a difference as you paint here, but yes, once a population starts to grow, it is likely to be more diverse.
What is this stuff with a majority black colony in Australia and a large Indian population? Its simply ASB and suggests a complete lack of understanding of the reasons behind Australia which are equally valid in OTL and this ATL.
Do enlighten us!
First as regards Blacks in the DSA why on earth would the British government (which is running Australia) want to expensively resettle people from one colony (the DSA which is not independent) to others (the various Australian ones) when there is plenty of empty land in the DSA (i.e. the West).
Not much - unless they provide something that others don't.
As for non-whites moving to Australia up in *Queensland on the sugar plantations there may be a move to bring more cheap labour from India and the Pacific than can provided by British emigrants al la Fiji, but the main purpose of the Southern colonies (SA, NSW, Vic, Tas) and probably *Qld is to settle "excess" population from the Home Isles into an environment where they would thrive. Now the presence of the DSA lessens that need but as others have pointed out it has its own excess population and Patagonia is pretty small and cold so you are still going to get that motivation in this ATL
There were two stages of assisted migration to Australia, the first stage when London paid to export "excess" population and the later (post 1945) stage when Australia wanted to "populate or perish" due to the "yellow peril" and paid to get suitable (white British) migrants.
This will start the immigration to Australia, the needs of Britain to get rid of population - but eventually Australians will develop their own interests and needs which may facilitate different patterns of immigration.
So possibly excepting Qld I would expect the OTL policy of informal "White Australia" until the late 20th century at least. Don't forget that the purpose of Australia wasn't to build some wonderful multicultural haven in the South Seas, it was to rid Britain of surplus mouths and criminals while giving younger sons a place to make a life for themselves.
They'll send less of those ITTL (except the criminals).
As regards colonial boundaries the British never had the American concept of "unorganised territory" I would argue for a *Vic, *NSW and *QLD run as separate colonies with responsible government until at least 1900 with military run border provinces of *SA and NT until they have built up sufficient population to warrant responsible government. After that Confederation or incorporation into the UK is up to the author.
Maybe - though it is interesting that we seem to see a concensus building for both standard colonies and military colonies essentially.
EDIT: Remember this is the British Empire, the Scots I'm sure will find a place to make their mark, in OTL they chose the South Island of NZ and Canada, here who knows?
Maybe Patagonia....:rolleyes:

No, I've thought this out a bit.
1. The west of the DSA, outside of California, isn't really good agricultural land.
True.
2. Shipping people from The UK to the DSA is cheaper than the UK to Australia. Shipping people from the DSA to Australia is also cheaper. Thus I think, post continental railroad, half or more of Australian settlers will at the very least pass through the DSA, if not be from there.
But is the combination of shipping from UK to DSA to Australia cheaper than direct UK to Australia? That's the question...[/QUOTE]
3. Black DSAers are loyal subjects of the crown, while the various malcontents they could find in the home islands aren't so much.[/QUOTE] And?
If you're using this as a euphemism for convicts, as I said, IITL they will continue to go to the Southern colonies (as they did IOTL before the ARW),
They don't, so you can stop that speculation.
and then start being shipped to Patagonia.
Not until the 1830s really, so that leaves a period between the 1780s and the 1830s for convicts going to Australia.
There's no reason to ship convicts to the most remote place when you have almost as removed places which are far cheaper.
Maybe - unless just getting them as far away as possible is an attraction - and remember, if it's that much to get there, it's as much to get back, making people slipping back even less likely.
Patagonia. That's also where I'm guessing Irish troublemakers will be sent, hence my supposition the British population will be overwhelmingly English in Australia, as it in most of OTL's New Zealand.
Disagree, though I can see where you would have come to this given your starting premises.
I think you're missing Aracnid's point, which is that the UK isn't paying to resettle people who want a farm to the best land, it's paying to resettle peoples from places that are overcrowded to places that are not overcrowded. There may not be very good farming land outside of California, but it's not a harsh and desolate land so the British government will still send people there. They will not send DSAers to Australia because, yes UK - AUS is more expensive than and DSA - AUS, but DSA to AUS is still more expensive than East DSA to West DSA. Why relocate someone from the east coast to AUS when it's far quicker and cheaper to send them west and have them remain inside their own dominion?
So cost is a determinant (though see above my comment on convicts being shipped purposely to somewhere expensive to get to and thus expensive to return from).
In addition, for the average black DSAer who wants to move somewhere where they can buy a parcel of land and start a new life, if they are not being moved by the government they will be paying for their own travel. Without meaning anything racist here, the average black DSAer will, let's face it, not have a family history of wealth and many black DSAers will still remember the time of slavery even if their families were among the first to be liberated a generation or two earlier.
Certainly not high up there proportionately.
I'm aware that there are black and wealthy DSAers in TTL, and Glen even mentioned a handful in the wealthy elite, but overall it's going to take time for the black population to assimilate into the wealthier middle class, and most people who wanted to start a new life didn't tend to be over-endowed with cash anyway. Thus, most black DSAers who fund their own relocation will have two choices: move to the west for a relative pittance, or travel to AUS for a much higher price. For some, the price will be others, for most, the price will not be worth it as the journey costs would be better spent on buying a bigger plot of land and making themselves comfortable when they arrive. For a large minority, the cost of travelling to AUS will be so high they can't afford it anyway.
This is true - only blacks with skills needed in Australia that someone is willing to pay their way are likely to end up in Australia.
On top of this whole debate, I would add that settlements in the north tended to be carried out by those who were already Australian - the north coast was a harsh place to settle, and thus only tended to be attempted by those who had a base of operations relatively close on the south-east side of the continent. Consequently while a few black DSAers may settle the north, most will only get to do so by settling southern Australia first and then finding a compelling reason to change their minds about location. Of course, the gold rush will later change this, but then the gold rush will suck in a lot of white settlers too, and black DSAers may find it much easier to join the California gold rush than the Australian one anyhow...
Good points here, but Australia still hasn't had a gold rush ITTL.
You've convinced me it's cheaper to allow DSAers to migrate internally versus emmigrate, sure enough.
But I'm still not clear on who exactly these British people who are migrating from overcrowded places are, and why they'd come to Australia. IOTL, the British needed to subsidize migration to Australia from 1840 to self-government because it was so much more expensive to travel there than to the USA. But ITTL, the British have the DSA, so they can point these settlers to a British alternative they don't have to subsidize.
By this argument they shouldn't have subsidized since they had Canada IOTL.
Of course, for reasons of securing the region against France, the UK is going to want *some* settlement. But if they are going to subsidize a ticket, one from San Diego (or whatever the major British port is, can't remember) is far cheaper than one from London.
noted.
The way I see it, while the DSA won't be anywhere near as bad as the South IOTL, it's still going to be pretty bad. No lynchings, but plenty of segregation and some Jim Crow type laws. A lot of blacks are going to want to strike off somewhere they don't have to deal with Southrons and the DSA racial system, and when it comes down to it, California isn't going to be that different given it's going to be settled by white DSAers itself.
True about there being less but still present racism. But Australia is no escape from racism!
I'd consider this the most likely outcome. I just thought there was an off chance, depending upon the tides of history (a British or DSA-sponsored settlement movement in the late 19th century), that a concentration of blacks might form somewhere in Australia. But far more likely they'll just follow the same migration patterns as their white countrymen.
yeps more likely - but still could have some changes in store by the late 1800s.
I've actually thought since migration restrictions didn't exist ITTL that the ability of the USA to absorb black migrants from the DSA has been a bit underrated. Not that we'd see anything like the Great Migration, but if racial relations are better up north it's the easiest place to vote with your feet.
better is questionable after the founding of the Dominion of Southern America. There is racism in the DSA, but it is more institutionalized and less personalized, and really is an extension of the class system. In the USA they don't quite know how to fit blacks into the society (except in old Virginia, of course.
Edit: This might actually be the best reason for Britain to sponsor them to Australia. If the DSA is going to lose them regardless, better they remain British subjects.
Not likely to factor in London's thinking, I'm afraid...
 
Last edited:

Glen

Moderator
The Dominion of Southern America is now up against some pretty stiff competition in the Turtledove Best Timeline competition! Please dear readers, go and show your support for the DSA by voting for it in the poll!

Relevant links:

Best Timeline Poll Listings: Best Timeline Poll A----Best Timeline Poll B

We are only ONE vote away from a tie for first place in the Best Timeline Poll! Come on, someone put us in the lead!!! You guys can do it!!!!:cool::cool::cool:
 
Top