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!
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....
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...