Dominion of Southern America - Updated July 1, 2018

[thekingsguard]

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!!!!

I just voted

 

[My Username is Inigo Montoya]

Just read the whole TL. And:
a) It's excellent! Probably the best I've ever read so far.
b) I just voted for you (-among others)
c) Keep going!!!

 

[stevep]

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!!!!

Glen

You're not trying to suggest cheating are you? I've already voted in this poll.

Serious, reading through the mega-posts above a comment on one point.

I mentioned that apart from any other reason why Prussia wouldn't go for any overseas colonies that they would be exposed to capture by a more powerful naval power. You countered with the example of the Netherlands. However I will point out that:
a) Those colonies were gained in a period when the Dutch were a major naval and economic power [in many way the leader in both categories at their height].
b) As Britain and France rose to contest top status it was not only the defeat French but also the Dutch, often pulled into those conflicts, that lost colonies.[new Amsterdamn, the Cape, Ceylon]
c) After the Napoleonic wars they kept their remaining colonies and secured their control in the Dutch Indies but also stayed basically neutral from 1815 to 1940, with the exception of the tension over the loss of the southern Netherlands in the 1830s.

As such I don't think that's a good guide. The Prussians may seek a colony overseas, for reasons of prestige, to settle surplus population or possibly some other reason. However they won't become a major naval power so any such colony will be vulnerable in periods of conflict. As such unless they decide [and succeed] to become a basically neutral state it's going to be a risky policy. Also given the prestige of the military in Prussia and the fact it's a relatively small state surrounded by three larger ones and with potential/actual tension with all of them I can't really see either a navy or colonial interest being a high priority.

Also a maritime policy tends to be based on a strong trading element in the state, with either colonies or a large merchant fleet to encourage it. For such a mercantile element, separate from the landed interests to develop would mean a potential rival for the junker interests and the primacy of the army to defend the land borders.

As such I think any real interest in overseas colonies or extensive trade are likely to be fairly lightweight and unlikely to prosper unless there are major changes in Prussia. This could occur but is probably unlikely.

Steve

 

[Glen]

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!!!!

And in fact - WE NOW ARE IN THE LEAD BY 7 VOTES!!!! Keep the momentum going, mighty viewers!

I just voted

You rock!

Just read the whole TL. And:
a) It's excellent! Probably the best I've ever read so far.
b) I just voted for you (-among others)
c) Keep going!!!

Thank you for your kind words, for your vote, and for your encouragement!

Glen

You're not trying to suggest cheating are you? I've already voted in this poll.

No, just want your regular vote - no sockpuppets from Chicago, please!

 

[Falastur]

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?

Yes it was, but it wasn't exactly a case of "let's start a settlement in the north...done? well that was easy, I name it Darwin". There were several (at least three) failed attempts to settle the north first before Darwin was settled, and Darwin was specifically settled because the colonists managed to make a joint town with an extant Aborigine village which had been known about for some time as containing friendly natives who were happy to help Europeans. The Aborigines essentially provided the food for the Europeans until the colony was large enough to produce its own. Now, that village is in French Greater Australia. It is entirely possible that another such helpful and well-placed village does not exist on the North Australian coastline, and if it does it is not known about - the colonists can't exactly afford to sail the length of the coastline, stopping at every Aborigine village and asking "are you friendly? will you let us convert your village into a settler colony?" It's entirely possible that the loss of Darwin will set back colonisation of North Australia by as little as 5 or as many as 30 years.


Incidentally, I've been thinking about the use of the terms Greater and Lesser Australia. I can't really see much evidence that New Zealand was ever thought of as part of "Australia" so I'm not convinced by the term "Lesser Australia" for New Zealand (if anything I would think that term would apply to VD'sL/Tasmania, except that island already has a name). The term New Zealand was coined by Captain Cook, who Anglicised Nova Zeelandia, but of course that was supposed to refer to the whole island chain, so the division of NZ into French and British territories has probably meant that that term will only exist as an equivalent to, say, "British Isles" or such, to describe the islands as a geographical but not political unit. There is a historical precedent for naming the islands after Ireland - New Ulster, New Leister, New Munster - well, that happened for a while in OTL, but that's probably been butterflied anyway. I guess there's two ways it could go. Either London wants a very English-sounding name, in which case I guess one of the above is possible, or perhaps Upper/Lesser Zealand. The other option is that one of the Maori terms which seemed to come into general use OTL could be used, in which case I would suggest Aotearoa (possibly Anglicised/formalised to something more like "Auteria") could be used - this term under the original spelling does have the distinction of actually being in the New Zealand English vocabulary in the OTL present day. Whether London would consider using a Maori term or not is something to debate, I guess.

Just something to mull over.

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

A fair point. Sizable must mean self-sufficient and profitable, or else the city itself becomes a liability. A sizable city should also have a decent hinterland, with its population starting to disperse to create smaller satellite settlements - evidence that the city is starting to generate growth outside of its own walls. It probably wouldn't be a good idea to base a territory in a city smaller than 5,000 population at a rough estimate (bearing in mind of course that cities were smaller in these days anyway, so 5,000 was a healthy size for a colonial city) but preferably bigger. Notably this is bigger than any city in northern Australia will be able to boast for a while, I believe.

As for an Aboriginal homeland - there was a lot of internecine violence between Australian colonists and Aborigines in this period I believe - somewhat akin to the American frontier back in the colonial days, and culminating in a few massacres. I doubt the Aborigines would be willing to mass-relocate for the sake of having a homeland (and in doing so it would only create rivalry between the displaces Aborigines and the ones who lived in the homeland before anyway) but I guess if the violence threatens to get out of control a homeland is a theoretical possibility if London feels it needs to step in to create sacrosanct Aborigine borders which Europeans cannot cross, therefore (hopefully) allaying the violence. Problem is it's not a very likely solution, and a homeland is only really a possibility in the north...where there aren't enough Europeans for there to be any violence really. A homeland in the south would create huge problems with the colonists, in the same way that the 13 Colonies of America took badly to being told they weren't allowed to expand westwards after the 1763 Proclamation, and as said before would just make problems with the Aborigines either refusing to move into the homeland, or fighting with the original natives there after moving. I think Aboriginal relations aren't likely to diverge from OTL Australia really, and since OTL had no homeland, I doubt there will be one here.

 

[Glen]

more later - too sleepy

Now for the action packed conclusion to mega-response Australia/DSA!

Does this mean we find out whats gonna happen in austrailia!
Cant wait!
Also, just curious, could we have a poll to vote on the best map (but then again its your TL) well its up to you

We will eventually find out more about Australia, India, and North America. I don't favor a poll, as I believe I must make a reasoned decision based on my overall gestalt understanding of this world, though everyone's comments and work have helped to inform that understanding and I don't doubt will crop up in many ways - though the synthesis may surpise some - we'll see...

eschaton
I'm wondering about this. There will still be a lot of racism no doubt but as you say a lot less than OTL south. At the same time a lot of loyalist whites, as well as a number of blacks fought against the rebels in the Slavers war, while London provides some distant protection. Also the political presence of the Indian citizens means there is another check on the racism of OTL.

There is definitely racism in the DSA, but it is more like an adjunct to classism, and especially in the immediate post-Slaver period, too overt or aggressive of racism is tantamount to being unpatriotic. Now then, there are still lines that do not get crossed, or get crossed very quietly when they do, and there are still a lot of barriers of discrimination and prejudice. But yeah, the DSA is a LOT better to live in for a person of color than the Post-Reconstruction South was. It's not a color-blind paradise, but it's better.

On the other hand in Australia there will be the native Aboriginals who were often treated badly by the white settlers and those same white settlers who will have no experience of 'blacks' other than those same Aboriginals. Furthermore, unless and until sizeable numbers are able to establish themselves in Australia any emigrants will be leaving behind friends and family and the social support they supply. Furthermore as stated it's a long and expensive trip to a vastly different environment.
As such, unless the situation in the DSA gets very bad, I can't see Australia being a popular choice for many black southerns.

True enough - the development of race relations in East Australia will be different.

With the US how willing will they be to welcome black 'Britishers' who will compete with white workers. Don't forget in OTL much of the hostility to slavery in the north OTL was at least much 'free-soil' hostility to blacks free or slave as opposition to the existence of slavery. If the DSA prospers I could see very few blacks being tempted to move north.
Steve

Oh, I doubt very much that the US will want many blacks from the DSA, and the blacks in the DSA will probably not want to go to that cold, foreign land. The economy of the DSA is still pretty good compared to post ACW South, and thus there's a lot less pressure to move out of the DSA. And no one in the USA is really interested in encouraging them. The few who make it north will not be particularly discriminated against as there will be too few to be viewed as a threat, but they will be seen as exotic or alien.
In fact, we may see more blacks in Virginia and other parts of USA move south to the DSA than the reverse! I can also see some previously escaped slaves moving back to reunite with family.

I do think among the loyalists, there probably was some measure, initially, of goodwill towards the black population for fighting for the crown. However, I expect as the generations pass this will wane, just as positive racial viewpoints in the north only lasted around a generation following the civil war.

Sadly this is likely, but in that gap it will allow for a betterment of the general lot of blacks, enough that when the social landscape hardens they'll be a bit better placed than they otherwise would have been.

IOTL the civilized tribes were plenty racist (and slaveowners). Given how acculturated they have become here I don't see it being all that different.

This is true to a degree, but race mixing was far more prevelant and accepted among the Civilized Tribes than in other parts of the South, so those lines get awefully blurry in Indiana, and how you are treated is more about class than race (though skin tone plays a role as well).

People will clearly be able to tell the difference between DSA blacks and Aborigines, because despite similar skin tones, they look nothing alike in terms of facial features and hair. I wouldn't be surprised if DSA blacks become labeled "sables" in Australia to distinguish them from native Blacks. They might not be on the top of the totem pole, but they won't start out on the bottom here.

Probably true. Any Southern Blacks who make it to Australia will be seen as 'civilized' compared to Aborigines. They won't be encouraged to come, and there probably won't be that many of them, but they will probably be seen as only one rung down from a white Australian, as opposed to the aborigines who might not even be on the ladder.

Also, if black migrants to Europe are any guide, racism won't be a huge issue (among those not of DSA origin) until a sizable black population forms - people look at small immigrant groups more as curiosities than anything.

Exactly so, exactly so.

That didn't stop every other immigrant group ever, who faced the same conditions at least initially. Given enough time and migration, "sable quarters" would arise in the major towns, which would provide enough of a social support

That's interesting and maybe even possible, if enough ever make it.

Well, remember the US already has a sizable, although not huge, black population (probably somewhere around a million by 1850). Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia have a large number of freedmen (I think some were sold south when slavery was outlawed there, but not a goodly number). Most major U.S. cities probably have a black neighborhood at least. So I don't think you'd see Americans looking at black people like they had nine heads ITTL.

While this is true on the East Coast, there's just not that many in the interior of America, so maybe not nine heads, just two heads.

Sure, if you had Great Migration rushes of blacks into the US, you'd see a moral panic, and probably something similar to the Chinese Exclusion Acts happening, but provided it's more of a slow trickle I don't think the public will particularly care.

Slow trickle at most at this point in time.

Why would it deminish, unless you're presuming special reasons for racism to revive there?

People have short memories, and race is a pernicious issue - see my comments above. It's not so much that racism will revive, just that the trend towards improvement will plateau for a time.

Many were slave owners but I think the Indians tended to accept newcomers adopted into the tribe regardless of their origins.

True, true...

I was however thing more that there is another minority, with a decent level of influence who would also have an incentive to keep an eye out for and oppose the rise of racial feeling.

Who are you referring to here?

Rational people can fairly easily tell them apart but if you're used to thinking of a black skin as a sign of inferiority at best it's going to make it more difficult for any black settlers from the DSA. Not to mention once the Australian colonies get representative government they could also introduce a 'white Australia' policy as OTL.

Yes - but that's a bit further in the future.

To a degree but then they might be lumped in with the existing black population.

Don't think they'd be 'lumped'.

Also, small groups are vulnerable when the community feels the desire to lash out about something. If only small numbers emigrate to Australia there might not be a strong racial reaction, especially from the authorities but if only a few come it won't make a big difference to the DSA either and it sounded like people were speculating on a fairly large scale immigration from the DSA.

Large scale is likely out.

I'm not saying those factors will stop it totally or deter all black immigrants but that it is likely to make their numbers fairly insignificant because they will prefer the DSA or possibly the US.

As is, yes - of course we don't know yet what other factors will intervene...

However if there are significant problems for the blacks in the DSA or simply the US starts to develop as rapidly as OTL then it will attract a lot of settlers and you have a group just over a fairly open border who have the same language and some aspects of a common culture. As such, unless the DSA expands enough to keep the bulk of it's population there could be a significant number until an increase in racism and/or legislation restricts it. [Which I agree reverses my initial argument as I was assuming a greater degree of hostility to setters from the DSA, especially those of a darker skin].
Steve

True - but these speculations are for the future, and we will have to see how other events unfold which will undoubtedly have an impact on these issues.

Why did racial goodwill in the Northern US diminish after the civil war? There were a goodly number of reasons, but foremost was once the South was included in the political discourse again, race-baiting became tolerable. And the Republicans backed down after a decade or so of defending the black man, deciding to embrace capital instead, so the racial situation continued to worsen through the early 20th century.
I see a similar issue here. It will be tempered, however, because there is no overwhelmingly white (well, few) parts of the DSA that can just ignore the race issue to maintain their own political base. Of course, I don't recall Glen saying what the electorate was in the DSA - it seems a tad bit early yet for universal male suffrage, so if there are any qualifications to voting blacks will be a small enough group of the electorate to safely ignore.

Men of voting age who own or rent property of a certain value - since the majority of blacks essentially sharecrop (which for the purposes of voting is not considered either ownership or renting) they are largely excluded in the early DSA, though a black of industry can in fact pay their way into enfranchisement, so there is some social mobility that helps keep the lid on things. One thing too that I haven't overtly stated is that all Loyalist veterans and their descendants are guaranteed the vote regardless of their property status, which includes some poor whites and, yes, some blacks.

True enough - many tribes were highly mixed. Given situations like this, and the upper-class mixed-race creoles in Louisiana, I think you'd see more of a Latin-American style gradated racial hierarchy than a strict color line.

Yep, which means that this is basically the standard for THE ENTIRE WESTERN HEMISPHERE.

But it would still be pretty bad for most black DSAers regardless

Bad is relative. Most blacks are better off after the war, and in fact are in demand as labor, and since they are not held to the land anymore, they can vote with their feet if they are mistreated. In 1850s DSA society they are not equal to whites, let us be clear on that, and in fact are of less standing than members of the Civilized Tribes or mixed race folk, but they are actually no longer the bottom of the social ladder always, that place now being taken more and more by imported Indians from India. So they are not equal, they face a great number of social barriers, but they are doing better.

Again, I just don't think so. Aborigines are going to live at the edges of settlement, or in the wilds, or in miserable poverty. DSA blacks are going to speak English, dress like everyone else, and have roughly the same material conditions as whites.

Yep.

But this is supposing that non-whites don't play a role in settling Australia prior to responsible government. Also "white Australia" was meant to exclude Chinese and other Asians. Other non-whites weren't even excluded at all until 1895, and even then NSW, Tasmania, and South Australia excluded "undesirable persons" of all races rather than formally limiting immigration to whites.

And proportionately there will be more non-whites in Australia, though they won't be a majority, that's true too. So more of an 'off-white' Australia.

The British government was unhappy, but Joseph Chamberlain said "We quite sympathise with the determination...of these colonies...that there should not be an influx of people alien in civilisation, alien in religion, alien in customs, whose influx, moreover, would seriously interfere with the legitimate rights of the existing labouring population." I don't think they'd take the same attitude towards excluding nonwhite, but culturally British, subjects of the crown.

So blacks from the DSA wouldn't really be 'alien' in that sense (nor would members of the Civilized Tribes!). Indians from India, however, would.

My point was the ball could get rolling rather innocuously. After that, it's a roll of the dice whether the local authorities will clamp down on immigration. But I think it's fairly feasible that given so many less whites will be coming to Australia ITTL, they will continue to not be particularly choosy so long as someone speaks English and is Christian.

Quite possibly. Heck, they might even try to get some Americans!

I think the most likely happenstance would be a "sable" population in the range of 5% (assuming no barriers, but also no subsidies or settlement movements), but depending upon the course of Australian history, I could see as low as a 1%-2%, or as high as 15%-20%.

I don't think that the number of blacks from the DSA would ever go into double digits, but it might get to 5% or even a little more. The most likely group to be higher is Indians from India (who could reach 15%), though they will be actively discriminated against and 'feared' and if any restrictions show up in future, it will likely target this group and other 'Asians' who are both close at hand and 'alien' in the sense listed above.

There has been talk in regards to the black people of the DSA and the USA, and basically a brief bit about the Native Americans. This made me wonder the USA's response to their native inhabitants. I would image that there actions toward the various tribes and nations would be pretty much the same as OTL. Which, if is the case, would they be welcomed in the western portion of the DSA? I know the Native Americans are doing fairly well in the DSA, especially compared to OTL.

The DSA draws fairly distinct lines between civilized tribes and the "uncivilized" ones to the west, so I don't think it would be a haven for Native Americans.
OTOH, relations between whites and native Americans in the USA are a bit better than IOTL. Part of that is because they're pushed North, not West. and less likely to be further displaced. IIRC, Glen has said that attitudes towards Indians are different in the USA too - the government expects them to live under their laws, and to allow white settlement, but doesn't particularly care about expelling them.

The key to how Indians in both the USA and the DSA are treated can be summed up in one word - assimilation - Indians who assimilate into 'American' or 'British (and/or 'Civilized Tribes) society can stay and be left alone. Indians who insist upon staying part of an 'alien' nation will be moved out of the way of these nations' respective 'manifest destinies'. And no, neither country wants the others' 'malcontents' with regards to 'wild' Indians.

?I'm wondering about how the Blacks in DSA will affect British Colonies in Africa?

Now that is a very, very good question, and one that will be the subject of future updates (once we get back to Africa, still have some other continents to deal with first, however).

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.

Indentured laborers will be at least.

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.

But where will be better to go?

Here's what British Australia would probably look like... New Georgia likely becomes a province so it will join Confederation.
View attachment 128139

The name New Georgia is rather clever - I'll have to think about that one!

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...

Yes, it would, wouldn't it....

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.

Why did people start prefering Tasmania?

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

Not necessarily, they could just leave it attached until there were enough people there to warrant a separate province.

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

That could be corrected easily enough. Have to look at the circumstances around that name, however.

 

[Glen]

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.

I tend to agree with the above regarding keeping the sizes large and the numbers few in divisions until population sizes warrant splitting.

What exactly is Sizeable?

Ah, now there is a sensible question - what was it IOTL?

Also this idea might be close to ASB but maybe the worthless deserts of the Austrailian north are made into a aborignial homeland

More likely along the border, but it is possible.

IMO New Georgia is de jure an organized territory, but large swathes of it are unorganized within that organized territory.

True enough.

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.

Yes, it should I suppose. Of course, have you seen the names of the US states ITTL?

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?

Just have to find a good site. Thoughts?

Yes it was, but it wasn't exactly a case of "let's start a settlement in the north...done? well that was easy, I name it Darwin". There were several (at least three) failed attempts to settle the north first before Darwin was settled, and Darwin was specifically settled because the colonists managed to make a joint town with an extant Aborigine village which had been known about for some time as containing friendly natives who were happy to help Europeans. The Aborigines essentially provided the food for the Europeans until the colony was large enough to produce its own. Now, that village is in French Greater Australia. It is entirely possible that another such helpful and well-placed village does not exist on the North Australian coastline, and if it does it is not known about - the colonists can't exactly afford to sail the length of the coastline, stopping at every Aborigine village and asking "are you friendly? will you let us convert your village into a settler colony?" It's entirely possible that the loss of Darwin will set back colonisation of North Australia by as little as 5 or as many as 30 years.

Given the smaller population, a delay in settlement there isn't so bad.

Incidentally, I've been thinking about the use of the terms Greater and Lesser Australia. I can't really see much evidence that New Zealand was ever thought of as part of "Australia" so I'm not convinced by the term "Lesser Australia" for New Zealand (if anything I would think that term would apply to VD'sL/Tasmania, except that island already has a name). The term New Zealand was coined by Captain Cook, who Anglicised Nova Zeelandia, but of course that was supposed to refer to the whole island chain, so the division of NZ into French and British territories has probably meant that that term will only exist as an equivalent to, say, "British Isles" or such, to describe the islands as a geographical but not political unit.

The Greater and Lesser Australias terms are a butterfly, mostly due to French influences in the area!

There is a historical precedent for naming the islands after Ireland - New Ulster, New Leister, New Munster - well, that happened for a while in OTL, but that's probably been butterflied anyway. I guess there's two ways it could go. Either London wants a very English-sounding name, in which case I guess one of the above is possible, or perhaps Upper/Lesser Zealand. The other option is that one of the Maori terms which seemed to come into general use OTL could be used, in which case I would suggest Aotearoa (possibly Anglicised/formalised to something more like "Auteria") could be used - this term under the original spelling does have the distinction of actually being in the New Zealand English vocabulary in the OTL present day. Whether London would consider using a Maori term or not is something to debate, I guess.

Indeed, these are all good ideas for other names in the area.

A fair point. Sizable must mean self-sufficient and profitable, or else the city itself becomes a liability. A sizable city should also have a decent hinterland, with its population starting to disperse to create smaller satellite settlements - evidence that the city is starting to generate growth outside of its own walls. It probably wouldn't be a good idea to base a territory in a city smaller than 5,000 population at a rough estimate (bearing in mind of course that cities were smaller in these days anyway, so 5,000 was a healthy size for a colonial city) but preferably bigger. Notably this is bigger than any city in northern Australia will be able to boast for a while, I believe.

Noted.

As for an Aboriginal homeland - there was a lot of internecine violence between Australian colonists and Aborigines in this period I believe - somewhat akin to the American frontier back in the colonial days, and culminating in a few massacres. I doubt the Aborigines would be willing to mass-relocate for the sake of having a homeland (and in doing so it would only create rivalry between the displaces Aborigines and the ones who lived in the homeland before anyway) but I guess if the violence threatens to get out of control a homeland is a theoretical possibility if London feels it needs to step in to create sacrosanct Aborigine borders which Europeans cannot cross, therefore (hopefully) allaying the violence. Problem is it's not a very likely solution, and a homeland is only really a possibility in the north...where there aren't enough Europeans for there to be any violence really. A homeland in the south would create huge problems with the colonists, in the same way that the 13 Colonies of America took badly to being told they weren't allowed to expand westwards after the 1763 Proclamation, and as said before would just make problems with the Aborigines either refusing to move into the homeland, or fighting with the original natives there after moving. I think Aboriginal relations aren't likely to diverge from OTL Australia really, and since OTL had no homeland, I doubt there will be one here.

There might not be one initially, but if colonist pressure pushes aborigines into marginal lands along the border with French Australia, it might eventually become something more formal.

 

[Glen]

Glen...
Serious, reading through the mega-posts above a comment on one point.
I mentioned that apart from any other reason why Prussia wouldn't go for any overseas colonies that they would be exposed to capture by a more powerful naval power. You countered with the example of the Netherlands. However I will point out that:
a) Those colonies were gained in a period when the Dutch were a major naval and economic power [in many way the leader in both categories at their height].
b) As Britain and France rose to contest top status it was not only the defeat French but also the Dutch, often pulled into those conflicts, that lost colonies.[new Amsterdamn, the Cape, Ceylon]
c) After the Napoleonic wars they kept their remaining colonies and secured their control in the Dutch Indies but also stayed basically neutral from 1815 to 1940, with the exception of the tension over the loss of the southern Netherlands in the 1830s.
As such I don't think that's a good guide.

Agreed that it is not a good parallel, but it does make the point that a nation need not be large to have large colonial possessions.

The Prussians may seek a colony overseas, for reasons of prestige, to settle surplus population or possibly some other reason. However they won't become a major naval power so any such colony will be vulnerable in periods of conflict. As such unless they decide [and succeed] to become a basically neutral state it's going to be a risky policy. Also given the prestige of the military in Prussia and the fact it's a relatively small state surrounded by three larger ones and with potential/actual tension with all of them I can't really see either a navy or colonial interest being a high priority.

Except perhaps for needed resources. Really, what Prussia needs to have any chance at overseas colonies is a friendly relation with Scandinavia and at least a neutral relation with Britain.

Also a maritime policy tends to be based on a strong trading element in the state, with either colonies or a large merchant fleet to encourage it. For such a mercantile element, separate from the landed interests to develop would mean a potential rival for the junker interests and the primacy of the army to defend the land borders.

How did it happen in OTL Prussian dominated Germany?

As such I think any real interest in overseas colonies or extensive trade are likely to be fairly lightweight and unlikely to prosper unless there are major changes in Prussia. This could occur but is probably unlikely.
Steve

Noted - change or no overseas colonies of note.

 

[Falastur]

Why did people start prefering Tasmania?

It appears to be the result of a process that started with a few enlightened citizens naming flora and fauna after Abel Tasman, steadily increasing as others took their lead and started using the term "Tasmania" as a general geographical nickname for the countryside, and then snowballed as more and more people living in or associated with VD'sL came to use the term Tasmania (it does roll off the tongue easier, I'll guess that was a major reason). By the 1830s it was already supplanting the term VD'sL in general use. Eventually it was in such common use that the Tasmanian authorities applied to London to just get rid of the official term VD'sL and stick with the term they knew and used.

http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/php/BecomingTasmania/BTAppend2.htm

Agreed that it is not a good parallel, but it does make the point that a nation need not be large to have large colonial possessions.

Courland is perhaps the epitomy of this example, no?

Edit: Oh wait, to have LARGE colonial possessions. Ahh, forget Courland then. Uhh, Belgium? Bit of a unique case itself I guess.

Germany historically only went for colonies around the Scramble for Africa, when owning tracts of land became about prestige over profit. With a tiny(-er) Prussia, I can't see them being desperate to break this mould, and when the Scramble hits they will probably try to enter only to have to set their sights considerably lower than OTL. I can see Prussia making off with one or two minor territories - maybe something like German New Guinea plus a sliver of Africa somewhere - but I just can't see them going for a large colony. I'm not convinced they would even have the finances to keep a large colony together, unless they essentially totally neglect it.

 

[Earl_of_Somerset]

Courland is perhaps the epitomy of this example, no?

I wouldn't call an island and a few forts "Large".

Also shouldn't there be a gold rush in austrailia about now?

 

[stevep]

Glen

Replying to a couple of points:

a)

How did it happen in OTL Prussian dominated Germany?

Don't forget that Germany was much larger and more disperse than the Prussia we're talking about here. Also it saw a very rapid and successful industrial revolution coupled with a well developed technological base. As such it rapidly generated powerful industries which had large export potential. This of course prompted development in trade and commerce - to managing the buying and selling, merchant shipping [to carry goods and also emigrants] and related matters. Coupled with matters of prestige for one of the largest economic powers in the world it meant that there was support for obtaining foreign colonies [albeit ones that were generally money sinks] and later a large fleet to 'protect' the colonies and commerce.

I agree that for Prussia to obtain overseas colonies it needs better relations, especially with Britain. However currently Prussia is at loggerheads with Germany, a major ally and that is likely to be rough for a while. Also having had the turmoil of a major military defeat concentration will probably be on internal security and army strength [whether their concerned about the new Germany seeking to complete the unification by force or dreaming of revenge]. As such I don't see many assets being available for a while.

Also this, barring major changes, was the period of the invisible empire. Where Britain dominated world trade and especially with much of the developing world but hence wanted to avoid areas coming under colonial control. [If under British control it costs money to run/protect/develop etc, if under foreign then tariffs are likely to restrict British trade]. Hence Britain has no desire to encourage anyone to start establishing colonies. It might be that [like Germany after OTL 1871 with France] there is a desire to have a defeated foe seeking prestige and diversions outside Europe in the hope of reducing tension inside it. However as stated this runs against Britain's economic interests. Also while Prussian colonies may be relatively small if it starts a scramble.

b)

Quote:
I was however thing more that there is another minority, with a decent level of influence who would also have an incentive to keep an eye out for and oppose the rise of racial feeling.
Who are you referring to here?

Basically thinking that if racial feeling starts to rise in the DSA then the Indians, who have a measure of power and influence, have a vested interest in seeking to nip it in the bud. After all, racism discriminating against blacks now could inspires discrimination against them later on.

True this requires some foresight and we are talking about humans here but occasionally miracles happen. Seriously I would think that is anti-black feeling rises in the DSA then as well as moral and economic factors some of the Indians might see it's better to oppose such developments.

Steve

 

[Falastur]

I wouldn't call an island and a few forts "Large".

Yeah sorry. I spotted that error myself (a bit too late) a few minutes ago. If you read back up your screen you should see that I've corrected (or rather, clarified) what I said.

 

[Glen]

The Sepoy Uprising of 1857 came mere years after the end of the Liberal War, and was the final nail in the coffin of the British East India Company (BEIC). The timing of the Uprising was in large part a reaction to a prophesy popular among disaffected Indians of the mid 19th century that the rule of the British East India Company over India would end 100 years after it started in 1757. Whether the outcome of the Sepoy Uprising meant the prophesy had been fulfilled is open to debate.

There were several reasons for the uproar of the uprising, such as the Doctrine of Lapse which had brought so much territory under the direct rule of the BEIC, and the moral reforms that the British enforced upon the Indians such as the ending of Sati and child marriage.

The troops who remained loyal to the BEIC were able to squash the uprising with only a minimum loss of civilian life, much of this due to the rapid arming of loyal forces with newly arrived breech-loading rifles, and a lack of coordination between Muslim and Hindu rebels. Many of the forces that restored order were Sihk, who by-and-large remained loyal to the BEIC. However, the cost in treasure to the BEIC who had been on the verge of bankruptcy after decades of financial mismanagement, and the general poor press they received in Britain over the loss of control was the death knell to a privately run India. After the investigations of the uprising concluded, the British Government bought out the failing shares of the BEIC, and India became a Crown Colony of the British Empire.

 

[Glen]

With regards to the recent update on the Sepoy Uprising of 1857. Yes, it actually happens in the same year as the OTL Indian Revolt, and I am allowing that due to the fact that one cause was a prophesy that would likely have been in both timelines that bases the timing for revolt on a pre-POD event, so they both timelines share this in common.

You can read between the lines that while the broad outlines are very similar to OTL, the actual Sepoy Uprising of TTL is far less violent or successful than OTL. One major difference is that due to the slightly advanced development of firearms 1) there's no rumor about the cartridges circulating at the same time as the prophesy comes to fruition 2) they are able to bring in more rapid firing guns as a force multiplier 3) the British government has kept more of a leash on the BEIC's excesses in the years leading up to the Uprising. These are not obvious in the actual post, but hinted at.

 

[Glen]

It appears to be the result of a process that started with a few enlightened citizens naming flora and fauna after Abel Tasman, steadily increasing as others took their lead and started using the term "Tasmania" as a general geographical nickname for the countryside, and then snowballed as more and more people living in or associated with VD'sL came to use the term Tasmania (it does roll off the tongue easier, I'll guess that was a major reason). By the 1830s it was already supplanting the term VD'sL in general use. Eventually it was in such common use that the Tasmanian authorities applied to London to just get rid of the official term VD'sL and stick with the term they knew and used.

http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/php/BecomingTasmania/BTAppend2.htm

Thanks for the info - I suspect this name is susceptable to butterflies, however, but need not change - I will review and think upon it.

Courland is perhaps the epitomy of this example, no?
Edit: Oh wait, to have LARGE colonial possessions. Ahh, forget Courland then. Uhh, Belgium? Bit of a unique case itself I guess.
Germany historically only went for colonies around the Scramble for Africa, when owning tracts of land became about prestige over profit. With a tiny(-er) Prussia, I can't see them being desperate to break this mould, and when the Scramble hits they will probably try to enter only to have to set their sights considerably lower than OTL. I can see Prussia making off with one or two minor territories - maybe something like German New Guinea plus a sliver of Africa somewhere - but I just can't see them going for a large colony. I'm not convinced they would even have the finances to keep a large colony together, unless they essentially totally neglect it.

Don't forget the Pacific as well! I don't necessarily share such a pessimistic view of their abilities to have a colony, but it is certainly less so than OTL.

 

[Falastur]

No mention of the use of pig fat in the firing of the Company's guns upsetting the Muslims? Interesting, that's usually the first factor in the Sepoy Rebellion which is mentioned.

 

[Glen]

Glen
Replying to a couple of points:
a)
Don't forget that Germany was much larger and more disperse than the Prussia we're talking about here. Also it saw a very rapid and successful industrial revolution coupled with a well developed technological base. As such it rapidly generated powerful industries which had large export potential. This of course prompted development in trade and commerce - to managing the buying and selling, merchant shipping [to carry goods and also emigrants] and related matters.

This could still happen in Germany, though less so in Prussia.

Coupled with matters of prestige for one of the largest economic powers in the world it meant that there was support for obtaining foreign colonies [albeit ones that were generally money sinks] and later a large fleet to 'protect' the colonies and commerce.

Noted.

I agree that for Prussia to obtain overseas colonies it needs better relations, especially with Britain. However currently Prussia is at loggerheads with Germany, a major ally and that is likely to be rough for a while. Also having had the turmoil of a major military defeat concentration will probably be on internal security and army strength [whether their concerned about the new Germany seeking to complete the unification by force or dreaming of revenge]. As such I don't see many assets being available for a while.

Not for a while, certainly.

Also this, barring major changes, was the period of the invisible empire. Where Britain dominated world trade and especially with much of the developing world but hence wanted to avoid areas coming under colonial control. [If under British control it costs money to run/protect/develop etc, if under foreign then tariffs are likely to restrict British trade]. Hence Britain has no desire to encourage anyone to start establishing colonies. It might be that [like Germany after OTL 1871 with France] there is a desire to have a defeated foe seeking prestige and diversions outside Europe in the hope of reducing tension inside it. However as stated this runs against Britain's economic interests. Also while Prussian colonies may be relatively small if it starts a scramble.

Hmmm, will have to think how this sort of issue will play out over the next few decades ITTL.

b)
Basically thinking that if racial feeling starts to rise in the DSA then the Indians, who have a measure of power and influence, have a vested interest in seeking to nip it in the bud. After all, racism discriminating against blacks now could inspires discrimination against them later on.

Not so much rise as slow in it's decline.

True this requires some foresight and we are talking about humans here but occasionally miracles happen. Seriously I would think that is anti-black feeling rises in the DSA then as well as moral and economic factors some of the Indians might see it's better to oppose such developments.
Steve

Fair enough - again, I do not believe we will see an increase in racism, but rather a leveling out in progress against racism at some point in the 19th century.

 

[Glen]

No mention of the use of pig fat in the firing of the Company's guns upsetting the Muslims? Interesting, that's usually the first factor in the Sepoy Rebellion which is mentioned.

Because it didn't happen ITTL.

 

[Falastur]

Because it didn't happen ITTL.

Fair enough. I took the comment about loyal soldiers being rapidly armed with breech-loaders to suggest that the sepoys still used muskets and would in all likelihood being using greased packets, which whether containing pig/cow fat or not could generate rumours that they did.

But either way, cool.

 

[Glen]

Fair enough. I took the comment about loyal soldiers being rapidly armed with breech-loaders to suggest that the sepoys still used muskets and would in all likelihood being using greased packets, which whether containing pig/cow fat or not could generate rumours that they did.

But either way, cool.

They are actually two generations behind due to the Liberal War, and the BEIC leapfrogged to put down the rebellion.