AHC:American settler republics?

What if like in South Africa with the boers and their settler republics what if the various groups who immigrated to North and South America were to form their own republics in North and South America

Ie a Italian State in Argentina or Brazil

What would you need for this to happen?
 
Well, remember, the Boers didn't come directly from the Netherlands. Many were already in the Cape Colony and then just emigrated from there in wagons. For a country whose people don't already have an adjacent colony but coming straight from Europe, the situation is more complicated. First, you have to have some type of relationship other than outright hostility with the main colonizing power of the region. Or else you're just a French Huguenot in 16th century South Carolina waiting for the Spanish to come kill you, basically. So think about what that would take.

Purely by way of example, maybe Spain might be willing to permit some of your people into Patagonia? Why would they do that? Do you think they would sell it? Well who has the money to buy a Patagonia? Can you return Patagonia if it's not your size?

And I can't stress enough, there's no end to the military complications, from many sides. Think about it: if you're an oppressed group in the country of origin (the kind that would have the incentive to emigrate somewhere else to start a country), you might face predation from the home power; if you are making long sea voyages, you will face predation from any enemy of the home power, any competing power with designs on the same territory, and straight-up piracy; in the destination country, you will face the indigenous population, the dominant colonizing power of the region (see above), anyone else trying to colonize the area and perhaps regional native states not happy you're there to make a go of it. All these factors give existing states able to make a fist militarily an advantage over a state that won't formally exist in an organized way until people are actually in the destination country. It's almost like you need a navy and an army before you have a country to support those entities with its taxes.

You see the complexities here? The short answer is that whoever, wherever, and whenever you situate this idea, the project needs friends. Friends with money, military power and diplomatic sway.
 

Lusitania

Donor
The boer were Dutch settlers who went to South Africa on behalf of Dutch when South Africa was part of Dutch empire. They settled there over 200 years. In the early 19th century the British captured South Africa and the Boer remained there. Over the next few decades they migrated east away from British controls and tried to establish their own countries. So not same as emigrating from Europe
 
In OTL Hugenots were forbidden to travel to Nouvelle-France in 1628, let’s do the opposite.

In 1680, Louis XIV decides, on the advice of Jean Talon, the former Intendant of New France, and Vauban to deport as many french Hugenots as possible to Nouvelle-France to work as forced indentured laborers and workers for a duration of 12 years (twice the normal period of engagisme). After this period they are free to settle, wherever they want, and to obey to the King. It’s either death or exile to Nouvelle France.

Colbert reluctantly accepts this plan, preferring to see Huguenots in French colonies, rather than providing wealth to other countries like England, the United provinces of Netherlands or to the German states. Many Huguenots occupied important places in society from merchants, craftsmen, to soldiers and nobles.

Colbert was also afraid of secession, as Huguenot presence was heavily concentrated in the western and southern portions of the French kingdom, as nobles there secured practise of the new faith. The Camisard revolt in 1685 reinforced this fear and reminded him of the past civil wars based on religion. An English intervention to help those revolters would be a disaster.

Rumored Hugenots are marked with a branding iron by royal officers and priests, so they can’t flee out of the Kingdom before their deportation. This Fleur de Lis marking will turn into an universal symbol of Hugenot faith with some fringe Hugenot groups continuing to iron brand themselves nowadays, centuries after the deportation.

It’s better and more economically useful than killing them on spot or pushing them to flee aboard. In Nouvelle-France, everything will be done to be sure that they become Catholics.

To be sure than their brethen reject their faith, King Louis XIV put their sons and girls into religious and military institutions to be trained as professional soldiers (catholic janissaries !) and good catholic spouses.

Parts of Hugenot population wouldn’t appreciate this situation and many of them would try to flee. In North America, those will be known as wood runners or "coureurs des bois" and mix with natives, slowly developing an unique culture.

I am sorry the links are in french
1. https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engagisme
2. https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engagisme_aux_Amériques

This policy of sending Hugenots to various colonies, especially to Nouvelle-France, won’t stop until the Edict of Tolerance signed by Louis XVI on 7 November 1787 and registered in the Parlement of Paris on 29 January 1788.

Gradually, groups of Hugenots and Coureurs des bois from Nouvelle-France will depart to create their own religious Republics in the west of Nouvelle-France. It’s the Great Travel or Grand Voyage.
 
Last edited:
There was a plan for a German settler state in Texas, which might fulfill the question of the OP, advocated by the Adelsverein group. A band of liberal German nobility and thinkers pressed for it.
 

Lusitania

Donor
In OTL Hugenots were forbidden to travel to Nouvelle-France in 1628, let’s do the opposite.

In 1680, Louis XIV decides, on the advice of Colbert and Vauban, to deport as many french Hugenots as possible to Nouvelle-France to work as indentured laborers and workers for a duration of 12 years (twice the normal period of engagisme). After this period they are free to settle, wherever they want, and to obey to the King. It’s either death or exile to Nouvelle France.

It’s better and more economically useful than killing them on spot or pushing them to flee aboard. In Nouvelle-France, everything will be done to be sure that they become Catholics.

To be sure than their brethen reject their faith, he could put their sons and girls into religious and military institutions to be trained as soldiers and good catholic spouses.

This Hugenot population wouldn’t appreciate this situation and many of them would would flee. In North America, those will be known as wood runners or "coureurs des bois" and mix with natives, slowly developing an unique culture.

I am sorry this link is in France.
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engagisme

This policy of sending Hugenots to various colonies, especially to Nouvelle-France, won’t stop until the Edict of Tolerance signed by Louis XVI on 7 November 1787 and registered in the Parlement of Paris on 29 January 1788.

Gradually, groups of Hugenots and Coureurs des bois from Nouvelle-France will depart to create their own Republic in the west. It’s the Great Travel or Grand Voyage.

This could work. Following the capture of New France by British in 7 year war. They receive permission from British to move west away from the Catholics in Quebec. They settle in Michigan and Wisconsin area.
 
Vermont was basically an example of this. It was technically an independent country until 1791. There are numerous examples of other territories that had sprung up without the Federal government's express consent, such as Frankland, Deseret, and perhaps most notably, California. The only way to get these territories to remain independent is simply to keep the Federal government weak.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Vermont was basically an example of this. It was technically an independent country until 1791. There are numerous examples of other territories that had sprung up without the Federal government's express consent, such as Frankland, Deseret, and perhaps most notably, California. The only way to get these territories to remain independent is simply to keep the Federal government weak.
The issue with those "republics" was that not only did we have a Federal government hell bent on conquering anything it could but in many cases such as California they were created by ex-American patriots who were sympathetic to re-joining US and also soon overwelmed by other Americans.

This was not the case of the Boer Republics. They need to be of different background and/or ethnic group like the Boer against the British. So for California to be independent it needs to be settled by group fleeing American persecution. Be they Catholics or ethnic group one that together with the Spanish speaking Californians resist American attack.
 
after the French and Indian War/Seven Years War, Louisiana was turned over to the Spanish, while Indiana/Illinois along with French Canada was turned over to Britain. Many French from Indiana/Illinois migrated to Louisiana, establishing St Louis. Britain went overboard placating the Canadians, and they stayed put. At the same time, French Louisiana rebelled against Spanish rule, but were put down. All this is OTL.

ATL, French from Canada migrate en masse, and successfully wrest Louisiana from Spain, and form their own government/country.
 
In OTL Hugenots were forbidden to travel to Nouvelle-France in 1628, let’s do the opposite.

In 1680, Louis XIV decides, on the advice of Colbert and Vauban, to deport as many french Hugenots as possible to Nouvelle-France to work as forced indentured laborers and workers for a duration of 12 years (twice the normal period of engagisme). .

This would be out of character for Colbert - while not exactly favorable to the Protestants, he saw them as an important link in the economy and did not want them to leave the country. (He also didn't want many Catholics to leave, either - he was concerned, a bit irrationally, about France becoming underpopulated if it had too much emigration.)
 
This would be out of character for Colbert - while not exactly favorable to the Protestants, he saw them as an important link in the economy and did not want them to leave the country. (He also didn't want many Catholics to leave, either - he was concerned, a bit irrationally, about France becoming underpopulated if it had too much emigration.)


In this case, the POD would be Jean Talon, Count d'Orsainville, being able to convince Colbert of the urgent need of populating New France and continuing to help it financially, which would lead to the decision to send Huguenots there.
 
The issue with those "republics" was that not only did we have a Federal government hell bent on conquering anything it could but in many cases such as California they were created by ex-American patriots who were sympathetic to re-joining US and also soon overwelmed by other Americans.

This was not the case of the Boer Republics. They need to be of different background and/or ethnic group like the Boer against the British. So for California to be independent it needs to be settled by group fleeing American persecution. Be they Catholics or ethnic group one that together with the Spanish speaking Californians resist American attack.

Weren't the Mormons headed for California at one stage?
 
The US falls apart in it's early years and American settlers travel to Mexican Louisiana where they eventually break away and form their own republics.
 
The Welsh settlement in Patagonia is considerably more successful than in OTL and lots more Welsh people emigrate there. In addition a lot of Welsh who had previously emgrated to USA decide to up sticks and move to 'Y Wladfa'. By 1900 the Welsh have fallen out with Argentina for various reasons (? Argentina wants to integrate them into Argentine society, and closes and bans Welsh schools; encourages others eg Italian immigrants to move to Chubut province?)

Meanwhile trouble has been brewing throughout the 1890s between Argentina and Chile over the disputed Andean border. War actually breaks out in 1902 between Argentina and Chile, and the Welsh throw their lot in with Chile. The Welsh, having only a militia, fight bravely but are defeated by the Argentine army. However Chile soundly and comprehensively defeats Argentina in the war. Chile agrees to support the Welsh in establishing 'Gweriniaeth Patagonia' [Republic of Patagonia] - very roughly the province of Chubut OTL - with a capital at Trelew. They see it as a useful buffer state between themselves and Argentina, since they've annexed the whole of Patagonia south of Chubut (inc Tierra del Fuego) thus gaining an Atlantic coast.
 
The issue with those "republics" was that not only did we have a Federal government hell bent on conquering anything it could but in many cases such as California they were created by ex-American patriots who were sympathetic to re-joining US and also soon overwelmed by other Americans.

This was not the case of the Boer Republics. They need to be of different background and/or ethnic group like the Boer against the British. So for California to be independent it needs to be settled by group fleeing American persecution. Be they Catholics or ethnic group one that together with the Spanish speaking Californians resist American attack.

California really is the only plausable area to get a settler state that would last long term though, at least in North America. For anything in the broader Mississippi River basin, sheer economic forces will open them up to and encourage cooperation with the coastal population centers of the East and Gulf,who will easily dilute the distinction of the settler culture and offer too much of a prosperity carrot to not tempt at least the middle class for Union. Trans-Rockies California has the resources to support internal prosperity and population growth as well as geographically defend itself once established.
 

Lusitania

Donor
California really is the only plausable area to get a settler state that would last long term though, at least in North America. For anything in the broader Mississippi River basin, sheer economic forces will open them up to and encourage cooperation with the coastal population centers of the East and Gulf,who will easily dilute the distinction of the settler culture and offer too much of a prosperity carrot to not tempt at least the middle class for Union. Trans-Rockies California has the resources to support internal prosperity and population growth as well as geographically defend itself once established.
But we have to remember that boer republics also did not survive. So this thread was if we could have Boer republics in the Americas then various could of been formed but in end not survive.
 
California really is the only plausable area to get a settler state that would last long term though, at least in North America. For anything in the broader Mississippi River basin, sheer economic forces will open them up to and encourage cooperation with the coastal population centers of the East and Gulf,who will easily dilute the distinction of the settler culture and offer too much of a prosperity carrot to not tempt at least the middle class for Union. Trans-Rockies California has the resources to support internal prosperity and population growth as well as geographically defend itself once established.
In La Plata basin, "sheer economic forces" did not open up and unite Argentina with Uruguay and Paraguay, even though they share the upper class main language of Spanish. Nor did "sheer economic forces" unite USA with Canada across the Great Lakes and Prairies despite common English tongue.
 
In La Plata basin, "sheer economic forces" did not open up and unite Argentina with Uruguay and Paraguay, even though they share the upper class main language of Spanish. Nor did "sheer economic forces" unite USA with Canada across the Great Lakes and Prairies despite common English tongue.

Buenos Ares had the 19th century economic gravity of a small moon, was constantly fighting to draw in the rest of the inland cities under her hegemony for the first half century of its exiatanced, lacked anything near the population base and immigrant flow of the East Coast, and Montivideo had a long history of separate governance and intendency. Entirely different barrel of beans. As for Canada, they had easy access to plenty of alternative sources of identifying population (Fellow British) points of economic development/import export (St Lawrence River Vally) more than long enough to build up a self sustaining identity and bulk. To say nothing of the counterbalancing force exerted on them by membership in the Empire, in whom thier 19th century economy was organized around and would see a major disruption to the prosperity of the middle/intelligentsia and business classes if they defected. None of this applies to some Acadians squatting the North of Louisianna territory or what have you. Cali is the only spot that can resist getting sucked into some larger nearby entity long term, particularly if you can keep that other force on the other side of the Rockies in general so they don't develop interests in the Pacific that start bumping against yours
 
Top