Another plausible location for an US-style colony

So, i've been reading a bit of The Shield Of Liberty and i am here to ask.
Is there another feasible location for a colony styled like the Thirteen Colonies of Britain?
-Some limited autonomy, with possibility of federation between the colonies
-Varied economic riches and types of production, which may have varying profits for the metropole
-Is there a country other than Britain who could've sustained a colony of this style?
 
Last edited:
the australasian region could work though as Doctor President said, pretty much anywhere would work as long as the UK would be the first european colonizer in the area and the colony is based on free settlers and landowners rather then convicts or replcing/assimilating a previous colony.
 
I've seen a map of Africa from the colonial era that breaks the continent down into areas 'suitable for European colonisation', 'suitable for brief visits' and 'uninhabitable by Europeans'. IIRC, the only areas deemed suitable for colonisation were the Cape and the Ethiopian highlands.

Based on the implied climatic requirements, I'd suggest that southeastern Australia, New Zealand, the Platinate basin in South America and the southwestern portion of the Southern Cone would be most viable.
 
I've seen a map of Africa from the colonial era that breaks the continent down into areas 'suitable for European colonisation', 'suitable for brief visits' and 'uninhabitable by Europeans'. IIRC, the only areas deemed suitable for colonisation were the Cape and the Ethiopian highlands.

Based on the implied climatic requirements, I'd suggest that southeastern Australia, New Zealand, the Platinate basin in South America and the southwestern portion of the Southern Cone would be most viable.

Bare in mind that in the 19th century, there was a belief that africans couldn't strive in northern climes and european in southern ones so the map was probably a bit biased.
 
To get this you need areas of high agricultural potential to sustain a population, yet low existing pre-colonial population so the settlers can dwarf them. That limits you to the Americas (outside of Mexico and Peru) and Australasia. And for tropical America you need to avoid imported slavery.
 
To get this you need areas of high agricultural potential to sustain a population, yet low existing pre-colonial population so the settlers can dwarf them. That limits you to the Americas (outside of Mexico and Peru) and Australasia. And for tropical America you need to avoid imported slavery.
What do you mean by the last sentence. America imported slavery in the South.
 
So, i've been reading a bit of The Shield Of Liberty and i am here to ask.
Is there another feasible location for a colony styled like the Thirteen Colonies of Britain?
-Some limited autonomy, with possibility of federation between the colonies
-Varied economic riches and types of production, which may have varying profits for the metropole
-Is there a country other than Britain who could've sustained a colony of this style?
Maybe Brazil and Gran Colombia if the Spanish and Portuguese divided those colonies. After their independence, these countries were federations, or at least Brazil was and is. Gran Colombia had a conflict over whether it should be federative or unitary. Perhaps if they survive, they can achieve what your looking for.
 
What do you mean by the last sentence. America imported slavery in the South.

The South wasn't tropical amd was based around cotton. In the tropics, slavery would be based around sugar and thus a far higher slave to white ration - as in 10 to 1 or larger. That's not a good recipe for federal democracy long term. At some points the (former) slaves will take power.
 
The South wasn't tropical amd was based around cotton. In the tropics, slavery would be based around sugar and thus a far higher slave to white ration - as in 10 to 1 or larger. That's not a good recipe for federal democracy long term. At some points the (former) slaves will take power.
Well in Brazil, instead of the former slaves taking power, Brazil just freed them.(Very late in history like in the 1890s.) Their freedom didn't seem to causes great instability, as the Brazil just had them integrated into the nation by attempting to "breed them out" as Brazil attempted to racially whiten them through encouraged mixing as the white Brazilians didn't have a great amount of prejudice towards the Blacks that they would try to segregate, since it would be difficult , but not impossible. But that's pretty much apartheid and that causes instability.
 
To get this you need areas of high agricultural potential to sustain a population, yet low existing pre-colonial population so the settlers can dwarf them. That limits you to the Americas (outside of Mexico and Peru) and Australasia. And for tropical America you need to avoid imported slavery.
Wait, I may have misunderstood you, by "tropical America" are you saying the Caribbean? Because there's no avoiding slavery there, otherwise the region is useless before the 20th century.
 
The South wasn't tropical amd was based around cotton. In the tropics, slavery would be based around sugar and thus a far higher slave to white ration - as in 10 to 1 or larger. That's not a good recipe for federal democracy long term. At some points the (former) slaves will take power.

South Carolina had the largest proportion of slaves out of the states, and followed by Mississippi and Louisiana had non-white majorities for much of the 19th century. However, even at it's peak South Carolina's non-white population (mostly slaves) was around 60% of the total, whereas in the West Indies that number was over 90% and in Brazil the numbers in the tropical sugar-producing and mining regions were very high as well due to the labour required.

The British West Indies, particularly islands like Barbados and Antigua during their first decades of English rule had white majorities. The West Indies as a whole attracted far more immigrants from England and Ireland than North America, during the 17th century, and large numbers continued to migrate throughout the 18th century. The early plantations were worked by indentured labourers from the British Isles, though their mortality rates soon made the sugar plantations dependent on imported African labour. Even not working as labourers, the European populations dwindled throughout the 18th and 19th centuries due to yellow fever, malaria and cholera, whilst the massive numbers of Africans and their descendants became the overwhelming majority of the population despite their high rate of mortality caused by the harsh conditions of the sugar plantations. The long-term result has been societies scarred by the legacy of slavery and poverty, on a larger scale than the U.S. South. The same can be said for Brazil, Haiti and other areas where slavery became the bedrock of the economy.
 
The Pacific Northwest is another place that has just about everything that you're looking for. As for the question of whether another nation could build this sort of colony, there are some powers that seem more disposed to creating this kind of colony, such as the Dutch. However, the more important question is why a European power is willing to create this colony and why their people are willing to move their. If the colonies have the same sort of appeal that places like Massachusetts or New Zealand had, down-on-their-luck middle class people starting a new life as a farmer or an artisan, then the ground work for an economically sound and autonomous colony has been set. On the other hand if the colony follows in the footsteps of a place like Saint-Domingue, people try to find ways that the colony can make them as much money as possible and getting the hell out, then your challenge has become almost impossible. This does not mean that Hispaniola could never hold a colony of this type or that first boats to lang in Cape Cod will plant the seed for this sort of colony, just that time has to be spent looking a motivations.
 
Bare in mind that in the 19th century, there was a belief that africans couldn't strive in northern climes and european in southern ones so the map was probably a bit biased.
Oh absolutely, it was horribly biased. But, it was the bias of the time - and Europeans would only establish a settler colony somewhere that they believed they could make it thrive, so for these purposes a biased contemporary assessment is more useful than a modern one based on our understanding and biases.
 
Top