Demographics of a British Deep South

Given that the Southern colonies had a fairly large number of loyalists during the American Revolution, I understand that scenarios exploring what would have happened had the Deep South stayed British after the war are fairly common. However, the focus of this thread is to discuss what the demographic situation of a British Deep South would be like come 2018.

For the purposes of this scenario, let's say that...

1) Upon independence, the British Deep South (anybody have a better name for this country?) consists of OTL Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina. What would be the border states (North Carolina, Tennessee) IOTL go to the United States, and this British dominion doesn't extend further west than the Mississippi River. The addition of Spanish Florida is optional, though. Also assume that most or all of OTL Canada goes to the United States as a result of, or shortly after, the Revolutionary War.

2) The historical broadstrokes for the British Deep South are essentially the same as the OTL Commonwealth realms - slowly gaining autonomy over the course of the 19th and early 20th centuries until, no later than the early-to-mid 20th century, it is effectively and independent country. In certain aspects socioeconomic/cultural aspects, though, strong comparisons could probably also be made to the Caribbean, Latin America, and South Africa.

So again, what does this country look like in 2018? Specifically...

  • African-Americans were a majority of the population of most of the Deep South until well until into the 20th century. Assuming emancipation happens in the British empire around the same time as OTL, is there any reason to believe that the African-American population would decline in this area, as it did IOTL? Or would this be a majority African-American, or at least plurality African-American, county by 2018?
  • What about the white population? Shorn from the rest of the United States, would this area be an attractive destination for European immigrants? Such as it does get European immigration, where would it likely come from, aside from the British Isles? Would there be less of a presence of lower-class Scots-Irish communities in the Appalachian part of this country? If whites don't comprise a majority or plurality of the population, would they largely leave the country after independence, as was the case with many European colonies where settlers and their descendants were not a majority, or would they largely stay, as was the case with South Africa?
  • What about the Native American population? This area had a large Native American population, including Cherokee, Creek, Choctaws, and others before they were largely removed from their land by the United States government in the early 19th century and forced to move west. Depending on how much immigration there is to the Deep South here, would the British government be inclined to remove them from their land, or would this country have a very large Native American population in the present day.
  • After emancipation, many British colonies in the Caribbean imported large numbers of South Asian workers, leading to a large South Asian diaspora community in that part of the world today, especially in Guyana. Would the Deep South likely have a significant South Asian population in this timeline's 2018?
  • Presuming Florida is indeed incorporated, how large would the Latin American community be for this country? Would Cubans, Mexicans, and others largely prefer to move to the United States, or would the Deep South have a fairly large Hispanic population?
 
Interesting thoughts; my one gripe with the idea is that Canada just goes right to the US.... In a scenario with a weakened US post-independence why or how could Canada ever fall to the US? In 1812 you would have loyal British States(? Provinces maybe) ready to invade the fledgling nation.

That aside; emancipation happening around the same time I wonder if the US will follow suit; basically all the most profitable slave states and ardent supporters of the institution are not in the Union anymore. There will be some son maybe it lasts past British emancipation and if the US gains Louisiana as normal I could see that transpiring but the Underground Railroad would run South more than North.

I agree with more South Asian influence and if Indian removal happens many might choose to run South into the British Dominion than go to Oklahoma
 
I agree with more South Asian influence and if Indian removal happens many might choose to run South into the British Dominion than go to Oklahoma

It's one thing to say that the British might be less eager* to remove the Native Americans from their land in the Deep South, leading to a larger indigenous population in that region by TTL 2018, but would they be willing to provide land for a large number of the Native Americans that the United States would want to remove from their territory?

*Or, indeed, able - the US could move the Cherokee and others to what would become Oklahoma, but in this scenario, it is less obvious where the British would move them to.
 
It's still going to be a plantation society focused on agriculture using exploitative systems like in the Caribbean, so that's going to impact demographics heavily. Like, for instance, minimal to low amounts of white immigration, since why go there and suffer for minimal wages under the burning sun and humidity as a sharecropper when you could instead work a slightly less terrible job in the US or Canada for relatively higher wages? I can't see whites leaving the place in any real number, though, outside of emigrating to the US/Canada for better opportunities. There would be a decent amount of places which will be plurality or majority white. But most of the emigrants will be white, simply because the United States is likely to keep the number of black emigrants to a minimum for a long time. Both whites and blacks will likely be able to get better opportunities in the United States or Canada. And it will definitely be a plurality black country, maybe majority black. Anywhere from 40 - 55% black is a reasonable estimate.

South Asians I could definitely see being brought in. They did it to some degree with Chinese workers OTL although many left the fields and opened businesses which catered to the black communities.

I think the majority of Hispanics would probably prefer to move to the United States (New York/New England), especially if we assume that the United States still shares a border with Mexico. Florida would definitely still have a sizable Caribbean populations, but smaller than OTL. Likewise, Florida would be a lot smaller in terms of population, even if there was some sort of European Union-type system where it wouldn't be hard for Americans to move to Florida. Outside of touristy beaches and a few important cities in the south of Florida, much more of Florida would have a Southern feel than OTL (as Florida used to before millions of people moved there).

IMO I'd just call this country/dominion Georgia.
 
@metalinvader665 - since you had such in-depth thoughts on everything else, what about Native Americans? Do you foresee this country having indigenous people as a significant percentage of its population?
 
I assume the British will treat them as well as they did the Tasmanians, or if they are lucky, the First Peoples of Canada.
 
@metalinvader665 - since you had such in-depth thoughts on everything else, what about Native Americans? Do you foresee this country having indigenous people as a significant percentage of its population?

A lot depends on if the whites want them off the land, which of course many planters would. But unlike the United States, they have nowhere to move large numbers of American Indians to. It's possible they'd just set up reservations in certain parts of the country and try and encourage assimilation, and in particular, wealthier individuals who owned slaves. There'd definitely be a couple hundred thousand people entirely or partially of American Indian descent, which if we give a reasonable estimate of 25 million people (total population in this country I think would be anywhere between 20 million to 30 million) would be about 3% (somewhat more than the OTL US).

I assume the British will treat them as well as they did the Tasmanians, or if they are lucky, the First Peoples of Canada.

There's likely to be quite a bit of conflict between 1783 (or whatever the POD is) and 1820 or so in particular.
 
I assume the British will treat them as well as they did the Tasmanians, or if they are lucky, the First Peoples of Canada.

The American Indians of the Deep South in question are the groups that were labeled the Five Civilized Tribes, so European elites regarded them somewhat differently and more positively than indigenous peoples in other parts of the world. Furthermore, if there's less white migration to these colonies, then there'd be less willingness by the British government to fully remove the Native Americans from their land than there was for the American government.

I don't doubt there'd be conflict and tension, but anything to the degree of the Trail of Tears seems unlikely to unfold in this scenario, IMO.
 
Georgia remaining British is a lot more likely than South Carolina in my opinion. Georgia was the only colony where the back-country was loyalist. The Savannah River makes for a fine enough boundary.


Unlike the Americans, the British really wouldn't have anywhere to move the Civilized Tribes too. Plus, given the Civilized Tribes' adoption of many European customs, I imagine the British authorities would be more reluctant to screw them over the way the Americans did (or the way the British treated the first peoples in Canada).

When slavery ends, I expect there to be quite a few Indian coolie workers brought over.


If the British still hold the deep south here, I think they'll push hard for holding on to the Floridas at the end of the war.
 
Also assume that most or all of OTL Canada goes to the United States as a result of, or shortly after, the Revolutionary War.
I will never understand why "America does worse" is always paired with "America gets Canada". America's attempt on Quebec was dismal IOTL, and I don't see how diverting more of the continental army to the south will change that.
 
I will never understand why "America does worse" is always paired with "America gets Canada". America's attempt on Quebec was dismal IOTL, and I don't see how diverting more of the continental army to the south will change that.

For the purposes of the scenario, I think it's more interesting to examine how shifting post-1783 British North America from one part of the continent to another would affect migration patterns. If Britain holds both Canada and the Deep South, obviously European immigrants would vastly prefer the former. If you take away that choice, how many OTL immigrants to Canada are going to move to the British Deep South versus picking somewhere like the United States, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc?
 
I will never understand why "America does worse" is always paired with "America gets Canada". America's attempt on Quebec was dismal IOTL, and I don't see how diverting more of the continental army to the south will change that.

Maybe it has to do with how the image of the US sandwiched between two British Dominions looks ugly on a map.
 
Depends. By Canada you mean what Canada was back then (so no Rupert's Land, etc,), or otherwise?

For the purposes of the scenario, let's say the United States comes into possession of all of 2018 Canada ITTL, minus perhaps Newfoundland, Labrador and the Maritimes. Would the immigrants inclined to move to the OTL Dominion of Canada and its antecedents (both those originating in the United Kingdom and otherwise) tend move to TTL's British North America in the Deep South, move to the United States, or pick another option?
 
Last edited:
I assume the British will treat them as well as they did the Tasmanians, or if they are lucky, the First Peoples of Canada.

The Five Civilized Tribes would be considered far more... well, "civilized" by the Brits than the two groups you mentioned. More likely they would be treated similar to, say, the Hausa-Fulani.
 
For the purposes of the scenario, I think it's more interesting to examine how shifting post-1783 British North America from one part of the continent to another would affect migration patterns. If Britain holds both Canada and the Deep South, obviously European immigrants would vastly prefer the former. If you take away that choice, how many OTL immigrants to Canada are going to move to the British Deep South versus picking somewhere like the United States, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc?
There's less contrived ways to do that (especially since there was a lot of British migration to America, and non-British migrants to Canada). If most of the 6,600 loyalists who went to the Province of Quebec instead remain in/settle in the south, then Quebec probably retains it's Quebec act quirkiness (Customs of Paris, no political representation, supremacy of the Catholic Church, ect...), meaning it will probably be very unappealing to the average Englishman (and most Europeans for that matter).

For the purposes of the scenario, let's say the United States comes into possession of all of 2018 Canada ITTL, minus perhaps Newfoundland, Labrador and the Maritimes. Would the immigrants inclined to move to the OTL Dominion of Canada and its antecedents (both those originating in the United Kingdom and otherwise) tend move to TTL's British North America in the Deep South, move to the United States, or pick another option?
Wait, how does America get British Columbia but not the Maritimes?

As for your question, how does Georgia (can we call it that?) set up its immigration standards? Canada got much of its immigrants by aggressively marketing itself in Eastern Europe and being unable to refuse Irish fever ships. It would be pretty well positioned to market itself to Southern Europeans and would be a cheaper ticket than Argentina or Uruguay (though still more expensive than Algeria).
 
It's still going to be a plantation society focused on agriculture using exploitative systems like in the Caribbean, so that's going to impact demographics heavily. Like, for instance, minimal to low amounts of white immigration, since why go there and suffer for minimal wages under the burning sun and humidity as a sharecropper when you could instead work a slightly less terrible job in the US or Canada for relatively higher wages? I can't see whites leaving the place in any real number, though, outside of emigrating to the US/Canada for better opportunities. There would be a decent amount of places which will be plurality or majority white. But most of the emigrants will be white, simply because the United States is likely to keep the number of black emigrants to a minimum for a long time. Both whites and blacks will likely be able to get better opportunities in the United States or Canada. And it will definitely be a plurality black country, maybe majority black. Anywhere from 40 - 55% black is a reasonable estimate.

South Asians I could definitely see being brought in. They did it to some degree with Chinese workers OTL although many left the fields and opened businesses which catered to the black communities.

I think the majority of Hispanics would probably prefer to move to the United States (New York/New England), especially if we assume that the United States still shares a border with Mexico. Florida would definitely still have a sizable Caribbean populations, but smaller than OTL. Likewise, Florida would be a lot smaller in terms of population, even if there was some sort of European Union-type system where it wouldn't be hard for Americans to move to Florida. Outside of touristy beaches and a few important cities in the south of Florida, much more of Florida would have a Southern feel than OTL (as Florida used to before millions of people moved there).

IMO I'd just call this country/dominion Georgia.
Could it perhaps form "Confederation" with the British West Indies?
 
Could it perhaps form "Confederation" with the British West Indies?

I don't see why it wouldn't. Britain would be happy to save money on administration. Historically Barbados, Bahamas, Turks-Caicos, and Jamaica all contemplated joining Canada at various points (others too I think) but it didn't work out. Joining a more local confederation makes plenty sense.
 
Wait, how does America get British Columbia but not the Maritimes?

I guess I was under the impression that, if America at the very least got Southern Ontario in TTL's Treaty of Paris (but not Quebec, the Maritimes, etc), then they'd eventually sort of default into getting most of western Canada. If I'm terribly mistaken and it'd be easier for the sake of this scenario to say just say that America gets essentially all of OTL Canada, then mea culpa.

As for your question, how does Georgia (can we call it that?) set up its immigration standards? Canada got much of its immigrants by aggressively marketing itself in Eastern Europe and being unable to refuse Irish fever ships. It would be pretty well positioned to market itself to Southern Europeans and would be a cheaper ticket than Argentina or Uruguay (though still more expensive than Algeria).

Yeah, this is why I wanted folks who know about this history of Canadian immigration to comment here. I think it's been established in this thread that the Dominion of Georgia would be socioeconomically and culturally closer to the West Indies than OTL Canada, that by the mid-to-late 19th century, it'd be importing at least as many workers from India and other British possessions in Asia as it would immigrants from Europe. That said, given that there'd be more available land in this dominion than there was in any of Britain's Caribbean possessions (even sans Indian Removal), immigration from Europe likely wouldn't be negligible.

Another thing to consider - I know it's mostly a myth that Georgia began as a penal colony, but of Britain acquired Florida at around this time, might it and some of the rest of the Deep South eclipse Australia as a penal colony?
 
I guess I was under the impression that, if America at the very least got Southern Ontario in TTL's Treaty of Paris (but not Quebec, the Maritimes, etc), then they'd eventually sort of default into getting most of western Canada. If I'm terribly mistaken and it'd be easier for the sake of this scenario to say just say that America gets essentially all of OTL Canada, then mea culpa.
Yes, that would be much easier, as BC was an well established settler colony and if Quebec remains with the British then they still have direct access (including potential rail access) to the west.

Another thing to consider - I know it's mostly a myth that Georgia began as a penal colony, but of Britain acquired Florida at around this time, might it and some of the rest of the Deep South eclipse Australia as a penal colony?
I don't think so, if you look at where the British established their penal colonies they tended to be nice enough to not establish them in areas with endemic malaria.
 
Top