Demographics of a British Deep South

Given your stipulations a black majority seems unlikely unless Caribbean colonies are integrated.

The five civilised tribes remaining+south Asian migration+ earlier emancipation= larger mixed race population overall

Without strict miscegenation laws this group could become like the "coloured" population of South Africa and mean the black population goes from majority to plurality instead.
 
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 probably a case where they can market themselves, but what they offer isn't competitive compared to elsewhere. Attracting Italians to the Deep South as sharecroppers had very mixed results. Industrial development in *Birmingham might be the best option for attracting immigrants, but it probably won't be much compared to what similar cities in Canada and the United States can get. And speaking of Italians, they were quite discriminated against in the South for similar reasons Americans elsewhere didn't like Italians (them being Catholics, Mafia crime giving Italians a big name, etc.).
 
Given your stipulations a black majority seems unlikely unless Caribbean colonies are integrated.

The five civilised tribes remaining+south Asian migration+ earlier emancipation= larger mixed race population overall

Without strict miscegenation laws this group could become like the "coloured" population of South Africa and mean the black population goes from majority to plurality instead.

Given that this is the American South, a closer comparison might even be the Melungeons - only here, there'd be a lot more people of this class.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melungeon
 
I for one don't believe a mixed-race community in *Dixie is impossible or all that difficult with the right POD or butterflies. That being said, Melungeons are more specifically endemic to the Upper South, not the Deep South.

I didn't mean that they'd be the Melungeons, just that this hypothetical class of people would be closer to Melungeons culturally, with the exception being that they'd have some South Asian ancestry as well. Of course, socioeconomically, they would probably occupy a role closer to that of the mixed race population of South Africa.
 
Last edited:
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.

If the British are aggressively controlling land movement westward, how loyal is this dominion going to be?
 
If the British are aggressively controlling land movement westward, how loyal is this dominion going to be?

It depends on how much British/European settlement there'd be for the Deep South ITTL. The consensus in this thread seems to be that there'd be some, but not as much as OTL.
 
Georgia would also probs end up with a decent cricket team if they aren't integrated into West Indies team

True, although I don't know if anything but the Bahamas and T&C would be integrated into our "Georgia". But cricket would benefit, given how decently popular cricket was in the US before supplanted by baseball. I wonder how the color line would affect cricket? Jackie Robinson ends up a cricketeer who breaks the color line?

It depends on how much British/European settlement there'd be for the Deep South ITTL. The consensus in this thread seems to be that there'd be some, but not as much as OTL.

What do you mean? The Deep South will still have the same pull it did as IOTL. There's lots of land, and you have the chance of ending up a powerful planter. The British will still use various nonsense to steal lots of land from the Five Civilized Tribes although there will be American Indians who rank among the powerful planters even if the average Indian lives in far worse conditions than poor white people do.
 
What do you mean? The Deep South will still have the same pull it did as IOTL. There's lots of land, and you have the chance of ending up a powerful planter. The British will still use various nonsense to steal lots of land from the Five Civilized Tribes although there will be American Indians who rank among the powerful planters even if the average Indian lives in far worse conditions than poor white people do.

That isn't inconsistent with what I said. I was just reiterating that, while there'd certainly be conflict and tension between the British government and the Native Americans, it wouldn't get as bad as the OTL Trail of Tears.
 
Georgia would also probs end up with a decent cricket team if they aren't integrated into West Indies team

I guess this also raises the question of what this country will look like culturally, and how that would effect language, customs, sports, music, entertainment, etc. Would it remain essentially "Southern" with the exception of a greater South Asian and Native American presence, or would it more closely resemble, say, some of the Caribbean countries?
 
I guess this also raises the question of what this country will look like culturally, and how that would effect language, customs, sports, music, entertainment, etc. Would it remain essentially "Southern" with the exception of a greater South Asian and Native American presence, or would it more closely resemble, say, some of the Caribbean countries?

Well, the US South was compared to the Caribbean (and Latin America) since before American independence IOTL. After all, the slavery-focused economy is pretty similar. But unlike Britain's Caribbean colonies, there would be a huge amount of white people (Scots-Irish, other British people, in some places other Europeans), so in many ways that's similar to the development of the US South (unlike the British Caribbean where whites area an absolute minority), which demographically is most similar to Cuba or Puerto Rico, although the US South is unique demographically in many ways.

I think all things considered, an OTL Southerner (an Alabaman, Mississippian, etc.) would find TTL's Deep South similar in many ways. I bet the accent of TTL Georgia/Alabama wouldn't be too far different than OTL Georgia/Alabama. African American music will probably develop similarly and influence white musicians and thus help spawn country, blues, R&B, rock and roll, etc. And I suspect in terms of sports, American football (or a variant like Canadian football) would take hold in this country.
 
Well, the US South was compared to the Caribbean (and Latin America) since before American independence IOTL. After all, the slavery-focused economy is pretty similar. But unlike Britain's Caribbean colonies, there would be a huge amount of white people (Scots-Irish, other British people, in some places other Europeans), so in many ways that's similar to the development of the US South (unlike the British Caribbean where whites area an absolute minority), which demographically is most similar to Cuba or Puerto Rico, although the US South is unique demographically in many ways.

I think all things considered, an OTL Southerner (an Alabaman, Mississippian, etc.) would find TTL's Deep South similar in many ways. I bet the accent of TTL Georgia/Alabama wouldn't be too far different than OTL Georgia/Alabama. African American music will probably develop similarly and influence white musicians and thus help spawn country, blues, R&B, rock and roll, etc. And I suspect in terms of sports, American football (or a variant like Canadian football) would take hold in this country.

Of course, one big difference between our timeline's South and this timeline's South that folks have suggested is that, in addition to large communities of whites, blacks, Indians, Native Americans, and potentially Hispanics, that there would be a large community of mixed race individuals - that is, rather than the one-drop rule coming into being, they'd form a different class, as was the case for Latin America or South Africa. How would that affect the culture of the South here, besides perhaps eroding some of the racism?
 
Of course, one big difference between our timeline's South and this timeline's South that folks have suggested is that, in addition to large communities of whites, blacks, Indians, Native Americans, and potentially Hispanics, that there would be a large community of mixed race individuals - that is, rather than the one-drop rule coming into being, they'd form a different class, as was the case for Latin America or South Africa. How would that affect the culture of the South here, besides perhaps eroding some of the racism?

I agree with your overall estimation of British Georgia thus far, as well as that of @metalinvader665 . However, I would point out that higher acceptance of racial 'miscegenation' or interracialism, while a surface improvement on the OTL South's reputation, doesn't inherently mean racism is mitigated that much. OTL Brazil is 'known' for being accepting of mixed-race people, but the Afro-Brazilian population remains a giant target for police death squads up to present day, regardless of the long-standing canard that is "Luso-Tropicalism". Of course, nobody wants to talk about it because the narrative in Brazil dictates "racism doesn't exist here", which couldn't be farther from the truth.

To address your point, I think there might be an "accepted" creole/mulatto/tri-racial population in Georgian society depending on how socio-economic conditions develop after the Revolutionary War, but they'd likely still be by and large seen as "practically white" or "practically black" as it truthfully is in Latin America. Better than "one-drop rule"? Absolutely! But still not more than a band-aid type of acceptance that doesn't really mean true progress for non-whites. Beyond that more nuanced view of "who's-what", I don't foresee a ton of other cultural changes, except MAYBE less trepidation of adopting/'appropriating' (insert eye-roll here) non-Euro music, delicacies, possibly fashion items, etc.
 
Last edited:
I don't see the correlation between more ethnic diversity with more miscegenation, not in British Colonialism. If we are to take other similar British 19th century colonies, such as Singapore, Guyana, South Africa, Fiji, etc., politics in this British Deep South will be even more identitarian and racial tension even higher.
 
I don't see the correlation between more ethnic diversity with more miscegenation, not in British Colonialism. If we are to take other similar British 19th century colonies, such as Singapore, Guyana, South Africa, Fiji, etc., politics in this British Deep South will be even more identitarian and racial tension even higher.

Really? No mixed groups at all? Huh, that's interesting.

More to the point, the majority of your sourced examples became British colonies in the 19th century, over 30 years or more after the establishment of British Georgia. Why should policies established by then have any impact on the OP? And of those examples, most were located in tropical environments that were ill-suited for European settlement regardless of what European country controlled it.

I agree that British governance doesn't immediately mean "more tolerant of mixing", but using OTL colonial policies is a non-sequitur since it all happened after the POD set in the OP, and thus vulnerable to butterflies (especially since national origin doesn't inherently make one more or less disposed to accepting racial mixing; Case in point).
 
Really? No mixed groups at all? Huh, that's interesting.

More to the point, the majority of your sourced examples became British colonies in the 19th century, over 30 years or more after the establishment of British Georgia. Why should policies established by then have any impact on the OP? And of those examples, most were located in tropical environments that were ill-suited for European settlement regardless of what European country controlled it.

I agree that British governance doesn't immediately mean "more tolerant of mixing", but using OTL colonial policies is a non-sequitur since it all happened after the POD set in the OP, and thus vulnerable to butterflies (especially since national origin doesn't inherently make one more or less disposed to accepting racial mixing; Case in point).

I don't want to say that there's a particular British attitude towards colonialism that differs too much from the other European powers before the 19th century. I'd say that the lack of miscegenation in present-day US is mostly related to the predominant characteristics of the settler of British North America (ie. European families fleeing religious persecution), whereas we see a very different profile of colonists everywhere else in the Americas (ie. single men, mostly fortune-seekers). At the end of the day, miscegenation is a result of sexual imbalance in colonial societies.

OTOH, when 19th century Imperialism starts, the British start to be more racial excluve, pretty much equating the British race with civilization, whereas the !9th century French Imperalism was somewhat more inclusive (but not necessarily better): there was a slight chance for a native to become a civilisé, if he dully accepts the laws and customs of the ruler.

Nevertheless, you're right. Depending on the butterflies it might change, but I don't think it'd be the most plausible scenario, as we'd already have a deeply racially divided society virtually without a considerable number of mixed-race people, differently from the other colonial societies everywhere else.
 
@Lampiao I agree on miscegenation being a consequence of ethno-gender imbalance, and that a demographically whiter colony is less likely for a mixed community to arise. To me, that's where a TL author can weave a narrative on contemporary views and attitudes to suit one example or the other. I guess I like the idea of a British South being a unique middle ground outlier between lily-white Canada/Australia and Euro-minority South Africa or India. If anything, less European immigration might enhance that acceptance of mixing, OR dampen it depending on the author.
 
Last edited:
I don't see the correlation between more ethnic diversity with more miscegenation, not in British Colonialism. If we are to take other similar British 19th century colonies, such as Singapore, Guyana, South Africa, Fiji, etc., politics in this British Deep South will be even more identitarian and racial tension even higher.

You mentioned South Africa but that's a colony that now has a massive mixed race population. Millions upon millions more than white population for sure

It's also hard to find how many mixed race people there are in America because most people characterise anyone who is part black as being fully black.
 
Top