Dominion of Southern America - Now with Tyrannodrakons!

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by Glen, Feb 22, 2010.

Tags:
  1. TheNordicBrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2008
    Location:
    Commonwealth of England
    Very interesting so far, and nice and easy to read.

    Keep up the good work. One question though concerning the South, is it going to be an actual dominion with self-control over most of its internal matters? If so I'll be interested to read how that turns out with an earlier dominion on the British Empire and how that may affect their views on other future colonies.

    I'm also interested to see how the future of the HBC turns out, and lastly how the Southern Dominion will interact with the Spanish to the West of them (especially New Orleans).
     
  2. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Thank you. I am glad to hear people are able to follow this without difficulty. Will do!

    Well, with a title like 'Dominion of Southern America' I suppose at some point we will have to have some political entity with that name.;)

    Stay tuned to see the when and the how.:D

    Differently.

    Yes, that will be a very important question. We've some other events to get out of the way before the timeline turns its eyes once more to the West.
     
  3. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    In the aftermath of the American Revolutionary War (as it is known in the United States), many Loyalist families fled the newly formed USA for Britain, the Southern Provinces, or even the Caribbean. General Carleton oversaw the evacuation of Loyalists from around the Chesapeake and Delaware areas while General Cornwallis went by sea to evacuate New York under the watchful glare of the Americans.

    In 1789, Governor Carleton proposed the creation of a new Honour for Loyalist families, the Unity of Empire. So called United Empire Loyalists and their descendants would be allowed to affix U.E. after their name, and add the Loyalist coronet to their family Coat of Arms. Some families in the South still proudly display the U.E. remembering the loyalty of their ancestors.

    Governor Carleton had also suggested to the British Parliament uniting the remaining Southern Colonies under one Governor-General but this was dismissed, though the idea would be revived from time to time in later years.

    Britannia opening her arms to the Loyalists:
    [​IMG]
     
    Youngmarshall likes this.
  4. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Only a few years after the end of the American Revolutionary War it was becoming obvious to many that the Articles of Confederation were inadequate to the governance of the United States of America as a nation. Eventually representatives of the states met at first to amend the Articles, but later to draft a new document to govern the nation, the Constitution of the United States. The greatest contention was over whether to have equal representation for each state or representation based on a state's entire population excluding Indians not taxed. Eventually a compromise was reached where there would be a bicameral legislature with equal representation in the new Senate (three for each state, one elected every two years to serve for six years) and proportional representation for every 50,000 people (rounded up) in the new Assembly (each Assemblyman to serve for two years).

    Ratification was contentious and long in coming. By 1789, a Bill of Rights was added that, among other things, forbade Congress from establishing any official religion or language for the United States.

    [​IMG]
    James Madison, Father of the Constitution and Author of the Bill of Rights
     
    Youngmarshall likes this.
  5. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Many celebrate 1789 as the ending of slavery in the United States of America, though in actuality the ban of slavery in the Northwest Territory and later the entire nation were only written into legislation that year, but it wasn't until the early 1790s that the abolition of slavery really began to take effect. While many states of the union allowed slaves at the time, it was felt to be a dying institution, and counter to the spirit of freedom that the new nation wished to foster. Also, blacks had rallied to the American cause and served in the Continental Army in return for freedom, as well as several having fled Loyalist owners, thus there was a small but significant free black population in the new nation. While there was some federal funds voted for recompense for freed slaves, many slave owners chose instead to sell their slaves south to the British colonies, often getting a better price than that offered by Congress, even with the downturn in price by the flooding of the slave market.

    Some slave owners migrated to the Southern Colonies with the passage of abolition, but the majority preferred the loss of their slaves to living once more under the rule of the Crown. Even though many slaves were sold from New York, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, a sizable number remained with their previous owners and continued to work the land, typically in return for some share of the crop. Some likened the relation to manorialism, with the plantation owners acting as feudal lords and freed slaves as serfs, while others saw it more like the seigneurial system in the state of Quebec.

    The Southern British provinces saw a significant increase in their slave population, just in time for the onset of a massive growth in cotton cultivation with the invention of the Cotton Engine.

    [​IMG]
    African Life in Rural North America, circa 1790
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2010
    FleetMac and Youngmarshall like this.
  6. othyrsyde Sana ka'aha yo pendejos!

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Location:
    Lost in Sukaria
    As I said, this would prove interesting when slavery came up:)
     
  7. Falastur Fighting Swiss-wank since 1291

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2009
    Location:
    Hitchin, Herts
    I was expecting a US ending of slavery quickly, but I have to admit I'm very surprised it happened this fast.

    As for your comment that you enjoy seeing my questions over what will happen...well I have a lot more, though each update answers another one and a lot of them don't entirely feel worth asking without speculation, and I don't really want to clutter up your thread with so much discussion, especially when it would probably be a monologue on my part and you're tearing through the updates at quite a pace. I don't really want to take over the thread with my speculation. Sufficed to say, though, that my major interest is whether Britain will move to take Louisiana sooner rather than later considering the various factors which should surely accelerate their interest there, and whether two strong American factions, with such (probably) strongly contrasting values and characteristics, will constantly be warring each other for supremacy.
     
  8. Beedok I exist.

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2008
    Location:
    Centauri Commonwealth
    Things are turning nasty in the south.
     
  9. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Oh? Interesting in what way?:rolleyes:;)
     
  10. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Understandable, but in fact there were efforts IOTL that almost pulled it off. Without the other major slave states, it goes through. And actually early is better. If they waited too long (ie cotton more profitable), it might start to cause trouble.

    Not really. Some questions actually spark ideas or confirm them, so its all good.

    Yep. Trying to keep this one on the front burner and just get it out of my head and onto the thread. Still, comments and questions help fuel the beast, so keep it coming!

    You won't.

    I think that is a fairly good question and interesting conjecture....

    Another good one, but on that I will just say that time will tell, but ask what you imagine the values and characteristics of the two being?
     
  11. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Nasty in what way? Other than what happened IOTL, that is....
     
  12. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
  13. Splatter123 VMI forth classman

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    Location:
    3rd Barracks
    very interesting update, figures that slavery would be banned in America, seeing as how it was only predominant in the South.

    Question though is what will happen when the abolitionist movement reaches England, they were one of the first nations to ban slavery I think. So will having the South force them to reconsider, or will it start a southern revolution?
     
  14. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Order of Ratification of the Constitution, 1787-9:

    1. Pennsylvania
    2. Delaware
    3. New Jersey
    4. Connecticut
    5. Massachusetts
    6. Maryland
    7. Virginia
    8. Quebec
    9. New Hampshire
    10. New York
    11. Nova Scotia
    12. Rhode Island
     
  15. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Thank you, thank you kindly!

    Yep, though you might be surprised how many slaves were in New York at the time.

    Quite right, and there are already rumblings, ala OTL.

    Well, you know how good Whitehall was at taking into account the sensibilities of their overseas colonies....

    What? The South rise up? How could you think of such a thing?;) It would be like imaging a rebellion in Canada....:rolleyes:
     
  16. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    After the twelve original colonies, the next states to join the union in 1790-91 were Newfoundland, Vermont, and then Kentucky (which peacefully separated from Virginia).
     
  17. Falastur Fighting Swiss-wank since 1291

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2009
    Location:
    Hitchin, Herts
    Well alright then, Glen, but don't say I didn't warn you about my propensity to talk and talk when allowed to do so ;)

    Well, there are a number of things defining the two as opposites. Obviously there's the starter in that the US Americans (historically) saw themselves as the guardians of the Americas and believed the British colonists to be ill-suffering brothers in arms who deserve, even require, their protection and ownership. Britain, by contrast, sees its control of the colonies as granting the colonists all the freedom and security they could ever need, and in a lot of ways this wasn't as bigoted a view as it could sound - the British were very good at sticking up for the rights of their colonists in incidents and such. There's the divide now between the US and the colonies in that the one is a slave-free state whereas the other, somewhat regrettably to me, appears that it's going to be heading towards a very plantation-owner, pro-slavery, ultra-conservative state. The US will be dominated by mercantile and business interests whereas the British colonists will represent landed money-making. Again historically, the British (government more than colonists, admittedly) are more likely to advocate treating the Indians with due respect and deference but in this situation do not have such powerful and well-landed tribes to contend with on their western borders whereas the US historically was more willing to simply tell the Indians to get out the way, but now has virtually all of the "Indian question" to deal with themselves. Moreover, in OTL what is now Canada already had virtually all the land it would expand into and Britain only needed resolve the Oregon situation and a few border corrections, whereas now both the US and the British colonies extend about as far west as each other and will be demanding to expand westwards soon, and both are likely to want to cut the other off or at least push north/south to gain more land. All these reasons suggest to me that neither state is going to be happy accepting the other as an equal-strength rival unless decades of war has wearied them to a stand-still, i.e. 20th century Europe. Such wars could drain the UK and put back economic and technological progression in North America for years. Of course, in the early decades, with a far better military jumping point, a higher colonial population and, one would assume, a far higher uptake on locals joining militias to bolster British forces in a war, you'd expect the British to batter the Americans in the early stages, but I still see war as being a very regular affair. Somehow I don't see this TL as allowing one state to gain the upper hand over the other, unless in short order you're planning on making America simply the POD and turning this TL into a world-view of how owning the southern colonies in perpetuity allowed the British Empire to shape totally differently (which of course it would anyway, but at present I get the feeling this is a North American-centric TL).

    Which raises another interesting point. With the southern colonies, perhaps the idea of a militia supplementing the regular army will continue in British practice for longer here?

    It's probably me just being 'romantic' (I have a bizarre fixation on the ideas of colonies owning territories etc) but perhaps two rival westwards-expanding states would also see interesting differences in how they handle their new land? Whereas the US will surely grant new territories statehood in due time, the more to grant better power to the locals living there and the better to control their country from their capital, perhaps the British colonists will be far happier to extend the practice of controlling territories? After all, evidence suggests that the colonies are going to see far more of a strong landed elite controlling things along the seaboard and thus unlikely to be as interested in either migrating westwards or more importantly granting power away from themselves to the new territories, but more importantly with London the ultimate point of control for the colonies, there isn't nearly as much to be gained from territories becoming equal with the existing colonies in the east anyway. But as I say, I think I'm just seeing what I want to see here. There are plenty of reasons that that wouldn't be the case at all. The idea, for instance, of San Francisco having to report to Savannah, Georgia, for its government is pretty entertaining to me but highly infeasible. On another note, though, if we carried this idea on to its conclusion, perhaps with such long, thin strips of land (see two paragraphs down), the territorial governments will end up having to appoint their own, sub-territorial level, local jurisdictions to control the further-afield lands.

    ...yeah. I have some weird delusions. Extremely illogical ideas, but vaguely possible. What can I say, I'm the kind of guy who is privately disappointed that the Holy Roman Empire doesn't still exist and that Germany and Italy united. I'll try to stop letting my personal fantasies let my comments get too carried away from now on.

    Interesting that the colonies weren't united. Another of my bizarre, and somewhat anti-logical, but in this case somewhat believable, sentiments is the fun idea of the American colonies refusing to unite and existing as entirely separate entities. This ties in with what I was saying above about liking the idea of westward territories not being granted colonial rights - if the colonies aren't united and each eastern seaboard territory has to independently maintain its western possessions (with UK assistance, of course) could we see inter-colonial races westwards, with the colonies eventually turning into incredibly long, thin strips of land from coast to coast? If there's one thing that this point affects, however, it's that it does make it harder to abbreviate the colonies to an easy acronym for easy reference as the USA does for the north. Not that that should affect your TL in any way, of course...

    On a totally different note, I found it very curious that Britain retained control of the Hudson's Bay Company territory. I find its position untenable and expect to see the HBC cease to exist within about 30 years and the land to pass to the USA, but I have an affection for the idea of the HBC continuing its existence into the modern day as a kind of less-populated British version of Siberia until recently - a desolate state almost "stuck" centuries in the past in its infrastructure and way of life. But yeah, all in all I found the HBC's continued existence remarkable, and unfortunately I can't see it surviving the next conflict of interests between the USA and the UK.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2010
  18. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    FYI, that line around Hudson Bay should be extended to include the entirety of Prince Rupert's Land as shown here:

    [​IMG]
     
  19. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    I am duly warned....

    Interesting thought....not certain that attitude prevails ITTL....

    True.

    Well, we'll see about the ultra-conservative, but otherwise, yes, that is exactly where they stand at the close of the 18th century. It should be noted, however, that in the US its not all sunshine and lollipops, though of course they will claim it is....

    Agree to a degree, at least at this point in time.

    No, they don't do they? Now they have them WITHIN their borders (the Five Civilized Tribes almost fit entirely in the British Southern America now).

    Yep, but if you look carefully, Washington was a fan of acculturation rather than relocation.

    This is actually incorrect. They have the Indian Tribes in the Northwest Territory to deal with, but the British have to deal with the Five Civilized Tribes in their own provinces.

    True dat!

    Maybe, but then again the British could have tried that IOTL with Oregon, but ultimately did not. Of course, time will tell.

    Want and need are two different things, but you may have a point there.;)

    Oh, I don't think it will come to that. Then again, you never know....

    Well, given the title of the thread....:)

    It will start pretty North American centric, but ripples will spread throughout the world over decades and centuries....

    Yes, I think you may assume so.

    That's about right.

    Please elaborate.

    Than OTL South? A bit. Don't forget that the OTL Antebellum South had its own landed elite.

    Oh, I wouldn't say that, necessarily, but perhaps less of a mania for making new provinces.

    True, true....

    Don't we all? But it gives a different vision than just the one rattling around in my head, and thus acts as a nice check.

    Entertaining? Yes. Practical? Not so much.

    Which if that happens, you'd likely just see them broken up for practicality.

    In other words, like a significant proportion of the AH.com community.:D

    Just so long as you clearly label which is which, don't worry about it.:cool:

    Yes, at this point they are more separate. Don't know how long that is going to last with those Americans all unifying up North!

    Well, the treaty is kinda vague on that point....

    That does seem the most probable outcome, doesn't it?

    Well, I don't think we'll get British Siberia (but boy, that does sound like part of a dystopic timeline where some evil British Empire contracts with the HBC to take convicts to Prince Rupert's Land....).
     
  20. IchBinDieKaiser Casual Historian

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2008
    Location:
    California
    Effects of a prolonged ARW

    looks good