Dominion of Southern America - Now with Tyrannodrakons!

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

Tags:
  1. Gass3268 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    What about the capitals for the US states? Also I am guessing that the national capital with be farther to the north then where Washington D.C. because you don't have to appeal to the Southern States but you have to deal with Canada. I'm I right in this thinking?
     
  2. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Thanks, but this ARW is about the same length as OTL.
     
  3. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Pretty much following OTL.

    Could be....:rolleyes:
     
  4. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Entry of new states into the Union was somewhat delayed in the case of Newfoundland simply for the lack of an organized legislature, which was not convened until the late 1780s. However, with ratification of the Constitution Newfoundland was quickly admitted to the union as a state.

    More difficult was the status of Vermont. Vermont was disputed between New York and New Hampshire for years prior to the American Revolutionary War, and many of the residents there resisted New York attempts to keep the territory of Vermont in New York, but New York had lost support by its reticence to recognize the New Hampshire Grants. New York, however, attempted to block Vermont's entry to the union as a state, and given that Vermont was completely surrounded by US states thought it had the upper hand to force a settlement. But the men of the Green Mountains proved more stubborn still. The impasse was broken in part by the compromise leading to the Residence Act to establish a federal district for the location of a new Capital for the nation. New York agreed to acquiesce to an separate state of Vermont in return for the placement of the new Capital in New York at the site of the former state capital, Kingston.

    [​IMG]
    Kingston and surrounds.

    Kingston had been burned to the ground by the British during the war, and the plans were to move the capital of New York up the Hudson to Albany. The site of Kingston was well situated to put the new Capital in contact with the rest of the United States by traveling the Hudson up to where a transfer to Lake Champlain would place it in easy reach of Quebec, a brief jaunt to the southwest arrived at the Delaware river and thus to Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware, as well as going down the Hudson to the Sea and thence up to New England or down to Maryland and Virginia. President Washington chose to have the 10 mile by 10 mile square allotment of land oriented as a diamond bisected by the Hudson River and including the entries of the Rondout and Wallkill Rivers. The Blue Mountains to the west of the renamed Federal District of Columbia, with the city itself to be called Washington, would develop into a summer retreat for the wealthy and powerful who would flock to the national Capital.

    Kentucky rounded off the new states formed when it separated from Virginia.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2010
  5. Gass3268 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Will Kingston be renamed?
     
  6. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Yes, yes it will.:)
     
  7. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    In 1792, the population of North America received another influx of immigrants from the Scottish Highlands as a new wave of Highland Clearances occurred (sometimes referring to this year as 'The Year of the Sheep' for the preference for sheep over people).

    The Highlanders split roughly into two main migrations depending on religion. Many of the Highlanders still adhered to the Catholic faith, and they gravitated towards settlement in the new United States of America, especially in the predominantly Catholic state of Quebec and neighboring Nova Scotia. Presbyterian Highlanders on the other hand tended to head for the British Southern Colonies, often migrating further west into the Appalachians.

    Awaiting travel to North America:
    [​IMG]
     
  8. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    While there had been a President of the Continental Congress since 1774, the new Constitution called for a far different president with significant executive powers.

    [​IMG]
    George Washington, First President of the United States (in office 1789-1797)

    The first President of the United States of America was George Washington, and though there were elections of sorts for both his terms, any opposition was mostly symbolic. While President Washington himself was against factionalism and the formation of political parties, when he set the precedent of only serving two terms the next election would devolve to a contest between nascent political parties. The two parties were the Federalists, which had been associated with Washington and born out of support of the Ratification of the Constitution, but now were proposing continuing the trend of centralization of the nation, and the Democratic-Republicans, who wished to retain power for the independent states. Federalist power was strongest in the Northeast, whereas Democratic-Republican support was greatest in the Southwest (including Quebec). In the first contested election for President in 1796 the Federalists won, making John Adams the second President of the United States. He won reelection in 1800, but with a much smaller margin.

    [​IMG]
    John Adams, Second President of the United States (in office 1797-1805)
     
  9. othyrsyde Sana ka'aha yo pendejos!

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Location:
    Lost in Sukaria
    I know there will be tensions, but I foresee much less denouncing of "Papists" in this TL's US.:)

    But will Quebec remain a French Speaking state, or will it go the way of Louisiana? If it stays, it will be interesting to see how the language conflict develops. Also, wouldn't Quebec be called Canada? It's my understanding that Canada was originally just the term for what we think of as Quebec.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2010
  10. DuQuense Commisioned Officer CSN

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Location:
    Florida ,CSA
    OTL there was Movement of Settlers across Lakes Erie & Ontario, This was Light & ended by the war 1812. ITTL with Ontario being USian, This will be larger, and will not stop.
    Meanwhile settlement will move north thru VT/N.H. [?Are the northern Borders set yet?]. I see the whole [OTL] Quebec/Ontario Territory being divided Into several states, as Immigrants pour in.

    The US is going to get the Bulk of European Immigrants. While some British [Highlanders -post 67] will go to the DSA, It will never be that heavy.

    With the No Slaves in the NW Ordinance [?Was it called that ITTL?] And stronger Abolition Movement In New England, Most Slaves will be sold South.
    This will Make a lot more of the Southern States - Negro Majority - areas. This will Help depress Immigration to the DSA.

    I don't see Immediate freeing of the Slaves, But Earlier and more widespread Gradualism [aka OTL plans].
    This means the northern states [except NY] win, and remaining Slaves are in the Constitution as Zero people. [Southern States (not in This US.) wanted them counted as whole people]

    ?I'm Wondering if the Price drop when the US Slaves are sold South, leads to more Indians [5 tribes] owning Slaves.?
    ?Does the cheaper Slave prices boost the number of Black Slave Owners?


    I can see more Free Black Farmers being able to afford to buy the Cheaper slaves, OTOH with out the freeing of Black Soldiers post ARW in the south, there are fewer Free Blacks.
    Maybe a wash, with more of the free blacks having slaves, but fewer free blacks to do so.

    Whe are going to have both the US & GB pushing Spain to declare the Mississippi OPEN.

    However even if GB & DSA take Lousiana, I think there would be problems with the DSA extending into Texas.
    While the US with it's larger Immigration will move across the North reaching the Pacific long before the DSA.

    ?Any chance the DSA will solve it's Indian Problem by pushing them south into Florida? Creek-Seminole wars:D

    This More Northern US will be more Mercantile oriented, and may just continue to pay the Berber's, instead of getting into a War.

    US control of Nova Scotia/New Brunswick area will have butterflies in the Development of the Clipper ship, as the competition between US, and the Canadian shipbuilders, drove several of the advancements.

    During the 1850's British Tea Companies spend Millions buying land, & importing Celanese workers to develop Tea plantations in North Carolina.
    If the British Control of DSA has them doing this earlier - There may not be the Race to get the First/Freshest Teas from China/India, So the Clipper may not develop at all.
     
  11. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Or will we see a religious war tear this Northern United States to pieces?:eek:

    Time will tell, but I suspect some off menu A and some from menu B....

    Mostly on a state by state basis. Here the Federal Government is explicitly forbidden from establishing any languages.

    I have pondered this one. Before 1763 it was indeed Canada, and it would be again after the ARW (granted as Lower Canada), but between those times it had been renamed Quebec. I thought about whether or not the name would revert to the pre-British Canada, but decided that they entered as the colony of Quebec, so they would stay the state of Quebec. Could have gone either way, but I came down on the side of Quebec.
     
  12. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    More or less, correct, I imagine....but only time will tell.
    The borders are more or less set, or about as set as late 18th century borders ever were. The migration is more likely to head west rather than north, however.

    Good point there. Then again, the South may be a more attractive proposition for British than Canada was OTL.

    Yes, still called Northwest Territory, and yes, most slaves will be sold south, and yes, this is going to mean less room for free labor and free farmers in the South.

    Actually it happens over just a few years. Other than Virginia and to a lesser degree, New York, there just aren't that many to justify a gradualist approach. For the Virginians its easy enough to just ship them to North Carolina or convert them to an early version of sharecroppers (sort of inspired by the Quebec Seigneurial model).

    That was when there were lots more slaves in the union. Here its less of a risk, and offset somewhat by stronger representation for smaller states.

    Probably yes to both.

    All more or less correct.

    Spain?:rolleyes: Time will tell (and sooner rather than later)....

    That all stands to reason.

    Maybe....again, stay tuned!

    Slightly more Mercantile at the outset, but remember that Quebec has quite the landed gentry mentality, and the West will be the growth area (with a more Agrarian bent).

    Interesting thought. I will have to investigate further before commenting....though at first wikiglance it appears that most of the innovation in the US came out of the Chesapeake area, and also some later in Scotland, so we'd still be okay. But I'm certain that there will be more to dig up beyond the wikiverse....

    You're saying they'll get their tea from North Carolina?:eek:
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2010
  13. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    The Sans-Culottes Take Up the Flag of Revolution:
    [​IMG]

    Across the seas, America's former ally, France, was facing its own crisis. While the war had technically been a victory for the French, the cost of the war and the general state of the French economy meant that only five years after the peace, the King of France was forced to call the Estates General together, which sparked a wave of first reform, then revolution. The French Revolution would bring several factions to power, and have waves of purges, collectively referred to as the Reign of Terror.

    [​IMG]
    English view of the French Reign of Terror

    The émigrés were also composed of waves of fleeing French, composed of differing groups whose politics or status often determined where they went to. Many of the noble émigrés first departed at the behest of the King himself, and fled to fellow nobles in neighboring nations of Europe, where they plotted to overthrow the revolution and restore monarchist rule. Some of the lesser lights of this migration, as it became ever more likely that France was lost to them, would move on to the Americas and particularly the State of Quebec.

    [​IMG]
    Girondists being offered exile or trial

    The next major wave of émigrés were the republican Girondists who were offered exile and confiscation of their property or the Guillotine. Many prominent Girondists including many who escaped the initial witch hunt such as Barbaroux, Buzot, Condorcet, Grangeneuve, Guadet, Kersaint, Pétion, Rabaut de Saint-Etienne, Roland, Louvet de Couvrai, and Rebecqui headed overseas to the United States where they were welcomed with open arms. Even when those Girondists who survived the purges eventually overthrew the Jacobins and initiated their own purge (offering many Jacobins the same deal and who also chose overwhelmingly to travel away from the old regimes of Europe and instead go to the United States). While the Girondists were relatively welcome in America and even Quebec, the Jacobins were a more awkward fit, especially for more conservative Quebeckers, and thus were more likely to settle elsewhere in New England. The turn of the century saw one last wave of émigrés when a man named Napoleon Boneparte took control of the French nation.

    Napoleon takes command of the French Nation:
    [​IMG]
     
  14. Splatter123 VMI forth classman

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    Location:
    3rd Barracks
    interesting an even larger amount of french people are now in america, will this maybe make the US more likly to support France in the Napoleonic Wars, maybe making an earlier war of 1812, which i guess wouldn't make it the war of 1812 then

    The War of (insert random year here), maybe :D
     
  15. Falastur Fighting Swiss-wank since 1291

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2009
    Location:
    Hitchin, Herts
    True, true. This is a half-issue, of course. With the FCT within their borders, there is (hopefully) no need for costly and provocative disputes over expanding into the Indian reserves, which the USA still must do to progress westwards. That is of course the issue I was driving at.

    True. In my TLs (which incidentally I never publish because my personal bias gets into them far too much for them to be taken seriously) I tend to favour the balance of power, so I kind of assumed that the title of the thread was merely to indicate the existence of a southern British state(s) and I figured the two would be equal-strength rivals. Your comment suggests not ;)

    I eagerly anticipate that. I enjoy world views. Almost as much as I like maps :D

    Willingly. Now, in other areas, when Britain took new land it formed new colonies, often subjecting them to the rule of Governor General nearby, but this is not the case in America due to the lack of unifying government - as I recall, every British colony's governor in this period was ranked Lieutenant Governor, and they had no Governor General superior - their superiors were in London. Britain for many decades fervently resisted colonial westward expansion, largely I believe due to the tendency for colonists to utterly screw up British foreign policy in dealing favourably with the Indians, which the colonists were both unhappy about, and intent on spoiling for the benefit of gaining more land for themselves. Thus, in lieu of actual expansion, the colonies formed claims on the territory to their west, waiting for the inevitable communique to "go forth and prosper". One assumes that the creation of the USA will eventually force the British hand into allowing westward movement and when it happens, the government in London would do it by begrudgingly recognising those claims. There would be little point in rejecting the claims and forming a new western-located colony as it would simply remind the colonists why they fought a war for independence in the first place, even if the DSA is now overwhelming UE Loyalist. So one assumes that in the initial stage, westward expansion would be handled as it did OTL - the colonial government appointing their own territorial governor and governing the new land (probably again defined by a new westward boundary and moved back stage by stage) as a sub-unit possession of the colony. My point was, one wonders if, unlike the USA OTL, it would ever progress beyond that point. With no electoral college to worry about, and ultimate power resting in either the Lieutenant Governor or London, there's little incentive for territories to be raised to the status of full colonies and become "independent" from their former colonial masters on the eastern seaboard. It's possible that they could be eventually integrated into the main colony, but I figured that a combination of the need to keep communications time down and a powerful elite in the east would suggest that maybe, just maybe, the system of colony's territories could become standard for the DSA. And the logical extension of that is to suggest that as the DSA slowly reaches towards the Pacific coast, maybe those territories will end up creating their own sub-unit blocks to better govern the land far away from what used to be a local territory capital, back in the early days when the territories were small.

    Of course, it could just be that they integrate or promote the territories to colony status...

    Oh, I know ;) It's a bit late notice to tell you now, but as you replied to that post, I actually edited it to make it clearer that I understood that most of my fantasy ideas are very impractical.

    haha. I never actually thought of the prison colony idea, I more meant a general snowy, sparsely populated area with horrificly outdated technological levels because of the poor economic and infrastructure levels for implementing new ideas. But as you rightly pointed out, the chance of the Hudson Bay Company defaulting to the USA really renders this a non-issue.
     
  16. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Ain't it just, though?:)

    Well, I suggest we look at which French are in America....

    Well, yes, I don't think a War of 1812 is looking likely, is it.

    BTW, did you notice who the president is?
     
  17. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Just because the white man has declared them within their borders doesn't mean that they always agree....

    Well, I think both still have to find a way to deal with tribes in their borders, and have to consider the tribes to the West....

    I wouldn't assume either way, except at some point there will be a Dominion....

    Ah, yes, maps are a joy. We'll have to have another one in a few days, I'm thinking....

    Well, I don't know that I entirely agree with your supposition here. There were plenty of territories in British North America that were not just extensions of already existing colonies.

    Got it.

    Yep, but wouldn't it be cool.

    True dat.
     
  18. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    In the 1790s, as Kentucky was opening up to settlement and eventual statehood, concern grew in Virginia and the United States in general about the boundary between the United States and the British Southern Colonies with regard to the strategically important Cumberland Gap. Because of such concerns, a secret survey was undertaken at the behest of the President of the United States and with the blessings of the Governor of Virginia to assess whether the previous line delineating Virginia from British North Carolina were accurate, and if not, who did they favor with regard to the Gap, and other points of interest. In the end, despite a few close calls with the British, a much more refined survey was made and it was discovered that the Gap did indeed belong on the American side of the border, and in fact that the previous dividing line diverged substantially north of latitude 36-30.

    Given this reassuring assessment, the Americans made their survey public and demanded the British acknowledge a strip of land in northernmost North Carolina as actually American. The British took the matter under advisement, but little was done to pursue the matter, much to the consternation of the Americans.

    [​IMG]
    The Strategic Cumberland Gap
     
  19. Splatter123 VMI forth classman

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    Location:
    3rd Barracks
    oh, right Adams is the one who wanted us to stay out of war with Britain
     
  20. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Then again, he probably won't be president after 1805....:rolleyes: