Dominion of Southern America - Updated July 1, 2018

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Opps It was 74's not 72's

Note that these 74s may actually be useless without a lot of rework. The 4 74s built during the War of 1812 (although not usable until after the war) - Independence, Franklin, Washington, and Columbus - seem to have been built to the plans for the 74s authorized in 1799. (OTL) In practice, they were top-heavy and unwieldy, and it took several years to fix them properly. Once they were fixed, they did yeoman service for decades, though.

The Independence, for instance, was launched in June of 1814, and, as far I know, they never dared send to sea against the British. They did sent it to the Med a year later, after some significant work.

So... IF this is the same design you might have problems when they're launched.

 

[Glen]

Glen

What does the colouring of the full Oregon territory in US colours mean? Is it that others [Britain, Russia, Spain/Mexico] have acknowledged their sole claim to the region or just that they are the people with the strongest presence there?

The second.

I can't really see any settlement of note by this period because they have so much land far closer.

But don't let distance throw you. Think how many settlers bypassed the plains for Oregon (not that we're quite there yet, the There is a small amount of settlement already, but much more though fur trafficking via the Northwest Company.

Does this mean that Vancouver's trips in the 1790's didn't occur

A trip occurred, much like OTL except the Americans also there were more 'players'.

or that no settlement followed? [Noticing from Wiki that the initial European settlement came overland from the HBC so that would have been butterflied].

Steve

You got it. The Hudson Bay Company was getting hammered economically by the Northwest Company, so it wasn't the HBC but the Northwest Company that builds the first settlements there. Remember ITTL that the Northwest Company is considered an entirely American company.

 

[Glen]

Note that these 74s may actually be useless without a lot of rework. The 4 74s built during the War of 1812 (although not usable until after the war) - Independence, Franklin, Washington, and Columbus - seem to have been built to the plans for the 74s authorized in 1799. (OTL) In practice, they were top-heavy and unwieldy, and it took several years to fix them properly.

Yep, pretty much those, but being built before 1812, so they'll be fixed earlier as well.

Once they were fixed, they did yeoman service for decades, though.

Good to know. So expect the same except at least a decade earlier.

The Independence, for instance, was launched in June of 1814, and, as far I know, they never dared send to sea against the British. They did sent it to the Med a year later, after some significant work.

So... IF this is the same design you might have problems when they're launched.

Agree with all the above. Anyone care to start a list of USN ships for this timeline?

 

[Glen]

The British had left the Northwest Territory as the last reserve purely for Indians in North America before the American Revolutionary War. Given this, it is little surprise that the Six Nations, Shawnee, and other Indian tribes favored the British, while to the South where the lands west of the Appalachians had been opened to white settlement, the stance of native tribes, particularly those of the Five Civilized Tribes, was more mixed. On the one hand, some Indian leaders felt betrayed by the British overture to whites in the Southern Provinces. On the other hand, other Indian leaders thought that the British government far away would still be less likely to take their lands from them wholesale as independent whites in America might.

With the ending of the Revolutionary War, native peoples were left in a worse quandary than ever. The Northwest Territory was cut off from British support by Kentucky Virginia, though some support still flowed up the Mississippi. More could be had from the Spanish and later the French as well, but not enough to guarantee the independence of the Western Confederacy of Native Tribes. Most disastrous of all for the Indians of the Northwest was the Anglo-American alliance and the War of 1804, which not only ended British support for the Indians, but also led to the final defeat of organized Indian resistance east of the Mississippi and the near complete severing of any outside support to the Tribes.

 

[Glen]

A map of Mexico in 1820:

 

[Falastur]

One assumes Mexico will tear itself apart (in the south anyway) over Central America and the failures to see eye-to-eye on issues therein, eventually, but who knows how long it will take. I'm guessing there will be troubles in the late 1830s to early 1840s.

Actually, this could be good. Hopefully the Miskito would use the opportunity to apply for the recommencement of the British protectorate, and I'm guessing that, even if London disagrees, Charleston will view it as the perfect time to secure westward expansion if the same hasn't already been achieved peacefully.

I say Charleston, and you've probably mentioned this before, but what's the capital of British Southern America at this point? I remember you saying the colonies have yet to officially unite, but presumably with the loss of cities the likes of Philadelphia, New York and Boston, one city in the south has boomed in influence to take their places? I figured it would be Charleston but it could be any number of places now I think about it.

 

[stevep]

One assumes Mexico will tear itself apart (in the south anyway) over Central America and the failures to see eye-to-eye on issues therein, eventually, but who knows how long it will take. I'm guessing there will be troubles in the late 1830s to early 1840s.

Actually, this could be good. Hopefully the Miskito would use the opportunity to apply for the recommencement of the British protectorate, and I'm guessing that, even if London disagrees, Charleston will view it as the perfect time to secure westward expansion if the same hasn't already been achieved peacefully.

Would that depend on the state of power in the dominion? If dominated by the slaveocracy would it be that welcoming to a 'native' region joining it?

A collapse of order in Mexico would also be viewed favourably by the Dominion settlers as that would open up prospects for western expansion. Could result in a clash with the US if that is seeking to limit its rival, strongly anti-slavery or after land itself.

I say Charleston, and you've probably mentioned this before, but what's the capital of British Southern America at this point? I remember you saying the colonies have yet to officially unite, but presumably with the loss of cities the likes of Philadelphia, New York and Boston, one city in the south has boomed in influence to take their places? I figured it would be Charleston but it could be any number of places now I think about it.

Probably most likely to be an English founded settlement but possibly New Orleans? Its got a key position controlling much of the hinterland of N America so strategically important and making that the capital might both mollify the French speakers of the area and/or encourage English settlement to help secure it.

Steve

 

[Falastur]

Would that depend on the state of power in the dominion? If dominated by the slaveocracy would it be that welcoming to a 'native' region joining it?

I think it was a mixture of different issues. Mexico proper had in many ways a totally different outlook to Central America - different demographics, different climates and geography, different economic values and societies. Yes, the slaveocracy was probably a big issue, though Central America had just as much slave ownership. However, I believe bigger problems were to do with the total concentration of power in the north, where the south was viewed almost like colonies themselves, or like troublesome younger brothers who had to be kept in line, and the economic problems that spawned from it - whereas Central America wanted trading rights in the Caribbean to sell its valuable tropical produce, and thus wanted laws which encouraged such trade, the north favoured strengthening their own goods and making the north less dependent on imports of foodstuffs and such. Then there were also political rivalries, and the factional politics was quite vicious when it was allowed to flourish which IIRC was what tore apart the United Provinces of Central America IIRC, but I don't want to say more because I'm getting to the limit of my knowledge and I fear I'll get something wrong and look stupid.

A collapse of order in Mexico would also be viewed favourably by the Dominion settlers as that would open up prospects for western expansion. Could result in a clash with the US if that is seeking to limit its rival, strongly anti-slavery or after land itself.

I'll leave Glen to respond to that one.

Probably most likely to be an English founded settlement but possibly New Orleans? Its got a key position controlling much of the hinterland of N America so strategically important and making that the capital might both mollify the French speakers of the area and/or encourage English settlement to help secure it.

Steve

Possibly, and again it's Glen's call but I suspect not. New Orleans is just a little too isolated from the main concentration of the wealthy and powerful elite in the east. It'd be akin to the new USA declaring a city in Michigan the capital, for instance. They might make it a financial powerhouse first, and it could be the biggest city in the Union, but it would still be in a provincial backwater. However, the implications of a bilingual city as capital of a monolingual Dominion would be certainly be interesting...

 

[Glen]

One assumes Mexico will tear itself apart (in the south anyway) over Central America and the failures to see eye-to-eye on issues therein, eventually, but who knows how long it will take. I'm guessing there will be troubles in the late 1830s to early 1840s.

And why specifically Central America? Other than it happened OTL, that is.

Actually, this could be good. Hopefully the Miskito would use the opportunity to apply for the recommencement of the British protectorate, and I'm guessing that, even if London disagrees, Charleston will view it as the perfect time to secure westward expansion if the same hasn't already been achieved peacefully.

Well, that would be up to London in such an event, wouldn't it?

I say Charleston, and you've probably mentioned this before, but what's the capital of British Southern America at this point? I remember you saying the colonies have yet to officially unite, but presumably with the loss of cities the likes of Philadelphia, New York and Boston, one city in the south has boomed in influence to take their places? I figured it would be Charleston but it could be any number of places now I think about it.

Charleston, Savannah, and later New Orleans (supplanting Pensacola) are the major ports of British Southern America. There is no overwhelmingly dominant city at this point in their history.

 

[Glen]

Would that depend on the state of power in the dominion? If dominated by the slaveocracy would it be that welcoming to a 'native' region joining it?

Slaveocracy doesn't automatically translate into anti-native. Heck, some of the biggest slaveholders in the Antebellum South were among the Civilized Tribes.

Having said that, we haven't seen a 'dominion' yet, so such discussion is premature.

A collapse of order in Mexico would also be viewed favorably by the Dominion settlers as that would open up prospects for western expansion.

Well, but British Southern Americans, certainly. Especially as currently they are hemmed in by two anti-slavery nations.

Could result in a clash with the US if that is seeking to limit its rival,

Yeah, if they want to take on the British Empire, which is looking pretty strong at this point in history....

strongly anti-slavery

Ah, well there certainly is strong anti-slavery sentiment in the US, but enough so to take on the British juggernaut? Hmmm....

or after land itself.

Because they don't have enough of it already, do they? Then again, it's so hard to resist manifest destiny!

Probably most likely to be an English founded settlement but possibly New Orleans? Its got a key position controlling much of the hinterland of N America so strategically important and making that the capital might both mollify the French speakers of the area and/or encourage English settlement to help secure it.

Steve

New Orleans is definitely up there, but as of now all the Provinces report to London.

 

[Glen]

I think it was a mixture of different issues. Mexico proper had in many ways a totally different outlook to Central America - different demographics, different climates and geography, different economic values and societies.

I think, perhaps, this exagerates the differences between Central America and Mexico and minimizes the diversity (and division) within Mexico.

Yes, the slaveocracy was probably a big issue, though Central America had just as much slave ownership.

As much as the British South? I think not.

However, I believe bigger problems were to do with the total concentration of power in the north, where the south was viewed almost like colonies themselves, or like troublesome younger brothers who had to be kept in line,

Well, Mexico City certainly is the seat of power, but then again this Mexico is much like the federal republic of 1824 OTL, so they are decentralized enough probably to satisfy the Central Americans. It was as much likely to bad taste left by the First Mexican Empire that drove the Central Americans away from the Mexican Republic as the actual differences.

and the economic problems that spawned from it - whereas Central America wanted trading rights in the Caribbean to sell its valuable tropical produce, and thus wanted laws which encouraged such trade, the north favoured strengthening their own goods and making the north less dependent on imports of foodstuffs and such.

I suspect both Mexico City and Central America will be doing a lot of what the British tell them to do in terms of trade....

Then there were also political rivalries, and the factional politics was quite vicious when it was allowed to flourish which IIRC was what tore apart the United Provinces of Central America IIRC, but I don't want to say more because I'm getting to the limit of my knowledge and I fear I'll get something wrong and look stupid.

The biggest problem IOTL was between the Conservatives and the Liberals. It remains a serious problem here.

Possibly, and again it's Glen's call but I suspect not. New Orleans is just a little too isolated from the main concentration of the wealthy and powerful elite in the east. It'd be akin to the new USA declaring a city in Michigan the capital, for instance.

Actually it would be more akin to declaring Quebec City the capital.

They might make it a financial powerhouse first,

Kinda already is.

and it could be the biggest city in the Union,

Union?

but it would still be in a provincial backwater.

Um, not a provincial backwater. Given its key position and the fact that the fastest form of travel at this time is by water, New Orleans is pretty central, especially if you start throwing in the Caribbean into consideration.

However, the implications of a bilingual city as capital of a monolingual Dominion would be certainly be interesting...

Trilingual, at least (English, French, and Spanish).

 

[stevep]

Slaveocracy doesn't automatically translate into anti-native. Heck, some of the biggest slaveholders in the Antebellum South were among the Civilized Tribes.

Yes but they were driven west of the Mississippi weren't they. Thinking more of race than social structure as a reason why there might be objections to the south extending its interests into that area, at least on terms the locals would welcome.

Having said that, we haven't seen a 'dominion' yet, so such discussion is premature.

I was using the term for want to anything else as a convenient handle. Would you prefer BSM as you use below?

Well, but British Southern Americans, certainly. Especially as currently they are hemmed in by two anti-slavery nations.

What I'm thinking anyway.

Yeah, if they want to take on the British Empire, which is looking pretty strong at this point in history....

If driven by strong enough emotional or economic motivation, especially by those who decide on war rather than have to do the fighting. Are deluded about actual comparative strengths possibly, or believe Britain wouldn't intervene strongly because [its facing a crisis on the continent/suffering internal problems/becoming increasingly strongly anti-slavery itself so might not support the BSA/some other factor]. They don't necessary have to be right about British non-intervention, just believe they are. Also if Britain has trade or other interests in Mexico it might be less than happy with the BSAians picking a fight with it and/or the US.

Ah, well there certainly is strong anti-slavery sentiment in the US, but enough so to take on the British juggernaut? Hmmm....

See above.

Because they don't have enough of it already, do they? Then again, it's so hard to resist manifest destiny!

Never underestimate human greed and stupidity.

New Orleans is definitely up there, but as of now all the Provinces report to London.

Just a suggestion for say a couple of decades down the line when BSA might want some formal capital and self-government. Especially if by that time the centre of economic power has moved from the Atlantic coast to the Gulf and Mississippi basin.

Steve

 

[Glen]

Yes but they were driven west of the Mississippi weren't they. Thinking more of race than social structure as a reason why there might be objections to the south extending its interests into that area, at least on terms the locals would welcome.

Oh, you want a happy Anschluss! Silly me....

I was using the term for want to anything else as a convenient handle. Would you prefer BSM as you use below?

BSA would do nicely.

What I'm thinking anyway.

And a very reasonable thought it is....

If driven by strong enough emotional or economic motivation, especially by those who decide on war rather than have to do the fighting. Are deluded about actual comparative strengths possibly, or believe Britain wouldn't intervene strongly because [its facing a crisis on the continent/suffering internal problems/becoming increasingly strongly anti-slavery itself so might not support the BSA/some other factor]. They don't necessary have to be right about British non-intervention, just believe they are.

There's a lot of assumptions in there. Think we'll need to advance the timeline more to find out....

Also if Britain has trade or other interests in Mexico it might be less than happy with the BSAians picking a fight with it and/or the US.

Both very true.

Never underestimate human greed and stupidity.

I try not to.

Just a suggestion for say a couple of decades down the line when BSA might want some formal capital and self-government. Especially if by that time the centre of economic power has moved from the Atlantic coast to the Gulf and Mississippi basin.

Steve

And a grand suggestion it is. I shall keep it in mind.

 

[Falastur]

In response to your replies (steve and Glen) to my comments about slaveocracy and such...I screwed up...again. Once again I read a comment, failed to take in all the details, and retranslated it as I wanted to read it. Apologies. In this case, where I saw talk of the slaveocracy I, for some bizarre and idiotic reason, though it was referring to the powerful ruling class of Mexico. No idea why I thought that, but I rolled with it and went off-topic. Stupid of me, but in a way also quite typical of me. Sorry.

And why specifically Central America? Other than it happened OTL, that is.

Because historically Central America proved itself sufficiently culturally different as to not be able to reconcile to rule from Mexico. Mexico itself, while not culturally androgenous, was similar enough to remain one entity.

Well, that would be up to London in such an event, wouldn't it?

A precursory glance at American history shows that, when London wasn't being amenable to requests, the colonists were quite happy to start a conflict and expect London to finish it for them knowing that they couldn't back out of a war that their colonists had forced them into

Charleston, Savannah, and later New Orleans (supplanting Pensacola) are the major ports of British Southern America. There is no overwhelmingly dominant city at this point in their history.

Thanks for that.


Edit: I get the feeling I'm going to be called out on my comments above. Probably quite rightfully so, now I think about it they're rather brash and probably wildly inaccurate statements. But sorry...I was kind of feeling tired when I wrote it, and I'm prone to drastic generalisations when that happens. Please be merciful

 

[Glen]

In response to your replies (steve and Glen) to my comments about slaveocracy and such...I screwed up...again. Once again I read a comment, failed to take in all the details, and retranslated it as I wanted to read it. Apologies. In this case, where I saw talk of the slaveocracy I, for some bizarre and idiotic reason, though it was referring to the powerful ruling class of Mexico. No idea why I thought that, but I rolled with it and went off-topic. Stupid of me, but in a way also quite typical of me. Sorry.

Ah, don't worry about it. Crap happens.

Because historically Central America proved itself sufficiently culturally different as to not be able to reconcile to rule from Mexico.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I don't know about that.

Mexico itself, while not culturally androgenous, was similar enough to remain one entity.

Oh, I thought they were very androgenous! Muy Macho!!!

A precursory glance at American history shows that, when London wasn't being amenable to requests, the colonists were quite happy to start a conflict and expect London to finish it for them knowing that they couldn't back out of a war that their colonists had forced them into

Point taken.

Thanks for that.

Edit: I get the feeling I'm going to be called out on my comments above. Probably quite rightfully so, now I think about it they're rather brash and probably wildly inaccurate statements. But sorry...I was kind of feeling tired when I wrote it, and I'm prone to drastic generalisations when that happens. Please be merciful

Your request for mercy has been granted! You really need to be less harsh on yourself. I just appreciate someone commenting on the timeline!

 

[DuQuense]

I say Charleston, and you've probably mentioned this before, but what's the capital of British Southern America at this point? I remember you saying the colonies have yet to officially unite, but presumably with the loss of cities the likes of Philadelphia, New York and Boston, one city in the south has boomed in influence to take their places? I figured it would be Charleston but it could be any number of places now I think about it.

I am thinking that Mobile will end up as the biggest Naval Port, and location of the DSA's Naval Academy.

A lot will depend on whether whe have one Dominion -DSA- or two-- DSA & Dominion of the Caribbean.

 

[Glen]

I am thinking that Mobile will end up as the biggest Naval Port, and location of the DSA's Naval Academy.

That is possible. But don't forget Pensacola!

A lot will depend on whether whe have one Dominion -DSA- or two-- DSA & Dominion of the Caribbean.

Indeed it will....

 

[Falastur]

I am thinking that Mobile will end up as the biggest Naval Port, and location of the DSA's Naval Academy.

The DSA's naval academy will be exporting officers to Portsmouth to serve and train in the Royal Navy, no?

Although I guess a century or two down the line, if the Empire ever breaks up, then you're probably right.

 

[Glen]

The DSA's naval academy will be exporting officers to Portsmouth to serve and train in the Royal Navy, no?

Although I guess a century or two down the line, if the Empire ever breaks up, then you're probably right.

As you say, as you say....

 

[Glen]

And, I have been remiss in noting that we have exceeded 6000 views. My thanks, once again, loyal readers!