Dominion of Southern America - Updated July 1, 2018

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

Tags:
  1. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    There's reasonable enough relations between the US and the British for Brits t settle in the US. The ones who don't mind the 'liberal' views of the US and not being under British rule will do so, and be welcome (especially the white ones - damn racism:mad:). I'm going to disagree with you at least insofar as prominent historical figures go for the south exporting people to the north - I have had a very difficult time finding any people who moved from the south to the north, but rather have found several who moved from the north to the south. Now then, I do see the South exporting people - but to the west!

    So while you will see some leakage of people into the US, the main pattern will be to move westward.

    The Caribbean I agree. The Mainland, however, has enough 'human' climate that I think we'll see them go there. And if we're talking climate, I hardly think that Australia would be the preferred settlement region on that!;)
     
  2. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Well, I'll do my best.

    Yes, one would think so.

    Well, that's true - but then again, who do you think the Mexicans of TTL are most likely to use as bankers? And I doubt that they'd favor another European power in the mix.

    Stated, no. However, the British keep any other military fleets out of the Caribbean, so that's sort of de facto if not de jure. The Americans now only have the British to the south as their direct neighbors, though they border the Russians and the Danes in the far far north. But no, the Americans won't favor any expansion in the Western Hemisphere. Portugal still has a toehold there, but its tenuous and they're British allies traditionally. So I would say that there's no stated Monroe Doctrine, but there is an understanding that one is in effect nonetheless.

    We'll try and generate some homework for you for when you return.:D Have fun!
     
  3. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    I agree more or less with most of the above points, except to note that Carleton and Arkansas would not be that more friendly to small homesteaders. The grip of the plantocracy has been loosened with the defeat of the slavers and their allies, but there were enough loyalist planters that they are still a power to be reckoned with.

    Good point about New Orleans as a gateway, and Texas as well. However, I'd note that western Carleton is also quite accessible from the Mississippi so it too will benefit from immigrants coming in there (though will probably 'fill up' first).

    I would predict this number will be exceeded by British migration to the BSA.

    Well, yes and no. Don't forget that there will be native Southerners moving west as well, and in fact you may see some 'bumping' - as immigrants come in along the East and Gulf coasts, old Southerners move west for greener pastures. But yeah, British Arkansas is funny, isn't it?:cool:

    I agree, but that doesn't mean it will be a lot of industrialization, since there was so little relatively speaking in OTL south.

    Northern Mississippi and Alabama and Georgia are the most attractive bits for Brits? Really??:confused:

    Noted and agreed, except for Cuba.:)
     
  4. Falastur Fighting Swiss-wank since 1291

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2009
    Location:
    Hitchin, Herts
    For the benefit of the non-American audience, could you possibly explain the humour of a British Arkansas? I'm not really sure what's special about the state which makes it un-British, but then I know little beyond the spelling and pronunciation of the state name...
     
  5. Nugax talks in diagrams

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Location:
    London's sludgy aorta
    Not for settlement, for industrialisation and urbanization based on energy resources and other minerals. And only eastern Indiana, the Birmingham-Atlanta fan south of the Tennessee river.
     
  6. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    I tend to agree with all of the above.
     
  7. eschaton Muckraker & Rabblerouser

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    Yeah, but TTL has already progressed to the 1840s, which means it's already past the point that OTL's first great Canadian migration, and heading towards the start of the Irish diaspora. Thus most of the migration to the DSA has already happened.

    The Welsh seem to have come in several waves. The earliest group were Welsh Quakers who settled in the "Welsh Tract" in Pennsylvania. They was then a later, second wave which moved into Pennsylvania in the late 18th century further west in the state (Cambria county was originally a Welsh "colony" within the state). Later migrations were more scattered, generally farmers in the early 18th century (settled anywhere) and coal miners (PA, OH), and slate quarrymen (NY, VT) later in the century.

    I have to admit, the problem with mass Welsh migration is unlike other areas which were "cleared" pretty well, like the Highlands and parts of Ireland, Britain has a real reason to keep a large labor force in Wales, particularly once coal mining kicks into full gear.
     
  8. Julius Vogel So

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Well some immigrant communities just get absorbed into another group and quickly lose their separate identity. A good example of this would be Protestant Ulster immigrants to NZ. From what I can remember something like a quarter to third of all Irish immigration to NZ was Protestant and the early leadership of the colony (political and business) had a strong contingent (including prime ministers).

    I for one have an ancestor who was a Protestant manager of an Ulster estate that had Catholic tenants, who ran him off, ending up with him immigrating. I also have Ulster Catholic ancestors who as tenant farmers were dispossed somehow (detail lost to history) and immigrated at roughly the same time!
     
  9. Nugax talks in diagrams

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Location:
    London's sludgy aorta
    Not by that much - even if you take every single immigrant from Britain proper that didn't go to Canada in this time frame you'll still only have 1.6 million at most. Much like all European immigration British movement only really kicked off in the steamship era.

    Though if that did happen it'd have the interesting effect of 35-40% of the population being first and second generation British immigrants. That'd be a massive cultural change.
     
  10. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Point made. So a power, but not necessarily a superpower.

    I'd find those very interesting!
     
  11. Nugax talks in diagrams

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Location:
    London's sludgy aorta
    Assumptions:
    1)The post ARW population transfers resulted in a net gain of 100k for BSA (also includes people staying in the Floridas, Indians moving south) from the *USA.
    2)
    a) All of the British immigration to Canada went to BSA in the ATL.
    b) 50% of the OTL British immigration to the US and Australia went to BSA in the ATL.
    c) 25% of the Irish and others that went to Canada in the OTL goes to the BSA, the rest to the USA.
    d) The USA gets all of the OTL non-British immigration that went to the OTL US in this period.
    3) The shifted population had the same growth rate as the OTL populations of those areas.

    [​IMG]

    Assuming similar Caribbean developments the BSA total has a combined population of 11.56 million in 1850, roughly half of Britains population. Some sort of defensive war where the mainland has to call up Caribbean conscripts would certainly help with unity ;).
     
  12. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    The loyalist yell was a battle cry used by Loyalists in British Southern America during the Southern Civil War. Loyalist soldiers would use the yell during charges to intimidate the enemy and boost their own morale, although the yell had other uses. The exact sound of the yell is unknown and the subject of much speculation and debate. Likewise, the origin of the yell is uncertain.

    Units were nicknamed for their apparent ability to yell during battle. The 5th Company of Carolina Cavalry "Smith's Cavalry" were given the nom de guerre of "Comanches" for the way they sounded during battle.

    The sound of the yell has been the subject of much discussion and debate. Southern Civil War soldiers, upon hearing the yell from afar, would quip that it was either “Grimes, or a rabbit,” suggesting a similarity between the sound of the yell and a rabbit’s scream. The rebel yell has also been likened to the scream of a catamount. The yell is often portrayed as a simple “yee-haw” and in some parts of British Southern America, "yee-ha". The yell has also been described as similar to Native American cries, and indeed the allied civilized tribes were also known to use the loyalist yell. One description says it was a cross between an "Indian whoop and wolf-howl".

    One classic Southern Civil War novel has a character giving the yell sounding as a "yee-aay-eee" upon hearing the war had started. Yet another from the same period, by contrast, has the yell sounding as a high pitched "yay-hoo" repeated several times in rapid succession. Some newspaper accounts document several Loyalist veterans performing the yell as a high-pitched "Wa-woo-woohoo, wa-woo woohoo."

    In "The Slaver Uprising," Jones, notes that historians aren't quite sure how the yell sounded, being described as "a foxhunt yip mixed up with sort of a banshee squall". He recounts the story of a Loyalist veteran invited to speak before a ladies' society dinner. They asked him for a demonstration of the loyalist yell, but he refused on the grounds that it could only be done "at a run", and couldn't be done anyway with "a belly full of food". Anecdotes from former Confederationist soldiers described the yell with reference to "a peculiar corkscrew sensation that went up your spine when you heard it" along with a claim that "if you claim you heard it and weren't scared that means you never heard it".

    Given the differences in descriptions of the yell, there may have been several distinctive yells associated with the different companies and their respective geographical areas.

    The yell has often been linked to Native American cries. Loyalist soldiers may have either imitated or learned the yell from Native American groups, many of whom sided with the British. Some Texas units mingled Comanche war woops into their own, Confederationist version of the yell. The yell has also been associated with hunting cries. Perhaps loyalist soldiers imitated the cries of their hunting dogs.

    Another plausible source of the loyalist yell is that it derived from the screams traditionally made by Scottish Highlanders when making a Highland charge during battle. At the Battle of Killiecrankie "Dundee and the Chiefs chose to employ perhaps the most effective pre-battle weapon in the traditional (highland) arsenal - the eerie and disconcerting howl," also "The terror was heightened by their wild plaided appearance and the distinctive war-cry of the Gael - a high, savage whooping sound...." Earlier documentation during the Roman conquests of Britain suggest the use of a particular yell uttered by the northern Celtic tribes of the region, in conjunction with wearing blue woad body paint and no clothing. The notion that the rebel yell was Celtic in origin is further supported by the fact that in 1790 there was a well defined ethnic division between the Northern States of the US and the Southern Provinces of the BSA. In New England 75 percent of the people were Anglo-Saxons in origin, while Celts outnumbered Anglo-Saxons in the South two to one."

    A third explanation, with special reference to the rebel yells uttered by the Loyalist Bands of North Carolina is that the rebel yell was partly adapted from the specialized cries used by men experienced in fox hunting, and another described his unit's yell as "a single long cry as from the leader of a pack of hounds."

    Considering the existence of many differing versions of the yell, it may have multiple origins.

    Contemporary Accounts:

    • One of the earliest accounts of use of the yell comes from an order that was given during a bayonet charge to "yell like furies", which was instrumental in routing the slaver forces under Pinckney back to Charleston.
    • A diary noted, “Then arose that do-or-die expression, that maniacal maelstrom of sound; that penetrating, rasping, shrieking, blood-curdling noise that could be heard for miles and whose volume reached the heavens–such an expression as never yet came from the throats of sane men, but from men whom the seething blast of an imaginary hell would not check while the sound lasted.”
    • A newspaper account recorded, "It paragons description, that yell! How it starts deep and ends high, how it rises into three increasing crescendos and breaks with a command of battle."
    • North Carolina Magazine account, “In an instant every voice with one accord vigorously shouted the ‘Loyalist yell,’ which was so often heard on the field of battle. ‘Woh-who-ey! who-ey! who-ey! Woh-who-ey! who-ey!’ etc. (The best illustration of this "true yell" which can be given the reader is by spelling it as above, with directions to sound the first syllable ‘who’ short and low, and the second "who" with a very high and prolonged note deflecting upon the third syllable "ey.")”
    • Another journal account, "At last it grew too dark to fight. Then away to our left and rear some of Randolph's people set up 'the loyalist yell'. It was taken up successively and passed around to our front, along our right and in behind us again, until it seemed almost to have got to the point whence it started. It was the ugliest sound that any mortal ever heard -- even a mortal exhausted and unnerved by two days of hard fighting, without sleep, without rest, without food and without hope..."
    • A war correspondent for The New York Times describes the loyalist yell as follows: “..the British Loyalist soldiers cannot cheer, and what passes muster for that jubilant sound is a shrill ringing scream with a touch of the Indian war-whoop in it.”
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2010
  13. Arachnid Arachnid once more.

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Location:
    London, UK
    Oh dear, of dear, oh dear, these really aren't Brits, despite their loyalty to the Crown, any more but are instead proto-rednecks.
     
  14. Falastur Fighting Swiss-wank since 1291

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2009
    Location:
    Hitchin, Herts
    Sounds more like they think they're owls than wolves ;)
     
  15. Ridwan Asher Jungle Arab

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Location:
    In the middle of nowhere
    That statement is.... head fuzzing... :D
     
  16. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Well, I suppose it depends on what you think is 'Canadised' means.:)

    A president from Quebec is likely to occur at some point.:cool:
     
  17. Glen ASB & Left Hand of IAN Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    In 1843, sleepy eastern Arkansas was awakened by the discovery of diamonds near the small settlement of Fort Douglas, named after the benefactor of the Red River Colony in Arkansas, Thomas Douglas.

    [​IMG]
    Thomas Douglas​

    Douglas, the younger brother of the 5th Earl of Selkirk, settled poor Highlanders in the region on the border with Texas in 1810.

    The settlements remained small, especially compared to the provincial capitol of Arkansas, Petite Roche, until the discovery of diamonds in its region. Fort Douglas became a boom town, attracting prospectors from throughout the British Southern America, United States, and even further afield. However, within only a few years, the diamond craze petered out.

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

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Arkansas is considered rather provincial in an American way, very Country-Western, and, as a term of derision or endearment, depending who is saying it, 'redneck'. The idea of them having a more British (by which the average American thinks of Victorian higher class British) demeanor is the source of that humor. Clash of the Stereotypes, as it were.;)
     
  19. Falastur Fighting Swiss-wank since 1291

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2009
    Location:
    Hitchin, Herts
    Ahh. Got you.
     
  20. Arachnid Arachnid once more.

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Location:
    London, UK
    If you look at Queensland, Australia you will realise that British Rednecks are entirely possible.