Dominion of Southern America - Updated July 1, 2018

[Glen]

You did read that here, yes. I believe that it was the Welsh immigration to Argentina which in large part spurred the uptake of the sport.

Thanks for that, Falastur.

PS - See below for the major Founding Fathers of Federation Post!

 

[Plumber]

It's back!!!

Welcome back Glen!!

 

[Eurofed]

Catholics would be enfranchised and allowed to hold public office in provinces where they were a majority such as Louisiana, Cuba, and Richport.

All very cool, Glen, but I have a point to make: has the Catholic Relief Act of 1829 being butterflied away or not ITTL ? If it does not (and I would expect so unless Britain wants to face a major rebellion in Ireland every generation or so, Catholic emancipation could be hardly deferred in the 1830s), then it has already enfranchised Catholics and allowed them to hold public office in the British Empire, and I cannot see it politically plausible for a moment that in the aborning Dominion, they would backpedale and disenfranchise Catholics in provinces where they are a minority. Unless I'm ATM oblivious of some TTL major Irish rebellion that butterflied Catholic Emancipation away.

 

[Glen]

One reason for the popularity of Cricket as opposed to Rugby in the West Indies is heat. Rugby is a much more physically tiring game than cricket and in 30 degree heat its absolutely exhausting. That's why it played in the winter, however in places like Jamaica you don't have winter really.

Good point, but that would apply to a lot of other games as well.

 

[thekingsguard]

It's back! At long last, it's finally back!

Glen, if you can answer, how is Virginia effected by all of this? I can imagine being a border state, our culture will be slightly different.

 

[GeneralInTheShell]

Yah, Glen and his amazing TL has returned.

I'm also quite glad about Catholic emancipation.

 

[stevep]

Rained off, in what sense?

Just one, just one - even a double header!



Interesting - I wouldn't have thought of rugby as a game of the educated classes...

Glen

This was why we were discussing why various sports did or didn't take off in various areas. Cricket has it's advantages but the formal game takes several days to play so it's easily affected by weather. Hence if periodically heavy rain is a problem then it's not that suitable. That's why I was comparing it to baseball and the preference for the latter in the US.

Don't forget rugby started at a public [aka private] school. On the question of climate there were attempts to play it in topical areas - think Calcutta Cup - but the fact that folded is possibly an example of the problems. Hence I doubt that it would be that successful in the dominion.

Good to see this back.

Steve

 

[Glen]

First, as many of you can tell, I did indeed have a long absence. My offline life really went into overdrive in terms of workload, so I literally grounded myself from the internet lo these many months. I have to admit that it went a bit longer than I anticipated, but such is life. I plan to try to go back to regular once daily postings here for the foreseeable future as, while things continue at a brisk pace, it should have settled down for a while - so let the fun begin again!

Buuuump.

Glen on break or something?

Bump, bump, bump. I just discovered this a couple days ago, and I'm absolutely enchanted. I cannot let this die. In fact, if Glen doesn't resurface by Monday, then I might have to take on the task of collating the stuff that hasn't been posted in the Timeline forum. And then I will move on to voicing my opinion, and as Glen should know, I am difficult to shut up once I get started. I printed out the TL to read on the train, and now it's dripping with notes and ideas. (Among my notes-to-self: Georgetown! Pittsburgh! Capitol Hill! Great Basin International Peace Park! Francophone Missouri! War profiteers! 130 million! And other cryptic notes-to-self! )

Looks like fun stuff, Tom.

The Timeline Shall Rise Again!

Glen is usually so good at updating too

Glen is usually good at logging in too, but he didn't for about three weeks, until recently.

I'd guess something important has distracted him and it's probably best to let him get back to this when he's ready.

Hope it's nothing bad, Glen. In your own time.

Yes. That one was very cryptic. Don't have a clue what that means

OK, I suppose "Francophone Missouri" is about as self-explanatory as it gets. And yes, my plan was to take the most painfully obvious path to getting French people into Missouri.
My thoughts were that St. Louis has about 1,000 Frenchmen when it is sold to the USA,

Not sold - taken in conquest!

and AFAIK it's the only significant French population in the USA's half of the Louisiana Purchase. A lot of the French in New Orleans are not going to take to British rule, and St. Louis is a lot more like home to them than Revolutionary France. By the same token, while city-dwelling immigrants from back in France may find Quebec more attractive, French farmers would prefer the rich soil and warm weather of the Missouri river valley. Heck, a lot of Quebecois would probably be willing to deal with the occassional Blackhawk attack in exchange for those benefits.

It is a nice thought, and some of what you say is true. However, it will not be quite as much as you seem to elude to, and the anglophone settlement to the region will be more significant, so while there will be a good francophone minority around there, it will not be the majority.

I might be getting people mixed up (it's hard to remember the "real life" details about people you know online), but IIRC Glen works pretty long hours. So I'm assuming that's all it is, until he informs us otherwise. I am just flagging this thread so that when Glen does return and is trying to decide where to devote his attentions, he will know what at least one man's vote is.

Of course. I didn't mean to insinuate that what you're doing is bad - on the contrary, I'll go for anything which supports this TL. I just wanted to say that I have a feeling that Glen has put more than just this TL on hold, and that he may need some time before he's ready to return.

Any chance of an update soon? It's been a long old while and I don't want this TL to die!

Yes, yes there is!

Few questions, which may spawn more questions...

- What is the status of China in TTL? Will it be headed toward a similar fate in the beginning of the 20th Century in OTL?

Good questions - so far it is similar, though not absolutely the same. Time will tell as to its 20th Century fate...

- What is the status of the French Colony in Australia? How will this develop Anglo-French relations during the 19th Century?

So far, so good. Of course, it and its sister colony in OTL's New Zealand are still very young. Anglo-French relations in Europe will drive the relations in their respective colonies.

I hope this time line will at least partly butterfly away and not speed up the the complete collapses of Imperial China.

Well, that is a favorite of ATLs, isn't it?

ANy hope for an update someday?

Yes, in fact we have an update (read earlier in the posts from today).

Thank you one and all for your interest and support!

 

[Glen]

It's back!!!

Welcome back Glen!!

It's back! At long last, it's finally back!

Glen, if you can answer, how is Virginia effected by all of this? I can imagine being a border state, our culture will be slightly different.

Yah, Glen and his amazing TL has returned.

I'm also quite glad about Catholic emancipation.

Thanks for the welcome and the interest to all of the above.

As to Virginia, it is actually surprisingly similar to OTL's Virginia - in fact, I'd almost call it more Virginian than our Virginia, if you will. This Virginia maintains much of the character of Revolutionary Virginia, in that it isn't distorted by slavery and the proximity of the Capitol, and the pull of the Deep South on the region. Virginians take pride in their 'American-ness' and resist cultural influences from South of the Border (though they are there, of course). Despite the lack of slavery, the neo-Manorialism relation of poor blacks (and whites!) to the Plantocracy of Virginia continues the Antebellum lifestyle of the early 1800s, though on a relatively more benign footing (in the end, I suppose exploitation is exploitation, but they don't have the power of life and death or the ability to rape at will, so yeah, better....).

Yes, Catholic Emancipation is a good thing...though it comes in fits and starts.

 

[Glen]

All very cool, Glen, but I have a point to make: has the Catholic Relief Act of 1829 being butterflied away or not ITTL ? If it does not (and I would expect so unless Britain wants to face a major rebellion in Ireland every generation or so, Catholic emancipation could be hardly deferred in the 1830s), then it has already enfranchised Catholics and allowed them to hold public office in the British Empire, and I cannot see it politically plausible for a moment that in the aborning Dominion, they would backpedale and disenfranchise Catholics in provinces where they are a minority. Unless I'm ATM oblivious of some TTL major Irish rebellion that butterflied Catholic Emancipation away.

Actually it was delayed (but only until the Reform Revolution essentially 3 years later). However, the colonies in America lagged behind.

The year 1832 set everything on its head in terms of the liberal-conservative balance between Great Britain and it's Southern Colonies. Before 1832, people in the colonies of British Southern America was relatively more free and had more representative government than in the Mother Country. However, the colonies remained fairly the same while British Isles lept forward in terms of government reform. The Southern Uprising in fact was largely a conservative one, though a minority of their allies were actually more radical than the reformists of the Home Isles. In the end, the quashing of the rebellion (in no small part by other Southerners) was also the victory of liberalism (and loyalty!) over conservatism. However, the federation is having to move slower than the homeland in some senses, and the fear of Papacism in the more Anglic colonies (they're a bit more so due to the lenient attitudes of the Americans to the north). The reality is now everyone is agreeing to 'catch up' to the homeland in terms of the right to vote, but for colonies that do not have a majority of Catholics, they don't want representation forced upon them. This too shall change over time, but it was part of the compromise forming the federation.

 

[Glen]

It's back! At long last, it's finally back!

Glen, if you can answer, how is Virginia effected by all of this? I can imagine being a border state, our culture will be slightly different.

Oh, forgot - one other big difference in Virginia is the persistence among the gentry of adherence to Deism of some form or other.

 

[Glen]

sorry, I take a look of this TL and look like a bristish/english wank

There is indeed some lower case wankage, but that isn't the only nations/ethnicities getting some wankage in this timeline. Also, I like to think it is more change than wank, but I'm biased.

quebec absorbed,

Not really, certainly no more so than it was by Canada IOTL (which is to say, not much). And Quebec is having more effect on its region than OTL I'd say, so a bit of francophone wank there!

british caribe,

Yep, that one is a bit wankish, but fun, oh so fun...

british india,

That's basically OTL, so if you consider OTL to be a britwank (and some would say it was), then yes.

british australia,

Nope, that one I won't cop to! There's less of a British presence there than OTL, so I can't go with that being britwank by definition!

british patagonia,

Okay, that one is some Britwank.

british south africa,

Again, that one is more or less OTL, so it's only a britwank to the extend OTL is.

and we are just in 1840, I think in 1900 british russia and American china or maybe Australian dominio of indonesia

Now that seems a bit extreme. Hey, do I get no credit for taking away ALL OF CANADA and Belize from the British? And for taking the entire American South away from the USA? And do I get no Mexicowank credit for a nation that stretches to the border of Columbia? How about some Ottowank credit for some stabilization in the Ottoman Empire, including keeping Egypt Ottoman (which makes it less likely to become British... ah ha, another antibritish countercurrent!)? And don't forget France and francophones overall - heck, French colonies in Australia and New Zealand, a more liberal and stable Post-Congress France, a greater francophone influence on North America? Come now, should I not get credit there?

 

[Glen]

OK, for updating purposes, the following posts need to be folded into the Pre-Dominion (1766 - 1840) thread in the published TL forum:
732, 735, 783, 784, 828, 865, 866, 873, 986, 1003, and the map at 797.

The following posts appear to be post-1840, and so need a new thread in the published TL forum:
741, 742, 761, 769, 792, 804, 817, 829, 841, 853, 888, 891 (needs editing), 915, 920, 932, 937, 962, 997, 1001, and the map at 965.

I told you I wouldn't let this die.

I have edited the title of the Pre-Dominion Thread to reflect a 1845 cut-off. So any posts dealing with events prior to 1845 would go in the current one, and those thereafter we will be starting a new thread for.

 

[The Kiat]

Not even a year old and the thread already has 53 pages. What is your secret?


Oh, and I've got it subscribed, and am getting around to reading the whole thing (have to budget time, you know how that goes).

 

[Glen]

Smaller Picture for the Battle of the Virginia Capes:

 

[Glen]

Smaller picture of George Washington.

 

[Glen]

Not even a year old and the thread already has 53 pages. What is your secret?


Oh, and I've got it subscribed, and am getting around to reading the whole thing (have to budget time, you know how that goes).

I type really, really fast...

 

[Nugax]

Hey Glen, now this is going again do you want me to finish off those maps we discussed?

 

[Glen]

I am not yet ready to post all of this to the Timeline, so we need to re-review briefly for what to use and what to modify.

I am honored that Vosem has chosen to elaborate on the US presidential elections of this timeline. I'm reposting here his ideas on the discussion thread for comment. I think that there needs to be a couple small changes, but overall I don't see why it wouldn't stand mostly as is (have to look at some of the birthdates of that last few people, though).

Presidential Elections of the USA:


1789: George Washington/John Adams (I).
The election of 1789 occurred before political parties. General George Washington of Virginia, and his running mate, John Adams of Massachusetts, were elected President and Vice President with virtually no opposition.
1792: George Washington/John Adams (I).
Although some semblance of partisan structure was beginning to emerge by 1792, the presidential election was still nonpartisan, and Washington/Adams were reelected.
1796: John Adams/John Jay (F) vs. Thomas Jefferson/Aaron Burr (D-R).
The election of 1796 was the first truly competitive election, with the Federalists nominating John Adams of Massachusetts for President, and John Jay, of New York, for Vice President. The Democratic-Republicans nominated Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. However, since Adams and Jay technically tied, the election went to the House, where Jay dropped out, making Adams President. Nevertheless, this incident resulted in the Constitutional Amendment modernizing the election system.
1800: John Adams/John Jay (F) vs. Thomas Jefferson/Aaron Burr (D-R).
A rematch of 1796, the election of 1800 resulted in Adams winning reelection over Jefferson.
1804: Thomas Jefferson/George Clinton (D-R) vs. Aaron Burr/James Wilkinson (F).
After a vicious battle for the Democratic-Republican nomination between twice-nominee Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, Jefferson wins, and selects George Clinton his running mate. Burr switches parties and gets the Federalist nomination, making General James Wilkinson of Kentucky his running mate. Jefferson wins the election.
1808: Thomas Jefferson/George Clinton (D-R) vs. Alexander Hamilton/Oliver Wolcott, Jr. (F).
The popular Jefferson was easily reelected in 1808, when the Federalists nominated his former ally, Alexander Hamilton (who’d supported Jefferson in 1804!) of New York for President and Oliver Wolcott of Connecticut for Vice President. The Federalist Party would not recover from its poor performance in the late 1800s until the 1820s.
1811: George Clinton dies. There is some speculation over what happens now to the office of Vice President, but Jefferson, a strict constitutionalist, insists that it remain vacant, and it does. This begins a precedent.
1812: James Madison/Elbridge Gerry (D-R) vs. Rufus King/Jared Ingersoll (F).
James Madison of Virginia and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts were the Democratic-Republican nominees in 1812. They were elected easily over the Federalist ticket of Rufus King of New York for President and Jared Ingersoll of Pennsylvania for Vice President.
1814: Elbridge Gerry dies. The position remains vacant.
1816: James Madison/DeWitt Clinton (D-R) vs. John Eagar Howard/James Ross (F).
With the death of Elbridge Gerry, Madison selects DeWitt Clinton, a relative of the late George Clinton, to be Vice President; Clinton’s group of New Yorkers were in limbo between the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists, and Madison wanted to ensure they remained good Democratic-Republicans. The Federalists nominated John Eagar Howard of Maryland for President and James Ross of Pennsylvania for Vice President. Although a strong, experienced ticket, they were defeated in a landslide.
1820: John Quincy Adams/Richard Stockton (F) vs. DeWitt Clinton/William Plumer (D-R).
The Federalists bounced back rather suddenly in 1820 with the election of John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts (the son of the former president) and Richard Stockton of New Jersey President and Vice President, respectively. The Democratic-Republican ticket of DeWitt Clinton of New York and William Plumer of New Hampshire were defeated in the first D-R defeat since 1800.
1824: John Quincy Adams/Richard Stockton (F) vs. James Monroe/Daniel Tompkins (D-R).
The popular incumbents, Adams and Stockton, defeated their rivals, James Monroe of Virginia and Daniel Tompkins of New York, the Democratic-Republican nominees.
1828: Richard Stockton dies. The position remains vacant.
1828: John Andrew Shulze/Nathan Sanford (D-R) vs. Daniel Rodney/Richard Rush (F).
The Democratic-Republican ticket of John Shulze of Pennsylvania and Nathan Sanford of New York triumphed, defeating the Federalist ticket of Daniel Rodney of Delaware and Richard Rush of Pennsylvania. Shulze and Sanford were moderates, whilst Rodney and Rush were strong Federalists, and by the end of the campaign there was a sense that perhaps Shulze was the better candidate to continue Adams’ legacy.
1832: John Andrew Shulze/Nathan Sanford (D-R) vs. Richard Rush/William Wirt (F).
The popular Democratic-Republican incumbents Shulze and Sanford were easily reelected, defeating their Federalist opponents Richard Rush of Pennsylvania and William Wirt of Maryland.
1836: Peter Buell Porter/John Tyler (F) vs. Nathan Sanford/William Cabell Rives (D-R).
After the battle for the Federalist nomination deadlocked between four candidates (with two more minor ones), the party reached a compromise all could agree on: the former Secretary of War in the Adams government, Peter Buell Porter. Hoping to win the Democratic-Republican bastion of Virginia, Porter chose local Federalist Senator John Tyler as his running mate. The Democratic-Republicans did not have such a battle: Vice President Nathan Sanford was nominated without a fight, and experienced, prominent Virginia Senator William Cabell Rives became his running mate. Ultimately, Porter very, very narrowly defeated Sanford, and was inaugurated.

Presidential Elections of the USA:

1789: George Washington/John Adams (I).
The election of 1789 occurred before political parties. General George Washington of Virginia, and his running mate, John Adams of Massachusetts, were elected President and Vice President with virtually no opposition.
1792: George Washington/John Adams (I).
Although some semblance of partisan structure was beginning to emerge by 1792, the presidential election was still nonpartisan, and Washington/Adams were reelected.
1796: John Adams/John Jay (F) vs. Thomas Jefferson/Aaron Burr (D-R).
The election of 1796 was the first truly competitive election, with the Federalists nominating John Adams of Massachusetts for President, and John Jay, of New York, for Vice President. The Democratic-Republicans nominated Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. However, since Adams and Jay technically tied, the election went to the House, where Jay dropped out, making Adams President. Nevertheless, this incident resulted in the Constitutional Amendment modernizing the election system.
1800: John Adams/John Jay (F) vs. Thomas Jefferson/Aaron Burr (D-R).
A rematch of 1796, the election of 1800 resulted in Adams winning reelection over Jefferson.

I would move the event where Jay had to drop out to ensure Adams election to 1800, not 1796. This would be more likely with the closer race that year, and also puts it in a better position for Condorcet to influence the method used in balloting in the amendment.

1804: Thomas Jefferson/George Clinton (D-R) vs. Aaron Burr/James Wilkinson (F).
After a vicious battle for the Democratic-Republican nomination between twice-nominee Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, Jefferson wins, and selects George Clinton his running mate. Burr switches parties and gets the Federalist nomination, making General James Wilkinson of Kentucky his running mate. Jefferson wins the election.
1808: Thomas Jefferson/George Clinton (D-R) vs. Alexander Hamilton/Oliver Wolcott, Jr. (F).
The popular Jefferson was easily reelected in 1808, when the Federalists nominated his former ally, Alexander Hamilton (who’d supported Jefferson in 1804!) of New York for President and Oliver Wolcott of Connecticut for Vice President. The Federalist Party would not recover from its poor performance in the late 1800s until the 1820s.
1811: George Clinton dies. There is some speculation over what happens now to the office of Vice President, but Jefferson, a strict constitutionalist, insists that it remain vacant, and it does. This begins a precedent.
1812: James Madison/Elbridge Gerry (D-R) vs. Rufus King/Jared Ingersoll (F).
James Madison of Virginia and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts were the Democratic-Republican nominees in 1812. They were elected easily over the Federalist ticket of Rufus King of New York for President and Jared Ingersoll of Pennsylvania for Vice President.
1814: Elbridge Gerry dies. The position remains vacant.

While this may be plausible, I don't really like it. It just sets things up for more mischief down the timeline and seems against the spirit of the times with an electoral amendment to ensure the proper election, why wouldn't they change the spare tire. The death is fine, its the precedent I don't like. Could still leave unfilled during Jefferson's presidency but that would then spur a movement towards an amendment overturning the precedent.

1816: James Madison/DeWitt Clinton (D-R) vs. John Eagar Howard/James Ross (F).
With the death of Elbridge Gerry, Madison selects DeWitt Clinton, a relative of the late George Clinton, to be Vice President; Clinton’s group of New Yorkers were in limbo between the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists, and Madison wanted to ensure they remained good Democratic-Republicans. The Federalists nominated John Eagar Howard of Maryland for President and James Ross of Pennsylvania for Vice President. Although a strong, experienced ticket, they were defeated in a landslide.
1820: John Quincy Adams/Richard Stockton (F) vs. DeWitt Clinton/William Plumer (D-R).
The Federalists bounced back rather suddenly in 1820 with the election of John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts (the son of the former president) and Richard Stockton of New Jersey President and Vice President, respectively. The Democratic-Republican ticket of DeWitt Clinton of New York and William Plumer of New Hampshire were defeated in the first D-R defeat since 1800.

Neither ticket in the 1820 election has a Virginian! This seems hard to believe for the time.

1824: John Quincy Adams/Richard Stockton (F) vs. James Monroe/Daniel Tompkins (D-R).
The popular incumbents, Adams and Stockton, defeated their rivals, James Monroe of Virginia and Daniel Tompkins of New York, the Democratic-Republican nominees.

Check on early life of Monroe. Somehow I seem to recall questioning him being a major political figure ITTL....also, tough to beat a ticket with Virginia on it without a Virginian to balance. Just a thought.

1828: Richard Stockton dies. The position remains vacant.

Again, don't like this idea of leaving Veep spots vacant due to death.

1828: John Andrew Shulze/Nathan Sanford (D-R) vs. Daniel Rodney/Richard Rush (F).
The Democratic-Republican ticket of John Shulze of Pennsylvania and Nathan Sanford of New York triumphed, defeating the Federalist ticket of Daniel Rodney of Delaware and Richard Rush of Pennsylvania. Shulze and Sanford were moderates, whilst Rodney and Rush were strong Federalists, and by the end of the campaign there was a sense that perhaps Shulze was the better candidate to continue Adams’ legacy.
1832: John Andrew Shulze/Nathan Sanford (D-R) vs. Richard Rush/William Wirt (F).
The popular Democratic-Republican incumbents Shulze and Sanford were easily reelected, defeating their Federalist opponents Richard Rush of Pennsylvania and William Wirt of Maryland.

Again I must ask, what's happened to Virginia? Also, I need someone to check the births of all these Veeps and defeated opponents. How far into the divergence were they born?

1836: Peter Buell Porter/John Tyler (F) vs. Nathan Sanford/William Cabell Rives (D-R).
After the battle for the Federalist nomination deadlocked between four candidates (with two more minor ones), the party reached a compromise all could agree on: the former Secretary of War in the Adams government, Peter Buell Porter. Hoping to win the Democratic-Republican bastion of Virginia, Porter chose local Federalist Senator John Tyler as his running mate. The Democratic-Republicans did not have such a battle: Vice President Nathan Sanford was nominated without a fight, and experienced, prominent Virginia Senator William Cabell Rives became his running mate. Ultimately, Porter very, very narrowly defeated Sanford, and was inaugurated.

I don't think you'd have OTL's John Tyler (unless this is a different Tyler). Also need to check those opponents for births. I like the bit about the nomination, feels right. Like having a Virginian on the ticket. If you're going to have Democrat ticket not have a Virginian at this point in time, there probably should be someone from a 'western' state, like Ohio.

Overall great effort. I will be interested to see what others think. Some of this will end up in the timeline officially, I am certain.

 

[thekingsguard]

Thanks for the welcome and the interest to all of the above.

As to Virginia, it is actually surprisingly similar to OTL's Virginia - in fact, I'd almost call it more Virginian than our Virginia, if you will. This Virginia maintains much of the character of Revolutionary Virginia, in that it isn't distorted by slavery and the proximity of the Capitol, and the pull of the Deep South on the region. Virginians take pride in their 'American-ness' and resist cultural influences from South of the Border (though they are there, of course). Despite the lack of slavery, the neo-Manorialism relation of poor blacks (and whites!) to the Plantocracy of Virginia continues the Antebellum lifestyle of the early 1800s, though on a relatively more benign footing (in the end, I suppose exploitation is exploitation, but they don't have the power of life and death or the ability to rape at will, so yeah, better....).

Yes, Catholic Emancipation is a good thing...though it comes in fits and starts.

Thanks for explaining that! I am looking foreward to seeing how Virginia shapes up in the coming years!

I can surmise two things though I bet: No West Virginia, and Richmond remains a strong city with no civil war to ravage it.