Dominion of Southern America - Updated July 1, 2018

[snerfuplz]

One thing about Southern California migration. Without the water resources to support large populated cities like OTL has, Southern California in the DSA would receive less immigration then it would and most would be concentrated around San Diego. Just my two cents.

 

[Plumber]

Map update! Now in TCS

 

[Eurofed]

That's not how the West was settled though in the U.S. Here, settlers always reached an area first, and once they built up a significant base, clamored to the government for the rule of law, and eventually infrastructure, to be expanded to encompass them. This is pretty much the reverse of Canada, where the law came first, and then the settlers. It's one reason people hypothesize the U.S. has so much stronger of a vigilante/anti government tradition.

Also, if you're talking about something like rail, a rail line will only be built when it turns a profit to be built (I'm assuming we won't see nationalized rail building ITTL's USA, but it's possible). While the land in the middle could be a wasteland, both ends are going to need to have substantial economies to make the endeavor worthwhile.

Well, for ITTL USA, there are several good reasons to assume a rather greater public intervention in infrastructure development than OTL: the Federalists remain one of the main parties, and they were rather keen on that; the South is gone, which was the main opponent of that IOTL; the Democratic party is hence going to be more dominated by northern agrarian interests, which were much less averse to that. So I find nationalized rail building to boost settlement of the West and North actually quite likely ITTL.

 

[lloyd007]

One thing about Southern California migration. Without the water resources to support large populated cities like OTL has, Southern California in the DSA would receive less immigration then it would and most would be concentrated around San Diego. Just my two cents.

Quite true. SoCal is going to be the poor brother to NorCal since it doesn't have the ability to force construction of all those aqueducts to supply it water and voters in US California would laugh in the face of any proposal that basically said "Okay, we're going to wreck your farms/industry/etc... and impound your water to send it to another country...

I can also see a big fight (politically/economically) brewing over the Colorado River between the USA/DSA and the Rio Grande between the DSA/Mexico (with the Rio Grande fight being the nastier of the two actually)...

And yes while I was overenthusiastic about immigration to Canadian territory TTL I also think those who are saying "half population" are totally wrong... Infrastructure will be built at least as fast as OTL into areas where people will want to move which means the Canadian great plains will become viable and I think will be settled earlier and faster due to Homestead like acts (especially if the govn't gives out more generous grants for the less desirable Canadian plains).

 

[Arachnid]

And yes while I was overenthusiastic about immigration to Canadian territory TTL I also think those who are saying "half population" are totally wrong... Infrastructure will be built at least as fast as OTL into areas where people will want to move which means the Canadian great plains will become viable and I think will be settled earlier and faster due to Homestead like acts (especially if the govn't gives out more generous grants for the less desirable Canadian plains).

I have to disagree.

1. The US is probably going to get less immigration than OTL because the DSA is more attractive than Canada and there are only so many potential European emigrants. The fact that Mexico and other points south seem to be doing better further depresses US share of European emigration. In order to match OTL figures you need to really trash Europe boosting the size of the "cake" or have the DSA get Canadian (i.e. tiny) immigration figures.

2. The the Canadian-US border is an artificial line but as a general rule the more southerly areas are more hospitable. The only reason the Canadian plains are more densely settled than US mid-western states like Montana is that the Canadians went to much greater effort to lure immigrants and that there was an international border to discourage people moving south to better land and warmer winters.

3. The *Canadian prairies need to offer bigger grants to lure settlers> bigger grants mean lower population.

The only way you are going to have *Canada more densely settled than the OTL US Mid-West is to have it be an Indian reservation, which is entirely plausible.

Quite true. SoCal is going to be the poor brother to NorCal since it doesn't have the ability to force construction of all those aqueducts to supply it water and voters in US California would laugh in the face of any proposal that basically said "Okay, we're going to wreck your farms/industry/etc... and impound your water to send it to another country...

I fully agree, you are still going to get a big city in San Diego as the major British Pacific port but without northern water it is going to be much less populous than OTL, or at least grow at OTL rates for a while until hitting a water ceiling.

 

[Ridwan Asher]

This thing is maybe quite to late to be asked, but I wonder what would've had happened had a) the Federalist Mexicans failed in reunifying their country ; b) US was able to interfere with Texas affairs.

 

[Eurofed]

1. The US is probably going to get less immigration than OTL because the DSA is more attractive than Canada and there are only so many potential European emigrants.

Not that much more attractive, no. Lack of climate-control technology hits both Canada and Dixie. And the USA remain much more friendly to immigration anyway, with their liberal immigration laws, their land grants, and their class-light, upward mobile society. And in the DSA, Blacks and Indians still compete with European immigrants for jobs, this is not the case in the USA.

The fact that Mexico and other points south seem to be doing better further depresses US share of European emigration.

They seem to be doing slightly better, but not radically so, as to attract muc more European immigration than OTL. And Brazil is doing worse.

 

[Glen]

Hooray! Our first major possibly new Canadian State!

Indeed...

Gitchigumee is certainly a mouthful though... Can't wait to see more!

It is - but so is Mississippi! I am glad you look forward to more!

 

[Glen]

well USA is becoming a superpower in terms of territory and population.

Territory, yes - population, give it time...

 

[Glen]

The latest update was interesting indeed Glen.

Thank you!

I have to say, given ITTL the Metis live right next door (sometimes literally) to the Quebecois, I'm not sure they'll maintain an independent culture in the longer run. Basically, as the territory gets developed, Quebecois will move there in somewhat larger numbers, which will eventually lead to extensive intermarriage between the two groups, as neither language nor way of life will be a great barrier (Local Quebecois of modest origins will probably live off the land in similar manners).

Most of the Metis are related to Quebecois already, and are predominantly Francophone, so they are half-way there. However, it's a bit like saying West Virginia will become Virginized by Virginia!

It will be even worse if the "major" urban area (I'm assuming a small urban area ala Sudbury will develop), ends up predominantly Quebecois, as it will ensure that generations of children who want "bigger and better things" will move there and become acculturated.

Maybe, maybe...

On the other hand, if the Metis population booms enough, they should absorb the Quebecois who come their way, instead of the reverse. Which would mean Metis culture would survive largely intact, although the Metis themselves will probably progressively look more and more European, as Indians drifting in from the North won't be enough to counteract a southerly migration.

This is likely.

Given continuing [large] Immigration coming in thru NY, NE, Pa, I doubt even double the number of Quebecois, to start, can prevent Anglicization.

But most of those will head west, not north. What you are saying is quite true of Ontario, but not nearly so of the Gitchigumee, though the occasional oddball mountain man type from the mid-Atlantic may end up there.

 

[Glen]

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHH

What are you not getting? The OTL Canadian provinces are already MORE POPULOUS than the OTL northern tier of american states.

MODERN (advantage Canada, by a good distance):
Manitoba - 1.2 million
Saskatchewan - 1.0 million
Alberta - 3.7 million (skewed because of Oil, so can be skipped if you like)

North Dakota - 0.64 million
Montana - 0.9 million
South Dakota - 0.8 million

1910 (about the same):
Manitoba - 0.46 million
Saskatchewan - 0.49 million
Alberta - 0.37 million

North Dakota - 0.57 million
Montana - 0.37 million
South Dakota - 0.4 million

Why do you keep insisting the americans will do a significantly better job settling Canada than their OTL performance in their own northern tier of states - states which had better climates?

IMO I think the OTL canadian regions will see as much as half to third less people than the OTL thanks to slower railroads, whilst the extra immigration growth (remember the US is at a slightly worse native population than just splitting the northern states off would indicate, as seen in my graphs earlier in the thread) will occur in Oregon, *Iowa, *Minnesota, and the *Dakotas

Thanks for the stats! I think you make a good point that a reasonable population was established in the OTL Canadian Midwest compared to the OTL Northern US Midwest states.

To be fair, this is largely because they are greater size. Manitoba has a greater population density than both Dakotas, and Saskatchewan greater than North Dakota. However, considering nearly 2/3rds of each province is largely uninhabitable taiga, the settled area must be more densely populated than the U.S. northern tier.

Those are also important points. I'd say that when all the factors are balanced, historically there isn't much difference in the appeal of North Dakota and Alberta.

Also, it seems that the US government here has slated OTL Canada as "uncivilised Indian land" and somewhere they can ignore until they have the time and money to deal with the "pesky natives" and thus is unlikely - at least til many decades down the line - to receive much investment. By all accounts it seems that all north of the 49th parallel has been deemed wasteland.

More like the 52nd Parallel - bottom James Bay/Great Slave Lake Across to the Great Divide.

DQ is closer to the mark than Falastur, though we still need to see the development further before things become clear.

Not at all. Only the Hudson region seems to be "written off" - and this region IOTL was never really settled either. Since the U.S., unlike Canada, doesn't expand states once they are founded, my guess is all of the habitable bits will be incorporated in some state, but more of OTL's taiga belt will stay in territorial form.

Close, eschaton, close...

 

[Glen]

Uh what? The point was that Canada got more people to settle on worse land than the Northern US states, saying that they actually are crowded into a smaller region of each state makes the contrast more extreme, not less!

See my previous comment,

 

[Glen]

Map:

LINK TO BIGGER VERSION

Great map, the DSA clearly has a pretty good rail network, much better than the CSA.

I love that map...

I concur that the map is a real tour-de-force! However, there are a few minor errors, and we ought to discuss the DSA railroads more - but I wouldn't edit anything until I get one or two more Great Transcontinental Railroad Race posts out.

But it is a beautiful thing, Nugax - I'm thinking we're going to have to nominate one of your maps for the Turtledoves this year!

 

[Glen]

Sorry, was pressed for time given my wife was pestering me to go when I wrote that reply. My point was just overall population might not be the best measure compared to overall density. I agree with you overall. Canada pushed rather hard for the region to be settled after all, while the U.S. won't have any real reason to favor migration there as opposed to anywhere else (especially given by the time migration there becomes feasible, more immigrants will likely be moving into industrial jobs than agricultural ones).

Fear of the Russian hordes in Alaska?

 

[Glen]

But I see no valid reason why those railroads should be slower than OTL, rather the contrary.

True - compared to OTL, TTL's USA's development of infrastructure, including railways, will be more. I suppose the real questions will be whether 1) It is more in this region than OTL Canada's? and 2) Will more development in the region of OTL's northern US states siphon off those who would have gone further north?

Time will tell.

I agree. Me, too, think that the initial border of the Western Canadian states shall be on the 52nd Parallel. I would not entirely write off the possibility that at a later date the Congress shall allow the northernmost row of states to expand their borders to the 54th Parallel, but in all likelihood never to the 60th one as OTL Canadian provinces.

I think this is close. But we all will see over time...

Alaska and Yukon in all likelihood shall become one state after the gold rush gets the area developed.

You mean Russian Alaska?

Northern regions only populated by natives quite possibly remain autonomous territories up to modern times, since the Congress frowns on allowing severely underpopulated states.

Could be. It would definitely have to be handled differently politically. The OTL territory that became Oklahoma may be instructive - or not....

 

[Glen]

Oh, I was simply mentioning that Eurofed's idea that overpopulation would actually force the U.S. government to build infrastrucutre elsewhere seemed odd IMO.

Or was it the Sunbelt part you didn't understand?

"Force" is perhaps too strong a word, but there would be considerable political pressure from would-be settlers to open up the western and northern territories to colonization by building infrastructure there.

Ahh, that comes across much more clear. Thank you.

Agreed. It will be a matter of supply and demand - or should I say perception of supply and demand...

 

[Glen]

That's not how the West was settled though in the U.S. Here, settlers always reached an area first, and once they built up a significant base, clamored to the government for the rule of law, and eventually infrastructure, to be expanded to encompass them. This is pretty much the reverse of Canada, where the law came first, and then the settlers. It's one reason people hypothesize the U.S. has so much stronger of a vigilante/anti government tradition.

It's a thought. I don't think we will see either the same nor opposite pattern to settlement - rather a shift.

Also, if you're talking about something like rail, a rail line will only be built when it turns a profit to be built (I'm assuming we won't see nationalized rail building ITTL's USA, but it's possible).

Nationalized probably not - subsidized or incentivized, those are different...

While the land in the middle could be a wasteland, both ends are going to need to have substantial economies to make the endeavor worthwhile.

Well, that's doable!

 

[Glen]

Just read through this whole thing today, and I have to say that it is very well done on the whole. There are several things I'm rather credulous of, others I am quite impressed by, and still a few more l would love to see elabotated further! All things considered this is a fantastic tl and you can consider me to be subscribed, this is an absorbing and credible take on the developement of an alternate U.S.

Thank you for your kind words and patronage - I hope you will expand on your thoughts on the timeline as you join our discussion!

 

[Eurofed]

You mean Russian Alaska?

In all likelihood, it is not going to stay Russian forever, and quite possibly even shorter than OTL. At the very least, once the gold rush starts, the USA is totally going to evict the Russkies, by peaceful purchase if possible, by force of arms if need be. All the concerns that drove the OTL purchase are magnified ITTL due to the direct border.

 

[Arachnid]

In all likelihood, it is not going to stay Russian forever, and quite possibly even shorter than OTL. At the very least, once the gold rush starts, the USA is totally going to evict the Russkies, by peaceful purchase if possible, by force of arms if need be. All the concerns that drove the OTL purchase are magnified ITTL due to the direct border.

That's just stupid. It is one thing for the US in *OTL to start a war with an obvious basket case like Mexico in order to get masses of very productive land and support pro-US rebels who are mostly US citizens.
It is another thing entirely to unilaterally invade one of the (perceived) Great Powers of the day over a frozen wasteland that many people in OTL opposed purchasing. Anyone mad enough to suggest the US should attack Russia in order to tidy up the map would be lynched not heeded.
And the only concern that drove the OTL purchase was that the Tsar was short of cash and wanted to annoy Britain as he already had plenty of frozen wasteland in Siberia. This coupled with the US had a massively expansionist Sec State in Seward enabled the OTL sale.
Sharing a border is going to make Russia less likely to sell, which is the key dynamic, not US opinion.

Not that much more attractive, no. Lack of climate-control technology hits both Canada and Dixie. And the USA remain much more friendly to immigration anyway, with their liberal immigration laws, their land grants, and their class-light, upward mobile society. And in the DSA, Blacks and Indians still compete with European immigrants for jobs, this is not the case in the USA.

Wrong. While lack of air conditioning makes the DSA (or parts of it, Appalachia has and the northern tier of the DSA has a perfectly nice climate) less attractive than New England to Europeans, its not as much of a factor as the Canadian winter!!
Also while the US is going to be the most successful at luring immigrants as the "light of freedom etc." all I'm arguing is that the DSA will do better than Canada which is really very easy to manage considering the tiny numbers Canada managed to lure pre-1900, that is inevitably going to be depress US immigration numbers as the size of the "cake" is pretty fixed.
Also while immigrants to the DSA have to compete with Black and Indian labour, they no longer have to compete with free slave labour, boosting the DSA's attractiveness. Also immigrants to the USA are probably going to a less labour starved market due to the lower population in the DSA and greater demand for labour intensive jobs, so if anything the Labour Market is going to work in the DSA's favour.