Dominion of Southern America - Updated July 1, 2018

[Falastur]

Umm *Rockhampton, *Townsville and *Cairns are all in the Northland of that Map, founded in the 1850s, 1860s and 1870s respectively. *Rockhampton probably being the administrative centre. It'll have a european population in the tens of thousands well before the end of the century, just never probably getting to self ruling status. They'd want to keep it under special military law anyway to ward French and other incursions from the North.

I saw it being split off because it had no population - so NSW can concentrate on its services whilst a territorial government stewards the north.

Fair enough. I just plain didn't come across those places when I was looking around. My bad.

Also why does everyone leave out the Capital Territory

I left out the Capital Territory as I viewed it as being the product of an age yet to come. I didn't think a Capital Territory was likely to come into existence for a couple of generations, and I was focusing on what subdivisions might be created very soon/actually already be in place in 1850 or wherever we are up to exactly, so I conscientiously ignored it and left it for a future discussion when times are closer to 1900. Also, I thought that, with a DSA which has chosen a capital but hasn't IIRC made their capital extraterritorial, and with the USA less of an influence over the Pacific given the DSA's existence, I wondered whether those in charge of choosing a capital for Australia when (assuming) it federates may in fact decide that creating a Capital Territory is not actually necessary. Perhaps TTL, Sydney may never be surpassed by Melbourne, or perhaps one city will be clearly in the ascendancy come 1900, in which case that city may automatically be the best choice for a capital anyway?

 

[eschaton]

Although I have no issue with the newer map idea with less provinces (my map was more to show ways to draw better borders), I do want to say given ATL British Australia will be more culturally diverse, there's a chance that cultural divisions might make a big difference. For example, if in what you label northern New South Wales mostly black DSAers settle, I believe there will be a major push for an independent colony.

Indeed, in the longer run, I wonder if the cultural differences between the different parts of Australia will be too much for confederation to ever work. If you get a southern-fried Victoria, a majority-black colony, a plantation colony with hordes of Indian laborers, and a New South Wales, Tasmania, and North Island which are very English in character, they'll be divided by more than Australia and New Zealand were IOTL.

 

[Arachnid]

What is this stuff with a majority black colony in Australia and a large Indian population? Its simply ASB and suggests a complete lack of understanding of the reasons behind Australia which are equally valid in OTL and this ATL.
First as regards Blacks in the DSA why on earth would the British government (which is running Australia) want to expensively resettle people from one colony (the DSA which is not independent) to others (the various Australian ones) when there is plenty of empty land in the DSA (i.e. the West).
As for non-whites moving to Australia up in *Queensland on the sugar plantations there may be a move to bring more cheap labour from India and the Pacific than can provided by British emigrants al la Fiji, but the main purpose of the Southern colonies (SA, NSW, Vic, Tas) and probably *Qld is to settle "excess" population from the Home Isles into an environment where they would thrive. Now the presence of the DSA lessens that need but as others have pointed out it has its own excess population and Patagonia is pretty small and cold so you are still going to get that motivation in this ATL
There were two stages of assisted migration to Australia, the first stage when London paid to export "excess" population and the later (post 1945) stage when Australia wanted to "populate or perish" due to the "yellow peril" and paid to get suitable (white British) migrants.
So possibly excepting Qld I would expect the OTL policy of informal "White Australia" until the late 20th century at least. Don't forget that the purpose of Australia wasn't to build some wonderful multicultural haven in the South Seas, it was to rid Britain of surplus mouths and criminals while giving younger sons a place to make a life for themselves.

As regards colonial boundaries the British never had the American concept of "unorganised territory" I would argue for a *Vic, *NSW and *QLD run as separate colonies with responsible government until at least 1900 with military run border provinces of *SA and NT until they have built up sufficient population to warrant responsible government. After that Confederation or incorporation into the UK is up to the author.

EDIT: Remember this is the British Empire, the Scots I'm sure will find a place to make their mark, in OTL they chose the South Island of NZ and Canada, here who knows?

 

[eschaton]

What is this stuff with a majority black colony and large Indian population? Its simply ASB and suggests a complete lack of understanding of the reasons behind Australia which are equally valid in OTL and this ATL.

No, I've thought this out a bit.

First as regards Blacks in the DSA why on earth would the British government (which is running Australia) want to expensively resettle people from one colony (the DSA which is not independent) to others (the various Australian ones) when there is plenty of empty land in the DSA (i.e. the West).

1. The west of the DSA, outside of California, isn't really good agricultural land.

2. Shipping people from The UK to the DSA is cheaper than the UK to Australia. Shipping people from the DSA to Australia is also cheaper. Thus I think, post continental railroad, half or more of Australian settlers will at the very least pass through the DSA, if not be from there.

3. Black DSAers are loyal subjects of the crown, while the various malcontents they could find in the home islands aren't so much.

As for non-whites moving to Australia up in *Queensland on the sugar plantations there may be a move to bring more cheap labour from India and the Pacific than can provided by British emigrants al la Fiji but the main purpose of the Southern colonies (SA, NSW, Vic, Tas) was to settle "excess" population from the Home Isles into an environment where they would thrive.

If you're using this as a euphemism for convicts, as I said, IITL they will continue to go to the Southern colonies (as they did IOTL before the ARW), and then start being shipped to Patagonia. There's no reason to ship convicts to the most remote place when you have almost as removed places which are far cheaper.

EDIT: Remember this is the British Empire, the Scots I'm sure will find a place to make their mark, in OTL they chose the South Island of NZ and Canada, here who knows?

Patagonia. That's also where I'm guessing Irish troublemakers will be sent, hence my supposition the British population will be overwhelmingly English in Australia, as it in most of OTL's New Zealand.

 

[Falastur]

1. The west of the DSA, outside of California, isn't really good agricultural land.

2. Shipping people from The UK to the DSA is cheaper than the UK to Australia. Shipping people from the DSA to Australia is also cheaper. Thus I think, post continental railroad, half or more of Australian settlers will at the very least pass through the DSA, if not be from there.

I think you're missing Aracnid's point, which is that the UK isn't paying to resettle people who want a farm to the best land, it's paying to resettle peoples from places that are overcrowded to places that are not overcrowded. There may not be very good farming land outside of California, but it's not a harsh and desolate land so the British government will still send people there. They will not send DSAers to Australia because, yes UK - AUS is more expensive than and DSA - AUS, but DSA to AUS is still more expensive than East DSA to West DSA. Why relocate someone from the east coast to AUS when it's far quicker and cheaper to send them west and have them remain inside their own dominion?

In addition, for the average black DSAer who wants to move somewhere where they can buy a parcel of land and start a new life, if they are not being moved by the government they will be paying for their own travel. Without meaning anything racist here, the average black DSAer will, let's face it, not have a family history of wealth and many black DSAers will still remember the time of slavery even if their families were among the first to be liberated a generation or two earlier. I'm aware that there are black and wealthy DSAers in TTL, and Glen even mentioned a handful in the wealthy elite, but overall it's going to take time for the black population to assimilate into the wealthier middle class, and most people who wanted to start a new life didn't tend to be over-endowed with cash anyway. Thus, most black DSAers who fund their own relocation will have two choices: move to the west for a relative pittance, or travel to AUS for a much higher price. For some, the price will be others, for most, the price will not be worth it as the journey costs would be better spent on buying a bigger plot of land and making themselves comfortable when they arrive. For a large minority, the cost of travelling to AUS will be so high they can't afford it anyway.


On top of this whole debate, I would add that settlements in the north tended to be carried out by those who were already Australian - the north coast was a harsh place to settle, and thus only tended to be attempted by those who had a base of operations relatively close on the south-east side of the continent. Consequently while a few black DSAers may settle the north, most will only get to do so by settling southern Australia first and then finding a compelling reason to change their minds about location. Of course, the gold rush will later change this, but then the gold rush will suck in a lot of white settlers too, and black DSAers may find it much easier to join the California gold rush than the Australian one anyhow...

 

[eschaton]

I think you're missing Aracnid's point, which is that the UK isn't paying to resettle people who want a farm to the best land, it's paying to resettle peoples from places that are overcrowded to places that are not overcrowded. There may not be very good farming land outside of California, but it's not a harsh and desolate land so the British government will still send people there. They will not send DSAers to Australia because, yes UK - AUS is more expensive than and DSA - AUS, but DSA to AUS is still more expensive than East DSA to West DSA. Why relocate someone from the east coast to AUS when it's far quicker and cheaper to send them west and have them remain inside their own dominion?

You've convinced me it's cheaper to allow DSAers to migrate internally versus emmigrate, sure enough.

But I'm still not clear on who exactly these British people who are migrating from overcrowded places are, and why they'd come to Australia. IOTL, the British needed to subsidize migration to Australia from 1840 to self-government because it was so much more expensive to travel there than to the USA. But ITTL, the British have the DSA, so they can point these settlers to a British alternative they don't have to subsidize.

Of course, for reasons of securing the region against France, the UK is going to want *some* settlement. But if they are going to subsidize a ticket, one from San Diego (or whatever the major British port is, can't remember) is far cheaper than one from London.

In addition, for the average black DSAer who wants to move somewhere where they can buy a parcel of land and start a new life, if they are not being moved by the government they will be paying for their own travel. Without meaning anything racist here, the average black DSAer will, let's face it, not have a family history of wealth and many black DSAers will still remember the time of slavery even if their families were among the first to be liberated a generation or two earlier. I'm aware that there are black and wealthy DSAers in TTL, and Glen even mentioned a handful in the wealthy elite, but overall it's going to take time for the black population to assimilate into the wealthier middle class, and most people who wanted to start a new life didn't tend to be over-endowed with cash anyway. Thus, most black DSAers who fund their own relocation will have two choices: move to the west for a relative pittance, or travel to AUS for a much higher price. For some, the price will be others, for most, the price will not be worth it as the journey costs would be better spent on buying a bigger plot of land and making themselves comfortable when they arrive. For a large minority, the cost of travelling to AUS will be so high they can't afford it anyway.

The way I see it, while the DSA won't be anywhere near as bad as the South IOTL, it's still going to be pretty bad. No lynchings, but plenty of segregation and some Jim Crow type laws. A lot of blacks are going to want to strike off somewhere they don't have to deal with Southrons and the DSA racial system, and when it comes down to it, California isn't going to be that different given it's going to be settled by white DSAers itself.

On top of this whole debate, I would add that settlements in the north tended to be carried out by those who were already Australian - the north coast was a harsh place to settle, and thus only tended to be attempted by those who had a base of operations relatively close on the south-east side of the continent. Consequently while a few black DSAers may settle the north, most will only get to do so by settling southern Australia first and then finding a compelling reason to change their minds about location.

I'd consider this the most likely outcome. I just thought there was an off chance, depending upon the tides of history (a British or DSA-sponsored settlement movement in the late 19th century), that a concentration of blacks might form somewhere in Australia. But far more likely they'll just follow the same migration patterns as their white countrymen.

Of course, the gold rush will later change this, but then the gold rush will suck in a lot of white settlers too, and black DSAers may find it much easier to join the California gold rush than the Australian one anyhow...

I've actually thought since migration restrictions didn't exist ITTL that the ability of the USA to absorb black migrants from the DSA has been a bit underrated. Not that we'd see anything like the Great Migration, but if racial relations are better up north it's the easiest place to vote with your feet.

Edit: This might actually be the best reason for Britain to sponsor them to Australia. If the DSA is going to lose them regardless, better they remain British subjects.

 

[Glen]

You all have been having quite the discussion! Great!!!

I will be a bit tied up with the Turtledove winner announcements and building the Turtledove Superlative Polls for at least a bit of tonight and the coming morning, so please do soldier on in my silence - but I am watching, and will try to get back to you all this weekend (not to mention I have more updates to make!).

 

[Earl_of_Somerset]

Does this mean we find out whats gonna happen in austrailia!

Cant wait!

Also, just curious, could we have a poll to vote on the best map (but then again its your TL) well its up to you

 

[stevep]

The way I see it, while the DSA won't be anywhere near as bad as the South IOTL, it's still going to be pretty bad. No lynchings, but plenty of segregation and some Jim Crow type laws. A lot of blacks are going to want to strike off somewhere they don't have to deal with Southrons and the DSA racial system, and when it comes down to it, California isn't going to be that different given it's going to be settled by white DSAers itself.

eschaton

I'm wondering about this. There will still be a lot of racism no doubt but as you say a lot less than OTL south. At the same time a lot of loyalist whites, as well as a number of blacks fought against the rebels in the Slavers war, while London provides some distant protection. Also the political presence of the Indian citizens means there is another check on the racism of OTL.

On the other hand in Australia there will be the native Aboriginals who were often treated badly by the white settlers and those same white settlers who will have no experience of 'blacks' other than those same Aboriginals. Furthermore, unless and until sizeable numbers are able to establish themselves in Australia any emigrants will be leaving behind friends and family and the social support they supply. Furthermore as stated it's a long and expensive trip to a vastly different environment.

As such, unless the situation in the DSA gets very bad, I can't see Australia being a popular choice for many black southerns.

With the US how willing will they be to welcome black 'Britishers' who will compete with white workers. Don't forget in OTL much of the hostility to slavery in the north OTL was at least much 'free-soil' hostility to blacks free or slave as opposition to the existence of slavery. If the DSA prospers I could see very few blacks being tempted to move north.

Steve

 

[eschaton]

I'm wondering about this. There will still be a lot of racism no doubt but as you say a lot less than OTL south. At the same time a lot of loyalist whites, as well as a number of blacks fought against the rebels in the Slavers war, while London provides some distant protection.

I do think among the loyalists, there probably was some measure, initially, of goodwill towards the black population for fighting for the crown. However, I expect as the generations pass this will wane, just as positive racial viewpoints in the north only lasted around a generation following the civil war.

Also the political presence of the Indian citizens means there is another check on the racism of OTL.

IOTL the civilized tribes were plenty racist (and slaveowners). Given how acculturated they have become here I don't see it being all that different.

On the other hand in Australia there will be the native Aboriginals who were often treated badly by the white settlers and those same white settlers who will have no experience of 'blacks' other than those same Aboriginals.

People will clearly be able to tell the difference between DSA blacks and Aborigines, because despite similar skin tones, they look nothing alike in terms of facial features and hair. I wouldn't be surprised if DSA blacks become labeled "sables" in Australia to distinguish them from native Blacks. They might not be on the top of the totem pole, but they won't start out on the bottom here.

Also, if black migrants to Europe are any guide, racism won't be a huge issue (among those not of DSA origin) until a sizable black population forms - people look at small immigrant groups more as curiosities than anything.

Furthermore, unless and until sizable numbers are able to establish themselves in Australia any emigrants will be leaving behind friends and family and the social support they supply.

That didn't stop every other immigrant group ever, who faced the same conditions at least initially. Given enough time and migration, "sable quarters" would arise in the major towns, which would provide enough of a social support

Furthermore as stated it's a long and expensive trip to a vastly different environment.

Every migrant will have to deal with this too.

With the US how willing will they be to welcome black 'Britishers' who will compete with white workers. Don't forget in OTL much of the hostility to slavery in the north OTL was at least much 'free-soil' hostility to blacks free or slave as opposition to the existence of slavery. If the DSA prospers I could see very few blacks being tempted to move north.

Well, remember the US already has a sizable, although not huge, black population (probably somewhere around a million by 1850). Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia have a large number of freedmen (I think some were sold south when slavery was outlawed there, but not a goodly number). Most major U.S. cities probably have a black neighborhood at least. So I don't think you'd see Americans looking at black people like they had nine heads ITTL. Sure, if you had Great Migration rushes of blacks into the US, you'd see a moral panic, and probably something similar to the Chinese Exclusion Acts happening, but provided it's more of a slow trickle I don't think the public will particularly care.

 

[stevep]

I do think among the loyalists, there probably was some measure, initially, of goodwill towards the black population for fighting for the crown. However, I expect as the generations pass this will wane, just as positive racial viewpoints in the north only lasted around a generation following the civil war.

Why would it deminish, unless you're presuming special reasons for racism to revive there?

IOTL the civilized tribes were plenty racist (and slaveowners). Given how acculturated they have become here I don't see it being all that different.

Many were slave owners but I think the Indians tended to accept newcomers adopted into the tribe regardless of their origins.

I was however thing more that there is another minority, with a decent level of influence who would also have an incentive to keep an eye out for and oppose the rise of racial feeling.

People will clearly be able to tell the difference between DSA blacks and Aborigines, because despite similar skin tones, they look nothing alike in terms of facial features and hair. I wouldn't be surprised if DSA blacks become labeled "sables" in Australia to distinguish them from native Blacks. They might not be on the top of the totem pole, but they won't start out on the bottom here.

Rational people can fairly easily tell them apart but if you're used to thinking of a black skin as a sign of inferiority at best it's going to make it more difficult for any black settlers from the DSA. Not to mention once the Australian colonies get representative government they could also introduce a 'white Australia' policy as OTL.

Also, if black migrants to Europe are any guide, racism won't be a huge issue (among those not of DSA origin) until a sizable black population forms - people look at small immigrant groups more as curiosities than anything.

To a degree but then they might be lumped in with the existing black population. Also, small groups are vulnerable when the community feels the desire to lash out about something. If only small numbers emigrate to Australia there might not be a strong racial reaction, especially from the authorities but if only a few come it won't make a big difference to the DSA either and it sounded like people were speculating on a fairly large scale immigration from the DSA.

That didn't stop every other immigrant group ever, who faced the same conditions at least initially. Given enough time and migration, "sable quarters" would arise in the major towns, which would provide enough of a social support

Every migrant will have to deal with this too.

I'm not saying those factors will stop it totally or deter all black immigrants but that it is likely to make their numbers fairly insignificant because they will prefer the DSA or possibly the US.

Well, remember the US already has a sizable, although not huge, black population (probably somewhere around a million by 1850). Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia have a large number of freedmen (I think some were sold south when slavery was outlawed there, but not a goodly number). Most major U.S. cities probably have a black neighborhood at least. So I don't think you'd see Americans looking at black people like they had nine heads ITTL. Sure, if you had Great Migration rushes of blacks into the US, you'd see a moral panic, and probably something similar to the Chinese Exclusion Acts happening, but provided it's more of a slow trickle I don't think the public will particularly care.

However if there are significant problems for the blacks in the DSA or simply the US starts to develop as rapidly as OTL then it will attract a lot of settlers and you have a group just over a fairly open border who have the same language and some aspects of a common culture. As such, unless the DSA expands enough to keep the bulk of it's population there could be a significant number until an increase in racism and/or legislation restricts it. [Which I agree reverses my initial argument as I was assuming a greater degree of hostility to setters from the DSA, especially those of a darker skin].

Steve

 

[eschaton]

Why would it diminish, unless you're presuming special reasons for racism to revive there?

Why did racial goodwill in the Northern US diminish after the civil war? There were a goodly number of reasons, but foremost was once the South was included in the political discourse again, race-baiting became tolerable. And the Republicans backed down after a decade or so of defending the black man, deciding to embrace capital instead, so the racial situation continued to worsen through the early 20th century.

I see a similar issue here. It will be tempered, however, because there is no overwhelmingly white (well, few) parts of the DSA that can just ignore the race issue to maintain their own political base. Of course, I don't recall Glen saying what the electorate was in the DSA - it seems a tad bit early yet for universal male suffrage, so if there are any qualifications to voting blacks will be a small enough group of the electorate to safely ignore.

Many were slave owners but I think the Indians tended to accept newcomers adopted into the tribe regardless of their origins.

True enough - many tribes were highly mixed. Given situations like this, and the upper-class mixed-race creoles in Louisiana, I think you'd see more of a Latin-American style gradated racial hierarchy than a strict color line. But it would still be pretty bad for most black DSAers regardless

Rational people can fairly easily tell them apart but if you're used to thinking of a black skin as a sign of inferiority at best it's going to make it more difficult for any black settlers from the DSA.

Again, I just don't think so. Aborigines are going to live at the edges of settlement, or in the wilds, or in miserable poverty. DSA blacks are going to speak English, dress like everyone else, and have roughly the same material conditions as whites.

Not to mention once the Australian colonies get representative government they could also introduce a 'white Australia' policy as OTL.

But this is supposing that non-whites don't play a role in settling Australia prior to responsible government. Also "white Australia" was meant to exclude Chinese and other Asians. Other non-whites weren't even excluded at all until 1895, and even then NSW, Tasmania, and South Australia excluded "undesirable persons" of all races rather than formally limiting immigration to whites. The British government was unhappy, but Joseph Chamberlain said "We quite sympathise with the determination...of these colonies...that there should not be an influx of people alien in civilisation, alien in religion, alien in customs, whose influx, moreover, would seriously interfere with the legitimate rights of the existing labouring population." I don't think they'd take the same attitude towards excluding nonwhite, but culturally British, subjects of the crown.

To a degree but then they might be lumped in with the existing black population. Also, small groups are vulnerable when the community feels the desire to lash out about something. If only small numbers emigrate to Australia there might not be a strong racial reaction, especially from the authorities but if only a few come it won't make a big difference to the DSA either and it sounded like people were speculating on a fairly large scale immigration from the DSA.

My point was the ball could get rolling rather innocuously. After that, it's a roll of the dice whether the local authorities will clamp down on immigration. But I think it's fairly feasible that given so many less whites will be coming to Australia ITTL, they will continue to not be particularly choosy so long as someone speaks English and is Christian.

I'm not saying those factors will stop it totally or deter all black immigrants but that it is likely to make their numbers fairly insignificant because they will prefer the DSA or possibly the US.

I think the most likely happenstance would be a "sable" population in the range of 5% (assuming no barriers, but also no subsidies or settlement movements), but depending upon the course of Australian history, I could see as low as a 1%-2%, or as high as 15%-20%.

However if there are significant problems for the blacks in the DSA or simply the US starts to develop as rapidly as OTL then it will attract a lot of settlers and you have a group just over a fairly open border who have the same language and some aspects of a common culture. As such, unless the DSA expands enough to keep the bulk of it's population there could be a significant number until an increase in racism and/or legislation restricts it. [Which I agree reverses my initial argument as I was assuming a greater degree of hostility to setters from the DSA, especially those of a darker skin].

Then we're in broad agreement here.

 

[Sovereign12]

There has been talk in regards to the black people of the DSA and the USA, and basically a brief bit about the Native Americans. This made me wonder the USA's response to their native inhabitants. I would image that there actions toward the various tribes and nations would be pretty much the same as OTL. Which, if is the case, would they be welcomed in the western portion of the DSA? I know the Native Americans are doing fairly well in the DSA, especially compared to OTL.

 

[eschaton]

There has been talk in regards to the black people of the DSA and the USA, and basically a brief bit about the Native Americans. This made me wonder the USA's response to their native inhabitants. I would image that there actions toward the various tribes and nations would be pretty much the same as OTL. Which, if is the case, would they be welcomed in the western portion of the DSA? I know the Native Americans are doing fairly well in the DSA, especially compared to OTL.

The DSA draws fairly distinct lines between civilized tribes and the "uncivilized" ones to the west, so I don't think it would be a haven for Native Americans.

OTOH, relations between whites and native Americans in the USA are a bit better than IOTL. Part of that is because they're pushed North, not West. and less likely to be further displaced. IIRC, Glen has said that attitudes towards Indians are different in the USA too - the government expects them to live under their laws, and to allow white settlement, but doesn't particularly care about expelling them.

 

[Glen]

The Dominion of Southern America is now up against some pretty stiff competition in the Turtledove Best Timeline competition! Please dear readers, go and show your support for the DSA by voting for it in the poll!

Relevant links:

Best Timeline Poll Listings: Best Timeline Poll A----Best Timeline Poll B

 

[Glen]

There can be lords outside of London, they will have heavy influence in thier local area and state, and maybe even in Port Jackson

Okay, noted!

 

[DuQuense]

?I'm wondering about how the Blacks in DSA will affect British Colonies in Africa?

 

[Glen]

The Dominion of Southern America is now up against some pretty stiff competition in the Turtledove Best Timeline competition! Please dear readers, go and show your support for the DSA by voting for it in the poll!

Relevant links:

Best Timeline Poll Listings: Best Timeline Poll A----Best Timeline Poll B

DSA is holding in there, but we're 4 votes down from the front-runner! Vote, my dear viewers, vote like the wind!

 

[Glen]

Ok that place was named after this guy

Charles Pierre Claret, comte de Fleurieu (2 July 1738, Lyon – 18 August 1810) was a French explorer, hydrographer and politician. He was Minister of the Navy under Louis XVI, and a member of the Institut de France, as well as the brother of the botanist Marc Antoine Louis Claret de la Tourette.

Probably would see this naming of the peninsula after him butterflied away.

 

[Glen]

Ugh! I would think that by now they would know how destructive and prone to corruption this was. It saves some organisation but is very wasteful and didn't work for the Ottomans, the French or other nations that tried it.

Noted.

True but if the landlord is willing to help fund the emigration and/or do a lot of work in organising and managing the move. Provided you trust the landlord a bit [and despite myth there were a number of landowners who tried to improve the condition of their tenants] it gives the emigrant some security rather than having to try and manage everything themselves. Not saying it will be very common but might be a runner in some areas.

True enough, but that also would imply a difference in culture developing in the BSA/DSA versus British Australia. Immigrants to the DSA will be those who value independence and their own land (and where tenant farming will be seen as what blacks and 'coloreds' do), while immigrants to British Australia would value security and would look up to paternalistic upper class leaders. Of course, the original colonists to both areas may have different views than the newcomers.

I do have a concern with the idea of using such a system to help man the frontier with the French. Given much of that is very barren desert I suspect that other than near the coastline any border marking, let alone settlement, will be superficial.
Steve

That's a point. Of course, the same is the case on the other side of the border in the interior - it may only be needed to secure the border along the more attractive coasts.

Glen
Because at the time the largest expense was on defence and while colonists mobilised in war-time the vast majority of the imperial defence, both army and navy were paid by the London government. [After all we know what happened when Britain tried to get some colonists to pay part of their defence bill.].

Ha Ha

Hence there were problems getting the colonists to take a fuller share in the defence bill, both in terms of them being unwilling to pay more and in London being cautious about trying to force the issue.
Steve

Will take that bit under advisement. Good comments, Steve!

Don't forget that most governments had severe capacity and capability issues with regards to setting and collecting tax up until the 20th century.

Didn't know that.

The colonial governments were no exception to this and they also had the issue of often being both very new (and therefore doing these things for the first time) and being controlled by the rich and powerful. So it isn't surprising that they did not want to substantially increase their defence contributions in the 19th century.

Well, that depends on the government in question - some of them had some expertise potentially imported from the Mother Country.

I get the impression that their ability and will changed signficantly after the Second Boer War and Australia & NZ both put a lot more effort and resource into defence at that point.

And why is that?

Julius Vogel
I think you're right about increased spending from the dominions after the Boer war, although they still ran into problems such as the killing of the proposed Canadian dreadnoughts. However even for regional defence I think the dominions in the S Pacific were still paying less per head than the British people were contributing. [Could be wrong here but that's what I vaguely remember from reading in the past].
Partly of course this was habit in that the responsibility for defence was traditionally held by the metropolitan government plus after ~1814 and with the RN securing the seas the settlement colonies had no real external threat until the 20thC.
Steve

But here there are potential threats on their land borders (though perhaps not enough of them for a severe change).

You might well be right on the defence spending per head point - it sounds like it would be right.
However, I do think that this does make sense for quite a couple of reasons
1. The per capita income of the colonies was often less than the British equivalent

Is that so?

2. The really expensive items of Imperial defence - the battle fleet, was largely of use for Home Waters, the Med and E Asia, in that order. The colonies of SA, Australia and NZ would have no real interest in the former, so why should they pay extra for this? Their interest would be keeping the sea lanes open - so maintenance of the cruiser fleet and naval stations to Europe.

Another good point - the DSA would have some reason to have interest in bigger navies given their Caribbean possessions plus the USA at their borders, though Australia probably not any more than OTL.

Maybe Canada would have a real, near interest in paying for the battle fleet - although the western provinces not so much

Canada? There's been no such place since the French and Indian War....