Dominion of Southern America - Updated July 1, 2018

Falastur · Jul 23, 2010

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.

Plumber · Aug 3, 2010

Random act of bumpage. Anyways, good luck in whatever's going on Glen, I know that you'll return when you can.

Some random maps:

SRegan said:
Name: Dominion of Southern America
Creator: Glen
Current year: 1840
Notes: The official map, cleaned up and conventions tweaked to match other UCS maps on this thread. I really dislike the way Alaska looks here, but AFAIK there's not really any indication that the Russians are continuing to colonise whilst the official map shows USNA colonisation deep into OTL Alaskan territory. The Province of British Patagonia is shown as fully claimed following the dust-up with the UPSA, but still not entirely colonised as there's no indication that there has been massive migration to the region.

For randomness, I remember reading the rough draft of this timeline long ago (which itself branches into three different timelines) and recently rediscovered it:

Southern America Act of 1774

And to conclude, my own improved map:

amirtaheri · Aug 19, 2010

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

Few questions, which may spawn more questions...

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

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

tjvuse · Aug 19, 2010

10/10 for maps and time line

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

Plumber · Aug 19, 2010

Well the only thing about China so far is on page 38 I think... nothing particularly different came to mind, but it's been a while and I'm not China expert.

Tom Veil · Aug 19, 2010

Well, the lack of references to China is understandable. It's hard enough to keep a TL under control when there's just one continent to focus on; try to chronicle the whole world and you're liable to bite off more than you can chew. With big TLs like this, it's safe to assume that a "river" approach is being used for the parts of the world that get little coverage -- unless the change in course is obvious, history is going to flow in the same general direction.

Tom Veil · Aug 19, 2010

Incidentally, I should take the time to post a couple more of my notes while I still remember this TL well. First, here's the rough 2010 population in OTL of the nations/regions described. In other words, this is what the modern-day population would be if this TL had no effects on immigration patterns and growth rates ... which, of course, is not the case. So think of this as an anchor while you try to figure out what the grand sweep of those changes would be.

USA: 205 million
DSA minus Caribbean: 130
Caribbean: 40 (The Caribbean islands seem to be trending towards being a Dominion separate from the DSA)
Mexico: 145
Brazil: 95
Ex-Brazilian breakaways: 95
Granada: 90
UPSA: 90

I'm sure some of this is Glen's planning and some is serendipity, but I am very impressed at the parity and balance in the Alt-Americas. These are all nicely sized nations, and the possibility of one nation dominating another will depend far more on technology, economy, and culture than it will on sheer size.

Eurofed · Aug 19, 2010

Tom Veil said:
Incidentally, I should take the time to post a couple more of my notes while I still remember this TL well. First, here's the rough 2010 population in OTL of the nations/regions described. In other words, this is what the modern-day population would be if this TL had no effects on immigration patterns and growth rates ... which, of course, is not the case. So think of this as an anchor while you try to figure out what the grand sweep of those changes would be.

USA: 205 million

DSA minus Caribbean: 130

Caribbean: 40 (The Caribbean islands seem to be trending towards being a Dominion separate from the DSA)

Mexico: 145

Brazil: 95

Ex-Brazilian breakaways: 95

Granada: 90

UPSA: 90

I'm sure some of this is Glen's planning and some is serendipity, but I am very impressed at the parity and balance in the Alt-Americas. These are all nicely sized nations, and the possibility of one nation dominating another will depend far more on technology, economy, and culture than it will on sheer size.

As a matter of fact, IMO the political difficulties about merging the mainland DSA and the Caribbean islands seem merely temporary, lingering bad blood from the Slaver Rebellion that is bound to fade with time. The merger is in the best interest of Britain and the Dominions, and it would make the DSA better balanced against the USA and Mexico.

EvilSpaceAlien · Aug 22, 2010

I wonder if the butterflies from this timeline could find some way to have the Swedish-Norwegian union last.... That'd be sweet.

Dathi THorfinnsson · Sep 7, 2010

DuQuense said:
Originally Chinese, [you have the same OTL British involvement in China] with some Japanese after opening.
The British will allow more Asiatics, due to weaker Anti Asiatic restrictions. As the Brits are Southern California AND Baja, this is where the Japanese Fishermen will settle.

I don't know if this is covered later, but...

BC had the same kind of anti-Asiatic fever that California did.
And Australia's 'White Australia' policy is infamous.

How can you say a British run California would be much more open to Asiatics?

Dathi THorfinnsson · Sep 9, 2010

Re: sports
One reason that rugby is not very popular in Canada or the US is ... that it is (in a highly mutated form).

What we call Football over here (gridiron/US football/whatever) is a direct evolution of rugby. The immediate ancestor is actually Canadian - there were some Ivy League universities playing the game, and they invited McGill down. They were so taken with McGill's version, they adopted it, and that's what evolved into modern US (and Canadian) football.

My dad when I was growing up in the sixties insisted on calling 'Football' Rugby, as it wasn't 'football' (i.e. soccer). Of course, by then it had long since ceased being Rugby either, but then my dad is ... my dad.

Julius Vogel · Sep 9, 2010

In NZ rugby has long been referred to as "Rugby Football", or "football". Soccer has become more popular of late and is making a determined attempt to capture the label "football" for itself

Nugax · Sep 9, 2010

Eurofed said:
As a matter of fact, IMO the political difficulties about merging the mainland DSA and the Caribbean islands seem merely temporary, lingering bad blood from the Slaver Rebellion that is bound to fade with time. The merger is in the best interest of Britain and the Dominions, and it would make the DSA better balanced against the USA and Mexico.

Yeah but whilst there isn't much reason for them to not merge, there is little reason for them to do so - the islands will still have to be secured by the Royal Navy and they'll thus want an independent voice in Westminister, and the Mainland BSA is going to want its military expediture to be small and focused towards the North and Mexico.

Thus whilst it will almost certainly happen by the end of the 19th, it won't do so till BSA develops the industrial and commerical interests to make its independent hold over the Caribbean viable and Britain feels it has too much to do elsewhere and gives up some of the responsibility.

A British controlled canal across the isthmus will slow this process due to the increased naval and commerical reliance of the whole Empire.

thekingsguard · Sep 29, 2010

Being a proud Virginian, I am quite interested to see the effects of living in a border state will have on all parties involved.

fero · Nov 10, 2010

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

quebec absorbed, british caribe, british india, british autralia, british patagonia, british south africa, and we are just in 1840, I think in 1900 british russia and American china or maybe Australian dominio of indonesia

thekingsguard · Nov 20, 2010

ANy hope for an update someday?

Glen · Nov 28, 2010

Founding of the Dominion

The final Conference on Southern Federation occured in 1844. There was renewed interest in the federation after Texas came out in favor of the plan, and the only major colony in North America and the Caribbean to opt out was Hispaniola.

It was agreed to petition the Crown for the formation of a federation. Almost as hotly discussed as the points of federation was the proposed name for the federation. At first, many favored refering to the federation as a new Kingdom of Southern America under the British Crown, but it was quickly realized that this might antagonize the United States to their north as well as the British Parliament. Several descendants of United Empire Loyalists whose families originally hailed from Virginia (among them Generals Grymes and Randolph) countered with 'Dominion', calling the new federation the truly faithful 'Old Dominion' of America. And so the Dominion of Southern America was decided upon as the name for the federation.

The previous points of agreement from the 1843 conference were reiterated, and a few other points were added. The final document produced is considered by historians to be the true beginning of a Southern Constitution. The points included:

Restoration of civil rights for rebels who swore allegiance to the crown.
Representatives from all provinces to the federal legislature would be elected.
The rights of Aboriginal Americans to vote in Indiana would be preserved, but whites in the province would also be enfranchised.
No landowner or renter would be denied the right to vote.
Catholics would be enfranchised and allowed to hold public office in provinces where they were a majority such as Louisiana, Cuba, and Richport.
The Territories of New Mexico and California would remain under the jurisdiction of Texas until such time as they were populous enough to become full provinces.
The Minor Antilles would be under Dominion jurisdiction.
The British Government to commit to a trans-continental railroad to connect the Pacific Coast of California with the Dominion.

The final report was sent to the Crown and Parliament, and on June 20th, 1845, the Dominion of Southern America Act was passed and a new jewel was added to the British Crown.

The Founding Fathers of the Federation (sometimes irreverently refered to as the 'Daddies of Dominion') in alphabetical order by Province and Name:

Arkansas
Henry Johnson Conway
Thomas Rector Conway
Thomas Drew
John Hamilton Gray
Edward Palmer
Joseph Pope
Archibald Yell

Bahamas
Francis Bickerton
William Bucktrout
Mackenzie Hubard
Frank Jaram
Drake Watson

Bermuda
Toby Jaram
James Menzies
Edward Robinson
Michael Ross
Thomas Tarpley

Carleton
Neill Brown
James B. Campbell
Newton Cannon
Horatio Grymes
William Andrew Johnson
James Dean Jones
James Randolph
James Polk

Cuba
William Carter
Carlos Cepedes
Jose Heredia
Andrew Hill
Jonathan Jaram
John Thompson
Felix Varela

East Florida
James Anderson
Joseph Gray II
Thomas Heath Haviland Jr.
Donald Henley
George Mercer Johnson
Charles Maitland
James Middleton

Georgia
Edward Chandler
Howell Cobb Jr.
James Cockburn
George Rockingham Gilmer
Richard Gwatkin
John Hardcastle
George Wood

Indiana
David Evans
Greenwood Le Fleur
George Harkins
John McGillivray
William McIntosh III
John Ridge
John Ross
Buck Watie

Jamaica
J. W. Gordon
Ronald Hubard
Thomas S. Hunter
John Ritchie
Thomas Tilley
Joseph Williams

Louisiana
Paul Hebert
Andre Roman
Joseph Marshall Walker
Daniel McDougall
John Mowatt
Floyd Pitt
Samuel Levi Wells III

North Carolina
Edward Bishop Dudley
William Holden
John Howe Jr.
Reuben Settle Reid
Richard Dobbs Spaight, Jr.
George David Swain
Jonathan Worth
Robert Brank Vance

Richport
Primo Belvis
J. Philip Benjamin
Phineas Bland
James Carter
Juan P. Duarte

South Carolina
Seth Allan
Robert Brown
Alexander George Campbell
Benjamin Carey
Harold Corbin
Barnabas Drew Henegan
George McDuffie

Texas
Moses Austin Jr.
John Brown
Sam Carson
John Galt
Isaac Brock Hamilton
J. D. Henderson
Hugh Macdonald

West Florida
Benjamin Fitzpatrick
James Henderson
Joseph Hunter Johnson
Hugh Macdonald
Bruce Miller
George William Pitt
William Sharkey

Glen · Nov 28, 2010

Glen · Nov 28, 2010

Rubberduck3y6 said:
Does baseball get rained off though?

Rained off, in what sense?

I think it might have been in this thread that I read that the spread of rugby to Argentina has/had something to do with the large amount of British and Irish people who settled in Argentina.

Don't know if it was here, but there is a good chance of that ITTL certainly....

Glen · Nov 28, 2010

stevep said:
Ah but how many days does it take to play a game of baseball.

Just one, just one - even a double header!

I don't know enough about US football's history but again even the US south probably have more wealth and education levels than most of the colonial world. Thinking education is important in that a lot of rugby is learnt at schools and you need some such institutions to provide the material and training. Not something you can easily pick up the basics playing with a few mates on the local village green.

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

I was thinking why rugby it didn't take off in places like Indian and the Windies as cricket did.

Don't really know.

Could be simply that with news, wealth and travel abilities so much more widely spread its attracting interest in nations that were unfamiliar with it before and didn't have the facilities, material and social, to play it?

Could be. In any event, we will see how sport evolves over time.