Timeline 1828: A Southern-Less USA

How Is This TL So far on a Scale of 1-5

  • 1 - Alien Space Bats

    Votes: 1 2.6%
  • 2 - Generally Implausible

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 3 - Moderately Plausible

    Votes: 14 36.8%
  • 4- Generally Plausible

    Votes: 18 47.4%
  • 5- Very Plausible

    Votes: 5 13.2%

  • Total voters
    38
  • Poll closed .
I think the Charleston is a good place for a capital so I voted for S.C.

This is a bit a few decades from now in the TL but one of the first big waves to the US was in the 1840s IIRC. I could see most of the Germans to settle in the USA like otl and same for other exiles from other European nations. The Irish mostly went to the north in OTL but in ATL I could imagine that more would go to the south were the are more welcomed and were there might be more opportunities for them. But I'm not an expert on the subject so someone more knowledgeable then me should be able to answer that.

For the USA now that they have a less secure access to the Mississippi they would focus heavily on securing the great lakes and setting up cities around it. This might speed up the construction and importance of the Erie canal. But again I'm not 100% sure
 
I think the Charleston is a good place for a capital so I voted for S.C.

This is a bit a few decades from now in the TL but one of the first big waves to the US was in the 1840s IIRC. I could see most of the Germans to settle in the USA like otl and same for other exiles from other European nations. The Irish mostly went to the north in OTL but in ATL I could imagine that more would go to the south were the are more welcomed and were there might be more opportunities for them. But I'm not an expert on the subject so someone more knowledgeable then me should be able to answer that.

For the USA now that they have a less secure access to the Mississippi they would focus heavily on securing the great lakes and setting up cities around it. This might speed up the construction and importance of the Erie canal. But again I'm not 100% sure
1) Charleston was a good location for the capital when the SAC was founded but with the annexation of half of Kentucky and Virginia and the pushed Westward expansion and settlement away from the coast, that’s not going to be the case long term. Such a shift would not be unprecedented as IOTL, the USA bounced its capital back and forth between New York and Philadelphia until permanently settling in Washington DC as it was close to the US center of population of the time and away from the coast. Likewise, when the Upper South joined the Confederacy during the Civil War, its capital was moved from Montgomery, Alabama to Richmond, Virginia partly as a reflection in the change of population balance.

2) Most likely, most of the immigrants from Europe during the 1840s-1860s or so are going to enter North America via the Union but it won’t be as lopsided in favor of the North as OTL because the United States doesn’t have a major industrial advantage over the SoCon yet and will have less of an advantage from the 1840s and beyond. Of course, most who chose to enter via the South would likely go to Charleston, Savannah, New Orleans, or more industrialized places like Cumberland/North Carolina/Tennessee/Virginia.

3) They night have more restricted access to the Mississippi River but as long as the Federalists remain in control they are not going to care that much. The land west of the Mississippi River is mostly exploited for natural resources and getting them across the River, not down it.
 
This is another well-crafted non-Confederate independent South timeline behind only Oh I Wish I Was In Dixie and to an extent Jefferson's Anti-Slavery Crisis and Dominion of Southern America.

Of all the four incarnations of an independent non-Confederate States South, the Southern American Confederation (SAC) and the Federated States of Dixie (FSD) are the strongest in terms of states, economy and strength (The SAC has most of Virginia minus the western and northern parts, Cumberland/Southern half of Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma/Indian Territory and potentially Texas. The FSD has Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, South Carolina, Georgia, East Florida/Florida, West Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana). The Dominion of Southern America (DSA) is also on par with the United States of America (USA) though a level below the Southern American Confederation (SAC) and the Federated States of Dixie (FSD) (The DSA has North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, East Florida, West Florida, Tennessee/Carleton, Louisiana, Arkansas*, Texas, New Mexico and Albion/Southern California) while British Columbia is the weakest of the bunch since not only were their attempts at independence a failure but they're defeated alongside Britain in the Judgement War (TTL's World War I) (BC has North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana).

Speaking of which, will the Southern American Confederation (SAC) gain control of the rest of Louisiana, Texas and Florida given that they already have most of Louisiana (i.e. New Orleans), Arkansas and Oklahoma. How will slavery be abolished in the Southern American Confederation I expect it to be a gradual compensation process like most Western countries. What will the rest of the 19th century and 20th century be like anyway for Timeline 1828. What does the 21st century look like in Timeline 1828. What happens to the Pacific Northwest and Southwest are they conquered by the United States of America (USA) or controlled by Britain and Mexico respectively.
 
1) Charleston was a good location for the capital when the SAC was founded but with the annexation of half of Kentucky and Virginia and the pushed Westward expansion and settlement away from the coast, that’s not going to be the case long term. Such a shift would not be unprecedented as IOTL, the USA bounced its capital back and forth between New York and Philadelphia until permanently settling in Washington DC as it was close to the US center of population of the time and away from the coast. Likewise, when the Upper South joined the Confederacy during the Civil War, its capital was moved from Montgomery, Alabama to Richmond, Virginia partly as a reflection in the change of population balance.

2) Most likely, most of the immigrants from Europe during the 1840s-1860s or so are going to enter North America via the Union but it won’t be as lopsided in favor of the North as OTL because the United States doesn’t have a major industrial advantage over the SoCon yet and will have less of an advantage from the 1840s and beyond. Of course, most who chose to enter via the South would likely go to Charleston, Savannah, New Orleans, or more industrialized places like Cumberland/North Carolina/Tennessee/Virginia.

3) They night have more restricted access to the Mississippi River but as long as the Federalists remain in control they are not going to care that much. The land west of the Mississippi River is mostly exploited for natural resources and getting them across the River, not down it.
1. There isn't really a whole lot of other good choices to move the capital too at the moment. Richmond is too close to the border with the USA. Savannah is smaller. And New Orleans is only a territory still. I can't think or even find a big city in NC for this time period.

2. Ok so it wont be as lopsided as otl. The USA will have the advantage of industrialization and the fact that many liberals fleeing Europe at this time are not going to want to go the SAC or will they be wanted by the southern aristocracy. But without the USA industrial power this will force the SAC to develop it's own industry sooner and will draw more people too it. I think because of the closer cultural ties the Irish after the potato famine will be the most welcomed. Going forward the SAC might try to get as many Europeans to prevent slave uprising.

3. The USA might be worried about a renewed threat from the SAC going forward so again I think they might focus more about building up around the great lakes and to be fair the USA did build up a lot of industry around the great lakes after the civil war IIRC. But that's just me and I do get your point.

Overall this is a great timeline and I've really enjoyed reading.
 
This is another well-crafted non-Confederate independent South timeline behind only Oh I Wish I Was In Dixie and to an extent Jefferson's Anti-Slavery Crisis and Dominion of Southern America.

Of all the four incarnations of an independent non-Confederate States South, the Southern American Confederation (SAC) and the Federated States of Dixie (FSD) are the strongest in terms of states, economy and strength (The SAC has most of Virginia minus the western and northern parts, Cumberland/Southern half of Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma/Indian Territory and potentially Texas. The FSD has Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, South Carolina, Georgia, East Florida/Florida, West Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana). The Dominion of Southern America (DSA) is also on par with the United States of America (USA) though a level below the Southern American Confederation (SAC) and the Federated States of Dixie (FSD) (The DSA has North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, East Florida, West Florida, Tennessee/Carleton, Louisiana, Arkansas*, Texas, New Mexico and Albion/Southern California) while British Columbia is the weakest of the bunch since not only were their attempts at independence a failure but they're defeated alongside Britain in the Judgement War (TTL's World War I) (BC has North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana).
Thanks for the shout-out. I'm really liking this timeline as well, and I will consider exploring some of the others that you mentioned. I'm looking forward to new content here.
Related question: what does the 20th Century (early) look like in Timeline 1828?
 
I think that it would be better if the SAC decided that their capital should be more inland, somewhere around OTL SE Tennessee or Northern Alabama. That way, it would be somewhat protected by the mountains and by the Tennessee river as well..

Or somewhere like on the banks of the Mississippi

I know we have gone over the fact that there's no big city there, but we can create a DC like city. Until it is built, Richmond should be the provisional capital.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the shout-out. I'm really liking this timeline as well, and I will consider exploring some of the others that you mentioned. I'm looking forward to new content here.
Related question: what does the 20th Century (early) look like in Timeline 1828?
I'm honestly doing this as I go along, but in the early 20th century, both sides of the border are going to be more industrialized and race relations will more or less be like TL-191 before the outbreak of the First Great War. That's all I can give away.
 
I think that it would be better if the SAC decided that their capital should be more inland, somewhere around OTL SE Tennessee or Northern Alabama. That way, it would be somewhat protected by the mountains and by the Tennessee river as well..

Or somewhere like on the banks of the Mississippi

I know we have gone over the fact that there's no big city there, but we can create a DC like city. Until it is built, Richmond should be the provisional capital.
Oh, it's definitely moving inland to better reflect the changing balance of population, but it's going to stay East of the Appalachians for now because that's where the majority of the population is located. Charleston will remain a principal city, if not THE principal city, for several years and decades to come though.
 
Oh, it's definitely moving inland to better reflect the changing balance of population, but it's going to stay East of the Appalachians for now because that's where the majority of the population is located. Charleston will remain a principal city, if not THE principal city, for several years and decades to come though.
ah my bad, meant charleston. Richmond would be far too north I guess
 
Chapter Twenty-Two: The Other Nations of North America In 1808
Chapter Twenty-Two: The Other Nations of North America In 1808

Janaury 1, 1808 was when the bells rang across the Union, indicating the end of the Atlantic slave trade in the United States of America. Predictably, American citizens were celebrative, particularly Federalist New Englanders, while citizens in the Southern American Confederacy were enraged. This included New Orleans, which was split into three sections, and the French controlling two of those sections. The First Municipality included the French Quarter, from Canal to Esplanade Avenue. The Second Municipality began at Canal Street and went upriver past the current Pontchartrain Expressway. The Third Municipality stretched downriver from Esplande, through the Marigny towards today’s Bywater neighborhood. Each municipality had its own police force, schools, infrastructure, and services. In the First Municipality, English was the dominant language, while French prevailed in the other Two Municipalities.

In 1802, when the SAC gained access to New Orleans, the city had only about 8,000 people living in it. As previously discussed, the USA was allowed free navigation of the Mississippi River if it promised to stop impressing merchant vessels belonging to the SAC and continued neutrality throughout the Napoleonic Wars. The only exception to the rule would be when yearly revenue from the goods passing through the city and down the Mississippi River was calculated and a small fee was collected. One-third of this fee would go to the SAC and two-thirds to the French. This would be offset with not having to pay any passage fees. By 1815, the primary cargo transported along the Mississippi River was slaves, which was second in the SAC in terms of the highest amount of slave importations, only behind Charleston.

Up North laid British Canada. As part of the Treaty of Paris, signed on February 10, 1763, France renounced its claims to all its North American lands to Britain, including Canada. With Canada now part of the British Empire, it gained control of a population of 70,000 francophone Catholics. Although many Brits people (including the thirteen American colonies) hoped the French Canadians would assimilate, the Quebec Act (1774) allowed the French Canadians to retain their religion and their French system of civil law. On the other hand, Atlantic Canada was dominated by the British as early as 1710. In Acadia (present-day Nova Scotia and New Brunswick), the British expelled French-speaking populations in 1755 to Louisiana. The first immigration of Protestants happened in the province with the founding of Halifax in 1749. Cape Breton Island and Prince Edward Island were captured in the Seven Years War, later settled by New Englanders. Newfoundland was also under British influence before 1763.

During and after the American Revolution, tens of thousands of Loyalists fled the United States, mostly from the Southern states, with nearly 50,000 of them settling in Canada. By 1783, the year the Treaty of Paris was signed, 46,000 had settled in Canada, with 10,000 settling in Upper Canada (Ontario) and 36,000 in the Maritimes. The Maritimes in particular became susceptible to American accents and value. The waves of American immigrants continued, lured by promises of land if they swore a loyalty oath (which was usually nominal in most cases) to the King, mostly settling Upper Canada before the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815. As of 1812, 80,000 of 110,000 inhabitants in Ontario were American born or descendants of Americans. In the Maritimes 110,000 of 135,000 were Americans and their descendants. All of this inflow into Canada by both the USA and SAC would understandably stir the pot for future tensions.

At the conclusion of the American Revolution, the young republic hoped to use Indian lands to pay off its debt. In light of conflicts between Native Americans and white settlers, US Secretary of War Henry Knox developed a two-part policy in 1786. First, the United States would purchase Indian land, then the government would follow by “civilizing” them in which Natives would be instructed into white socioeconomic practices. Once the nation split in two in 1787, dealing with the Native Americans was important to both countries. In the North, treaties in the Northwest Territory recognized Indian land titles, but settlers continued streaming into Ohio, causing conflict and for the Delawares, Shawnees, Miamis, and Algonquians to achieve victories against the United States in 1790 and 1791.. In 1794, Anthony Wayne defeated the tribes at the Battle of Fallen Timbers, opening most of Ohio to white settlement. Afterward, the Federalists continued securing against Native claims by using treaties and military force to draw legal boundaries. The War Department began building trading factories whose cheap merchandise would lure Natives in the Northwest into commercial dependency, and agents offered Indian families agricultural equipment and training to reduce dependence on hunting and gathering.

Down South, things were both similar and different. Previously, the Cherokees, Chickasaws, Choctaws, and especially the Creeks were at the forefront of trading disputes as well as border disputes between states. Led by Alexander McGillivray, the Creeks and the SAC exchanged lands in return for attaching tribes to permanent land settlements and giving them domestic animals. Later, the Jeffersonian Democrats developed a more elaborate and expansive plan, known as the “Indian Civilization Program.” Jefferson suggested his agents encourage natives to buy goods on credit in order to fall into debt and sell their land to the government that way. The Shawnee of Tennessee and Cumberland were divided, with some settling along the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers to become farmers while others took up arms. Further South, the “Four Civilized Tribes” (Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Creek) accepted the program to the point of building towns and plantations and some holding black slaves. Other southern tribes remained skeptical of "civilization" and built up an anti-white resistance movement called the Red Sticks, breaking out in 1812.

1596222198327.png

A/N: Sorry once more about the lack of frequent updates. Started a new class three weeks ago with the midterm last week and the final exam next week. I just decided to squeeze this update in while I could.
 
Last edited:
Also, on a surprising note, it looks like Georgia won the poll at three-eighths of the votes. However, I'm not really sure if I should just pick that or eliminate the option with the least votes since it didn't get a majority. I may create a new poll with more specific cities and towns in mind as the new capital of the SoCon.
 
Also, on a surprising note, it looks like Georgia won the poll at three-eighths of the votes. However, I'm not really sure if I should just pick that or eliminate the option with the least votes since it didn't get a majority. I may create a new poll with more specific cities and towns in mind as the new capital of the SoCon.
By the way, what does the flag of the Southern American Confederation (SAC) look like?
 
As far as the capital of the SAC goes, I'm thinking of Spartanburg, South Carolina as a strong contender. It could also serve as a symbolic foil to the USA as Philadelphia means "brotherly love" whereas Spartanburg was named after the local militia named the Spartan Regiment from the American Revolution and could serve as a reflection of the SAC's increasingly militaristic, aggressive, and expansionist tendencies with time.
 
As far as the capital of the SAC goes, I'm thinking of Spartanburg, South Carolina as a strong contender. It could also serve as a symbolic foil to the USA as Philadelphia means "brotherly love" whereas Spartanburg was named after the local militia named the Spartan Regiment from the American Revolution and could serve as a reflection of the SAC's increasingly militaristic, aggressive, and expansionist tendencies with time.
I'd say you should go with Charleston, South Carolina given that it was where the Southern American Confederation (SAC) was founded. Given the industrialization and population changes that will affect the SAC throughout the 1800s, Richmond, Virginia might also take that role as well similar to OTL when it became capital of the Confederate States of America (CSA).
 
I'd say you should go with Charleston, South Carolina given that it was where the Southern American Confederation (SAC) was founded. Given the industrialization and population changes that will affect the SAC throughout the 1800s, Richmond, Virginia might also take that role as well similar to OTL when it became capital of the Confederate States of America (CSA).
Charleston is currently the capital. Because of the additions of Virginia, Cumberland, and Lower Louisiana plus increased settlement in the territories, Charleston is not going to remain a good fit forever because it’s immediately on the coast and doesn’t represent the increasingly northern and western shifts in population.
 
Top