Today's Dominion of Southern America

So, I want to talk about the Dominion of Southern America ( from Glenn's TL: Dominion of Southern America https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/dominion-of-southern-america-updated-july-1-2018.149643/ )

A map:

North America.png


Blue: United States of A
Red: Dominion/Commonwealth/Confederation of ( Southern ) America
Green: Mexico

Basicly, southern colonies remained loyal to the Crown during the American Revolution, while Quebec and Maritimes joined the rebels.

So, I would like to talk about such country, how would it look today.
 
Some basic informations:
Area: 2,3 mil. km2*
Population: 110 mil.
Capital city: Baton Rouge**

* Glenn decided that this country will have southern California, Arizona and New Mexico south of 36o30'. IMHO, that's too much, maybe New Mexico ( or even a Rio Grande border ), but southern California and Arizona is more likely to remain Mexican or even become American.

** Glenn decided that the capital would be Baton Rouge because of central location. I'm of opinion that it would be some place more eastern, like say Charleston or Savannah. What do you think?

*** Would they get Hawaii? Or Bermudas? Bahamas seem like a given, but I don't know would they manage to anglicise Cuba enough? Or maybe Cuba would be their "Quebec" ( separate culture, language, strong separatism )?

**** About 1/3 of population would be of African descent, mostly former slaves. So, race relations? Segregation? That's one of things Glenn IMHO too easily solved ( together with Slavers rebellion )

***** What would be their relations with the USofA and Mexico? With Britain? Obviously, having a dominion 3x as large as Canada could have big consequences for Britain in WW1 and WW2.

****** Would they economicly be al pari with OTL USA or Canada? OK, Texas has lot's of oil, but Southern states weren't really the most developed ( industrially ) part of the USA in OTL. King Cotton is important, but not so much today.

******* What would be their armed forces, Army, Navy, Air Force?

******** Would they change the name Dominion? In OTL, Canada did. So, maybe a Commonwealth or Confederation or Federation of ( Southern ) America?
 
Last edited:
Firstly, I think this is the wrong sub-forum since it involves a pre-1900 POD, it should be moved. Secondly, IMO it's kind of bad form to devote a whole thread to criticizing somebody's TL; a better option (again, just an opinion) would either be to pose these questions in the original thread OR write your own TL with differences from the source TL included. That all being said, my twopence below numbered to each point:

Some basic informations:
Area: 2,3 mil. km2*
Population: 110 mil.
Capital city: Baton Rouge**

1) Glenn decided that this country will have southern California, Arizona and New Mexico south of 36o30'. IMHO, that's too much, maybe New Mexico ( or even a Rio Grande border ), but southern California and Arizona is more likely to remain Mexican or even become American.

2) Glenn decided that the capital would be Baton Rouge because of central location. I'm of opinion that it would be some place more eastern, like say Charleston or Savannah. What do you think?

3) Would they get Hawaii? Or Bermudas? Bahamas seem like a given, but I don't know would they manage to anglicise Cuba enough? Or maybe Cuba would be their "Quebec" ( separate culture, language, strong separatism )?

4) About 1/3 of population would be of African descent, mostly former slaves. So, race relations? Segregation? That's one of things Glenn IMHO too easily solved ( together with Slavers rebellion )

5) What would be their relations with the USofA and Mexico? With Britain? Obviously, having a dominion 3x as large as Canada could have big consequences for Britain in WW1 and WW2.

6) Would they economically be on par with OTL USA or Canada? OK, Texas has lot's of oil, but Southern states weren't really the most developed ( industrially ) part of the USA in OTL. King Cotton is important, but not so much today.

7) What would be their armed forces, Army, Navy, Air Force?

8) Would they change the name Dominion? In OTL, Canada did. So, maybe a Commonwealth or Confederation or Federation of ( Southern ) America?
1)
BoXUpyeCQAA2WhY.jpg


2) Baton Rouge works just fine, THIS post outlines the rationale behind why that ended up being the capital of the Southron dominion. While I agree that at least one of the eastern cities would remain important up to present day, the fact that Charleston and Savannah were in the heart of rebel territory during the Rebellion probably makes putting the capital there less than ideal anyway.

3) @Glen himself outlined that very relationship in THIS post to a certain degree; to wit, Cuba is indeed a close analogue for OTL Quebec (along with Hispaniola). Hawaii probably isn't in the cards for the dominion to hold, too far away and outside its socio-economic sphere. Either Britain or the U.S. might probably get it off-hand, but certainly not the dominion.

4) While it was somewhat hand-waved, the notion that racism is gone in the OG Dominion-verse isn't really accurate. It just takes on a different nuance that in reality existed during the OTL Antebellum period, only without hardline legislation enforcing segregation. One could argue that inclusion of the bulk of the Caribbean would be a mitigating factor on top of that.

5) With the U.S., probably similar to that of OTL Canada; semi-hostility giving way to trading and cross-border partnerships. Their relations with Mexico would probably be strained for a while for the same reasons as with OTL America over Texas and parts west. As for the relationship with Britain, a part of why "dominions" were founded were a recognition of not just responsible self-government, but a way to semi-detach colonies that had grown to match the Home Country in demographics (and thus influence policy) so no real change here.

6) Probably somewhere in between the USA and Canada. It's more rural than the former, but more populous and resource-rich in many ways than the latter. Plus, continued British investment specifically on the South (which didn't happen in OTL for obvious reasons) plus post-industrial developments as we've seen in OTL will probably have a positive effect on the dominion by modern day.

7)….yeah, why wouldn't it be that way?

8) I do think "Southron America" is a bit too vague for a dominion name too. I'd personally go with "Carolina" and rename the rebellious states/provinces back east a la Upper/Lower Canada in OTL. What leads me down that mindset is this map of the colonial Carolina Charter, which looks surprisingly like the end-state of the continental Dominion;

charter of carolina.jpg
 
Firstly, I think this is the wrong sub-forum since it involves a pre-1900 POD, it should be moved. Secondly, IMO it's kind of bad form to devote a whole thread to criticizing somebody's TL; a better option (again, just an opinion) would either be to pose these questions in the original thread OR write your own TL with differences from the source TL included. That all being said, my twopence below numbered to each point:

I'm not criticising it. It's a great TL. If I have some difference of opinion, that's not criticising. Not saying it's bad. Just the opposite.
And yes, I could do that, make a separate thread, but I wanted to credit Glenn, because somebody could say that I'm copy-ing his TL.
OK, if moderators wnat to move it to pre-1900, they are free to do that, but I put it here because I want to talk about that Dominion today.
 
Firstly, I think this is the wrong sub-forum since it involves a pre-1900 POD, it should be moved. Secondly, IMO it's kind of bad form to devote a whole thread to criticizing somebody's TL; a better option (again, just an opinion) would either be to pose these questions in the original thread OR write your own TL with differences from the source TL included. That all being said, my twopence below numbered to each point:



1)


2) Baton Rouge works just fine, THIS post outlines the rationale behind why that ended up being the capital of the Southron dominion. While I agree that at least one of the eastern cities would remain important up to present day, the fact that Charleston and Savannah were in the heart of rebel territory during the Rebellion probably makes putting the capital there less than ideal anyway.

3) @Glen himself outlined that very relationship in THIS post to a certain degree; to wit, Cuba is indeed a close analogue for OTL Quebec (along with Hispaniola). Hawaii probably isn't in the cards for the dominion to hold, too far away and outside its socio-economic sphere. Either Britain or the U.S. might probably get it off-hand, but certainly not the dominion.

4) While it was somewhat hand-waved, the notion that racism is gone in the OG Dominion-verse isn't really accurate. It just takes on a different nuance that in reality existed during the OTL Antebellum period, only without hardline legislation enforcing segregation. One could argue that inclusion of the bulk of the Caribbean would be a mitigating factor on top of that.

5) With the U.S., probably similar to that of OTL Canada; semi-hostility giving way to trading and cross-border partnerships. Their relations with Mexico would probably be strained for a while for the same reasons as with OTL America over Texas and parts west. As for the relationship with Britain, a part of why "dominions" were founded were a recognition of not just responsible self-government, but a way to semi-detach colonies that had grown to match the Home Country in demographics (and thus influence policy) so no real change here.

6) Probably somewhere in between the USA and Canada. It's more rural than the former, but more populous and resource-rich in many ways than the latter. Plus, continued British investment specifically on the South (which didn't happen in OTL for obvious reasons) plus post-industrial developments as we've seen in OTL will probably have a positive effect on the dominion by modern day.

7)….yeah, why wouldn't it be that way?

8) I do think "Southron America" is a bit too vague for a dominion name too. I'd personally go with "Carolina" and rename the rebellious states/provinces back east a la Upper/Lower Canada in OTL. What leads me down that mindset is this map of the colonial Carolina Charter, which looks surprisingly like the end-state of the continental Dominion;

View attachment 517662
1) Of course it's my opinion. Not saying it's impossible. Just that I'm not sure how willing would Britain be to go for conflict with Mexico about some deserts far far away. Or that Mexico would be so willing to agree to give up everything Texans want. Texans did win, but they didn't occupy Mexico City, nor they were able to do so. No reason why would Mexico give them anything more than OTL Texas ( maaaybe up to Rio Grande ).

2) Baton Rouge works excellently in regards to the central location. No doubt. OTOH, I think that whatever you want to say about role of charleston/Savannah in Slavers revolt pretty much the same could be said about Baton Rouge. But never mind.

3) About Hawaii, yes, it's possible to this way or another. I was thinking more about simply putting various British colonies/provinces in relative vicinity together. But yes, it can goboth ways. Even independent or British protectorate.

4) About Caribbean, I'm not so sure ( if the population of said colonies is asked anything about that ) that either Southrons or Portoricans/Richports, Hispaniolans or jamaicans would want that these areas become a part of Dominion. Southrons because that will increase the number of black population in Dominion, caribeans because Southrons aren't really friendly. Who would like to be a part of "semi-segregated" country?

5) Agreed.

6) I wanted to ask,how would they look? Simple Canada x3 or? Nuclear weapons? Aircraft carriers and expeditionary navy or just like Canada keeping the N. Atlantic safe from Soviet subs? Etc. for other services. Own, domestic aircraft indutry or just buying British products? More British or US weapons? Etc.

7) More resource rich than Canada? How so? Except for the climate?

8) Carolina sounds nice, but wouldn't Georgia, Florida and others object?
 
Last edited:
I liked this timeline. I think Carolina would make a pretty good name for the Dominion and think it's perfectly reasonable for it to stretch from coast to coast, given the focus in the timeline on a uniform and continuous border between the US and the Dominion. I'd agree with the above that relations between the Dominion and the US would be better than the ones with Mexico, and think that even if there's not legal segregation there will still be a good deal of ethnic prejudice that's tacitly ignored by the government at least for much of the twentieth century. What would really interest me about the modern day of the timeline would be the existence of neo-Malthusian groups, especially as climate change begins to have increasingly serious effects going forward.
 
I liked this timeline. I think Carolina would make a pretty good name for the Dominion and think it's perfectly reasonable for it to stretch from coast to coast, given the focus in the timeline on a uniform and continuous border between the US and the Dominion. I'd agree with the above that relations between the Dominion and the US would be better than the ones with Mexico, and think that even if there's not legal segregation there will still be a good deal of ethnic prejudice that's tacitly ignored by the government at least for much of the twentieth century. What would really interest me about the modern day of the timeline would be the existence of neo-Malthusian groups, especially as climate change begins to have increasingly serious effects going forward.
I agree that Carolina is a nice name.
I'm not saying it's impossible to have coast to coast Dominion, just that I think that the USA would prefer Mexican controlled California (at least) than British controlled one.
 
One of reasons I think so is that if the border in California goes at 36o30', that would put the British too close to San Francisco Bay ( Monterrey would belong to the British ), the best natural harbour in West Coast and one with easiest acess by railway.
Also, better to have weak Mexico controlling half of California ( you can allways snatch it away from them later ) than strong British Empire.
 
I agree that Carolina is a nice name.
I'm not saying it's impossible to have coast to coast Dominion, just that I think that the USA would prefer Mexican controlled California (at least) than British controlled one.
On the other hand, there is some historical background for name Carolina, because Georgia and part of Florida were both parts of Carolina. So, yes, makes sense. now, would that be acceptable in early or mid-1800s, don't know. Maybe name it Carolinas. Say, Dominion or Commonwealth of Carolinas?
Or even maybe Carolana? As the oldest name there.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/A_Map_of_Carolana_and_of_the_River_Meschacebe_&c_(NYPL_b14917380-434393).jpg/1024px-A_Map_of_Carolana_and_of_the_River_Meschacebe_&c_(NYPL_b14917380-434393).jpg

 
Last edited:
I wonder would something like NORAD have existed ITTL? On one hand, it means such close coperation and confidence between two countries to do so. Maybe with "Carolina" 3x as big as Canada ( population/economy ), the USA wouldn't feel so comfortable? On the other hand, I doubt that Soviet bombers could attack the USA by using "Carolinian" air space because of range?
 
About Royal Carolinian Air Force, I presume that in WW2 they will mostly use British aircrafts, probably built under licence. But, what after that?
Will they continue with British designs or try to build it's own aircrafts? In OTL they had Canuck. Let's say they do that ITTL also. But after that, they bought US designs- F-101 Vodoo and F-104. Ok, that has maybe more with lack of good British aircrafts after mid-50s. OTOH, they worked on Avro Arrow, heavy interceptor. I don't think that Carolina will need something like that. So, maybe they try to build something more conventional, lighter supersonic fighter. Maybe something like French Mirage III.
On the third hand, with this larger and richer "Canada", ready to shoulder big part of cost, the UK tries to build something like that, in partnership with Carolina?
 
In OTL, Canada had one of the best MPA aircrafts- CP-107 Argus.

CL-107 Argus

Based on Bristol Britannia. Being based on British aircraft and modified by Canadian company, I wonder, maybe in this TL even UK gets ( maybe improved version ) of CP-107 Argus? Maybe later some modernised version of Argus, with better engines and speed comparable to say Orions? So no Orions/Aurora in Canadian/Carolinian service?

Also, maybe Avro C-102 Jetliner ITTL has better fate?

Avro C-102 Jetliner

Canada also had Orenda Engines, company that produced aircraft engines:


SO, Canada definitly had many ingredients fro sucessful aircraft industry. I think that Carolina, 3x larger population and economy, should have even more.
 
About Royal Carolinian Navy, I think that they would finish the WW2 with at least two Colossus/Majestic light aircraft carriers. But, considering their limitations, I think that they would want something larger relativly soon. So, maybe they buy one or two Essex class carriers from the US (would the USN be willing to sell them in late 50s?). Or, if not, maybe they partner with the UK to build one or two CVA class carriers, in late 60s/early 70s? Might that be enough for the UK not to cancel them?
 
1) Of course it's my opinion. Not saying it's impossible. Just that I'm not sure how willing would Britain be to go for conflict with Mexico about some deserts far far away. Or that Mexico would be so willing to agree to give up everything Texans want. Texans did win, but they didn't occupy Mexico City, nor they were able to do so. No reason why would Mexico give them anything more than OTL Texas ( maaaybe up to Rio Grande ).

2) Baton Rouge works excellently in regards to the central location. No doubt. OTOH, I think that whatever you want to say about role of charleston/Savannah in Slavers revolt pretty much the same could be said about Baton Rouge. But never mind.

3) About Hawaii, yes, it's possible to this way or another. I was thinking more about simply putting various British colonies/provinces in relative vicinity together. But yes, it can goboth ways. Even independent or British protectorate.

4) About Caribbean, I'm not so sure ( if the population of said colonies is asked anything about that ) that either Southrons or Portoricans/Richports, Hispaniolans or jamaicans would want that these areas become a part of Dominion. Southrons because that will increase the number of black population in Dominion, caribeans because Southrons aren't really friendly. Who would like to be a part of "semi-segregated" country?

5) Agreed.

6) I wanted to ask,how would they look? Simple Canada x3 or? Nuclear weapons? Aircraft carriers and expeditionary navy or just like Canada keeping the N. Atlantic safe from Soviet subs? Etc. for other services. Own, domestic aircraft indutry or just buying British products? More British or US weapons? Etc.

7) More resource rich than Canada? How so? Except for the climate?

8) Carolina sounds nice, but wouldn't Georgia, Florida and others object?
1) The reason why the SW ended up in the DSA in-TL has to do with Texas going independent from Mexico and establishing its own republic (while owning said New Mexico-SoCal bits in the process, see here). When Texas got rolled into Southern America by the end of the Slaver Revolt, those western parts came along for the ride, since there's no reason to just give them back to Mexico without compensation at that point. And keep in mind, Mexico in-TL had no say in whether Texas could have NM-SC or not, they had several secessionist movements to deal with at the same time (including the Yucatan and all points south). At that point, those territories taken by Texas were no longer Mexico's to give in any meaningful, practical, enforceable way.

2) Not really, Baton Rouge was tiny compared to Charleston/Savannah during the early 19th Century, and thus had less demographic sway on political events than the latter two (not to mention that the TL, AGAIN, addresses this by indicating how Loyalist sentiment got stronger the further west AND inland you got, which puts Baton Rouge further from Confederationist safe-territory than you'd think).

3) Or American....after all, it was New England Yankees that filibuster'd the place in OTL, no reason why that couldn't/wouldn't also happen here either (especially if the rest of the Americas' resources are seen as off-limits due to the British/DSA standing in the way).

4) Why would the DSA care if the black population increases? This is well before the advent of Jim Crow (which in many respects was a unique by-product of the Reconstruction period of OTL, which wouldn't exist as we know it in TTL) in terms of encouraging African-descended people to leave, and the arrival of non-slave Indian labor means a different "other" with an alien culture arriving as part of the work-force, unlike Black Southerners which by that point are a known factor in the region. Why would the Caribbean see the mainland DSA as unfriendly, if the money flows just as it had before (and in OTL, Britain's brief control of Cuba after the Seven Years' War saw an uptick in economic health vice the stranglehold that Spain favored by that point in time, any reason why this wouldn't also happen under more permanent conditions is counter-indicated)? And just because there's still a flavor of racism in the DSA doesn't mean segregation exists either (which I REITERATE was a by-product of the immediate post-Civil War in OTL, and the Slaver Revolt is actually quite different in many important respects from that conflict, so that analogy as an indicator of follow-on events doesn't work).

5) Quite.

6) That's a lot of high-detail speculation that doesn't have a lot of context supporting it, to be frank. That being said, using Canada as a baseline and then extrapolating relative assets using the increase in manpower, GDP, resources, etc. seems like a safe enough process. Knowing what we do about the Global and Population Wars helps form a few formative principles;
- The establishment of a standing army using the Permanent Militia as a basis, which means a robust active-reserve dichotomy like OTL Canada. Doctrine likely based around mechanization (though perhaps lacking in dedicated heavy armor units, due to the next point) and use of long-range raiding tactics due to the cavalry tradition in the OTL South/Southwest and use of irregular forces during the Slaver Revolt by both sides, and against Mexico during the Global War.
- Construction and crewing of anti-torpedo boat ships (aka destroyers) + ongoing trade and transportation to Britain during the Population War means a probable green-water navy instead of a brown- or blue-water one. Thus, no supercarriers, but a possible amphibious capability and a decent surface fleet. Stronger than the RCN, weaker than the USN, close equivalent to the Australians or Dutch by modern day at a guess.
- Absolutely no clue about the Air Force, but considering the course of the Population War we can reasonably expect there to be no bomber community, probably a focus on transportation, patrol, and battlefield air superiority/CAS. Equipping aircraft would probably be a mix of British, American, and domestic (again, using OTL as a basis).

7) Most of Canada is tundra and taiga with huge variances in annual climatic conditions; that severely limits its ability to extract minerals and agriculture from a huge bulk of its territory (to be fair, that gets better as technology improves, but does stunt initial growth potential). The DSA doesn't have that problem at all, the majority of its territory is accessible due to more conducive climate (especially since air conditioning isn't as big an expenditure as dealing with a quasi-arctic climate for much of the year, let alone the wear and tear of the geologic makeup of northern Canada on drilling equipment and the like vice the SE/SW of North America). And that's leaving out the agricultural component of both the continent and the Caribbean islands, which makes a HUGE proportion of British cash-crop potential. And a bigger population means a larger work-force.

8) Perhaps, but it's entirely up to Britain to listen or not. And I'm not sure they'd give a whiff about what the ex-rebels have to say about the matter. Using "Carolina" as a title at least has historical precedent backing it up, whereas Georgia/Florida/whoever doesn't have that extra credibility as far as titles go.

And speaking for myself, it's less that this isn't interesting as a discussion (I've wondered some of these things myself), and more that it's a lot of speculation from a "blank sheet" without the OP's input, which makes it a rather moot discussion.
 
1) The reason why the SW ended up in the DSA in-TL has to do with Texas going independent from Mexico and establishing its own republic (while owning said New Mexico-SoCal bits in the process, see here). When Texas got rolled into Southern America by the end of the Slaver Revolt, those western parts came along for the ride, since there's no reason to just give them back to Mexico without compensation at that point. And keep in mind, Mexico in-TL had no say in whether Texas could have NM-SC or not, they had several secessionist movements to deal with at the same time (including the Yucatan and all points south). At that point, those territories taken by Texas were no longer Mexico's to give in any meaningful, practical, enforceable way.

2) Not really, Baton Rouge was tiny compared to Charleston/Savannah during the early 19th Century, and thus had less demographic sway on political events than the latter two (not to mention that the TL, AGAIN, addresses this by indicating how Loyalist sentiment got stronger the further west AND inland you got, which puts Baton Rouge further from Confederationist safe-territory than you'd think).

3) Or American....after all, it was New England Yankees that filibuster'd the place in OTL, no reason why that couldn't/wouldn't also happen here either (especially if the rest of the Americas' resources are seen as off-limits due to the British/DSA standing in the way).

4) Why would the DSA care if the black population increases? This is well before the advent of Jim Crow (which in many respects was a unique by-product of the Reconstruction period of OTL, which wouldn't exist as we know it in TTL) in terms of encouraging African-descended people to leave, and the arrival of non-slave Indian labor means a different "other" with an alien culture arriving as part of the work-force, unlike Black Southerners which by that point are a known factor in the region. Why would the Caribbean see the mainland DSA as unfriendly, if the money flows just as it had before (and in OTL, Britain's brief control of Cuba after the Seven Years' War saw an uptick in economic health vice the stranglehold that Spain favored by that point in time, any reason why this wouldn't also happen under more permanent conditions is counter-indicated)? And just because there's still a flavor of racism in the DSA doesn't mean segregation exists either (which I REITERATE was a by-product of the immediate post-Civil War in OTL, and the Slaver Revolt is actually quite different in many important respects from that conflict, so that analogy as an indicator of follow-on events doesn't work).

5) Quite.

6) That's a lot of high-detail speculation that doesn't have a lot of context supporting it, to be frank. That being said, using Canada as a baseline and then extrapolating relative assets using the increase in manpower, GDP, resources, etc. seems like a safe enough process. Knowing what we do about the Global and Population Wars helps form a few formative principles;
- The establishment of a standing army using the Permanent Militia as a basis, which means a robust active-reserve dichotomy like OTL Canada. Doctrine likely based around mechanization (though perhaps lacking in dedicated heavy armor units, due to the next point) and use of long-range raiding tactics due to the cavalry tradition in the OTL South/Southwest and use of irregular forces during the Slaver Revolt by both sides, and against Mexico during the Global War.
- Construction and crewing of anti-torpedo boat ships (aka destroyers) + ongoing trade and transportation to Britain during the Population War means a probable green-water navy instead of a brown- or blue-water one. Thus, no supercarriers, but a possible amphibious capability and a decent surface fleet. Stronger than the RCN, weaker than the USN, close equivalent to the Australians or Dutch by modern day at a guess.
- Absolutely no clue about the Air Force, but considering the course of the Population War we can reasonably expect there to be no bomber community, probably a focus on transportation, patrol, and battlefield air superiority/CAS. Equipping aircraft would probably be a mix of British, American, and domestic (again, using OTL as a basis).

7) Most of Canada is tundra and taiga with huge variances in annual climatic conditions; that severely limits its ability to extract minerals and agriculture from a huge bulk of its territory (to be fair, that gets better as technology improves, but does stunt initial growth potential). The DSA doesn't have that problem at all, the majority of its territory is accessible due to more conducive climate (especially since air conditioning isn't as big an expenditure as dealing with a quasi-arctic climate for much of the year, let alone the wear and tear of the geologic makeup of northern Canada on drilling equipment and the like vice the SE/SW of North America). And that's leaving out the agricultural component of both the continent and the Caribbean islands, which makes a HUGE proportion of British cash-crop potential. And a bigger population means a larger work-force.

8) Perhaps, but it's entirely up to Britain to listen or not. And I'm not sure they'd give a whiff about what the ex-rebels have to say about the matter. Using "Carolina" as a title at least has historical precedent backing it up, whereas Georgia/Florida/whoever doesn't have that extra credibility as far as titles go.

And speaking for myself, it's less that this isn't interesting as a discussion (I've wondered some of these things myself), and more that it's a lot of speculation from a "blank sheet" without the OP's input, which makes it a rather moot discussion.
1) OK, agreed. But, OTOH, also no reason why Mexico would agree on such Texan claims. After all, it isn't very likely that Texans can really force Mexico to accept that. Especially not until Texas becomes a part of the DSA. Defeating small Mexican force in Texas, yes, Texans can do that. But taking the CdM and dictating the terms to president of Mexico, I don't think so. At the very least, not without some big monetary compensation. Also, I think that Texans in any negotiations with Mexico would rather have all the land until Rio Grande and sacrifice California and other far away lands.

2) and others. I have no time now to write, so tomorrow.
 
2) Not really, Baton Rouge was tiny compared to Charleston/Savannah during the early 19th Century, and thus had less demographic sway on political events than the latter two (not to mention that the TL, AGAIN, addresses this by indicating how Loyalist sentiment got stronger the further west AND inland you got, which puts Baton Rouge further from Confederationist safe-territory than you'd think).

3) Or American....after all, it was New England Yankees that filibuster'd the place in OTL, no reason why that couldn't/wouldn't also happen here either (especially if the rest of the Americas' resources are seen as off-limits due to the British/DSA standing in the way).

4) Why would the DSA care if the black population increases? This is well before the advent of Jim Crow (which in many respects was a unique by-product of the Reconstruction period of OTL, which wouldn't exist as we know it in TTL) in terms of encouraging African-descended people to leave, and the arrival of non-slave Indian labor means a different "other" with an alien culture arriving as part of the work-force, unlike Black Southerners which by that point are a known factor in the region. Why would the Caribbean see the mainland DSA as unfriendly, if the money flows just as it had before (and in OTL, Britain's brief control of Cuba after the Seven Years' War saw an uptick in economic health vice the stranglehold that Spain favored by that point in time, any reason why this wouldn't also happen under more permanent conditions is counter-indicated)? And just because there's still a flavor of racism in the DSA doesn't mean segregation exists either (which I REITERATE was a by-product of the immediate post-Civil War in OTL, and the Slaver Revolt is actually quite different in many important respects from that conflict, so that analogy as an indicator of follow-on events doesn't work).

5) Quite.

6) That's a lot of high-detail speculation that doesn't have a lot of context supporting it, to be frank. That being said, using Canada as a baseline and then extrapolating relative assets using the increase in manpower, GDP, resources, etc. seems like a safe enough process. Knowing what we do about the Global and Population Wars helps form a few formative principles;
- The establishment of a standing army using the Permanent Militia as a basis, which means a robust active-reserve dichotomy like OTL Canada. Doctrine likely based around mechanization (though perhaps lacking in dedicated heavy armor units, due to the next point) and use of long-range raiding tactics due to the cavalry tradition in the OTL South/Southwest and use of irregular forces during the Slaver Revolt by both sides, and against Mexico during the Global War.
- Construction and crewing of anti-torpedo boat ships (aka destroyers) + ongoing trade and transportation to Britain during the Population War means a probable green-water navy instead of a brown- or blue-water one. Thus, no supercarriers, but a possible amphibious capability and a decent surface fleet. Stronger than the RCN, weaker than the USN, close equivalent to the Australians or Dutch by modern day at a guess.
- Absolutely no clue about the Air Force, but considering the course of the Population War we can reasonably expect there to be no bomber community, probably a focus on transportation, patrol, and battlefield air superiority/CAS. Equipping aircraft would probably be a mix of British, American, and domestic (again, using OTL as a basis).

7) Most of Canada is tundra and taiga with huge variances in annual climatic conditions; that severely limits its ability to extract minerals and agriculture from a huge bulk of its territory (to be fair, that gets better as technology improves, but does stunt initial growth potential). The DSA doesn't have that problem at all, the majority of its territory is accessible due to more conducive climate (especially since air conditioning isn't as big an expenditure as dealing with a quasi-arctic climate for much of the year, let alone the wear and tear of the geologic makeup of northern Canada on drilling equipment and the like vice the SE/SW of North America). And that's leaving out the agricultural component of both the continent and the Caribbean islands, which makes a HUGE proportion of British cash-crop potential. And a bigger population means a larger work-force.

8) Perhaps, but it's entirely up to Britain to listen or not. And I'm not sure they'd give a whiff about what the ex-rebels have to say about the matter. Using "Carolina" as a title at least has historical precedent backing it up, whereas Georgia/Florida/whoever doesn't have that extra credibility as far as titles go.

And speaking for myself, it's less that this isn't interesting as a discussion (I've wondered some of these things myself), and more that it's a lot of speculation from a "blank sheet" without the OP's input, which makes it a rather moot discussion.
2) OK, now I see that I have mistaken about the Baton Rouge. Actually, I think that it may have the same destiny as in OTL Civil War. Together with New Orleans. Kept ( or taken early ) by the Unionists. So it makes sense.

3) Yes, I agree that Hawaii might easily become an American colony.

4) One of the things I consider pretty overlooked in this TL is the Slavers rebellion and it's consequences. Because, yes, it lasted a year or two ( so less than OTL Civil War- a big assumption IMHO- it took allmost 4 years to defeat OTL South, with USA just over the border with lot's of manpower and railways- OK, here they don't have the Virginia- with USA having not 100 other imperial commitments like Britain. Also, the South here is able to pretty easily smuggle goods trough the USA ). But on the other hand lots of white population there joined the rebellion ( now, numbers are hard to say, but I would say at least 50-60% of white population ). Lots of them died and had their property ( slaves or houses or crops etc. ) destroyed by the Unionists. Such things will not go away so quickly. I know that. I live in a country where war finished 25 years ago.
In OTL, an entire generation was necesarry to just somewhat change that animosity towards North. And that's generation where Reconstruction failed ( or never even started in reality ). With lot's of these Confederates blaming the black population for everything that happened to them. Loss of their former status, wealth etc.

Now, after the rebellion, we could say that the situation is similar with OTL Reconstruction. But, you have at least 50% of white population ( and like it or not, they were the foundation of Southron society ) hostile to the Britain or black population. And BTW, it's a large black population, about 1/3+. Plus the Indians. Don't know the numbers, but 5-10% at least. So, the white population will feel jeopardised- because before they had the whole power there, and now, they should share it with Black and Indian population. Many people, even the Loyalists will think that they fought to abolish slavery, but not to share power with fheir former slaves or Indians.
So, I think that some sort of compromise will be necesarry. Because I doubt that Britain is either willing or able to keep the South occupied for decades. Or risk another rebellion every few years. Some sort of compromise with defeated population, like in OTL South Africa after the Boer wars, will happen. And that would basicly mean, Jim Crow laws. Yes, some things like lynchings and KKK might be stomped ( maybe ), but I seriously doubt that they will allow that all black population has the suffrage. Maybe the educated ones, with literacy tests etc.- but real universal suffrage- IMHO no.
So yes, I do think that either the DSA will want the numbers of black population as low as possible, so no Haiti or Jamaica etc. Or on the other hand, Britain will probably try to placate thm by not having these areas there. And black population of these islands will probably not like too much to be under Southrons either. Britain will be much preffered by them.
An idea: could the Black population from the Carolina go into Cuba, Haiti and other Carribiean colonies? As some sort of British Liberia?

Now, of course, you might say that the britain will side with loyalists and Black and Indian population against the rebels until they see the error of their wys, but why? It didn't in OTL in South Africa. Racism was the thing not only in the South or South Africa, but in Britain at the time too. Maybe not slave-holding racism, but the racism non the less. It took the WW2 and Cold War to get rid of it.

6) About their armed forces, I'm not so sure that if they had the population of 100+ millions- they will not want that their armed forces show that. Also, Britain will probably ask them to pull their fair share of burdern of Imperial defence.

7) OK, but Canada is immensly mineral richer than Carolina. Yes, Carolina has really lots of oil and gas, and that's important. They do have copper, coal, bauxite, uranium, zync, tin etc. But Canada has much more. Also, Canada has well educated population. Not 1/3 of population at least semi-segregated and poorly educated. And that will be big problem.

8) OK, I agree that Carolina is good and even probable name.
 
Last edited:
Top