Dominion of Southern America - Updated July 1, 2018

[Nivek]

Nivek

Other than the divided Italy I suspect Eurofed might be quite happy with that TL as he has a preference for mega-states spanning continents. We only have one thing in common, in that we both believe Britain was very important, possibly vital in preventing Europe suffering that fate. I think its the main reason why he hates Britain so and is glad to see us conquered or degraded. Conversely its another reason why I love my country.

There may be a degree of racism in his world view. Or it could be that in his desire for such states he has a distinct dislike for democracy and people governing themselves. He prefers a US that conquers all of N America and often a lot of the south. Which is what I suspect is getting under your skin. However that could be because he thinks that's the only way such continental states could be established and for him that end seem more important than the means.

Steve

Well, Thanks for support me( I think you have too several argument too with EF), Well, EF support of the Orwelian Geopolitics: Those who belived in the Triuviratum Superpower in Cold War Balance(a very simple scenario to not make so hard the homework in advance geopolitics and Alternate history too,), much like a lot here(i think that is possible but again, the butterflies...)

And yes, I lived in the Infamous, United States ´Backyard´(and in a Country who suffer a Fillbuster by the Northamericans... guess which??? and is not mexico,) and indirectly suffer a lot for their geopolitics against us(i support the Idea of Lula's Latin America union without mexico, because IMHO, Mexico is more than a Puppet of the American), and the 'Utopist' americanphile dreams of EF make me sick(but i second the Euro Venerin Directed by Deutchland and with Bundes Magyar(with Ilyria, sorry EF, but italy don't have the power to make any claim besides risk war because the savoy always was French little puppet by a lot of time) and Italy and Ottomans like their liders)

well, i gonna wait is answer, thanks stevep for the support

 

[Eurofed]

Eurofed, sorry but i have to said this: You Americanphile start to Sick me(in general your concept of AH start to be a little cliched for me, someone must make a Wikin page for you and the eurofedism).

The accusation holds true, although I'm far from the only AH.com regular driven to the hobby by an overwhelming geopolitical interest (in my case, successful continental imperialism; at least my focus is kinda broad, as I can root for the success of many different wanks, from America to China, although I have favorites; and about that, sorry, but I deeply loathe the Deep South and pretty much all of what it sttod for and wrought, from slavery to the religious right, with the shining exception of rock & roll).

The POD of this TL is since the ARW, and the USA and extremly different than was suppose to be originally(taking away all the Deep South Culture, your change a big point in American Expansionism and Jingonist agenda since their birth but some butterflies can still want them have the warm pacific port and later the Fillbuster against Hawaii) and the British have their own expansionist agenda but their are more... refinated(in fact with their Dominon, they absolutily will advice them to NOT pushed away against another independant states besides those who the Motherland have a war or reason of hate) but if the mexican made the idiot mistake(they made it in OTL, the butterflies maybe are not too strong yet or the mexican are idiots by nature, sorry Dexter my mexican friend, but History them to support that thesis), in the Long Term...

All true, but it was my opnion that the TL's historical drives were quite compatible with maintaining the OTL geopolitical vectors of US expansion in the Pacific, and Dixie/BSA one in the Caribbean.

California will be a Integral of british souther america(with a partition/buy with the USA) or become a Dominon of their own...

Hmm, you speaking of southern California of course, because I see no compelling reason that recent US annexation of northern California ought to be reversed.

P.S. Where are thou, EF(I always think on you like a Irredentia Italian, maybe form the old Yugoslavia, Ilyria or Trento)?

Ahh, such naivety. Nope, nowhere that close. I'm not going to tell my precise residence for privacy reasons. I admit a soft spot and sentimental bias for my own country, and successful Irredentism is an obvious means of making it successful, but my own fan wanks are otherwise driven by more... complex reasons (in short: familiarity with history, plausible chance of becoming a successful and non-oppressive empire, sympathy with culture and political system, supreme goal of getting as close as possible to utopian world unification) than base and unreasoning nationalism. Otherwise, looking at my preferred wanks, one ought to decide that I'm a hybrid Grossdeutchsland German & Irredenta Italian crossbred with Manifest Destiny American and Napoleonic/Carolingian French with a fetish for Imperial Roman, a soft spot for Imperial Chinese, and a sprinkle of Valkyrie Zionist and Liberal Russian. I feel quite the mutt.

 

[Eurofed]

We only have one thing in common, in that we both believe Britain was very important, possibly vital in preventing Europe suffering that fate. I think its the main reason why he hates Britain so and is glad to see us conquered or degraded. Conversely its another reason why I love my country.

Exactly. The British Empire must suffer again and again for its unspeakable crime of plotting for centuries to keep Europe in divided misery (even when we try to do it by purely peaceful and democratic lovefest, darn).

One person's dreaded fate is another person's shining destiny.

There may be a degree of racism in his world view. Or it could be that in his desire for such states he has a distinct dislike for democracy and people governing themselves.

I deeply loathe nationalist Balkanization. People can easily be taught by habit and experience to love living in world-spanning harmony, unity, and progress rather than tribalist misery, strife, and impotence. Pretty much no radical geopolitical change, from national unifications to revolutions, is accomplished without some degree of cohercion, and super-states cannot be any different, but if their birth and growth is any worthwhile, cohercion ought, needs, to dwindle and disappear once stabilization is done, and they have to stand wholly by the free consent of their citizens. Democracy |= Particularism.

He prefers a US that conquers all of N America and often a lot of the south. Which is what I suspect is getting under your skin. However that could be because he thinks that's the only way such continental states could be established and for him that end seem more important than the means.

Not just that. The basic idea is that in the long term, it leads to an happier outcome for all parties involved. Of course, yes, ends are much more important than the means when the means don't wreck the ends.

 

[Aranfan]

Exactly. The British Empire must suffer again and again for its unspeakable crime of plotting for centuries to keep Europe in divided misery (even when we try to do it by purely peaceful and democratic lovefest, darn).

One person's dreaded fate is another person's shining destiny.

What's your opinion of Robert Clive then?

 

[Nivek]

The accusation holds true, although I'm far from the only AH.com regular driven to the hobby by an overwhelming geopolitical interest (in my case, successful continental imperialism; at least my focus is kinda broad, as I can root for the success of many different wanks, from America to China, although I have favorites; and about that, sorry, but I deeply loathe the Deep South and pretty much all of what it sttod for and wrought, from slavery to the religious right, with the shining exception of rock & roll).



All true, but it was my opnion that the TL's historical drives were quite compatible with maintaining the OTL geopolitical vectors of US expansion in the Pacific, and Dixie/BSA one in the Caribbean.



Hmm, you speaking of southern California of course, because I see no compelling reason that recent US annexation of northern California ought to be reversed.



Ahh, such naivety. Nope, nowhere that close. I'm not going to tell my precise residence for privacy reasons. I admit a soft spot and sentimental bias for my own country, and successful Irredentism is an obvious means of making it successful, but my own fan wanks are otherwise driven by more... complex reasons (in short: familiarity with history, plausible chance of becoming a successful and non-oppressive empire, sympathy with culture and political system, supreme goal of getting as close as possible to utopian world unification) than base and unreasoning nationalism. Otherwise, looking at my preferred wanks, one ought to decide that I'm a hybrid Grossdeutchsland German & Irredenta Italian crossbred with Manifest Destiny American and Napoleonic/Carolingian French with a fetish for Imperial Roman, a soft spot for Imperial Chinese, and a sprinkle of Valkyrie Zionist and Liberal Russian. I feel quite the mutt.

That last quote is wonder that you never have a very clear concept of the powert of the butterflies(I'm Not a Sockpupeting of IBC, but we share the same catchphrase: But the butterflies....)

(and yes you're from trieste, but you like Italian have to know than the first unification with VEII and Giussepe Garibaldi(who was a mercenary without peer... ask the Piratini about that), than that unification was by the support of Nappy III to have a more stable italy like an ally to avoid any action of the British and a Lesser extent the Austrians... was the Italy Obesseion for rome than make them attack rome in the moment of the F-P war with the world know results.... in fact the Italians always acts like Vulture waiting for rotten meat... and my family(granfather one, i supposed) is from South Italian Heritage..... take to think that more closely..)

Well more in-topic: Obviosly the Usa gonna want the Pacific basin with the nothern california area(the Red bluff and Eureka one if IIRC) and the rest will be british but again... that depend of the decision of the british because if the (North)-Americans go alone for mexico... maybe they will face the british agains them(they will avoid tham their Dominon being surrounded by expasionist north-americans...(that is post napoleon-early victorian era, the British have supremacy for a lot of time)

hey and how the manumission(or a equivalent to a gradual abolishion of the slaveship will take form), that gonna be a worm of can for the dominon...

Att
Nivek von beldo

 

[Eurofed]

What's your opinion of Robert Clive then?

Given that in my honest opinion the British Raj did more good than bad, and fertilized the already outstanding Indian civilization with some extra good elements (such as a greater drive to stable democratic political unity), positive. My bone with British Empire begins and ends with its centuries-long desplicable crusade to keep us divided in small squabbling states. Of course, when a TL pits Britain vs. America, I tend to root with what I see as outdated, buggy prototype vs. new and improved model, speaking about political system. But I cheer for TLs where the ARW is averted as well as for Ameriwank ones, for different reasons.

(and yes you're from trieste,

Gone there a couple days in my whole life, and no relative from the area, but if you say so... given that you claim the power to rewrite my life history, can I PM you my modifications shopping list ?

was the Italy Obesseion for rome than make them attack rome in the moment of the F-P war with the world know results....

The world finding itself freed of a rotten theocratic state that corrupted Italy, Europe, and the ideals it claimed to stand for ?

Well more in-topic

Thank the Universe. I don't mind the spate about my political beliefs, but this outstanding TL's poor thread isn't really the right place for it.

Just a final remark: I'm not ever going to apologize for my lack of respect for nationalism, unless it unwittingly slips close to racism, which I despise.

Obviosly the Usa gonna want the Pacific basin with the nothern california area(the Red bluff and Eureka one if IIRC) and the rest will be british but again... that depend of the decision of the british because if the (North)-Americans go alone for mexico... maybe they will face the british agains them(they will avoid tham their Dominon being surrounded by expasionist north-americans...(that is post napoleon-early victorian era, the British have supremacy for a lot of time)

Frankly, I indeed find myself an isolated USA-Mexico war quite unplausible, ITTL. At the most, I was expecting an opportunist US intervention in a Texan/BSA-Mexican War to snatch an extra bit of California.

hey and how the manumission(or a equivalent to a gradual abolishion of the slaveship will take form), that gonna be a worm of can for the dominon...

Assuming that it may even happen peacefully, yeah. I am still seeing a secession attempt by BSA when London goes abolitionist as quite likely. Not certain, but likely.

 

[Nivek]

Given that in my honest opinion the British Raj did more good than bad, and fertilized the already outstanding Indian civilization with some extra good elements (such as a greater drive to stable democratic political unity), positive. My bone with British Empire begins and ends with its centuries-long desplicable crusade to keep us divided in small squabbling states. Of course, when a TL pits Britain vs. America, I tend to root with what I see as outdated, buggy prototype vs. new and improved model, speaking about political system. But I cheer for TLs where the ARW is averted as well as for Ameriwank ones, for different reasons.



Gone there a couple days in my whole life, and no relative from the area, but if you say so... given that you claim the power to rewrite my life history, can I PM you my modifications shopping list ?



The world finding itself freed of a rotten theocratic state that corrupted Italy, Europe, and the ideals it claimed to stand for ?

Self Determination of the peoples(yes i belived the Woodrow Wilson tea...Just Kidding, that is plane anglophile shit of several balkanizer)


Thank the Universe. I don't mind the spate about my political beliefs, but this outstanding TL's poor thread isn't really the right place for it.

Just a final remark: I'm not ever going to apologize for my lack of respect for nationalism, unless it unwittingly slips close to racism, which I despise.

My 'Nationalist'(if that your in my coutry is appliapled besides tickel the neigborthood) is limited to wame the flag and talking good about the founding father... mostly harmless... except when rememeber the american filibuster(but that people is already decreasing because the americanophile of my country), but generally... respect the intregity of my state, my Country is shit but is my Country....


Frankly, I indeed find myself an isolated USA-Mexico war quite unplausible, ITTL. At the most, I was expecting an opportunist US intervention in a Texan/BSA-Mexican War to snatch an extra bit of California.



Assuming that it may even happen peacefully, yeah. I am still seeing a secession attempt by BSA when London goes abolitionist as quite likely. Not certain, but likely.

you and me EF, are very similar, we praised the german, hate the british(but ironically I'm hate more the americans thancthe british), we think the french post napoleon(the first one) are nothing more than weak Chesse-eating rat who become strong thanks to the help of the Anglos) and both tickle Hurgan and his sockpuppeting....

well, waiting for update, and re-reading the TL for looking details

Att
Nivek von Beldo

P.S. I Second Imperialvienna(when he supposed to be) idea of a Maximillian Italy... because that is most realistic to won all the irredentia stuff,damnit

 

[Falastur]

All true, but it was my opnion that the TL's historical drives were quite compatible with maintaining the OTL geopolitical vectors of US expansion in the Pacific, and Dixie/BSA one in the Caribbean.

The historical drives, but not I think Glen's intention to have America divided along the 36' 30 parallel, no?

 

[KingByng]

I really like this TL, Glen. I've never seen anything quite like it, so IMO it scores big time on originality. I'm very interesting in seeing where this goes.

Eurofed, sorry but i have to said this: You Americanphile start to Sick me...

I find myself agreeing with you. I especially dislike the pretentious assumption that

under American rule Canadian states shall get much more developed ... than OTL

which is a rather nonsensical claim considering Canada has done quite well under British rule, being the one of the most developed nations in the world (and for a long time being the most developed), outranking both the United States and Italy on the so-called "Human Development Index".

 

[JC Shurtleff]

The second president of Texas, John Brown, was aligned with the Pro-British faction in Texas. While President Jackson had kept Texas independent, he had done little to reduce the Texan debt. While President Brown began explorations to bring Texas under the protection of Britain, he also had to deal with the debt, and the United States of America.

For generations, the line 36-30 had come to represent a separation between free and slave in North America. While Americans had come to accept Southern slavery as a fact of life, any attempt to extend slavery north of the current border was psychologically unpalatable to many Americans. While Texas proper lay well below this parallel, and indeed had British Louisiana between it and America, the new Republics claimed territories of New Mexico and the Californias did stretch all the way to America's border at the 40th parallel north. While more a theoretical risk than a reality at such an early stage of the Republic's development, Brown saw a way to solve multiple problems and approached the Americans about purchasing the northernmost section of the Californias and New Mexico. So in 1832, the Americans bought Texas' claims to any territory north of 36-30, helping to relieve Texan debt and remove a barrier to the possibility of joining the rest of Southern America under the British aegis.

but, but..... its such an ugly border!

I realize that OTL border with Canada sets a precedent on this but I find it hard to believe that the entire border between USA and BSA/Texas would be so unnatural and reflect so little on the terrain

 

[The Doctor]

The farther west you go, and with pioneers from either the north or south intermixing I think terrain will win out over a eastern line in the sand.

Also whats with all the back and forth? A summary would be nice

Originally Posted by Eurofed
under American rule Canadian states shall get much more developed ... than OTL

which is a rather nonsensical claim considering Canada has done quite well under British rule, being the one of the most developed nations in the world (and for a long time being the most developed), outranking both the United States and Italy on the so-called "Human Development Index".

(cant get this quoted right so forgive me)

So your saying TTL's USA will be more developed on that index like OTL Canada's?

 

[Aranfan]

which is a rather nonsensical claim considering Canada has done quite well under British rule, being the one of the most developed nations in the world (and for a long time being the most developed), outranking both the United States and Italy on the so-called "Human Development Index".

Well, to be fair, the HDI is a measure of how Scandinavian a nation is, not anything to do with economy and industry and such.

 

[stevep]

The accusation holds true, although I'm far from the only AH.com regular driven to the hobby by an overwhelming geopolitical interest (in my case, successful continental imperialism; at least my focus is kinda broad, as I can root for the success of many different wanks, from America to China, although I have favorites; and about that, sorry, but I deeply loathe the Deep South and pretty much all of what it sttod for and wrought, from slavery to the religious right, with the shining exception of rock & roll).

Eurofed

The question is, if not brutal dictatorships, what are continental states of the sort you espouse except new forms of national identity?

Also my preference has always been more for smaller states because they tend to be more civilised because they need popular support. Once you start getting populations measured in large numbers its more difficult for the rulers to remember those figures are people with their own needs and desires. If they facing competition from other states, either military or otherwise its more likely to keep them honest. Basically summed up by William NcNeils "The Pursuit of Power: Technology, Armed Force, and Society since A.D. 1000". A very good book

One other thing with your hostility to Britain. Don't forget, while we provided an example and some aid it was the people's of Europe that decided, repeatedly, that they would not be ruled by some distant tyrant. To paraphrase Pitt the Younger we maintained our liberty by our own efforts and inspired others to do likewise by our example.

Steve

 

[stevep]

Hmm, you speaking of southern California of course, because I see no compelling reason that recent US annexation of northern California ought to be reversed.

What annexation? They have made a deal for Texas's claim to those lands but have they yet moved to occupy them? Since barring a total collapse in Mexico or California having broken away completely already they are still claiming and ruling it. If their pissed-off about Texan claims the one thing that will make them madded with the US is if it seeks to actually move on those claims. Especially since, depending on the status of Mexico and California, without the south and Texas as bases the US could find it more difficult projected power, having only a small base in Oregon. I would expect them to possibly win in the end but it could be a lot more difficult.

Glen made remarks about the situation in California being complex but we will have to wait until we hear from him what's going on before we can judge.

Steve

 

[Eurofed]

What annexation? They have made a deal for Texas's claim to those lands but have they yet moved to occupy them? Since barring a total collapse in Mexico or California having broken away completely already they are still claiming and ruling it. If their pissed-off about Texan claims the one thing that will make them madded with the US is if it seeks to actually move on those claims. Especially since, depending on the status of Mexico and California, without the south and Texas as bases the US could find it more difficult projected power, having only a small base in Oregon. I would expect them to possibly win in the end but it could be a lot more difficult.

Glen made remarks about the situation in California being complex but we will have to wait until we hear from him what's going on before we can judge.

Good point, but just as the USA would be bound to respect the division made in the recent treaty as you argued beforehand, the same is true for Texas/BSA. As for as these three states are concerned, it is as close as an annexation as ti could be for unsettled 19th century North American territory. Mexico certainly doesn't acknowledge the partition, sure, but it is just an issue that needs to be on the battlefield in the next future if (when) overconfident Mexico presses his luck too hard. This would of course default to the Mexican gangpile, as Texas would fight to support their claims, quite likely supported by BSA colonial militias at least, since the Dixies would try to support what they regard as their proxy and would-be annexation (more so if the USA is involved, they would try to balance US getting close to Texas) and some support from Mother Britain is not unreasonable, if not direct military intervention at least money and weapons for the colonials. And of course the USA would fight to support their own claims. This would turn out to be a case of otherwise rivals making an uneasy alliance against a common enemy (e.g. 1st Balkan War or Poland 1939). This would lessen the force projection problems for USA (and BSA) since they can move troops through the territory of their allies.

This would be a war that Mexico can't win, unless some European power steps in to support Mexico as a proxy. Likely France, although in this day and age they were much less eager to make foolhardy imperialistic adventures than under Nappy III). And this could of course run a risk of escalating to an Anglo-French colonial war.

 

[DuQuense]

Re: California.
The 1825 population of Europeans* in San Francisco was > 200, A couple of Frigates and a couple of Cargo ships with Soldiers and Supplies would more than double the European presence.

As Mexico doesn't have a Navy, any attempt to reclaim SF would require the Mexicans to March over 1000 miles North.

?What is Britains position on the Texican's claim to California, and the Sale to the US?
1825 San Deigo has >2000 Europeans, 45% Female [Nuns?], and a lot of the Males, are Priests and Monks.
Several Hundred Texicans [by Ship] backed by one of HM Warships can get you control of San Deigo.

Most of the Other Missions across the state had between 1 ~ 500 Europeans, with the average being 200. The entire European Population was just around 20,000.


* I use European to distinguish from the Native Aboriginals.

 

[Mike]

which is a rather nonsensical claim considering Canada has done quite well under British rule, being the one of the most developed nations in the world (and for a long time being the most developed), outranking both the United States and Italy on the so-called "Human Development Index".

That is bull. Canada under British rule was a backwater undemocractic place valorising the Anglo-Saxon race and persecuting francophones and Amerindiens. It was only in the 20th century and closer ties with the USA with its hegemonic economic power that Canada really took off. Canada also benefits from a low population inhabiting a vast land of natural resources. Expect the HDI for Canada to go down in the decades ahead as the population of Canada increases. In fact, it already has.

 

[Mike]

One other thing with your hostility to Britain. Don't forget, while we provided an example and some aid it was the people's of Europe that decided, repeatedly, that they would not be ruled by some distant tyrant. To paraphrase Pitt the Younger we maintained our liberty by our own efforts and inspired others to do likewise by our example.

Steve

What an hypcrtical statement. The British Empire certainly did not spread liberty. It subjugated people towards a distant tyrant living in Buckingham Palace.

Europe would certainly have been better off if Napoleon I did achieve in his dream for a united confederal European state instead of squabbling states. Europe would definitely have been spared all the devastating wars that came after the French Revolution and Napoleonic period. After WW2, Europe had been weakened too much and finally came together in the federal union now called the European Union. For the good.

 

[Umbric Man]

*bullshit*

Ah, so a Francophone warring is good, but any other type of warfare is bad.

Idiot.

 

[Mike]

Ah, so a Francophone warring is good, but any other type of warfare is bad.

Idiot.

Not so civil, are we.

What francophone warring are you referring to? Napoleon? He only reacted to others warring against him.