Dominion of Southern America - Updated July 1, 2018

[Glen]

OTL the Northern states had a black population of >3%. With 3rd~4th+ generation Blacks opposed to the Southern Blacks moving north.*

*They Supported Abolitionism. as long as the Free Blacks would remain in the South.

Now the Population totals are different ITTL, with Virginia in the Union, and most slaves having been sold south.
However I can't see a northern Black Population < 5%. And with the earlier freeing of Northern Blacks, I see the same intolerance of "Ignorant Stupid Lazy"** Southern blacks.

**This is one of the nicer things the northern Blacks called the Southern Blacks.

All reasonable points and extrapolations. The Black population in the North may actually be under 5%, though not by much. And yes, while blacks in the North sympathize with blacks in the South, they probably feel somewhat superior to them as well (that's human nature).

?So what is the US attitude toward Runaways, Slave Chasers,

Runaways who make it across the border aren't turned back. They just need to keep their noses clean. But America is still looking for manpower, so if you're willing to work, there's a place for you somewhere.

Slave Chasers don't come across the border. It would be very bad for their health. Having said that, they do stake out the likely border crossings....

Free Blacks etc?

Depends. Basically in the areas where they are rare in the North they are treated as rather exotic and more based on their perceived social class (determined by wealth mostly in the USA). In the US South (Virginia, somewhat Kentucky), they're still seen a bit lower class, even if coming up in the world, not seen as exotic at all, though.

?And what kind of Border Patrols are there on both sides?

Depends on the timeperiod and whether you are east or west of the Mississippi. By 1835 the Indians remaining east of the Mississippi are pretty civilized, so its more forts at strategic points to deter invasion in the event of war, customs patrols for smugglers, and on the Southern side slave chasers looking for 'loose property'. West of the Mississippi, there are more serious cavalry patrols on both sides of the border to discourage wild Indians from cross border raids. However its a very long border, and the further west you go, its basically the Wild, Wild West....literally.

Bring this up - as if there is fighting in BNA we will have some Slaves use the Confusion to try to Escape.

Undoubtably. However if there is fighting, I think you'll see some changes on the border....

 

[Glen]

Brazil must still be a slave state. OTL it had a slave population of 1/3 the entire population. It was so slave-filled that there are examples on record of street beggars who had slaves, literally most of the population had some number of slaves in their family. What is interesting is the multiple Brazils we now have. They will all have this slave overabundance, but how long will they take to ban the slavery? Or in fact, will they? My bet is on Portugal eventually trying to do what Britain is doing now, but without the stakeholders that North America has (the USA, the UK, etc) will they ever even bother trying to free the slaves in the rest of the Brazils? They won't have a superpower free state on their borders to pressure them, and they won't even have the big pro-manumission lobby that North America has here. Without someone like the USA or the UK actively threatening war if they don't release the slaves, it's entirely possible that those Brazilian states will never try to free their slaves, and if they do it's likely that it won't be a decision all the Brazils take at once. It could take 50 years or so to properly force all the Brazilian states to free their slaves, with so many governments to communicate with, and with their economies so heavily tied into slave labour - far more so than the BSA here. IIRC it was 1863 that Brazil finally freed its slaves, and even then it shook their economy for about 30 years. And with 4 different Brazilian states, their individual economies are going to be far weaker and less capable of dealing with change anyway.

Interesting times ahead. I look forward to seeing how Glen deals with Brazil. The division of it certainly grabbed my attention.

Two of the four successor states have already discontinued slavery. The Brazilian Republic and Portuguese section in the North still have it. However, remember that the UK is now much closer and more invested in the Caribbean (and has a larger foothold in South America). How long do you think that Britain will tolerate a cheap sugar from slaver mini-Brazils?

BTW, though in decline well before, slavery was ended in OTL Brazil in 1888.

 

[Glen]

IIRC after the OTL ARW the British offered all the freed slaves who fought in the black regiments a sum of land in Canada as recompense, though I might be thinking of someone else. In reality, many got their land but even more did not, which disillusioned many. I'm hoping the same disillusionment won't occur this time around.

Ah, gotcha now. Good question, and only time will tell!

 

[Glen]

Indeed I remain quite skeptic that TTL South would be any smaller and weaker than OTL. Quite the contrary is wholly feasible and indeed likely. Sure, they lack Virginia, but I see no really good reason why they should not get all the other OTL state, and most of the Caribbean. The latter balances Virginia more than enough, even if Hispaniola might swing towards loyalty to Britain, given its large free black population (ITTL Hispaniola could be the West Virginia equivalent). IMO Britain is not going to have it any really easier than the Union crushing the rebellious slaveocracy.

Which roughly matches UK attitudes about OTL ACW. Only TTL USA are going to be even more so, their sense of American solidarity and political loathing of British system clashing with their even stronger loathing of the slaveocracy. Conflicting attitudes are totally going to cancel themselves out and leaving the USA a confused ambivalent neutral IMO.

Of course, with the right political-diplomatic butterfly it would be quite possible to have the USA intervening on the rebels' side, slavery or no slavery. Say Britain getting quite annoyed at US trade with the rebel colonies and using its typical heavyhanded means to quash it. The RN messing with USA trade could make things go downhill with the USA rather easily.

All of the above are quite likely, though perhaps more or less than indicated here. Time will tell how much of this comes to pass or not.

And of course, then there is Texas....

 

[Glen]

Glad to hear it. It could still happen of course; the Brits may want to make an example of some of the more aggregious rebels by exiling them. Even if the rank and file go to Texas in larger numbers, you could certainly still send a couple of shiploads of rebellious planters down under.
If you're doing it though, I call dibs on finishing that song I started.

Fair enough, fair enough!

 

[Glen]

Just a note, Glen - I'll be going away until the 13th as of tomorrow, so I won't be commenting for a while (unless I find both an internet cafe and the time to use it...probably not likely). Just in case you were going to get worried about me I'm not abandoning ship on this thread

Thanks for the heads up. We will consider ourselves warned. However, don't forget to look for those internet cafes....

 

[Glen]

The British governors of Georgia and South Carolina were forced to flee from their charges, and they would not be alone.

Assembly after assembly in the South declared their defiance of the British Crown and declared their independence. Throughout the south, the legislatures were elected by landholders only, which mostly meant they were the creatures of the plantation magnates. By 1836 eight British colonies had declared for independence:

• Georgia
• South Carolina
• Louisiana
• West Florida
• North Carolina
• East Florida
• Cuba
• Bahamas

They would not remain alone.

These provinces sought to meet together to form a coalition to combat the British if they would not let them go freely. Militias were raised throughout the British South, many led by former British Army and Royal Navy officers, as many scions of the South had served, though the most recent war they had been in was the Napoleonic wars, and thus not all were seasoned veterans in modern warfare, though others had been active suppressing wild Indians in the west. British ships in completion or repair were seized to form the nucleus of a nascent navy. The upper classes of the plantations sought to expand their base by bringing in disgruntled middle and even lower class whites who had been forbidden from taking gold from the Indian lands, while others sought the extension of the franchise and freedom from distant control by the Crown, to which the cotton kings made glib promises.

However, not every subject in British Southern America were in favor of independence; far from it. And so other militias were formed, and British officials found succor in parts of the colonies. Britain would not abandon these people or this land without a fight.

So begins what some have called the Slaver Uprising or Rebellion, others have called the Southern Civil War, and yet others have called the War against British Aggression....

 

[Falastur]

and yet others have called the War against British Aggression....

And there's the line which makes me think that you still might have Britain lose this war, despite the thread title. I thought I wasn't just being paranoid

Probably my last comment before I go, so have a good week all. I'll see if I can get to an internet cafe but since I'm going to be within the confines of a holiday site all week, it's doubtful. All comes down to whether they have on-site internet facilities, which is unlikely I think.

Anyway, have fun. Glen, I'm going to be mightily disappointed if you haven't posted at least one update a day and breached the 25,000 views mark by the time I'm back (though without me refreshing the page every 10 minutes that'll surely knock a few hundred view off the daily counter, eh? )

 

[AJNolte]

Seems like a good beginning. Now, the question is, who gets command of the British regulars, and do they have enducements to keep the US out.
Um, also, who's in charge of the US these days? Last president you mentioned is JQ Adams, but I doubt he's still there. 1835: we ought to see the rise of figures like Daniel Webster (Federalist), Henry Clay (could go either way I guess), and, in the absence of Jackson, a couple of different Democrat Republicans including:
John Andrew Schulz:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Andrew_Shulze
(1774: iffy on the butterfly effect, but you could let him slide).
Peter porter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Buell_Porter
Again, might squeak through, but could be butterflied.
And one more, Jeremiah Morrow:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Morrow
Same story.
(I haven't looked up governors of Virginia, but I'm sure there are some from either party who could be running the country. And of course, the army is probably commanded by Winfield Scott).
Did the Bainbridge-DeCator dual happen, or was it butterflied? If the latter, one of them could be a political figure.

Who's in charge will very much effect how the US responds to the southern war.

 

[stevep]

Falastur

Have a good break, if that's what it is and not w**k.

That lines doesn't necessarily mean the good guys lose. Swap Northern for British and it still gets used today, including on this board I think.

The rebels are taking a risk offering induclments to some whites to attack Indian lands. Not only will it make most Indians loyal, even possibly some of those holding slaves. There's also the danger that Britain could outbid them by offering more serious social/political changes. OTL Britain had just gone through the 1st Reform Act so wouldn't be too difficult to start offering something similar in BSA. Not to mention seizing assets can backfire.

The war could actually be the step that leads to the forming of a BSA dominion as it will be recognised that something different is needed. Something like a more violent version of the 1837 uprisings in Canada OTL. Except it could be the local aristocracy that gets to be the target of most of the anger.

Steve

And there's the line which makes me think that you still might have Britain lose this war, despite the thread title. I thought I wasn't just being paranoid

Probably my last comment before I go, so have a good week all. I'll see if I can get to an internet cafe but since I'm going to be within the confines of a holiday site all week, it's doubtful. All comes down to whether they have on-site internet facilities, which is unlikely I think.

Anyway, have fun. Glen, I'm going to be mightily disappointed if you haven't posted at least one update a day and breached the 25,000 views mark by the time I'm back (though without me refreshing the page every 10 minutes that'll surely knock a few hundred view off the daily counter, eh? )

 

[Glen]

And there's the line which makes me think that you still might have Britain lose this war, despite the thread title. I thought I wasn't just being paranoid

Probably my last comment before I go, so have a good week all. I'll see if I can get to an internet cafe but since I'm going to be within the confines of a holiday site all week, it's doubtful. All comes down to whether they have on-site internet facilities, which is unlikely I think.

Anyway, have fun. Glen, I'm going to be mightily disappointed if you haven't posted at least one update a day and breached the 25,000 views mark by the time I'm back (though without me refreshing the page every 10 minutes that'll surely knock a few hundred view off the daily counter, eh? )

Damned pressurer! I'll try, though I'm going to be very busy myself over the next week....but with internet access, so should be able to keep this baby moving....

 

[Glen]

BTW, we have cracked the top twenty in terms of number of posts in this thread for the Before 1900 forum!

 

[Eurofed]

The war could actually be the step that leads to the forming of a BSA dominion as it will be recognised that something different is needed. Something like a more violent version of the 1837 uprisings in Canada OTL. Except it could be the local aristocracy that gets to be the target of most of the anger.

That's pretty much what I would expect as the most likely outcome. If Britain comes in and crushes the rebellion, but keeps the colonial status, in due time another BSA independence movement is bound to grow up again with a much larger power base among Blacks, Indians, and poor whites, and the USA getting much more sympathetic.

 

[stevep]

That's pretty much what I would expect as the most likely outcome. If Britain comes in and crushes the rebellion, but keeps the colonial status, in due time another BSA independence movement is bound to grow up again with a much larger power base among Blacks, Indians, and poor whites, and the USA getting much more sympathetic.

That's actually the opposite of what I said!

Steve

 

[Eurofed]

That's actually the opposite of what I said!

Sorry, but I don't really see any compelling reason why TTL Britain should be more successful as fostering loyalism against the slaveocracy than the Union was IOTL. Loyalist slaves and poor whites didn't rebel en masse against the CSA IOTL, there is no not-Britwank reason they ought to do so ITTL, and the Five Civilized Tribes weren't that much of a power base, frankly. If Britain wants to recover its rebellious colony and break the bone of the slaveocracy, it needs to do it the way the Union did it.

Once the divisive stumbling bloc of slavery is gone, the BSA shall be allowed a path to develop a more unified national consciousness, which would get the unqualified sympathies of the USA. If Britain realizes the need for Dominion autonomy once the slaveocracy is wiped out, everyone stands to gain and be happy. If Britain keeps stubborn on denying autonomy, such self-consciousness would bloom in a stronger Third American Revolution, which would see a USA intervention, and that's a fight that Britain would lose, unless it can pull most of Europe on its side (quite unlikely).

 

[Wet Coast]

And there's the line which makes me think that you still might have Britain lose this war, despite the thread title. I thought I wasn't just being paranoid

Remember that in the OTL south the US civil war is still referred to by some as the War of Northern Agression

 

[Glen]

Seems like a good beginning. Now, the question is, who gets command of the British regulars, and do they have inducements to keep the US out.

Two excellent questions. Care to venture any guesses?

Um, also, who's in charge of the US these days? Last president you mentioned is JQ Adams, but I doubt he's still there. 1835: we ought to see the rise of figures like

Correct.

Daniel Webster (Federalist), Henry Clay (could go either way I guess), and, in the absence of Jackson, a couple of different Democrat Republicans including:
John Andrew Schulz:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Andrew_Shulze
(1774: iffy on the butterfly effect, but you could let him slide).
Peter porter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Buell_Porter
Again, might squeak through, but could be butterflied.
And one more, Jeremiah Morrow:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Morrow
Same story.

Some interesting links you provide there, thanks! Who knows but one might pop up in an entry!

(I haven't looked up governors of Virginia, but I'm sure there are some from either party who could be running the country. And of course, the army is probably commanded by Winfield Scott).

Have to check, but I think that Scott may have been butterflied!

Did the Bainbridge-DeCator dual happen, or was it butterflied? If the latter, one of them could be a political figure.

Not familiar with that one off the top of my head (though they names suggest Georgia). Have you a link or two for me to investigate?

Who's in charge will very much effect how the US responds to the southern war.

Yes, though popular sentiment will also have its impact, moreso in the democratic (comparatively) USA than in other parts of the world.

 

[Glen]

Remember that in the OTL south the US civil war is still referred to by some as the War of Northern Agression

{cut}That lines doesn't necessarily mean the good guys lose. Swap Northern for British and it still gets used today, including on this board I think.

That is certainly a point. So don't read too much into any one thing, just keep reading!

The rebels are taking a risk offering inducements to some whites to attack Indian lands. Not only will it make most Indians loyal, even possibly some of those holding slaves.

You're looking at this too cold-bloodedly. The miners have just as much of a gripe with the British as the slavers, and they've been dealing with it for several years now. It's not so much as a bid to get more support, but the fact that there are already supporters of revolution from two different groups, if you know what I mean?

There's also the danger that Britain could outbid them by offering more serious social/political changes. OTL Britain had just gone through the 1st Reform Act so wouldn't be too difficult to start offering something similar in BSA.

Well, yes, they could, and in fact some will be swayed by the offers of both sides for increased rights. However, some too will just see it as which master you choose to serve....

Not to mention seizing assets can backfire.

Not quite the same when it is not 'whites' getting their assets seized. Don't forget the racism factor.

The war could actually be the step that leads to the forming of a BSA dominion as it will be recognised that something different is needed. Something like a more violent version of the 1837 uprisings in Canada OTL. Except it could be the local aristocracy that gets to be the target of most of the anger.

Steve

That's a real thought. Of course, we shall see....

 

[Glen]

The war could actually be the step that leads to the forming of a BSA dominion as it will be recognised that something different is needed. Something like a more violent version of the 1837 uprisings in Canada OTL. Except it could be the local aristocracy that gets to be the target of most of the anger.

Steve

That's pretty much what I would expect as the most likely outcome. If Britain comes in and crushes the rebellion, but keeps the colonial status, in due time another BSA independence movement is bound to grow up again with a much larger power base among Blacks, Indians, and poor whites, and the USA getting much more sympathetic.

That's actually the opposite of what I said!

Steve

Sorry, but I don't really see any compelling reason why TTL Britain should be more successful as fostering loyalism against the slaveocracy than the Union was IOTL. Loyalist slaves and poor whites didn't rebel en masse against the CSA IOTL, there is no not-Britwank reason they ought to do so ITTL,

Well, I don't think you two are talking about different outcomes from the same conditions, but rather the likely outcomes of two different approaches Britain could take after a theoretical victory against the slavers and their allies. If they turn around after the defeat and give responsible government etc, they may win over the rebellious south in the end. OTOH, if they try to continue to crack down after the fact, they may inspire yet another rebellion (assuming they crack down hard enough to enrage the populace but not enough to render their rage impotent).

Actually, there is a reason why we can expect this south (or at least some of them) to be more pro-British than the South of OTL was to the North, namely that there was a large infusion of die-hard loyalists at the end of the ARW, and no tradition of revolution like there is in the North. Not that they can't still rebel, just saying there are some reasons why it wouldn't be quite the same attitudes as OTL South....

and the Five Civilized Tribes weren't that much of a power base, frankly. If Britain wants to recover its rebellious colony and break the bone of the slaveocracy, it needs to do it the way the Union did it.

Well, the civilized tribes may not be much alone and isolated, but if they find allies....

BTW, are you suggesting that the British have to reinvent Reconstruction?

Once the divisive stumbling bloc of slavery is gone, the BSA shall be allowed a path to develop a more unified national consciousness, which would get the unqualified sympathies of the USA. If Britain realizes the need for Dominion autonomy once the slaveocracy is wiped out, everyone stands to gain and be happy. If Britain keeps stubborn on denying autonomy, such self-consciousness would bloom in a stronger Third American Revolution, which would see a USA intervention, and that's a fight that Britain would lose, unless it can pull most of Europe on its side (quite unlikely).

Interesting analysis overall, and not far off, I imagine....

 

[Glen]

Just posting for my reference a link to a list of deep-water ports.