Dominion of Southern America - Updated July 1, 2018

[Glen]

As a twist you might give Britain or the DSA Alaska, as a result of a war loss by Russia, or a marriage contract. That would be a rather amusing twist

That would be rather funny, wouldn't it!

 

[Glen]

Possibly, Glen, possibly, but...I think not. The British were the merchants of the world at this point. Not only did everyone expect to see them everywhere, and not only were they often the best way of turning a profit from a bad situation by their capability of taking any goods and finding somewhere in the world where it was needed, for the highest profit margins, but more importantly was the fact that they had the reputation for being able to do the above. Even in cases where they couldn't sell a product and were ripping off the original traders to guarantee that the middle man made money, the original seller felt like they were onto something, because no other nation could guarantee trade with the rest of the world. The Americans, by contrast, had large parts of the world where their merchants simply did not go.

Hmmm, this is a good point...

Not only this, but this is Russia we are talking about. The same Russia which was highly bigoted in its dealings with Europe - they, for instance, believed that they had the sole right to represent Slavic peoples, above and beyond the existence of other Slavic nations, and they started their own war in Europe when they tried repeatedly to take Constantinople, claiming that it was their right to govern such an important eastern city. I suspect that, if the Americans turned up and asked for a Most Favoured Nation agreement with Alaska, the Russians would laugh in their faces and say "who is America?"

Apples and oranges, I think. And come on, the Russians very well know who America is - a nation nearly their own size in terms of land. While they may very well feel superior to America in terms of age and prowess, it's not like America is a non-entity. Also, if they make a deal that is financially appealing to the Russians for yet more frozen land as far away from Moscow as possible, I don't think the Russians would dismiss it out of hand.

OK, OK, I portrayed that badly, but I stick to my theory. The point is, it's different when the US is trying to attack European colonies. In OTL they didn't try it until the 1898 Spanish-American War, by which time they had had opportunities and the far side of 120 years to prove who they were and to make a name for themselves as a true growing power.

Um, are you forgetting the War of 1812? Are you forgetting also that the Americans were willing to challenge France in the XYZ affair, and all European nations (albeit with British backing) in issuing the Monroe Doctrine?

In TTL, they are yet to do anything ground-shaking to prove their might,

Victorious against the British in the ARW, victorious against the French in the war of 1804, victorious against the Barbary Pirates (yes, its a minor one, but it counts!).

and yet we are advocating that the first war they intend to try is against a European power which had been ignoring them, and who they shouldn't have had a problem with.

Now this is a more relevant point.

To much of Europe, this is going to smack of a jumped-up ex-colonial freshman at school (to use the American slang) being told by one of their nerdy, stupid, foreign-exchange student friends that the only way they can win respect is to beat someone up, and rather than picking on a fight with another freshman who no-one cares about, he picks a fight with Russia's weak brother, who isn't able to defend hisself. Not only is this an insult and a direct attack on Russia, but it's a statement to all the European "jocks" that America, if it gets away with it, intends to keep building a reputation "or, to go back to our actual scenario, "cleaning up those borders") by beating up the rest of their kid brothers too.

Wow, that is confusing...

After all, if Europe is going to stand by and laugh while Alaska gets picked off, why on earth should Europe feel surprised if America then feels empowered into attacking, say, French Guyana,

There is no French Guyana.

or the Philippines, or Portuguese Africa,

That's going a bit out of their way...

or even the DSA.

Now that is a real possibility...

At least in OTL, when the US attacked Mexico the European countries could look at themselves and with reasonable confidence say "yeah, but they would never dare attack us, so our colony is safe". Yet in this scenario, the USA's very first expansionist attack is on the European elite themselves.

Um, already happened (war against France for Louisiana).

I'm not suggesting here that the other European states would join the war, but I do feel they would respond by sending the USA messages to the tune of "what do you think you're doing? Do you realise how much we can hurt you if you try this on us too?"

I think that this would only be done by individual nations where they felt their individual possessions under threat, and I don't think it would be special to the USA.

Finally, and this is an important point here too, which I dreadfully undersold in my posts, the means of the American attack in a situation where Russian Alaska officially has closed borders is important. It is different (not much, but it is) to send over colonists over an open border, have them legitimately take up possession of the land, and then when they are mistreated call for their home government to support them, and the result of a war being that the US legitimately demands that territory as compensation. In this scenario, US settlers were never allowed to go to Alaska. Yes, they might be able to sneak there and start up some mines (let's not forget here, though, that Alaska is woefully under-populated and is very rarely visited by ships aside from British and Russian merchants and the Russian Navy), but even if they do they will be illegal immigrants. It's one thing demanding territory because a load of settlers have moved across the border and feel that they aren't being respected: that's gunboat diplomacy, although even this is the extreme end. But in the Alaskan case, the US would be demanding the ceding of territory not for this reason, but for the reason of "Russia wouldn't allow us to illegally plant illegal immigrants for the illegal reason of illegally mining and exploiting Russian gold deposits!"

Now that is a fair point.

I know that a lot of reasons for war and conquest in this era were patchy and questionable at best, but there really were limits to how far you could push it. Claiming that you demand Alaska as compensation for your settlers being treated roughly because they were attempting to break the law in the first place is just going too far, and it would be impossible for the US to convince Europe that it was anything other than "nice territory, I'm taking it"...

I think the problem is that it is likely that the US if it did go to war with Russia for Alaska would have some cause they would use as justification (though maybe not the settler one given your point).

If you let the US get away with it once, then you should expect the US to start declaring that all European colonies are up for grabs, and it's this reason that France, Spain and the UK would consider threatening the US with sanctions. Remember, this US wasn't a powerhouse in this era, yet, so there's no reason that Europeans - especially France and Spain who have little reason to pay attention to the USA at this time - would treat the USA at this point as a serious nation worthy of enough respect to not warn them over such blatantly expansionist methods.

Maybe. Let's stop speculating for now so we can have events catch up so we have a more clear situation to speculate upon, eh?

 

[Glen]

I doubt Russia will keep Alaska even if it isn't sold before the gold rush because the gold rush is going to be exactly that... a gold RUSH... Russia will profit from it for a few years but the gold will be mined out and it will go back to being pretty much worthless territory subject to an ever encroaching US that will legitimately lay claim to the interior. The Russians aren't willing to risk bad blood with the US over this piece of land and would most likely sell it off to make a few bux (maybe keeping a few more of the Aleutians or something). It's not like the North Shore oil deposits are going to be discovered in 1900 or something...

Alaska is much further away from any Russian interests than it is to US interests. There is nothing east of Alaska that is in the Russian SOI so there is no reason to keep it strategically... It's no good for launching an invasion from and is completely indefensible to the US if there was a war... and even if losing Alaska wouldn't be much skin off Russia's back it would be an embarrassment and a bargaining chip for the US in any settlement. So both pre and post gold rush why not sell it?

You make a good point. Still, post gold-rush, the same issues exist as prior - Russia will want to sell, but it's unclear if the U.S. would want to buy. Even though the UK and Russia were enemies, the Russia did try and sell Alaska to the UK in 1859, and they were uninterested. I think it would all come down to the whims of whatever administration happened to be in power when the Russians felt like making a deal.

Yes, and as we all know Tsarist russia has historically be very willing to compromise on territory, especially to avoid bad blood! If gold is discovered and russians move there, they ain't going to give it up (if only because of the possibility of more gold).

America is not going to manifest destiny Russian territory, no way, no how. Whilst I am perhaps more agreeable to the idea of the Russians selling it early on than some posters are, there is no way its happening post the discovery of gold. How the hell is America going to get legitmate claims over the interior? Legitamate means the international community recognises them, and if the Russo-American Treaty of 1824 still occurred as per the OTL (in which Russians gave over their influence in the Oregon territory) then the US has explicitly recognised the Alaskan borders and would be very much in the wrong to try and take over.

If America starts a war over Alaska no one will be on their side, expect Britain and France to start sanctions, and Russia doesn't exactly have an inconsequential fleet on the Atlantic either.

Not to mention there is rather less precedent for both filibustering and land purchase in this US's history.

I have to disagree with Eurofed here, not that solidarity would drive the European reaction to an Alaskan invasion, its just:
a) Britain would really really hate such a precident
b) France and other continential european powers would be delighted at gaining favour with Russia for the minor costs of applying what would be very troubling sanctions to the US
c) Depending on how treaties have rolled out several European countries might have actual obligations to support Russia.

They won't go to war for Russia but the pressure they can bring to bear will be massively more than the American people and elite will be willing to endure for Alaska.

I think we've all made the points for and against Russian Alaska ending in US hands by various means, so let's leave it as a topic for a time.

@Eurofed, on Railroads: strategic demand drives exactly one transcontinental railroad, the first one. Once a line across the country is done and a pacific base is established, lines further north have no pressing strageic need and thus will follow population rather than drive it. Adding the railroad won't cause increased reproduction and any increase in immigration to the plains will be more than compensated by the drain off cause by the now easier to get to west coast.

Interesting and fair points.

Thus we'll see northern tiers of the railroad system built at their OTL times (at best). Looking at those we see that the Americans tended to build the next tier north every decade or so the Northern Pacific (Chicago Seattle) in 1883 and the Great Northern (St Paul to Seattle) in 1893 (all the links only really done 1900), from that we can extrapolate that the next tier north in American canada should occur after 1893, and probably a decade after at least. This means the railroad will come to the Canadian plains fifteen years after the OTL occurence, the corrisponding delay in development. Even if you make the (IMO unsubstantiated) assertion that the earlier TCR will shift all the other rails forward despite the lack of population growth and the draining effect of the west coast, it'll still only get Canadian railroads 0-5 years after their OTL development.

Interesting analysis - so earlier for some lines, but on time if not late for others.

 

[Glen]

Possibly. Although I would like to remark that if TTL America is regarded so little in Europe, then the European powers are going to ignore a war between Russia and America if and when it happens over Alaska. They are going to be bemused spectators, expecting Russia to crush the upstart and certainly not bothering to get involved, militarily or with economic sanctions. And they would receive a big surprise when America defeats Russia, as it happened OTL with the Russo-Japanese war.

Actually, many Europeans kept being dismissive of American power even after the Mexican War and the ACW.

The Spanish-American War utterly failed to arise any panic of the sort you describe among the other European colonial powers, despite the casus belli for America was questionable if not flimsly to say the best, and wholly comparable to what America might use about Alaska. Not to mention that ITTL Spain has no more significant colonial holdings in the Americas, Britain is in the position to know much better whether American attitudes involve a threat on the DSA regardless of what happens in Alaska. Even France seems rather unlikely to care enough and pick a feud with America for the sake of French Guyana or a couple islands in the Caribbean. The idea that European powers might deem a Russo-American war over Alaska as proof that America is going to a global expansionist rampage on their colonial empires in Africa and Asia seems ASBish and bizarre. Nothing of this sort happened because of the SAW or the RJW. It's stuff for the 19th century equivalent of the technothriller, not serious diplomacy.

So what ? European governments can look at a map, and say "oh well, America wants to grab some gold ores and tide up its continental borders in the Great White North, and its making up some excuses for it, it's something happening on the other side of the world and far, far away from our interests, let Russia deal with the upstarts, pass the popcorn". Really, nothing about this war is going to breach 19th century bounds of acceptable behavior between two powers going at war about a territorial dispute. I need to remind you that SAW got a ship blowing up under dubious circumstances as the American excuse, the European powers can easily see it was a blatant power grab of America on the Spanish colonies, yet nobody cared to do anything against the USA.

You assume a degree of committment to upkeeping the international status quo that simply wasn't there for 19th century powers.

If they underestimate the USA so much, which is quite possible, the other European powers won't care to do anything, expecting Russia to crush the upstarts. If and when America defeat Russia, it shall win enough respect as to be regarded as a great power.

Good points one and all, as we bring the Great Alaska Debate of 2010 to a close!

 

[eschaton]

Glen, I wonder if you could elaborate on the future regions of the U.S.

My guess is ITTL Nova Scotia (does it include PEI, I can't recall), and Newfoundland will be viewed as part of New England. I could see Quebec being included in a broader sense when one talks about the "Northeast"

But how is the South defined? Is it strictly Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and Kentucky? Or is "southern culture" defined in a different way than IOTL, so that Pennsylvania, the lower Midwest, and even possibly New Jersey is seen as southern.

 

[Glen]

For all that we know, Britain has enjoyed a fairly friendly relationship with America about the DSA.

More or less, more or less.

They are the ones that have most to lose if they antagonize America with something as heavy-handed as sanctions, and are in the position to understand whether America is going to turn a threat to the DSA or not, regardless and notwithstanding what happens in Alaska.

I think it is reasonable to say that Britain's stance on the US will be driven solely by their interest in protecting their territory in the New World. If turning a blind eye towards Alaskan expansion does that, that is what they will do - if drawing a line in the sand with the Americans over encroachment serves them better, than that is what they will do.

As for France, why they should bother ? They did not in 1898.

And TTL's post-Napoleonic France has very good relations with this USA.

By the time a Russo-American war is most plausible to happen, America is also most likely going to have a Navy that dwarfs the Russian one, and in the Atlantic they would fight in or close to home waters, while the Russians would not.

Yes, a good point.

Actually, this is not true. There have been the Louisiana Purchase, Rupert's Land purchase, the acquisition of Oregon-Columbia from Britain and Colorado and northern California from Mexico.

Only Louisiana territory was taken by force.

ITTL it is quite possible and even likely that this USA are much more interventionist in economy than OTL, for various reasons, and keep a policy of substantial incentives and subsidies for infrastructure development, including railroads to speed up the settlement of the West and North.

More intereventionist than OTL 19th century America? Probably. But it still can't hold a candle to the 20th century!

But infrastructure development is definitely more advanced ITTL.

 

[Glen]

They would hate even much more to destroy a friendly relationship with the USA, which would then create a *real* and serious threat to the security of the DSA. Moreover, if things turn out anything like OTL, they are not really going to be unhappy if some other power gives a bloody nose to the Russians.

Except, you know, the ones that happen to be rivals of Russia. Sanctions were rather unusual stuff for 19th century international politics, and a colonial scuffle between Russia and America on the other side of the world is no ground for them. Nothing of the sort happened about the Russian-Japanese War.

True. Nonetheless, it is quite possible that Russia cares not to invoke such alliance obligations, either for reasons of prestige, or because America secures alliance support of its own among Russia's enemies (as it happened in RJW).

Again, fair points, and I am trying to acknowledge these - but I think we've covered most of them at this point (I especially agree with your last sentence here).

 

[Glen]

1) Yeah, I like that kind of thing

a. Figured as much. Texas I think will gobble the northernmost lands like Sonora, Chihuahua, and those immediately adjacent to Rio Grande river.

In an ATL of the DSA, yes, quite so.

b. Really ? The whole Texas Republic instead of just California ?

That would make a rather weird territorial shapes, since there is Arkansas buffer between US territory and the Texas proper. And IIRC, Arkansas Indians was pro-British during the rebellion.

Yes and yes. The US and the British might do some territory swapping in such an ATL of the DSA to make it a prettier border, but that's essentially what would happen. And the Indians in West Arkansas are not so much Pro-British as anti-Southerner.

 

[Glen]

Oh right, you could have said earlier .

I just assumed on the border route because it requires massively less vertical relief as its not trying to hack through three extra mountain ranges, the bridges required at Yuma is considerably smaller than the one needed at the Needles, and water isn't the same logistical issue for railroads as it is for road travelers.

Well, the more southern route is not as well known or mapped ITTL yet. Also, I thought water was an issue for steam locomotives?

Following the Texas roads direct path is actually rather infeasible, you have to curve and avoid a bunch of stuff to go in the same rough direction.

I am not clear that this is the case.

Hence why the Southern Pacifics was completed a decade before before the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway was.

Interesting point - and one that we will revisit in time...

 

[Glen]

Well, it gives them less of an economic interest in a purchase, but more of a national pride/military interest. I honestly think the biggest interest (gold rush aside) will probably be naval as time passes. It's not like it would really ever be feasible Russia or anyone else would stage a mass invasion through Alaska.

Well, we have a century or more of butterflies. Broadly speaking, I would say the most likely happenstance would be Russia and the UK ending up in a war on opposing sides, and the USA deciding to side with the British alliance. I could see, depending upon the circumstances, either the U.S. getting bought off with the promise of Alaska, or simply deciding it can't stay neutral in the Great War, and there was significantly less risk fighting Russia than the DSA.

I don't see why not. If the U.S. passes up the chance, I don't think anyone except Japan would really want to bother with it. There is even less reason for Britain (or the DSA) to take it than IOTL - far worse supply lines, and keeps you exposed to future Russian retribution. It's the sort of colony (pre-oil) I could only see picked up by a second-rate power who wanted to burnish their national image. Plus, if/when Russia actually sends in settlers, given the native population is comparably small it will be easy to swamp them and make it popularly viewed as an integral part of Russia.

Good points, but we will see...

 

[Glen]

Noooo!!!!!

Ah well. Any chance perhaps of an analogue of some shape? Perhaps involved in capturing Alaska?

Time will tell, time will tell...

 

[Glen]

I really hope not

(Just because of personal tastes of course )

Noted, noted, noted...

 

[Glen]

Glen, I wonder if you could elaborate on the future regions of the U.S.

My guess is ITTL Nova Scotia (does it include PEI, I can't recall),

It does.

and Newfoundland will be viewed as part of New England.

They are.

I could see Quebec being included in a broader sense when one talks about the "Northeast"

Yes, more or less - and as somewhat distinct from New England.

But how is the South defined? Is it strictly Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and Kentucky?

That is one definition (and some throw in Missouri in that.

Or is "southern culture" defined in a different way than IOTL,

Yes, it is.

so that Pennsylvania, the lower Midwest, and even possibly New Jersey is seen as southern.

Yes, and sometimes New York as well.

The main division is between the Northeast (basically the Maritimes and New England), and the Southwest (Remaining South, Ohio, Mid-Atlantic States, sometimes New York). New York and New Jersey are something of swing states.

 

[Glen]

Friedrich Wilhelm the IVth of Prussia

After nearly 20 years of oppression, in 1849 the Prussian controlled region west of the Rhine River finally exploded once more into open rebellion against the conservative forces of Frederick William IV of Prussia. Frederick William and his advisers had tried to crush the independent spirit that had sparked the Cologne Rebellion out of the region, but it had only delayed the inevitable. Many would-be revolutionaries, seeking a free and liberal German state independent of the Authoritarian machinations of Prussia (and Austria) had found safe haven in the relatively liberal nations of the Kingdom of France and Belgique, and even in Hanover ruled by George the Vth of the United Kingdom. And in 1849 they led the uprisings throughout the provinces of the Rhine and Westphalia with cries of "Freiheit, Gleichheit, Brüderlichkeit!". The most prominent flag to fly was that of the Napoleonic Rhine Republic.

What few at the time realized was that this would be the spark that lit Europe afire.

 

[Earl_of_Somerset]

So this started a war in Europe? Would the DSA fight with Britian in this like Canada, South Africa, and Australia in WWI?

Or be alit on fire, would it be the Nationalist revolutions of Europe in 1848?

 

[Glen]

So this started a war in Europe?

Let us say it is cited as the first of many such uprisings.

Would the DSA fight with Britian in this like Canada, South Africa, and Australia in WWI?

A very interesting question. Some may if they are part of the British Army, and Britain gets embroiled in a war. I would be interested to hear speculation on this from others.

Or be alit on fire, would it be the Nationalist revolutions of Europe in 1848?

It is happening virtually the same time for many of the same reasons that the Revolutions of 1848 did IOTL - but time will tell how they unfold. Note here they are getting started much differently (France is actually both liberal and stable, and thus isn't the spark!).

 

[thekingsguard]

And with that, the butterflies begin to cast thier gaze on Europe.

 

[Earl_of_Somerset]

A very interesting question. Some may if they are part of the British Army, and Britain gets embroiled in a war. I would be interested to hear speculation on this from others.

Well it is the DOMINION of Southern America. like all other dominions, wouldn't it have an automatic defensive pact/military alliance with Great Britian. Canada is in America, and im not sure if South Africa and Australia/New Zealand have became dominions.

 

[Glen]

And with that, the butterflies begin to cast thier gaze on Europe.

Well, they've been nibbling at Europe for years. Mostly the nations along the Channel, but now the rest of Europe shall feel the wrath of the lazy butterflies!

 

[Glen]

Well it is the DOMINION of Southern America. like all other dominions, wouldn't it have an automatic defensive pact/military alliance with Great Britian. Canada is in America, and im not sure if South Africa and Australia/New Zealand have became dominions.

Yes - but how many regiments did Canada send to the Crimean?