American dominions: effects on India, Africa and the Far East?

Socrates · Nov 22, 2014

In a scenario in which the ARW was averted, and the American colonies got autonomy, and presumably some sort of peripheral influence at Westminster, what would be the impact on the rest of the Empire?

For this discussion, I'd like to avoid the normal debates about the likelihood of the ARW being averted, or of another revolution happening. Please just assume that staying in the Empire over the long run is a given.

On India, would there be any involvement in the subcontinent from Americans? Would their dislike of the East India Company advance the dissolution of the company? Would American missionaries go out to convert the heathens? Would adventurous Americans look to create their fortune there, as many Britons did in service of the EIC? Any other effects?

On Africa, wouldn't Britain suddenly have a massive advantage in the scramble? Could the British conquer a lot more of the place? The Congo and Tanzania come to mind. After the frontier is used up at the end of the 1800s, would Americans seek to get farms in Africa to continue the frontier spirit, meaning more white settlement?

On the Far East, places like Boston, New York and Philadelphia would surely have a huge commercial interest here, as they did in our timeline. Would American merchants have the same success of convincing the British government to back their interests with gun boats? What would be the equivalent to Commodore Perry and Japan? Would the British/Americans get more treaty ports in China? More encroachment on the Dutch and Spanish East Indies perhaps?

Emperor-of-New-Zealand · Nov 22, 2014

I've seen it theorised that with the American colonies - and the economic potential therein - the British would have less interest in colonies in Africa. India is a given - the crown jewel - and likely Malaysia as an extension of Singapore, if the Brits go that way, but beyond perhaps securing the route through Suez to India, Africa would be open to the other powers.

Socrates · Nov 22, 2014

Emperor-of-New-Zealand said:
I've seen it theorised that with the American colonies - and the economic potential therein - the British would have less interest in colonies in Africa. India is a given - the crown jewel - and likely Malaysia as an extension of Singapore, if the Brits go that way, but beyond perhaps securing the route through Suez to India, Africa would be open to the other powers.

I think that's a high level theory that doesn't fit into the facts on the ground. Let's have a look at the different colonies:

South Africa: The Brits wanted it to guard the route to India round the cape. This would still apply.

Egypt: Needed to guarantee the Suez and protect the route to India. Still applies.

Rhodesia (North and South): Founded by Rhodes' British South African Company, a private enterprise, as a way to exploit Africa's mineral wealth. I can't see the British not backing that in this timeline.

Kenya and Uganda: Started by Mackinnon's British East African Company, again looking for commercial interests. Still likely to happen.

Nigeria: Founded by the Royal Niger Company wanting commercial rights to the area and expanding up the Niger river. Still likely to happen.

Either the British were involved for protecting India, which would still happen, or they got dragged into it after private companies took up administration first. The only difference I can see is that there will potentially be a much bigger population of entrepreneurs wanting to exploit Africa's resources.

Emperor-of-New-Zealand · Nov 22, 2014

Well, if you want to ignore butterflies.

The American Revolution predates all of those things, ergo they might not even happen. The Cape, for example; the British took it OTL because they were at war with the Dutch and then the French when the Dutch were annexed. It was a useful route to India - but without the casus belli they might not have it. Especially since the Dutch by this time weren't a major threat to India to begin with. The Cape was taken because of the French Revolution, which happened in its OTL form due to the American Revolution, which means that a failed American Revolution (or one that doesn't happen) will have enormous ramifications for the French, the Dutch, and the Cape.

You need to think of all these things when proposing an ATL. Britain might take one or two colonies; Somaliland and Aden, Zanzibar and the Kenyan Coast were all about India to begin with, which, one must assume, in an ATL where the Americans aren't independent and the British can still extract resources from them, will be their sole purpose here.

Socrates · Nov 22, 2014

Sure, butterflies could spin things off in lots of ways. My point was that I don't see anything structural changing that means Britain would take less: Britain isn't any more or less likely to take South Africa if they still have America in 1785 than if they don't.

On the commercial colonies, I don't think America changes that. It wasn't like there was a central government decision to say "we need more copper, go and get Northern Rhodesia". The copper was there and British businessmen were in a position to take advantage to make money out of it. So they did.

Cahaya Purnama · Nov 22, 2014

perhaps no Mexican American war?

The Uchronian · Nov 22, 2014

Skywalker said:
perhaps no Mexican American war?

Probably not, though whether or not it still happens is largely going to depend on Anglo-Mexican relations(and very little, if any at all, with slavery, regardless of whether or not it dies out early, maybe a decade later than OTL, or if it stays strong for another 30, 40 or even 50 years).

Emperor-of-New-Zealand · Nov 23, 2014

Socrates said:
Sure, butterflies could spin things off in lots of ways. My point was that I don't see anything structural changing that means Britain would take less: Britain isn't any more or less likely to take South Africa if they still have America in 1785 than if they don't.

On the commercial colonies, I don't think America changes that. It wasn't like there was a central government decision to say "we need more copper, go and get Northern Rhodesia". The copper was there and British businessmen were in a position to take advantage to make money out of it. So they did.

This presumes too much though, which is the point I'm trying to make. Britain is indeed less likely to take South Africa from the Dutch if they are not in a position where there is a casus belli to do so, which the continued presence in the Americas post- (or in the absence of) ARW, might change. And if they did take it from the Dutch, the when and where and how are important when considering what comes next.

We can't assume they will take it in this ATL, as such a casus belli might not exist, and if it does, they might not keep it. Then again, they might purchase it later - another thing to consider is, the very same corporate powers that invested their time and money into Africa may be investing it into America, or Asia instead, since these markets will be infinitely more important to the British now.

Skywalker said:
perhaps no Mexican American war?

CaliBoy1990 said:
Probably not, though whether or not it still happens is largely going to depend on Anglo-Mexican relations(and very little, if any at all, with slavery, regardless of whether or not it dies out early, maybe a decade later than OTL, or if it stays strong for another 30, 40 or even 50 years).

Slavery depends on how much influence the southern landowners have on British governance overall, I'd imagine. As for the Mexican-American War, it would certainly not happen in its OTL form. An Anglo-Mexican War doesn't even seem likely; British America will still span east-west even without Louisiana.

But this thread is discussing primarily Africa, India and Asia.

Falecius · Nov 23, 2014

My quick answers in bold.

Socrates said:
On India, would there be any involvement in the subcontinent from Americans?

Possibly

Would their dislike of the East India Company advance the dissolution of the company?

Likely

Would American missionaries go out to convert the heathens?

Very Likely

Would adventurous Americans look to create their fortune there, as many Britons did in service of the EIC?

Almost certainly, if given half a chance to do so, which they probably will.

Any other effects?

A front less for Britain to worry about. They can concentrate more on India, esp. if the EIC is dissolved.

On Africa, wouldn't Britain suddenly have a massive advantage in the scramble?

Yes

Could the British conquer a lot more of the place?

They could have done so IOTL. They had little appetite for even more money-sinks.

The Congo and Tanzania come to mind.
After the frontier is used up at the end of the 1800s, would Americans seek to get farms in Africa to continue the frontier spirit, meaning more white settlement?

Not in great numbers, but something similar in Southern Africa is possible, provided of course that South Africa is British ITTL (very likely with something similar to Napoleonic Wars).

On the Far East, places like Boston, New York and Philadelphia would surely have a huge commercial interest here, as they did in our timeline. Would American merchants have the same success of convincing the British government to back their interests with gun boats?

Why not? They will probably be electing people in Westminister.

What would be the equivalent to Commodore Perry and Japan?

Britain will see no point in opening Japan here. Their grip on the world's oceanic trade will be far stricter ITTL. Japan would be appetizing to other powers looking for marginal opportunities, notably France and Russia.

Would the British/Americans get more treaty ports in China?

Probably

More encroachment on the Dutch and Spanish East Indies perhaps?

Possible. That depends a lot on how the *Napoleonic wars develop ITTL. Britain could have relatively easily kept the entire DEI is she wanted to (Raffles was pushing for it). Butterflies might make them do so here.

Falecius · Nov 23, 2014

Emperor-of-New-Zealand said:
Well, if you want to ignore butterflies.

The American Revolution predates all of those things, ergo they might not even happen. The Cape, for example; the British took it OTL because they were at war with the Dutch and then the French when the Dutch were annexed. It was a useful route to India - but without the casus belli they might not have it. Especially since the Dutch by this time weren't a major threat to India to begin with. The Cape was taken because of the French Revolution, which happened in its OTL form due to the American Revolution, which means that a failed American Revolution (or one that doesn't happen) will have enormous ramifications for the French, the Dutch, and the Cape.

You need to think of all these things when proposing an ATL. Britain might take one or two colonies; Somaliland and Aden, Zanzibar and the Kenyan Coast were all about India to begin with, which, one must assume, in an ATL where the Americans aren't independent and the British can still extract resources from them, will be their sole purpose here.

Britain is still very likely to be in long-term conflict with France, and France is still very likely to undergo some major upheaval even without the ARW.
The Dutch will be impacted significantly by all this and probably are on the way of major internal upheaval on their own, although without the defeats of the ARW that could assume very different forms.
So, a major period of conflict resembling the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars and heavily involving most major colonial powers in Europe, critically the Netherlands, is quite likely to happen. Britain will be in and even more favorable position tha IOTL to profit from that colonially, seizing bits of the Spanish, Dutch and French colonial empire more or less as she pleases. The American interests will probably orient most efforts toward North America/the Caribbean (Louisiana, Martinique, etc.) and the other focus would probably be India (which includes the Cape and Indonesia as possible secondary targets). Perhaps you'd see less pressure onto Spanish South America or West Africa (which was however an area of very secondary concern IOTL).
Interestingly, a French expedition to Egypt is likely to be butterflied away. The consequences of that alone are pretty significant.

Socrates · Nov 23, 2014

Thanks for your responses Falecius. I always appreciate it when people answer all the questions rather than just a few!

To pick up on some to brain-storm further:

- I think we're agreed on an earlier wind-up of the EIC and an earlier British Raj. But how much earlier? If it happens before the 1840s, then the British don't hold all of India. Would that still lead to the same zest for conquest of the whole subcontinent?
- American missionaries in India. Are they really going to go here rather than the American frontier? If they do, it will likely piss off the Indians a lot. An earlier Indian mutiny perhaps?
- American entrepreneurs: Would they go to India? If they're backed by British gunboats, it would seem like Latin America is the easier bet. Do you really think a lot would go?
- Where could the British have annexed more in Africa? If they were aware they were money sinks, why did they bother with places like Kenya and Nigeria?
- What's your rationale for not great numbers going to Africa? It seems to me like American dominions would have a lot more of the imperialist propaganda Britain saw, and a lot more white people would be inspired by it. Especially if they know how to farm already.
- China is very interesting to me. Could the *British Empire push the other powers out here, as they did in India? How deep could penetration go? It seems to me Chinese nationalism is a much more tangible force than Indian nationalism in the 19th Century, and I can't figure out whether that would stop things or not.
- I never knew about Raffles and the Dutch East Indies. Do you have any sources on it?

Thanks a lot. This is really helping me form my opinions better.

pompejus · Nov 23, 2014

Falecius said:
Britain is still very likely to be in long-term conflict with France, and France is still very likely to undergo some major upheaval even without the ARW.
The Dutch will be impacted significantly by all this and probably are on the way of major internal upheaval on their own, although without the defeats of the ARW that could assume very different forms.
So, a major period of conflict resembling the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars and heavily involving most major colonial powers in Europe, critically the Netherlands, is quite likely to happen. Britain will be in and even more favorable position tha IOTL to profit from that colonially, seizing bits of the Spanish, Dutch and French colonial empire more or less as she pleases. The American interests will probably orient most efforts toward North America/the Caribbean (Louisiana, Martinique, etc.) and the other focus would probably be India (which includes the Cape and Indonesia as possible secondary targets). Perhaps you'd see less pressure onto Spanish South America or West Africa (which was however an area of very secondary concern IOTL).
Interestingly, a French expedition to Egypt is likely to be butterflied away. The consequences of that alone are pretty significant.

The thing is that the loss of South Africa to Britain is very closely linked to the Amrican revolution and its consequences. It certainly is possible that no (or a failed) American revolution leads to a British South Africa, but hardly certain (I would even say that there is a bigger chance the Netherlands would keep the Cape than lose it).

For example the trouble in the Netherlands, especialy the patriot movement, was a direct reaction to the success of the American rebels. Without their inspiration the Dutch political situation would be radically different. If stadholder Willem V (or at least his supporters), would be able to keep his influence, the Netherlands would develop very different and possibly be more ready for France. Or if the Netherlands falls, there might not be semi ligitimate Dutch government ruling it, but just some people appointed by the French, without populair support. It is possible that in this case the major political players in the Netherlands (the stadholder, important regents, rich merchants, etc.) flee the country and continues the fight from abroad or the colonies. Thus the Netherlands remains an ally in the struggle against revolutionairy France and keeps its colonies after the war has been won.

Of course the netherlands is not te only place with obvious butterflies. Another would be France itself. A major reason for the war was the finacial situation, which got out of hand and the money spend on the American Revolt was a major cause. Without it,, the financial sitation in France would be different enough to gain a very different revolution. Maybe it remains a local revolt that isn't able to spread outside Paris and is crushed. Or without the succesful example of the Americans, maybe the French revolution decides not to spread the revolution to neighbouring countries (like OTL Netherlands).

There are of course less obvious butterflies. OTL Britain restored the Cape colony to the Dutch during the peace of Amiens. I consider it possible that a similar peace would be made and this time it remains in effect for longer.

Anyway, what I am saying is that a British North America would mean a very big difference to colonisation of Africa, certainly around the Cape, but also elsewhere. Actualy the same is true for Asia and Australia. Colonising Australia was for a large part a British reaction to the loss of the American colonies. The Netherlands lost Ceylon to the British because of the Revolutionairy wars (so just like the Cape, it could keep it). Without Singapore (founded in 1819, so easily butterflied away), Malaysia could easily end up Dutch (since they controled Malacca).

Anyway, I think it is safe to say that with a British North America and India, Britain has two of the most profitable colonies and is unlikely to look elsewhere. They don't need large swats of Africa or Australia. They can do whatever they want. The only reason to colonise other places is out of fear their competitors would colonise them first.

yulzari · Nov 23, 2014

Australia would be less likely to be acquired as the impetus to transport convicts there was a result of being unable to continue to transport convicts to America as was the previous practice.

Falecius · Nov 23, 2014

pompejus said:
The thing is that the loss of South Africa to Britain is very closely linked to the Amrican revolution and its consequences. It certainly is possible that no (or a failed) American revolution leads to a British South Africa, but hardly certain (I would even say that there is a bigger chance the Netherlands would keep the Cape than lose it).

For example the trouble in the Netherlands, especialy the patriot movement, was a direct reaction to the success of the American rebels. Without their inspiration the Dutch political situation would be radically different. If stadholder Willem V (or at least his supporters), would be able to keep his influence, the Netherlands would develop very different and possibly be more ready for France. Or if the Netherlands falls, there might not be semi ligitimate Dutch government ruling it, but just some people appointed by the French, without populair support. It is possible that in this case the major political players in the Netherlands (the stadholder, important regents, rich merchants, etc.) flee the country and continues the fight from abroad or the colonies. Thus the Netherlands remains an ally in the struggle against revolutionairy France and keeps its colonies after the war has been won.

Of course the netherlands is not te only place with obvious butterflies. Another would be France itself. A major reason for the war was the finacial situation, which got out of hand and the money spend on the American Revolt was a major cause. Without it,, the financial sitation in France would be different enough to gain a very different revolution. Maybe it remains a local revolt that isn't able to spread outside Paris and is crushed. Or without the succesful example of the Americans, maybe the French revolution decides not to spread the revolution to neighbouring countries (like OTL Netherlands).

There are of course less obvious butterflies. OTL Britain restored the Cape colony to the Dutch during the peace of Amiens. I consider it possible that a similar peace would be made and this time it remains in effect for longer.

Anyway, what I am saying is that a British North America would mean a very big difference to colonisation of Africa, certainly around the Cape, but also elsewhere. Actualy the same is true for Asia and Australia. Colonising Australia was for a large part a British reaction to the loss of the American colonies. The Netherlands lost Ceylon to the British because of the Revolutionairy wars (so just like the Cape, it could keep it). Without Singapore (founded in 1819, so easily butterflied away), Malaysia could easily end up Dutch (since they controled Malacca).

Anyway, I think it is safe to say that with a British North America and India, Britain has two of the most profitable colonies and is unlikely to look elsewhere. They don't need large swats of Africa or Australia. They can do whatever they want. The only reason to colonise other places is out of fear their competitors would colonise them first.

All good points.
However, the French finances were in a horrible shape regardless of the ARW. The consensus on this board appears to be that the convocationof the Etats Genéraux would probably happen, although perhaps sometime later, and that something big would probably emerge out of that. Furthermore, no American rebellion does not necessarily mean that France (and, in all likelyhood, Spain) don't have another round of colonial war with Britain. That war probably won't affect the Dutch, and with the Americans onboard, Britain probably fares a lot better than IOTL (perhaps that's the POD? If Britain is already at war with France, she might feel that she needs the Americans and might be going to give something in return, like, say, representation. Irrelevant to the OP anyway).
I'll defer to your knowledge about the domestic situation in the Netherlands, but I would guess that serious social discontent was there as well irrispective of the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War.
However, fast-forward a few years, and you get something resembling the French Revolution. It would certainly differ considerably from it OTL's self, in ways difficult to predict. But chances that any Revolutionary government would be set against the whole old European dynastic concert are fairly high, and the Netherlands are pretty much the likeliest place to be invaded. If the Revolutionaries find local discontent, they might use it.
I'd argue that Britain would thus seize Dutch (and French) colonial holdings with the OTL's abandon. The ultimate fate of those is, of course, mostly to be decided in Europe when the dust settles, and depend on how exactly it settles. However, with Britain very dominant in India, the Cape will be still a place a very tempting place to keep.

I admit that this chain of events is a hypotetical depending on many factors, including imponderables. It may well be that the Cape remains Dutch ITTL.

What I fully expect, however, is the continued naval/colonial rivalry between Britain on side, France and Spain on the other, but this time with Britain having the full manopwer and resources (including, I suppose, ships) of British North America supporting her. This does not promise well for the continued intactness of the Bourbon colonial empires. Louisiana, Texas, French India, parts of the Caribbean and maybe the Philippines look to me as some plausible places that Britain might take in the following decades (probably not all of them though).

OTOH, ITTL France might console with a brand-new empire in Australia. Or the Netherlands migh go there instead. I agree that British interest in OZ is likely to be a lot lessened in this scenario.

Umbric Man · Nov 23, 2014

I must throw a potential monkey wrench in the Australia talk and ask if James Cook had not already claimed the eastern half for Britain in 1770 before any American Revolution forms anyway?

I would imagine in the case of averting an ARW, having a new locale for a penal colony to placate colonial interests would mean Australia is surprisingly still viable in being colonized even vaguely like reality.

Falecius · Nov 23, 2014

Umbric Man said:
I must throw a potential monkey wrench in the Australia talk and ask if James Cook had not already claimed the eastern half for Britain in 1770 before any American Revolution forms anyway?

I would imagine in the case of averting an ARW, having a new locale for a penal colony to placate colonial interests would mean Australia is surprisingly still viable in being colonized even vaguely like reality.

The claim will be there, but the willingness to enforce it?
I guess that the whole point of shipping convicts literally to the other side of the world was partly to have them, well, to the other side of the world, but if there are more cost-effective places to send them they'do that. OTOH, the Americas are getting pretty crowded to do that anyway, so the British might still opt for an Australian penal colony. Would, say, Florida work for that purpose instead? It's one of the alternatives I can think of in this context.

Umbric Man · Nov 23, 2014

Falecius said:
The claim will be there, but the willingness to enforce it?
I guess that the whole point of shipping convicts literally to the other side of the world was partly to have them, well, to the other side of the world, but if there are more cost-effective places to send them they'do that. OTOH, the Americas are getting pretty crowded to do that anyway, so the British might still opt for an Australian penal colony. Would, say, Florida work for that purpose instead? It's one of the alternatives I can think of in this context.

Both East and West Florida were already filling up with colonists from the old southern colonies and being granted assemblies - although I grant East Florida in particular had plenty of empty land.

pompejus · Nov 24, 2014

Falecius said:
I admit that this chain of events is a hypotetical depending on many factors, including imponderables. It may well be that the Cape remains Dutch ITTL.

The point I was trying to make that is not a certainty that the Cape ends up British, although it is possible. It looks like we both agree on that. I think the thing we disagree abouth is that I think it is more likely that the Cape remains Dutch and think it is more likely the Cape ends up British.

Umbric Man said:
I must throw a potential monkey wrench in the Australia talk and ask if James Cook had not already claimed the eastern half for Britain in 1770 before any American Revolution forms anyway?

The Dutch also had a claim on Australia. The thing about a claim is that if you don't do anything with the land and don't enforce a claim, a claim will be ignored by other countries.

Falecius · Nov 24, 2014

pompejus said:
The point I was trying to make that is not a certainty that the Cape ends up British, although it is possible. It looks like we both agree on that. I think the thing we disagree abouth is that I think it is more likely that the Cape remains Dutch and think it is more likely the Cape ends up British.

Not exactly. I just think that it makes sense for the British to seize and keep it if the opportunity arises.
I think that the likelyhood of that opportunity is dependent on so many factors that it's difficult to assess.

What are you thoughts on the Netherlands' trajectory in this scenario?
I assume no war with Britain in the 1780s and a fairly friendly relationship overall. I also guess that the Belgian "revolution" is not butterflied away.
A big unknown is whether Britain and the Bourbon monarchies have another round of fighting. I guess they'd be overdue for that by the mid 1780s, and there's plenty of flashpoints (Mysore comes to mind) by then.

Archdeacon of Dunwich · Nov 24, 2014

From a Anglo-sphere perspective I would suggest that it depends on what sort of autonomy would allow the Thirteen Colonies happy? Are we discussing each Colony becoming a Dominion or it being Federated so that the US is in many ways an early Canada that is even more strongly weighted towards the English speakers as opposed to the Franco-phones.

Thinking on the Empire, I'm not convinced Britain is going to lose interest in India. The East India Company is going to retain its monopoly for many years, especially as so many in the British establishment are making money off it.

Two issues I am not sure anyone has raised yet: Ireland and Louisiana. Does anyone have any ideas how they might turn out without the American Revolution changing things?