WI England never lost America, Portugal never lost Brazil etc.

What if Britain never lost America, Portugal never lost Brazil, Spain never lost South America, France never lost Louisiana and Russia never lost Alaska (to rebellions, sales etc. If they are conquered, that is OK)?

What do you think the world would look like today?

You need to be more specific. Unless you want the American Revolution to turn the eastern seaboard into Indochina with several long, bloody rebellions, there is no way for London to rule the colonies absolutely. Give the colonies independence and put them in personal union with the UK and you can manage. The American Revolution really was George III and Lord North's Vietnam, with Saratoga standing in for the Tet Offensive. The class structure that ruled in Spanish America was unstable in the long run. You'd have to get rid of it (and put the viceroyalties, as kingdoms in their own right, in personal union with spain to keep the king of spain in the americas. Otherwise, eventually the Mestizos and criollos will get sick of being stepped on by the peninsulares. Louisiana to france means that you have to prevent Toussaint L'Overture's rebellion in Haiti. Even then, unless you butterfly Napoleon's conquests, France probably looses Louisiana anyway. Honestly, Brazil didn't so much declare independence from Portugal as a czechoslovakia type seperation took place

Lost the game said:

You need to be more specific. Unless you want the American Revolution to turn the eastern seaboard into Indochina with several long, bloody rebellions, there is no way for London to rule the colonies absolutely. Give the colonies independence and put them in personal union with the UK and you can manage. The American Revolution really was George III and Lord North's Vietnam, with Saratoga standing in for the Tet Offensive. The class structure that ruled in Spanish America was unstable in the long run. You'd have to get rid of it (and put the viceroyalties, as kingdoms in their own right, in personal union with spain to keep the king of spain in the americas. Otherwise, eventually the Mestizos and criollos will get sick of being stepped on by the peninsulares. Louisiana to france means that you have to prevent Toussaint L'Overture's rebellion in Haiti. Even then, unless you butterfly Napoleon's conquests, France probably looses Louisiana anyway. Honestly, Brazil didn't so much declare independence from Portugal as a czechoslovakia type seperation took place

Click to expand...

Well, I was sort of leaving it up to you guys. And this is just hypothesising different ways the survival of these colonies and how the world would be like today.

Lost the game said:

You need to be more specific. Unless you want the American Revolution to turn the eastern seaboard into Indochina with several long, bloody rebellions, there is no way for London to rule the colonies absolutely. Give the colonies independence and put them in personal union with the UK and you can manage. The American Revolution really was George III and Lord North's Vietnam, with Saratoga standing in for the Tet Offensive.

Click to expand...

I really have to disagree with this interpretation. Even if you have a POD after the War of Independence, it will never be the bloodbath that Vietnam became, mainly because the level of technology isn't there yet.

With a POD of Britain winning the ARW, it is probable that the colonies would get independence. However, it isn't certain, and it's even less certain that the same colonies would rebel - particularly once the slavery divide sets in.

With a POD in the late 1760s, it's probably an even chance of independence or staying with Britain, but you don't need division to the point of personal union even then. Some representation of the Americans in the Commons, Lords, or the Privy Council could have bought a lot more time, and after that it all depends on world events. The independence brigade were in the minority for a long time. They only got supremacy in the argument because not only was Britain not giving enough political reform away, they weren't even giving gradualist reforms that would suggest the road of progress had been started down. Even without political reform, the removal of most of the offending policies could have probably bought a decade or two.

If you go back to have a POD where Canada stays in French hands, then I would say staying part of the empire was more likely than not.

Socrates said:

I really have to disagree with this interpretation. Even if you have a POD after the War of Independence, it will never be the bloodbath that Vietnam became, mainly because the level of technology isn't there yet.

With a POD of Britain winning the ARW, it is probable that the colonies would get independence. However, it isn't certain, and it's even less certain that the same colonies would rebel - particularly once the slavery divide sets in.

With a POD in the late 1760s, it's probably an even chance of independence or staying with Britain, but you don't need division to the point of personal union even then. Some representation of the Americans in the Commons, Lords, or the Privy Council could have bought a lot more time, and after that it all depends on world events. The independence brigade were in the minority for a long time. They only got supremacy in the argument because not only was Britain not giving enough political reform away, they weren't even giving gradualist reforms that would suggest the road of progress had been started down. Even without political reform, the removal of most of the offending policies could have probably bought a decade or two.

Click to expand...

I don't think the Americans would have accepted representation in Parliament. London is three or four months away from the colonies and preservation of local government was one of the things the whole Revolution was about.

Several plans of colonial union had been put forward over the years that assumed continued membership in the Empire, the most recent at the time of the Declaration being the Galloway Plan.

The French keeping Canada and the Mississippi valley would give Loyalism the upper hand, particularly if the French policy of aiding the Indian tribes continued.

Until after the seven Years War, most Americans really did think of themselves as Englishman. John Adams in his diary was very pro-English during that war. His opinion (he was in his twenties) was that eventually the seat of the British Empire would inevitably be moved to America at some time in the future, just because that would be where most of the population of the Empire would live. So yeah, wiser heads in Parliament and a more flexible King George could have maintained the Empire in America.

Representatives (say Washington or Hancock or Jefferson being sent far away to London as MPs would not be a huge deal, and would cement American political support for the Parliamentary system. If reforms were put in place that replaced the Royal Governors with home-grown members of the local gentry presiding over the legislatures the system would stay stable for a long time. Most citizens probably never saw their colonial legislators once.

(Probably that was always the case in this country until the invention of railroads and the whistle-stop campaign.)

Claudius said:

Representatives being sent far away to London as MPs would not be a huge deal

Click to expand...

Yes it would be.

By the time of the Revolution, most Americans had come to think of their local assembly as their local version of Parliament. One of the first major moves taken before independence was finally decided upon was an attempt to prove that Parliament had no authority over the colonies and they owed allegiance to the King alone.

The colonial elite was very used to being intimately involved in the running of their own political affairs. Suddenly having that situation removed 3 months and 3000 miles away isn't going to sit well with them. That's why plans for colonial union started cropping up as early as the 1750's with the Albany Congress.

MAlexMatt said:

Yes it would be.

By the time of the Revolution, most Americans had come to think of their local assembly as their local version of Parliament. One of the first major moves taken before independence was finally decided upon was an attempt to prove that Parliament had no authority over the colonies and they owed allegiance to the King alone.

The colonial elite was very used to being intimately involved in the running of their own political affairs. Suddenly having that situation removed 3 months and 3000 miles away isn't going to sit well with them. That's why plans for colonial union started cropping up as early as the 1750's with the Albany Congress.

Click to expand...

This might be completely ridiculous but could you have the Royal Family move to America?

Chirios said:

This might be completely ridiculous but could you have the Royal Family move to America?

Click to expand...

Something tells me Parliament wouldn't like that at all.

It's the Crown of Great Britain, after all.

Chirios said:

This might be completely ridiculous but could you have the Royal Family move to America?

Click to expand...

ASB i think. Before 1850 the USA (even the eastern coast) were the arsehole of the world, and in comparison to London, it will stay this way up to WWI.

MAlexMatt said:

Yes it would be.

By the time of the Revolution, most Americans had come to think of their local assembly as their local version of Parliament. One of the first major moves taken before independence was finally decided upon was an attempt to prove that Parliament had no authority over the colonies and they owed allegiance to the King alone.

The colonial elite was very used to being intimately involved in the running of their own political affairs. Suddenly having that situation removed 3 months and 3000 miles away isn't going to sit well with them. That's why plans for colonial union started cropping up as early as the 1750's with the Albany Congress.

Click to expand...

I agree that representation in parliament instead of local government would have been off the cards, but there's no reason one has to preclude the other. The colonies could have had some MPs to give them a voice in the commons in addition to local autonomy. Added to a watering down of the policies that most upset them, and a tacit agreement that American interests would always be considered and I'm pretty confident that would have been enough.

Besides, it's more often appearances that matter more than concrete policy. Just look at the current debt ceiling arguments where the Gang of Six plan is being looked upon more positively than the White House offer, despite the fact it's more liberal, purely becauses its branded "bipartisan" and doesn't come from that socialist Obama.

The separatists won influence as the bulk of colonists felt that Britain was simply being unreasonable. Offering things like representation etc would make Britain look the reverse.

And, incidentally, I believe travel from Britain to the Eastern Sea Board was just over a month at the time.

All of those territories never losing their independence is sort of ASB. Eventually they will split from their parent for some reason as they develop. At best you could have the relationship the UK has with the rest of the Commonwealth.

How far back does this POD go by the way? Can the French keep Quebec? The Dutch keep New Amsterdam?

Socrates said:

I agree that representation in parliament instead of local government would have been off the cards, but there's no reason one has to preclude the other. The colonies could have had some MPs to give them a voice in the commons in addition to local autonomy. Added to a watering down of the policies that most upset them, and a tacit agreement that American interests would always be considered and I'm pretty confident that would have been enough.

Besides, it's more often appearances that matter more than concrete policy. Just look at the current debt ceiling arguments where the Gang of Six plan is being looked upon more positively than the White House offer, despite the fact it's more liberal, purely becauses its branded "bipartisan" and doesn't come from that socialist Obama.

The separatists won influence as the bulk of colonists felt that Britain was simply being unreasonable. Offering things like representation etc would make Britain look the reverse.

And, incidentally, I believe travel from Britain to the Eastern Sea Board was just over a month at the time.

Click to expand...

That was basically the point I was making. A local assembly, for local governmental issues, but with MPs representing them in London would have made a huge political difference and made most people discount the pamphlets of radicals like Paine or Sam Adams. Americans paid far lower taxes in the 1770's than did the average Briton. If increases in taxes occurred as the result of local assemblies, the fault would not lie with Parliament. The glue that would hold things together would be pride in being part of a great Empire and advantageous trade agreements with the mother country Again, the existence of a continuing French presence in America would have made this arrangement more likely
__________________

Britain holding on to the US is impossible in the long term, there are just too many people and the technology of the time just isn't good enough for the colonies to be effectively ruled by so distant a foreign power. The most optimistic outlook the British could hope for is some sort of Canada-style agreement where the US manages itself but stays close to the UK in relations.

French can't hold Louisiana, and the Spanish can't hold Florida with the Americans lurking nearby, British sphere of influence or not. There's just no way that they'll be able to keep out wave after wave of American settlers, and once they reach that critical mass of population, where the Americans outnumber the population of colonists from whoever owns the colonies originally, that is when they lose.

HeavyWeaponsGuy said:

Britain holding on to the US is impossible in the long term, there are just too many people and the technology of the time just isn't good enough for the colonies to be effectively ruled by so distant a foreign power. The most optimistic outlook the British could hope for is some sort of Canada-style agreement where the US manages itself but stays close to the UK in relations.

Click to expand...

A lot of anachronistic sentiment here.

(1) In this scenario there would be no single "US". It would be lots of different colonies that would have no closer affinity to each other than to Britain, particularly once slavery sets in.

(2) Britain isn't a "foreign power", and wasn't thought of as such even after the declaration of independence. Hence the criticism of King George for using "foreign troops" from Hesse - British troops were considered kin.

(3) It doesn't need to be just Britain and North American colonies in this union. There would also be Ireland, likely Australia, and possibly other white settlements in Africa and South America. I'm sure the North American Britons would increasingly play a big role in dominating the (actual) Indians and Africans during the later age of Empire, so they would think of themselves as part of the colonial power rather than the dominated people.

Socrates said:

A lot of anachronistic sentiment here.

(1) In this scenario there would be no single "US". It would be lots of different colonies that would have no closer affinity to each other than to Britain, particularly once slavery sets in.

Click to expand...

As I noted several times above, plans for a colonial union go pretty far back, and a notion of common interests with them.

Socrates said:

(2) Britain isn't a "foreign power", and wasn't thought of as such even after the declaration of independence. Hence the criticism of King George for using "foreign troops" from Hesse - British troops were considered kin.

Click to expand...

What Britain WAS thought of was as a distant central government that was becoming increasingly untrustworthy at pursuing the interests of the American colonies.

MAlexMatt said:

As I noted several times above, plans for a colonial union go pretty far back, and a notion of common interests with them.

Click to expand...

But not very well established in either case.

What Britain WAS thought of was as a distant central government that was becoming increasingly untrustworthy at pursuing the interests of the American colonies.

Click to expand...

Not quite the same thing as a Foreign Overlord, though. If Britain either pursues different policies or handles ones similar to OTL more skillfully, that defuses a lot of "freakin' mother bleepin' Parliament" sentiment.

But it isn't too distant to rule Canada, which is across the same ocean as the American colonies which became the US, so distance alone will not break the relationship.

How about stepping back a further century, tinkering with the English Civil War so that (somehow...) you achieve a dual aim of 1 - Parliament never managing to overthrow the King and/or 2 (perhaps the more important) - a lot of puritan emigration is butterflied, resulting in the Americas never getting stocked up with men writing treatises on who has the right to rule. I'm not necessarily advocating Absolutism World - Parliament could instead perhaps manage to force concessions on the King without it ever quite coming to blows - but the main goal would be to prevent the philosophy of the common man having a right to determine whether his government's rule is right and legitimate be entirely done away with, so that colonists are more willing to accept being ruled by a far-off country without a direct hand in its government. Before the ARW, the Spanish colonies never demanded self-determination or representation, for instance; neither did Brazil before the monarchy moved there in the early 19th century. Can this philosophy not be transplanted to the British colonies, even though it will result in the inevitable death of the vaunted "American values".

Yes, I'm aware that this would have big butterflies. For the purposes of this thread, which such an ambitious target, big butterflies may actually be a good thing...The chance to entirely re-write several wars could make things much easier...

Honestly.

Don't expect things to be much better overall. For those of you looking at the C.N.A. from 'For Want of a Nail', it is the exception and not the rule, really. You really think a truly democratic society is likely to develop under these conditions? OTL's Canada was kind of a fortunate fluke, and they weren't even under full control of Britain after 1867(Independent nation, albeit under the 'Commonwealth. P.S. no insult to Canadians intended here, I do have plenty of respect for your nation. )! Neither was Australia after 1901 1 Jan., as far as I know.

MAlexMatt said:

As I noted several times above, plans for a colonial union go pretty far back, and a notion of common interests with them.

Click to expand...

The odd person coming up with an idea doesn't mean much. Ideas for the USA to revert to the gold standard have a long history, but additional meaning shouldn't be added into that.


What Britain WAS thought of was as a distant central government that was becoming increasingly untrustworthy at pursuing the interests of the American colonies.[/QUOTE]

That's what a lot of Alaskans think of DC. It doesn't mean divorce.

If the British government had just given a few signs it would consider some American grievances legitimate (as Burke, Pitt etc believed), that would been enough. This idea that the American nation was just waiting to throw off the shackles of British rule is a myth. The colonists thought of themselves as British. Franklin desperately tried to keep the empire together. Most members of the continental congress originally just wanted to act as a pressure group via boycotts, petitions and the like. The separatists kept quiet in the early days of the continental congress so they didn't cause a reaction, until the antagonism of HMG caused them to be strengthened in influence. Even Jefferson, one of the most radical, wrote in the first draft of the Declaration "we could have remained a great and free people together" - not two peoples, one people. The Founding Fathers basically felt forced into a position they didn't originally want.

CaliBoy1990 said:

Don't expect things to be much better overall. For those of you looking at the C.N.A. from 'For Want of a Nail', it is the exception and not the rule, really. You really think a truly democratic society is likely to develop under these conditions? OTL's Canada was kind of a fortunate fluke, and they weren't even under full control of Britain after 1867(Independent nation, albeit under the 'Commonwealth. P.S. no insult to Canadians intended here, I do have plenty of respect for your nation. )! Neither was Australia after 1901 1 Jan., as far as I know.

Click to expand...

We haven't said "under these conditions", we've said under the conditions of some colonial influence in imperial government, which is a very different kettle of fish.

As for Canada being a fluke - really? What evidence do you have for that? Everywhere the British settled around the world, representative government and strong economies developed. The only places that were unstable were where the majority were a non-white indigenous population that was subjugated.