American Australia - How?

All, I'm looking for a method to make Austrialia an American possesson from the start, no conquest from Britain or anything.

Assume that the United States progresses along similar lines as OTL demographicly, economicly, militarily, etc.

How could this occur?

Key point in my mind is that Great Britain doesn't ship a bunch of convicts across three oceans to dump them. This always struck me as a kooky idea in the first place. Britain had adequate places to dump convicts (South Africa, West Indies, British Guyana). Going to such expense sounds absurd.

To restate the question in a different way, if Britain hadn't shipped those convicts to Botony Bay, WHO would have attempted to colonize, WHY and WHEN?

In the 1780's, after the American revolution, Australia had been sighted, a bit of exploring done, etc. But the continent hadn't drawn any real interest. Britain, Netherlands and France all had half-hearted claims based on the "land-ho!" principle over the previous century or two but no real attempt was made.

In the Age of Sail, Australia was, like, really, really far away from anything European. It wasn't on any real trade routes, there was no large local population to exploit, no evidence at this time of gold or precious resources. Most of the land on the east and north was inhospitable.In short, it wasn't an attractive location at the time (this was before surfing by non-Hawaiians).

If Britain dropped the silly convict idea, when was the likely point when SOMEBODY came up with a good enough reason to go to the edge of the world to plant a colony?

Was Britain so interested in fostering a colony there (for some reason) that they would expend vast amount of capital to get free people there? What would be their motivation?

The Netherlands seems less likely. They really hadn't started any new colonies in years and probably didn't have the cash/population to do so.

France, maybe, they were in Indochina but not deeply so.

I figure by the Age of Steam, transportation was cheap enough to make any land attractive to a number of countries.

At the very least, the colonization would start later with a slower initial rate of increase.

So, how about this for a timeline?

1780's - the British government falls and an odd proposal to send convicts (or American Loyalists/etc) on a 16 month journey to the other side of the world is forgotten.

1792 to 1815 - the European world is rocked by the French Revolution which turns to the Napoleonic Wars. Britain soon rules the waves with impunity. Lacking a rival, they don't bother with expensive pride projects like colonies for the sake of colonies.

1820's to 1830's - In the peace, sailors of Great Britain, the Netherlands, and the demographically rising United States of America begin visiting Australia and New Zealand in search of whaling grounds and begin landing on shore.

The United states is more aggressive in signing "treaties" with local tribes, especially the dangerour Maori of New Zealand. Informal settlements of Whalers beginn to appear.

Steam Engines become increasingly common thought still somewhat impractical for transoceanic travel.

1840 to 1850 Great Britain is rocked by Revolutions along the European Continent and Irish Potato Famine.

America engages in the Mexican War, winning access to the Pacific.

The informal settlements of whalers grow into coastal towns.

European/African/Asian diseases take their toll on the natives.

Multiple countries consider a canal across Central America but more reliable and much faster steam ships reach Asia by travelling around South American and Africa.

1855 - America formally claims New Zealand and Eastern Australia. No one acknowledges them but beyond protests against "century old claims", no one is interested in a dispute with America over some whale oil sources.

1853-1856 - Crimean War proves weaknesses of current British Army.

1857 - American towns grow, welcome "foreign trade" as American merchants can't supply anything. Foreign traders allowed to join American communities.

1857 - Sepoy Rebellion occupies Great Britain.

1861 1865- American Civil War. Population of several dozen southern east pacific settlments on Australia/NZ increase.

1865 - Great Britain is prospering selling product to United States government during civil war and stays neutral.

1858 to 1870 - varous wars in Europe involved Prussia leads to rise of Germany.

1867 - The united states buys Alaska from a bitter Russia, still nursing its wounds from the Crimean war. Great Britain fears that its' North American possessions are being encircled.

1870 - America announces formal "annexation" of Australia, New Zealand and several nearby Pacific Islands. The Dutch have a few settlements in Western Australia but cannot press their case. The United States offers a cash settlement and ensures the Dutch are welcome to stay in this new US territory.

1870 - France is crushed by Prussia.

1870 - Sheer quantity of American soldiers utilized in American Civil War encourages Britain to unify Canada to stymy any potential threat. The rise of Prussia is also raising concerns. In hopes of reaching an honest peace with America, Britain cedes its claims to Australia in exchange for a preferred trade agreement and a Treaty clarifying borders between the US and Canada. The United States also promises not to support any secession talk from Canadians. An attempt by the United States to acquire Western Canada is declined as is an offer to buyer the Hudson Company Territory. America also promised not to place any more offers on Canadian territory.

1880 - sheep farming expands, gold is discovered spurring a gold rush.

1900 - With massive immigration from Europe, the American population explodes, including Australia where most of the population are European born (Slavic, Irish and German most common). A unique, harsher accented English becomes commonplace and becomes a cultural icon for the coming centuries.

The population of Australian/NZ exceeds one million.

The treatment of Aborigines becomes a public issue.

New South Wales had a number of advantages as convict colony that really makes it by far the best choice if the American colonies are no longer available for transportation. All other locations considered by the government after 1783 were not suitable (also, South Africa was at this time Dutch and not available for convict transportation. They considered Das Voltas Bay in Namibia, but the climate was too dry for a settlement).

The bottom line is that with a post 1770 PoD the British probably won't leave Australia alone. Even if they see a convict/free settlement as too risky, as a naval base in Asia it's valuable enough for the British to want some light settlement in the area. They will also not want the French or Spanish to take it and gain a foothold in the area. Your timeline needs to provide an alternative destination for British convicts, because they have to go somewhere. If you can find another dumping ground, then it is possible that by around 1850 (when USA gets Pacific access) the only British presence in Australia will be small naval bases. However even that isn't certain: colonies at Swan River and Adelaide were started by privately chartered companies and settled by upper-middle class Protestants who who wanted their own society; it wasn't the British government who initiated that. So you need a reason for the British government to refuse these charters in the 1830s and 1840s, instead of supporting them as they did OTL.

And even then, you still need to think about how the American public, many of whom thought the Mexican War was illegitimate and imperial overreach, will react to conquest of Australia? Manifest Destiny on your own continent is one thing, but 5000 miles away? Bottom line is that 'American Australia' without substantial British settlement has a lot of problems.

kreepysam said:

New South Wales had a number of advantages as convict colony that really makes it by far the best choice if the American colonies are no longer available for transportation. All other locations considered by the government after 1783 were not suitable (also, South Africa was at this time Dutch and not available for convict transportation. They considered Das Voltas Bay in Namibia, but the climate was too dry for a settlement).

Thanks, I'd forgotten that South Africa didn't become British until the Napoleanic era. That would definitely be out.

The bottom line is that with a post 1770 PoD the British probably won't leave Australia alone. Even if they see a convict/free settlement as too risky, as a naval base in Asia it's valuable enough for the British to want some light settlement in the area. They will also not want the French or Spanish to take it and gain a foothold in the area. Your timeline needs to provide an alternative destination for British convicts, because they have to go somewhere. If you can find another dumping ground, then it is possible that by around 1850 (when USA gets Pacific access) the only British presence in Australia will be small naval bases. However even that isn't certain: colonies at Swan River and Adelaide were started by privately chartered companies and settled by upper-middle class Protestants who who wanted their own society; it wasn't the British government who initiated that. So you need a reason for the British government to refuse these charters in the 1830s and 1840s, instead of supporting them as they did OTL.

I'm not sure about the need for a naval base there. It seems pretty out of the way from anything Britain deems dangerous or important (India and China plus any french possessions). Sydney is really a long ways from the trade routes.

Interesting facts aboutt he privately sponsored settlements.

Do you believe that if the 1st "government" settlements, regardless of their character, had not been instituted, would these private settlements come?

If there was no Sydney and Melbourne, and Britain had its toehold on continent, would the Swan River colony be an option?

And even then, you still need to think about how the American public, many of whom thought the Mexican War was illegitimate and imperial overreach, will react to conquest of Australia? Manifest Destiny on your own continent is one thing, but 5000 miles away? Bottom line is that 'American Australia' without substantial British settlement has a lot of problems.

Click to expand...

I don't know how many people really begrudged the Mexican War, especially after. The biggest complaint (Abe Lincoln was one of the few who considered it immoral) was how adding Mexican territory would affect the delicate slave/free state ratio. Taking territory in an obvous and largely unprovoked land grab wasn't something many nations really objected to.

Note that I'm seeing American annexation of Australia (at least in the early years) less as a deliberate act of state but by slow absorbtion.

-Whalers needed to get some resources from land so they formed little towns.
- More towns came. Most were American so the American government took a bit of interest.
-Eventually large portions of the coast had minor "American" settlements so the government finally said "what the hell" and officially annexed. By that point, no one else had a toehold so there challenging would be high cost with no immediate gain as they would have to spend decades deliberating luring settlers and defending them from vengeful Americans.

It is somewhat similar to the British policy in India. There was never an official plan to take over the dozens of princely states, it just kind of happened over time, one by one. Only near the end did someone say "Wouldn't it be great if this was all ours!".

I guess the big question is "Why would Britain start the colony in the first place and commit decades of resources without any real idea if New South Wales would be worth the effort?".

Was it a matter of thinking, maybe, down the road, something good will happen after we are all dead?

That first step is always the toughest.

Here is my proposed POD

British Republic said:

What about a more successful Seven Years War for the UK? Which would mean that Britain also gains Cuba? Then once the American Revolution starts, the British introduce a Quebec Act (which also is expanded to Cuba in this case) which is a extension of the Irish Penal Laws in practice.

This means that the French and Spanish Speaking Catholics formally join the ARW and means that the Founding Fathers would consist of English, French and Spanish Speakers, Protestants and Catholics and White and Mixed-Race. As well as the likelihood of the Iroquois siding with the Patriots (because the British are even more likely to face defeat than in OTL and if they do there is no safe haven for them escape to). The United States also has Nova Scotia, Jamaica, The Cayman Islands and The Bahamas from the start as well.

When the Napoleonic Wars happen, the British need wood for their navy and the Americans need to gain the Louisiana Territory off the French. Eventually they come to "devils agreement" for the British to back the Americans in a war against the Spanish and French to gain Louisiana Territory and the French (who also hold the Dutch Caribbean Colonies) and Spanish Caribbean Colonies (and French/Dutch Guinea).

Due to the fact both nations are busy fighting in Europe, they lose this battle, which also helps the British as every army sent across the Atlantic is one less to deal with in Europe. Britain also sells Ruperts Land/Oregon Territory/NWT to the United States.

To compensate the loss of BNA, the British have a more successful invasion of RDP (Now Argentina and other nearby states) and gain that and Chile as a new colony called "British South America", when you add that to the turmoil caused by Napoleons invasion of Spain in South America and the example of their fellow Spanish Speaking Catholics in Cuba (in comparison to how Madrid rules over them), the Viceroys of Spanish South America are in revolt.

America is not best pleased with the Britain's antics in RDP, thus they introduce a ITTL Monroe Doctrine and get involved in the South American Wars of independence, which were successful in New Granada and New Spain. Peru was a mixed bag, Lower Peru was freed from Spanish rule but Upper Peru fell to the British.

New Spain, New Granada and Lower Peru become the independent republics of Mexico, Gran Columbia and Peru respectably and thanks to their shared experience in the war, build close ties with the United States, which leads to Protectorate Status for all 3 (which all eventually become States of the US)

The question of slavery leads the slaver regions to break off and form the CSA, because of the numerical disadvantages they have over the remaining USA they soon faced defeat. Britain and France however had concerns about the rise of the United States, so to put down a potential rival they end up backing the CSA, this in turn encourages Russia to make the most of that potential chance to take Constantinople.

Thus there is a world war and eventually the Americans defeat the Brazilians (and take the Northern Part of the country), France, Spain and Britain (who lose their Caribbean Colonies, Newfoundland, British Guinea and Upper Peru).

Eventually there is another war against Britain and Brazil later on which eventually results in the annexation of the remainder of British South America and Brazil (considering the British tried to destory the United States, the latter is not keen on them remaining in the continent), they may or may not take Australia/New Zealand as well.

Click to expand...

Thus the coast is clear for America to annex Oceania.

Someone did a timeline on this (it was unfinished though) with similar PODs:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=164884

This timeline sounds like a good idea. Will be looking forward to see if you could pull it off.

Originally Posted by British Republic
What about a more successful Seven Years War for the UK? Which would mean that Britain also gains Cuba? Then once the American Revolution starts, the British introduce a Quebec Act (which also is expanded to Cuba in this case) which is a extension of the Irish Penal Laws in practice.

I don't think Cuba was likely to remain in British hands. Remember that only Havana fell. Britain was unable to exert control beyond the city and something like 2/3's of the British (and American) Army sent to conquer it died of fevers.

If your take is, could Cuba be used as a prison island, then yes. But they had a dozen small, underutilized Caribbean islands already (Trinidad, Tobago, St. Vincent, Grenada, BVI's, Bahamas, etc, etc) that could have been used, would cost a fraction to transport, and might form a profitable sugar farming community on these islands that could be taxed.


This means that the French and Spanish Speaking Catholics formally join the ARW and means that the Founding Fathers would consist of English, French and Spanish Speakers, Protestants and Catholics and White and Mixed-Race. As well as the likelihood of the Iroquois siding with the Patriots (because the British are even more likely to face defeat than in OTL and if they do there is no safe haven for them escape to). The United States also has Nova Scotia, Jamaica, The Cayman Islands and The Bahamas from the start as well.

I can't see any scenario where French or Spanish colonists would willingly join with the American colonies, especially after the war.

Hatred between Protestant Anglos and their French Catholic counterparts was bitter. New England in particular hated Catholic. The frontier wars were vicious and the dissenting New England churches distrusted the Church of England. They certainly wouldn't accept a "foreign, Catholic state" and lacked the power to subjugate one.

In the end, there was no chance for them to get along in the short term.

As for the Carib Islands, the US had no appreciable navy and it is unlikely, even if they wanted to join the US (and the US wanted them), then the US couldn't do anything about it.

Also, Jamaica was a slave state where 5% of the population lived in terror of the 95% below. Carib islands are the absolute last to rebel against the authority that keeps them alive in the face of slave rebellions. No chance they challenge Britain short of absolutely killing them with taxes.

Note that the populations of French Canada, French Louisiana, Spanish Florida, Spanish Cuba, Jamaica, etc make up only a tiny portion of the emerging US's population. It would not significantly alter the balance of power or allow the US to develop as a Naval Nation early.
,
When the Napoleonic Wars happen, the British need wood for their navy and the Americans need to gain the Louisiana Territory off the French. Eventually they come to "devils agreement" for the British to back the Americans in a war against the Spanish and French to gain Louisiana Territory and the French (who also hold the Dutch Caribbean Colonies) and Spanish Caribbean Colonies (and French/Dutch Guinea).

This is an interesting idea. If Britain lost access to Baltic timber sources and also Canadian/American sources, this might alter a few things.

Given the defacto war France was waging on the US in the 1790's (due to debt issues and trade issues, etc), some more astute diplomacy on the part of Britain might have led to more of an alliance. It may have gained John Adams a second term in 1800 and prevented the Jeffersonian presidency (who preferred the French). Adams might have conquered Louisiana while Jefferson bought it.

At the time, though, the US probably would not have attempted to take Spanish territory beyond Florida or move into the Carib. It would take two decades after the Louisiana purchase for sufficient US population to encringe on the borders of Texas.

Britain might have attempted to take some Mexican or South American territory at this time, though.

Due to the fact both nations are busy fighting in Europe, they lose this battle, which also helps the British as every army sent across the Atlantic is one less to deal with in Europe. Britain also sells Ruperts Land/Oregon Territory/NWT to the United States.

I think British naval power and American demographic would easily win this battle if, and this is a big if, if the diplomats come to an agreement.

As for Rupert's Land (Hudson Territory, I assume), I think that the US gets this in the Revolutionary War (assuming that Canada is taken by US in that war) as there is no good base for Britain to keep Rupert's Land or smooth passage for British to populate it. It could never draw a real population and Britain probably wouldn't try to populate British Columbia without that tenuous foothold.

If the US takes Canada in Revolutionary War, then western Canada almost certainly go the the US at some point or another. Demographics say so.

Still, Britain conceding it on paper may mean something to the US, just to prevent a future argument.

To compensate the loss of BNA, the British have a more successful invasion of RDP (Now Argentina and other nearby states) and gain that and Chile as a new colony called "British South America", when you add that to the turmoil caused by Napoleons invasion of Spain in South America and the example of their fellow Spanish Speaking Catholics in Cuba (in comparison to how Madrid rules over them), the Viceroys of Spanish South America are in revolt.

I always thought this was Britain's best option for a South American Empire. Argentine had a low population at the time and Uruguay barely had one at all. But their stupid diplomacy destroyed their chance.

Remember that Spain's King had been overthrown (1806ish?), incensing both Spaniards and colonists equally. The colonies never obeyed a single command from "King Joseph" at all.

Britain knew this but decided to conquer, not ally.

When the British Army's marched in as conquerors, rather than "liberators" , the local populations revolted en mass(even if their gentry didn't).

Had Great Britain sailed into the harbor and said "We are here to help!", they might have been treated as heroes. They could have arranged a British "Council" with a locally elected Parliament controlling daily affairs.

Given free reign to trade with the prosperous British Empire, the Spanish colonied might have loved it.

Even if Spain were still liberated in 1813, then some of these colonies might want to remain in British hands.

Remember Spain's ridiculous trade policies preventing most forms of foreign trade. It was a one sided mercantalism. Also, Spain only allowed Peninsular-born into the highest offices. Their colonies were never happy with the incompetent and corrupt central government.

A decade under open, moderately democratic, competent rule may shift some heads.

If Spain comes back and says "OK, you can only trade with us again and we'll be appointing your governors once more..."

But Britain didn't. They attacked defacto South American allies in their struggle and got kicked out.


America is not best pleased with the Britain's antics in RDP, thus they introduce a ITTL Monroe Doctrine and get involved in the South American Wars of independence, which were successful in New Granada and New Spain. Peru was a mixed bag, Lower Peru was freed from Spanish rule but Upper Peru fell to the British.

America proclaimed the Monroe Doctrine years before they could affect much. Beyond smuggling some gunpowder, etc to Mexican rebels that didn't need it, I dont' see how America could affect the situation.

As for Britain in Western South America, I don't know. I doubt they could conquer much from that far away. Britain's army is small and the distances vast.

New Spain, New Granada and Lower Peru become the independent republics of Mexico, Gran Columbia and Peru respectably and thanks to their shared experience in the war, build close ties with the United States, which leads to Protectorate Status for all 3 (which all eventually become States of the US)

I still don't see any Catholic countries, especially those like the Spanish colonies with a taste for strongmen, would willingly attempt to join the US.

There were always Americans who advocated expanding southward. In reality, they didn't want Catholics who spoke a foreign language in their country or Congress.

The question of slavery leads the slaver regions to break off and form the CSA, because of the numerical disadvantages they have over the remaining USA they soon faced defeat. Britain and France however had concerns about the rise of the United States, so to put down a potential rival they end up backing the CSA, this in turn encourages Russia to make the most of that potential chance to take Constantinople.

This idea has been discussed often but, in the end, neither Britain or France really thought of the US as anything but a commercial rival at that point. Thing is, it was also a commercial partner. And the idea of slavery was loathed by most western Europeans at this point.

Thus there is a world war and eventually the Americans defeat the Brazilians (and take the Northern Part of the country), France, Spain and Britain (who lose their Caribbean Colonies, Newfoundland, British Guinea and Upper Peru).

Interesting. There would have to be a cassis belli.

I assume you are speaking roughly around WWI as the US could not fight a sea war with anyone until 1900ish at the earliest.

This would have the US allied with Germany /Prussia presumably, though I don't see any way that would happen at this time. The US would have to have picked a fight with Britain and France over some distant colonial issue (Samoa or the Panama Canal, that kind of thing). It seems the US was good at preventing those types of issues from blowing up into a major war for little gain.

As it happens, I've come up with a timeline or two about the US buying Dutch and French Guyana when they buy the Louisiana Territory in 1803ish. Most of Northern Brazil all the way to Pernambuco is lightly populated. An expansive power like the US might methodically over a century take everything from the oil rich Orinoco River delta to the Pernambuco without too much trouble. All of Brazil is unlikely given the language/religion issue. They couldn't take the population centers.

Eventually there is another war against Britain and Brazil later on which eventually results in the annexation of the remainder of British South America and Brazil (considering the British tried to destory the United States, the latter is not keen on them remaining in the continent), they may or may not take Australia/New Zealand as well.

Again, the US culturally and military could not take such a large population. Empty lands like Louisiana and the Mexican concession are one thing but millions of cathloics who didn't want to be in the US is out of the question.

Thus the coast is clear for America to annex Oceania.

Someone did a timeline on this (it was unfinished though) with similar PODs:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=164884[/QUOTE]

Thanks for all the ideas, though.

Better question is why in God's name would anyone want it?

Alt History Buff said:

All, I'm looking for a method to make Austrialia an American possesson from the start, no conquest from Britain or anything. Assume that the United States progresses along similar lines as OTL demographicly, economicly, militarily, etc. How could this occur?.

Click to expand...

Better question is why in God's name would anyone want it?

I mean, it's a lovely continent and everything, but it's on the other side of the freaking world from the US...makes East and West Pakistan look rational.

Best,

The line about the whalers seems like a good angle. It was the first thing I thought of when I read the thread title.

Alt History Buff said:

I don't think Cuba was likely to remain in British hands. Remember that only Havana fell. Britain was unable to exert control beyond the city and something like 2/3's of the British (and American) Army sent to conquer it died of fevers.

Click to expand...

I was thinking of a more sucessful SYW for Britain results in Cuba being granted to the British in the peace agreements. Although this is not too important for the POD to work.

Alt History Buff said:

I can't see any scenario where French or Spanish colonists would willingly join with the American colonies, especially after the war.

Click to expand...

Britain ITTL would have nothing to offer but a "Quebec and Cuba Act" which offered nothing but the sort of treatment which the Catholics of Ireland got. The OTL Quebec Act was the exception rather than the rule in terms of Britains relations with Catholics.

Thus French Canadians and Cubans would have a reason to join the ARW against the British.

Alt History Buff said:

Hatred between Protestant Anglos and their French Catholic counterparts was bitter. New England in particular hated Catholic. The frontier wars were vicious and the dissenting New England churches distrusted the Church of England. They certainly wouldn't accept a "foreign, Catholic state" and lacked the power to subjugate one.

Click to expand...

Alt History Buff said:

In the end, there was no chance for them to get along in the short term.

Click to expand...

For the record there is no evidence of a mainsteam movement to not grant the rights Catholics got in OTL under the US Constitution (which was the same as the OTL Quebec Act), not only that but there were Catholics in OTL which signed the DOI and the real issue with the Quebec Act was not other the freedoms granted towards French Canadians but rather over the fact they got the land granted to them over everyone else in the 13 colonies.

There was the issue of the possliblty over living under "Popery" but the US Consitution in OTL would have prevented it.

As for later Anti-Catholic bigatory, well it was mainly over the migration of the Irish to America, in other words the usual Anti-Migrant Bigatory.

Alt History Buff said:

As for the Carib Islands, the US had no appreciable navy and it is unlikely, even if they wanted to join the US (and the US wanted them), then the US couldn't do anything about it.

Click to expand...

They got the Bahmas in OTL for a time and with more colonies joining they would held it for longer at the very least. Enough to keep it in the peace treaty.

As for Cuba well it is a rather big island with few Non-Catholics, thus how on earth will the British have the resources to defeat the Cuban rebels while at the time fighting the 13 colonies, Quebec, NS, France and Spain when they could not beat the 13 colonies and France?

Alt History Buff said:

Also, Jamaica was a slave state where 5% of the population lived in terror of the 95% below. Carib islands are the absolute last to rebel against the authority that keeps them alive in the face of slave rebellions. No chance they challenge Britain short of absolutely killing them with taxes.

Click to expand...

They might be encouaged by the example of Cuba but this would be the least likely to join the US out compared to the others. Plus I doubt they would be keen on the taxes which the 13 colonies had a issue with.

In fact France might end up with them after thr ARW.

Alt History Buff said:

Note that the populations of French Canada, French Louisiana, Spanish Florida, Spanish Cuba, Jamaica, etc make up only a tiny portion of the emerging US's population. It would not significantly alter the balance of power or allow the US to develop as a Naval Nation early.

Click to expand...

Quebec would add 100,000 people to the 13 colonies population of 2.4 million. Likewise with no Alien and Sedation Acts the Federalists would remain a political force in the country. Thus they would not see cutbacks in the armed forces under the Democrats and there is also the Barbary Wars to take account of.

Alt History Buff said:

This is an interesting idea. If Britain lost access to Baltic timber sources and also Canadian/American sources, this might alter a few things.

Click to expand...

Alt History Buff said:

Given the defacto war France was waging on the US in the 1790's (due to debt issues and trade issues, etc), some more astute diplomacy on the part of Britain might have led to more of an alliance. It may have gained John Adams a second term in 1800 and prevented the Jeffersonian presidency (who preferred the French). Adams might have conquered Louisiana while Jefferson bought it.

Click to expand...

That is exactly what I had in mind.

Alt History Buff said:

At the time, though, the US probably would not have attempted to take Spanish territory beyond Florida or move into the Carib. It would take two decades after the Louisiana purchase for sufficient US population to encringe on the borders of Texas.

Click to expand...

America would have Cuba however ITTL and have built up their Navy due to the continuing influence of the Federalists. Thus they would have the Navy to make gains in the Carribean. They would have also held Florida since the ARW.

Alt History Buff said:

Britain might have attempted to take some Mexican or South American territory at this time, though.

Click to expand...

Agreed, RDP and Chile will fall into British hands.

Due to the fact both nations are busy fighting in Europe, they lose this battle, which also helps the British as every army sent across the Atlantic is one less to deal with in Europe. Britain also sells Ruperts Land/Oregon Territory/NWT to the United States.

I think British naval power and American demographic would easily win this battle if, and this is a big if, if the diplomats come to an agreement.

Alt History Buff said:

As for Rupert's Land (Hudson Territory, I assume), I think that the US gets this in the Revolutionary War (assuming that Canada is taken by US in that war) as there is no good base for Britain to keep Rupert's Land or smooth passage for British to populate it. It could never draw a real population and Britain probably wouldn't try to populate British Columbia without that tenuous foothold.

Click to expand...

Alt History Buff said:

If the US takes Canada in Revolutionary War, then western Canada almost certainly go the the US at some point or another. Demographics say so.

Still, Britain conceding it on paper may mean something to the US, just to prevent a future argument.

Click to expand...

I don't think Ruperts Land/NWT would fall to the Patriots in the ARW whatever happens but it would fall into their hands one way or another by the 1800s-1810s.

Alt History Buff said:

I always thought this was Britain's best option for a South American Empire. Argentine had a low population at the time and Uruguay barely had one at all. But their stupid diplomacy destroyed their chance.

Click to expand...

Agreed on this, ITTL they would be more keen to gain a foothold in RDP since they no longer have Canada.

Alt History Buff said:

America proclaimed the Monroe Doctrine years before they could affect much. Beyond smuggling some gunpowder, etc to Mexican rebels that didn't need it, I dont' see how America could affect the situation.

Click to expand...

The US ITTL would have the resources milltary wise to enforce it, as for why it would want to be involved well I doubt it would be pleased having a British Presense in Latin America for defensive reasons.

Alt History Buff said:

As for Britain in Western South America, I don't know. I doubt they could conquer much from that far away. Britain's army is small and the distances vast.

Click to expand...

I see this happening once the British take hold of Chile.

Alt History Buff said:

I still don't see any Catholic countries, especially those like the Spanish colonies with a taste for strongmen, would willingly attempt to join the US.

Click to expand...

Alt History Buff said:

There were always Americans who advocated expanding southward. In reality, they didn't want Catholics who spoke a foreign language in their country or Congress.

Click to expand...

Ah but you see French and Spanish Speaking Catholics have been elected to Congress for over 30 years by the 1810s. Likewise since the likes of Bolivar are going to sooner or later visit Guyana or Cuba and think "I will like some of that" and the British violating the Monroe Doctrine well I cannot see much objection to getting involved in the Wars of Independence in Spainish South America.

Likewise it would be 30 years after that war before they formally join the USA.

Alt History Buff said:

This idea has been discussed often but, in the end, neither Britain or France really thought of the US as anything but a commercial rival at that point. Thing is, it was also a commercial partner. And the idea of slavery was loathed by most western Europeans at this point.

Click to expand...

Ah but you see, the ITTL USA in late 1850s would holding North America, Central America, Gran Columbia, Guyana (OTL British, French and Dutch Guyana) and the Greater Antillies (along with OTL French and Dutch Lesser Antillies and maybe Lower Peru). I would think Britain and France would consider the USA to be too big to ignore in this case.

Alt History Buff said:

Interesting. There would have to be a cassis belli.

Click to expand...

There is, Britain and France get involved to try and "save" the CSA. Thus Russia uses this chance to try and gain the Turkish Straights while Britain is busy in the Americas and thus it bcomes the 1st World War.

Alt History Buff said:

I assume you are speaking roughly around WWI as the US could not fight a sea war with anyone until 1900ish at the earliest.

Click to expand...

For the USA it is mainly a land war, but it does involve some action in the Pacific which means the Americans gain Hawaii and the Phillipines.

Alt History Buff said:

This would have the US allied with Germany /Prussia presumably, though I don't see any way that would happen at this time. The US would have to have picked a fight with Britain and France over some distant colonial issue (Samoa or the Panama Canal, that kind of thing). It seems the US was good at preventing those types of issues from blowing up into a major war for little gain.

Click to expand...

America is allied with Italy, Russia and Germany (Mainly because apart from Alaska, none of them have any intests in the Americas, unlike lets say Britain). Also this WW1 forms out of the American Civil War (I cannot see the USA tolerate the breakaway CSA in this case) when Britain and France get involved to save the CSA and weaken a major rival. This is not some "distant colonial issue" this is a fight over the defence of the USA itself.

Alt History Buff said:

As it happens, I've come up with a timeline or two about the US buying Dutch and French Guyana when they buy the Louisiana Territory in 1803ish. Most of Northern Brazil all the way to Pernambuco is lightly populated. An expansive power like the US might methodically over a century take everything from the oil rich Orinoco River delta to the Pernambuco without too much trouble. All of Brazil is unlikely given the language/religion issue. They couldn't take the population centers.

Click to expand...

By the time Rio falls, America would have had a large Latino population for over 80 years at least (or even from the very start). If they can manage that they will certainly take Brazil.

Alt History Buff said:

Again, the US culturally and military could not take such a large population. Empty lands like Louisiana and the Mexican concession are one thing but millions of cathloics who didn't want to be in the US is out of the question.

Click to expand...

Again you seem to forget that America has had a largelish Catholic population from Day 1, that ultimately changes the who issue about its relations with Latinos and Catholics.

Thanks, British Republic, you gave me some good ideas.

Some key points of contention:

1. I think you vastly overstate America's power to exert authority in the early decades. The navy was happy to defeat Tripoli, I don't see them conquering anyone until the 1830's at least. And that assumes American spent more money on the navy (Federalists last longer?). They could get a BETTER navy but not necessarily a GOOD Navy. Even then, they would lose a naval war with a half dozen European nations until the mid-19th century.

Per your point, the Bahama Islands were not taken or held for any length of time. A few American ships showed up, raided the powder houses, and left before any British reinforcement showed up. Nassau was effectively defenseless at the time.

As for the rest of the British Caribbean, the only way America affected those areas until mid-19th century is by encouraging slave rebellions to overthrow Britain for them. And that was not going to happen.

2. I think you overstate the tolerance of Catholics in early America. There were some in Pennsylvania and Maryland but did not make up a significant portion of the population.

3. I still say that French Canada would never willingly join the USA. The British conceded just enough to keep Canada neutral in the Rev War. However, even if Quebec would jump in, they would be rebelling along side of the Americans, intent on forming their own nation. Without assurances that they would be left alone, they would take their chances with the Brits. Remember a century of brutal frontier wars cannot be forgotten.

4. Assuming Cuba did remain with Britain after the 7 Years War (unlikely in my mind but possible), they could join the rebellions but, similar to Canada, would be rebelling either for their own separate independence or a reunion with Spain. I just see no possibility of them wanting to join a Protestant country and America could not take it in the Rev War, nor hold it against local Cubans.

An America that develops as per OTL isn't going to take Australia, it will way too little power to do so in the face of the rest of the world and way too much stuff to do much closer to home.

Perhaps if the English from Bristol officially discovered North America in the early 1480s and the whole timeline for North American settlement was pushed forward a century then America could take Australia. But of course such a course of events will totally butterfly away OTL history and Australia might just be colonised by the Dutch in the mid 1600s or something equally unlikely by OTL standards.

Riain,

Note that I'm not saying that America "took" Australia. I'm saying that no one bothered to colonize it until American whalers started showing up in the 1810's - 20's.

A better question to ask is, WHY was it colonized if Britain gave up on the whole prison ship idea?

Britain, France and the Netherlands knew about the Continent for a long time. Was there any real attempt to colonize before this? Even an idea to do so?

Given the upcoming French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars, was there any reason to suspect it would happen in the next few decades by anyone?

France, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands would certainly not do it, as they were a bit busy.

Only Britain was an option and why would they at this point?

If Britain held off for just five years, would there be any possibility whatsoever that they would attempt a colony before 1815?

Australia's North and West coasts were obviously inhospitable in most areas. The eventual colony of Botany Bay was about the most isolated area on earth, a thousand or more miles from the East Indies (which had a tiny European population on its own), literally the opposite side an entire continent from where logistical support could come.

They didn't understand the natives, whether they'd be a threat.

Far from any trade lanes, lacking any obvious material/economic reason to go there, why would the 1st Colony be established at this point when Britain was so busy?

Who was rushing to colonize Australia prior to the Napoleonic wars?

Is a few decades of continued irrelavence really so unreasonable?

Naturally, once the first colony or two takes root, then that country would have the advantage of a local population to draw upon in any times of strife and additional colonies would spring up (Darwin, Perth, Hobart) granting a massive advantage in keeping the area. Also, that country would, by nature, pay more attention to the area if they had colonies, profitable or not, just for national pride.

Once Britain got Sydney and one or two other colonies started, Australia's future was set.

However, if this first colony never happened...when was the next logical reason that we can say "well, by this point, SOMEONE HAD to colonize this area!"

Another note. What if Captain Cook did not lead his expedition in the 1770's.

Say it failed or he died before it went or the expedition never occurred, etc, etc.

Is there any reason to think this wouldn't forestall an attempt to colonize by Britain (or anyone).

Australia could join the US if a powerful Japanese empires survives world war 2 and is threating Australia

The British knew that Australia was there, they sent Francis Drake to find it in the 1570s (unsuccessfully), Cook's task was to chart the coast not discover it.

As for the issue of 'Transportation'. What will the new government of Britain do about the prisoners that are filling its jails and prison hulks? Will the new government overturn the 'Bloody Code' that listed death as the penalty for 222 offensives, many victims of which became transported convicts?

What about the French? La Perouse arrived in Botany Bay 6 days after the First Fleet arrived and Baudin charted parts of Australia at the height of the Napoleonic wars.

The fact of the matter is that the colonisation of Australia with convicts killed several birds with one stone and so isn't easy to hand-wave away.

Riain,

Good points.

I still think there were far easier options for Britain to get rid of convicts than Australia.

They could have sent them to any number of a dozen Caribbean islands at a fraction of the expense. Take your pick, many British islands were virtually uninhabited (Dominica, St. Vincent, Trinidad, Tobago, not to mention the ones soon to be taken in the Napoleonic Wars) and there was the possibility of profitable taxation on tropical goods (sugar, coffee, tea, whatever).


Slavery was already becoming unpopular (and the trade soon to be abolished) and these islands could have supported the entire prison population of Britain and Ireland without a problem.

Another option would be Asia. The white population of India (and later in the 19th century Singapore, and Hong Kong), were fairly low. It was always desireable to have Britons available in higher numbers in these places to provide a more loyal base of support (even one deriving from prisoners).

Also, sailors were always in short supply. Wasting ten crews for two years per Prison Fleet seemed like a waste of resources in 1788-1815.
Britain picked a fight with the United States in 1812 - 1814 largely over impressing a few thousand sailors. Britain used more than this on the prison fleets during this age.

Think of the expense for such a paltry short term gain in trade. Australia/NZ later proved a profitable producer of wool (and obviously other benefits to the Empire) but that wasn't known in 1788 and the nations hardly provided many assets to the Empire until the later 19th century. Before then, it probably cost more to run than tax revenues gained.

Australia was literally the farthest place on earth to go, the most impossible to provision. In the Age of Sail, these were important factors.

I think by the Age of Steam, any colonization would be much easier as people were so terrified of dying at sea, the trips somewhat healthier and shorter. By that point, say the 1830-40's, ANY FREE LAND on Earth (by that I mean relatively lightly populated by natives) would be gobbled up by the emerging technological powers (Europeans and later Japanese).

The "Scramble for Africa" for instance could not have happened prior to the Age of Steam but became inevitable after the advent of these new transportation technologies.

Despite all the factors you mention the British transported over 10,000 convicts to Australia between 1788 and 1819, a period which encompasses the entire Napoleonic Wars and the War of 1812. That at least indicates and at most proves that there was a huge motivation in Britain to set up a new colony in Australia in spite of the difficulties.

American whalers in australia

The Kiat said:

The line about the whalers seems like a good angle. It was the first thing I thought of when I read the thread title.

Click to expand...

American whalers frequently visited Australian shores- there is even a creek (and eponymous hamlet) on Kangaroo Island called "American River" so named by such whalers.

Alt History Buff said:

1. I think you vastly overstate America's power to exert authority in the early decades. The navy was happy to defeat Tripoli, I don't see them conquering anyone until the 1830's at least. And that assumes American spent more money on the navy (Federalists last longer?). They could get a BETTER navy but not necessarily a GOOD Navy. Even then, they would lose a naval war with a half dozen European nations until the mid-19th century.

Click to expand...

Well in my view they can defeat France and Spain (with British support) in the Americas while both of them are busy fighting in Europe.

Alt History Buff said:

Per your point, the Bahama Islands were not taken or held for any length of time. A few American ships showed up, raided the powder houses, and left before any British reinforcement showed up. Nassau was effectively defenseless at the time.

Click to expand...

Well ITTL they will have more resources and thus able to hold onto them for longer.

Alt History Buff said:

As for the rest of the British Caribbean, the only way America affected those areas until mid-19th century is by encouraging slave rebellions to overthrow Britain for them. And that was not going to happen.

Click to expand...

I did not say they will be gaining anything else minus Jamaica from the British in the Caribbean

Alt History Buff said:

2. I think you overstate the tolerance of Catholics in early America. There were some in Pennsylvania and Maryland but did not make up a significant portion of the population.

Click to expand...

Of course there were issues with Catholics, I would not diagree with that but it was not that high up their list deny Quebec to join (they certainly wanted them to). It was more about avoiding "Papal Tyranny", which is possible.

Alt History Buff said:

3. I still say that French Canada would never willingly join the USA. The British conceded just enough to keep Canada neutral in the Rev War. However, even if Quebec would jump in, they would be rebelling along side of the Americans, intent on forming their own nation. Without assurances that they would be left alone, they would take their chances with the Brits. Remember a century of brutal frontier wars cannot be forgotten.

Click to expand...

The OTL Quebec Act was a exception rather than the rule in terms of how the Britisgh treated the French Speaking Catholics, for a very long time afterwards they did not treat them well at all, why do you think there is such a strong Quebec Independence Movement?

Likewise fighting side-by-side with the 13 colonies and NS would encourage them to remain, remeber that the 13 colonies themsevles were not exactly keen on a Union themsevles (AoC etc.).

Alt History Buff said:

4. Assuming Cuba did remain with Britain after the 7 Years War (unlikely in my mind but possible), they could join the rebellions but, similar to Canada, would be rebelling either for their own separate independence or a reunion with Spain. I just see no possibility of them wanting to join a Protestant country and America could not take it in the Rev War, nor hold it against local Cubans.

Click to expand...

The Cubans were quite keen on the better trade terms than under their Spainish rulers, likwise unless The Founding Fathers planned the mass murder of Cubans, I cannot see why the Cuban elites would want to leave.