It tends to be rather forgotten now, but originally the Colonial Americans considered themselves citizens of the British Empire and were proud of it, with their argument Britain originally being to get better represented in the Empire, rather than being independent because that was radical back then. "No taxation without representation", as they say. However, because King George was unreasonable to say the least, America instead went on the path of independence and the rest is history.
It does make me wonder: How would British America have developed over time if it stayed British and the United States never became a thing? Let's say they either had a different, more reasonable king at the time who was more pragmatic and listened to them, or we just give King George a more clear, stable personality. I'm not too focused on that part, but on what comes after.
It was more Parliament than the King.
Some points:
- British America would be absolutely massive. It would encompass the Continental United States and Canada, as well as territories like Bermuda, the Bahamas, Jamaica and the Virgin Islands. However, it wouldn't include Alaska (which would remain Russian) or Hawaii (considered separate). Hell, it could even be more land, as I can see Britain taking more from Mexico or in the Caribbean, but that's besides the point.
- Alaska would certainly be taken, as a Great Power such as Russian having territory so close to core metropolitian territory wouldn't be tolerated. Most likely is that Russia sells it under threat of invasion, or the RN blockades the territory untill Russia cedes it.
- I think the Caribbean was considered a separate entity from British America, as it was knows as the West Indies.
- It is colonists on the ground that pushed British expansion, so land will be taken from Mexico as long as it benefits American Denizens.
- The main cities would be New York (financial center), Philadelphia (political capital), Boston (port city), Halifax (also a port city), Detroit (or whatever it's called here; industrial center), Vancouver (Northern Pacific port city), and Los Angeles (likely has a different name; West Coast port city), and Kingston (Caribbean center).
- New York would be the Imperial Financial center for British America, and connection to the Isles and Europe.
- Philadelphia would be a major city, perhaps industry, but not political, as there is no political entity it serves aside from Pennsylvania.
- Boston would be a sizeable port city, but without American systemic secularisation and a different migration pattern (NE colonies were selective with migrants), Puritans would have a bigger hold over the colonies, smaller population, and more reserved in interaction with other colonies.
- Onatrio would be more industrialised, and the Detroit area would be more built up.
- Halifax & Norfolk would be the premier Naval Ports on the East Coast.
- Vancouver and San Fransisco would be the West Coast major ports.
Overall a bigger focus on coastal cities due to maritime and imperial nature of their polity. Especially as without the ARW, many colonies/states wouldn't have moved their capitals inland.
- Much of the north that makes up OTL's Canada would be underpopulated, since you wouldn't see mass migration of Loyalists up there, and instead the population would largely settle in small pockets of land, the rest being a resource well/buffer between them and Russia.
The Prairies would be less populated, but "Canada" as a whole is a different matter. New Englanders would naturally expand into New Brunswick. Midwest expansion would include southern Quebec (southern onatrio), as much land of the French they could get. This is what happened in Canada, even with promises to Quebec.
- Slavery would be abolished in America in 1807, like the rest of the British Empire. The South would still develop its own identity just based on geography (due to isolation) but because slavery didn't boom the way it did, there wouldn't be a conflict like OTL.
Slavery was abolished in 1772 in England and Wales (Scotland?), so would this eventually apply to the colonies, as their charter specified their laws cannot be repugnant to English laws. However, pragmatically enforcing this would alienate the colonies, especially the loyalist South. (I would say "loyalism" exists without the ARW, as it is a measure of general how content people are with the state (Empire) and Imperial Identity.)
Virginia was close to banning slavery in the 1820s, so a Nat Turner rebellion avoided (allows the ablosihment of slavery to continue), or particular imperial attention could lead to anti-slavery measures due to the security risks. As stationing more British troops would be expected of consituents, which would be costly.
The Deep South would take post-1850 to abolish slavery, it was very ingrained.
So a general abolishment of slavery, orginating in the Isles, and then expanding from the north of British America to the South.
And because of the more openly settler colonist politics, including more Brits migrating to the West, would want slavery contained, due to the economic effects and ethnonationalist views.
- America's architecture would look quite different, and likely more akin to Britain's cities than the traditional American ones. I can just imagine cities like Los Angeles as looking more traditionally European than what we know.
I agree more American cities would have traditional European architecture, so less skyscrapers, and particularly British architecture. However, otl US used British architecture a lot anyway.
- Many cities are butterflied away, like San Diego, Phoenix, Seattle, Topeka, much of Texas, and so on. That said, we could expect new cities to emerge in westward expansion, many of which at roughly the same strategic areas.
I have heard on this forum, that most major American cities are located in optimum locations.
- The overall population is much more homogenously white and Anglo-based, with some small minorities of French, Irish and German Americans, plus some black people (but much less than OTL due to the earlier abolishment of slavery), some Hispanics and some natives. However, there's unlikely to be a mass migration of Germans, Central Europeans, Italians and Scandinavians like we saw in our timeline, and Asians? Not likely, at least not in a major quantity.
This is hard to determine. I have a theory that Anglo-Americans lost a degree of their ethnic identity by assuming American civic idenity, and trying to distance themselves from "Britishness", we can see from otl that American Anglo-centrism did exist, however far more lighter than that of Britain or Canada.
So working with a more openly Anglocentric America, immigration would be reduced to some capacity. And there is also religious factors limiting immigration as well, such as the NE puritans. If we look at Pennsylvania, Germans were allowed enmasse to the colonies, there was even a 3/4 Dutch & 1/4 Scottish Governor who considered himself an Anglo-Saxon, so that speaks a lot to the identity of Elites, Scots and half British people. So I do think the MidAtlantic colonies, Midwest and West would receive large quantities of Protestant (there were religious discriminatory laws regarding naturalisation) Europeans, and Irish (Catholics), due to Ireland being part of the empire.
I would expect Anglo-Germans and other Anglo- hypens to be very anglicised. However, due to the lack of a proper powerful central government, I do not think minority languages/cultures would be extinguished to the same extent as otl. If a colony in the Midwest is significantly German, and do not see themselves as part of a continous state (continental, natural, non-imperial), they aren't going to be as pressured (London's proximity to Midwest compared to DC) to give up theri culture and languages. So more "semi-Quebecs".
I think by the late 19th nativism would be stronger, beacuse more objection to Protestants Germans/Europeans because of a stronger Anglo-American identity; continous history from the colonies to states, so instead of identity originating from 1775, it is friom 1619; and a connection to a European Britain. This is despite more religious similarities among the immigrants due to the Protestant naturalisation laws, and less immigration. Think of how a Brit would've reacted to that mass German migration to America in 1850 if it had happened in Yorkshire, that mentality will exist in British America to an extent.
Also this America is openly tied to Europe (Britain), so it could be arguable seen as a European state (demographically and politically), aside from British notions of being separate from the Continent.
- Overall, culture would be at a middle ground between the traditional American from OTL and British overall. British America would still have a different overall culture just due to nature (being in its own land with different circumstances has that effect), the fact that Britain is still the dominant force will still be highly influential.
I think this would result in a more splintered "British" culture. Where there isn't a differentation between Anglo culture (Britain, Canada, America, Australasia, Southern Africa), and British culture (excludes US, includes Britain, Canada, Australasia and Southern Africa).
The Americans will not have purposely distanced themselves from British culture, so more tea, British place naming other culture. Due to the Americans having long history and identity, and it forming natural distinctions from Brits, the same will happen to the ATL Canadians and Australians, so they will not stick to a particular notion of Britishness, and will have a more unique culture, with a blend of proper/Isles British culture. So think of that rugged Anglo-American culture mixed with that traditional British-Canadian/Australian culture.
America would also be more culturally and historically richer, as they would have a direct connection to Middle Ages & Classical Antiquity, instead of 1775.
But those are just my guesses, and I could be wrong. No one can say for sure. What do you think?
Great topic.
