What if the USA lost the American Revolution?

[Beatriz]

Utterly impossible. India and the commerce therein were Britain's biggest source of revenue.
India was, after all, the second-largest share of the global economy behind China.

1. West Africa is still on Britain's agenda, sooner or later. Yes, the American South will still be part of the empire, but for how long?
2. South Africa is a vital hub for maritime traffic between Britain and India.

In Look to the West, where Prince Frederick is exiled to America in the 1720s, Guinea [all of West Africa] was British until 1900 and the British established a colony in Natal to trade to Bengal [due to the *7 Years’ War turning out differently, Britain only has Bengal and Bombay, and competes with other powers in India]

now, here Britain could expand into West Africa and Southern Africa but to what extent of expansion and degree of direct rule is contigent.

 

[dcharles]

Precisely, which is why Britain would jettison them the moment they start overpowering it in importance and demographics.
Either you have British democracy or Britain becomes a colony in its own empire. You can't have both after 1850.


Richness? Compared to India, it's a barren wasteland.

So it's a barren wasteland that's simultaneously going to swallow up the Empire? I don't think your story checks out.

 

[Sacer Bubonicus]

So it's a barren wasteland that's simultaneously going to swallow up the Empire? I don't think your story checks out.

Economically, it's much less productive than India -- which, again, is the second-largest share of the world's economy at the time.
Population-wise, it is going to eclipse Britain in the mid-late 19th century, which is going to be bad for London's ability to control it.

And the historical tax set-up in the colonies (and the Americans' reaction to any attempts to change it) means that the colonies will be simultaneously providing little money to the empire while holding most of the population, which is never a good combination.

 

[dcharles]

Economically, it's much less productive than India -- which, again, is the second-largest share of the world's economy at the time.

It depends on what you're counting and when you're counting it. But the US has the best land in the world for growing corn and cotton, among the best for growing what and rye, and has almost any mineral resource you can imagine. There's a reason that there US became a behemoth, and it's just not logically consistent to say that it's simultaneously a worthless barren wasteland and also so wealthy and powerful that it's going to eat the Empire.

In think in general, you've got a valid argument, but you're overstating it. Like, it seems inconceivable that the British wouldn't have renegotiated this trade relationship with the American colonies in the wake of subduing the Rebellion. So that probably means more taxes *and* more representation in London. And that, in and of itself, changes everyone's math.

 

[Beatriz]

Would there be a Scramble for Africa?

 

[dcharles]

Would there be a Scramble for Africa?

It's an interesting question. I don't think that it's out of the question, as I alluded to before, that there's not another rebellion in twenty years or so. Who knows what Napoleon's up to ITTL, but it's probably not pacifism, and twenty years after the end of the rebellion is right about when he'd hit his stride. So there's all kinds of possibilities there, where we might see Britain lose the colonies relatively early on in the 19th century, with all those same OTL pressures that led to the Scramble in real history.

OTOH, if the colonies stay part of the Empire for the next 80 years, even a perpetually restive America might focus British foreign policy on the Americas. With the long time weakness of Spain relative to Britain (not to mention Britain + America), and the spirit of conquest that pervaded English and American consciousness in the 19th century, I can't see Spain hanging on to that territory in North America for long.

Tangential Lore: Fremont's invasion of Russian Alaska during the ATL Crimean War.

 

[Sacer Bubonicus]

It depends on what you're counting and when you're counting it. But the US has the best land in the world for growing corn and cotton, among the best for growing what and rye, and has almost any mineral resource you can imagine.

When you're counting it: once the prairie is fully colonized, once the mountains are all explored and probed.
Estimated date range for that eventuality: early-mid 20th century.

That is like saying the Russians are making a wise move in settling Siberia because Siberia is where all the uranium and oil is. Yes, it's accurate, but it's not something the people in 1820 know about, and it's also fucking worthless to them when they're planning for events twenty years down the line. And it's so far beyond the point where America's population literally makes Britain a minority in its own empire that there is literally no point in planning for it anyway. If there is any pretense toward common democracy between America and Britain, that's just unavoidable.

There's a reason that there US became a behemoth,

That reason being its industry and its population size, and the fact that its industry grew the fastest in the world in the late 19th and early 20th century, not its resources.

and it's just not logically consistent to say that it's simultaneously a worthless barren wasteland and also so wealthy and powerful that it's going to eat the Empire.

At the time, it's far from that point, and most of the factors that you mention aren't even visible yet to people planning at the time.
However, the industrial and population growth in America very much is visible, and it's very bad for Britain because this American majority is going to become the economic center of the empire by virtue of being the place where the industrial and population majority will be soon enough.

Compare that to India, which is more populous, but the locals also don't have the right to vote and don't get uppity when their civil rights are infringed upon (it also helps that they're brown people with no connection to England, unlike the Americans). While India is much less industrialized than America, it also has a lot more commerce moving through it at the moment, and that commerce is much more easy to tax and re-tax than America's is. So India is just naturally a more lucrative colony in the early 19th century, and less of a problem to the empire in the latter 19th.

In think in general, you've got a valid argument, but you're overstating it. Like, it seems inconceivable that the British wouldn't have renegotiated this trade relationship with the American colonies in the wake of subduing the Rebellion.

They would have certainly tried, and they might even have partially succeeded for a while. However, there is still the fact that Britain is going to be increasingly marginalized in its own empire just by the fact that America has more space to populate. Giving them seats in Parliament would actually make this very plain to see, as every decade there are more and more MPs being added from the colonies.

There is simply no way that London will willingly sign on to becoming the junior partner to America.

So that probably means more taxes *and* more representation in London. And that, in and of itself, changes everyone's math.

The colonials didn't just rebel over the taxation issue on its own, so much as the idea that their ancestral privileges were being infringed on by a government that wanted to standardize administration across the empire. They complained as much about additional(*) customs inspectors and anti-smuggling operations as they did about taxes or representation. They thought that a few thousand troops stationed across the Thirteen Colonies could only possibly be there because of some secret plot by the government or to enrich the commanders, not to protect them and supplement their severely-lacking militias against the Natives. In every act the British government did, they saw the hand of tyranny moving against them, or so their propaganda went.

Point being, this is a more difficult problem to solve than you imply. American and British interests will come to loggerheads eventually, and it's only by luck that the Americans will stay in the empire for even a century longer.

(*): and, most importantly, less corrupt customs inspectors that wouldn't just let the rampant smuggling and bribery go unchecked.​

 

[dcharles]

One question I'm interested in is, how are the colonies reincorporated back into the Empire?

I know that Dominions became a thing later, but were they a thing in 1783? On what basis would representation in Parliament be granted, if any?

(Obviously, if it's none, it's just a countdown to Burr or Jackson's Second rebellion.)

 

[Sacer Bubonicus]

One question I'm interested in is, how are the colonies reincorporated back into the Empire?

Reincorporated? Assuming that they rebelled? If yes, presumably with certain limitations and punishments, like restructuring of certain government offices, but also some concessions to rebel demands on representation. Loyal states would presumably get rewards.

I know that Dominions became a thing later, but were they a thing in 1783?

They tried it in New England, once.

On what basis would representation in Parliament be granted, if any?

Something similar to the British system pre-Great Reform, presumably. Anything else would either necessitate electoral reform, which the British government was very opposed to, or a case-by-case negotiation where each colony had different rules, which would only muddy the electoral system further. A more pertinent question might be what they do about the vote itself, because not all colonies had the same voting requirements.

 

[Beatriz]

In this scenario Would representation be granted to British nonwhite colonies in the late 20th century outside of India?

 

[Sacer Bubonicus]

As long as the combined colonies aren't as populous as Britain, it's not impossible.

Some colonies would have no chance of remaining in the empire (ex. Nigeria), but one particular colony like South Africa, or a smattering of various islands and small countries like Oman, Brunei, etc might easily make the cut.

However, if we include Australia and Canada with Britain, suddenly the number of colonies that can be retained gets much bigger.

 

[dcharles]

When you're counting it: once the prairie is fully colonized, once the mountains are all explored and probed.
Estimated date range for that eventuality: early-mid 20th century.

That is like saying the Russians are making a wise move in settling Siberia because Siberia is where all the uranium and oil is. Yes, it's accurate, but it's not something the people in 1820 know about, and it's also fucking worthless to them when they're planning for events twenty years down the line.

Well, according to Madison, the US eclipsed India in share of world GDP sometime in the 1880s. So a little bit earlier than mid 20th century. And coal and cotton were literally the lifeblood of the Industrial Revolution. From a very early date, America had these in abundance, and people were aware of it early on, so the Siberian analogy doesn't work for very long.

That reason being its industry and its population size, and the fact that its industry grew the fastest in the world in the late 19th and early 20th century, not its resources.

Any rational analysis would concede that it was *both* the resources and the education that made American industry grow faster than anywhere else in the world.

At the time, it's far from that point, and most of the factors that you mention aren't even visible yet to people planning at the time.

Maybe not visible in 1783, but coal, corn, wheat, cotton, and iron--visible by 1850. Earlier, really.

They would have certainly tried, and they might even have partially succeeded for a while. However, there is still the fact that Britain is going to be increasingly marginalized in its own empire just by the fact that America has more space to populate. Giving them seats in Parliament would actually make this very plain to see, as every decade there are more and more MPs being added from the colonies.

There is simply no way that London will willingly sign on to becoming the junior partner to America.

This is the part I agree with. But it's not as simple as saying "they will not concede."

Point being, this is a more difficult problem to solve than you imply. American and British interests will come to loggerheads eventually, and it's only by luck that the Americans will stay in the empire for even a century longer.

If that's what it seems like I'm implying, I'm not intending to. Most likely option I've seen so far is a revolution that sticks during TTL's Napoleonic wars. I'm just trying to think beyond that. If they could keep it together till 1880, what would it look like?

(*): and, most importantly, less corrupt customs inspectors that wouldn't just let the rampant smuggling and bribery go unchecked.​

[/QUOTE]

 

[Sacer Bubonicus]

Well, according to Madison, the US eclipsed India in share of world GDP sometime in the 1880s.

The important difference between America and India is that Americans can vote and Indians cannot, so it doesn't matter how populous India is in the 19th century, but it very much does matter how populous America is. India can be the demographic majority of the empire and it won't matter because they don't have to have their democratic will respected, and that won't change until the 20th century. Americans do have to have their democratic will respected, and they've been insisting on that since their inception.

If for some reason the United States wanted to return to being a British colony in 1900, the British wouldn't let them back into the empire.

So a little bit earlier than mid 20th century. And coal and cotton were literally the lifeblood of the Industrial Revolution. From a very early date, America had these in abundance, and people were aware of it early on, so the Siberian analogy doesn't work for very long.

Fair, I was a bit overzealous. Pennsylvania/Appalachia coal + Alabama cotton were obviously there at the time.
That's basically it, though, until oil is discovered.

Maybe not visible in 1783, but coal, corn, wheat, cotton, and iron--visible by 1850. Earlier, really.

In 1780, nothing west of the Mississippi is obvious or exploitable, so it really is like Siberia. For example, the prairie won't become the agricultural heart of America until the Natives are put into reservations, which is not feasible until the latter 19th century.

This is the part I agree with. But it's not as simple as saying "they will not concede."

A demographic comparison of Britain and America, decade by decade.

	BRITAIN​	AMERICA​	ratio​
1800	15.7 mil	5.3 mil	3 : 1
1820	20.9 mil	9.6 mil	2.2 : 1
1840	26.7 mil	17.1 mil	1.6 : 1
1860	28.9 mil	31.4 mil	1 : 1.1
1880	34.9 mil	50.2 mil	1 : 1.4
1900	44.6 mil	76.3 mil	1 : 1.7

Britain will have the choice of remaining a democracy and getting swamped by American voters in the latter 19th century (and their rapidly growing industry doing the same to the home islands' industry), or not giving the Americans representation in Parliament and having them get butthurt about that, or just letting them go independent (after carving them up into several competing nations, of course). And the problem will be visible decades in advance, so it's not like the British will suddenly wake up to find themselves the junior partner in the empire.

Here's two ways they could divide the colonies to keep America weakened, while retaining Canada.

 

[dcharles]

Snip

There's seriously no way that Spain keeps this territory if Americans have representation in Parliament, and there's no way that America stays in the Empire if the Empire won't pursue the manifest imperial destiny of conquering it.

Seems like a good point in time for the final split, no?

 

[Sacer Bubonicus]

There's seriously no way that Spain keeps this territory if Americans have representation in Parliament,

Since the time this is meant to take place in is around 1840-1860, and no French Revolution = delayed or prevented dissolution of the Spanish Empire, I'd say this is realistic.

and there's no way that America stays in the Empire if the Empire won't pursue the manifest imperial destiny of conquering it.

Manifest Destiny was developed to justify America's national expansion, and did not motivate American expansion eastward until after it became an independent nation. And settlers usually didn't give a shit about ideology -- they cared about finding good farming land to settle down in, so they tended to go for the first available land and not straight to the absolute furthest end of the country.

Without the mythic vision of an empire of liberty stretching from sea to shining sea, British expansion westward will definitely be less aggressive. And with a surviving Spanish Empire not ravaged by the Peninsular War and the Carlist Wars afterward, the idea that Spanish America is just ripe for the picking is going to be viewed in London as dangerous adventurism that could complicate British politics in Europe.

The only question mark here is Texas.

 

[An Thuong]

The Germans were already going to the American colonies in the 1700's IOTL, to the point where large swathes of Pennsylvania (and bits of other colonies) were dominated by German-speakers. And if there's an ATL version of the European Spring that still somehow sees a mass exodus of Germans then where else are they going to go if not the American colonies where there's as much land as one can take?

I’m not saying that no Germans would migrate to BNA. Protestant Germans would still be the most acceptable non-British immigrant group. However, the radicals of 1848 would still be undesirable, that’s just inviting trouble to a land which already saw major dissent. It doesn’t really matter where else they might go if the crown and colonial authorities would be unlikely to accept them in BNA.

However, a likely butterfly of this TL is no French Revolution, or a less successful one. This might result in a surviving HRE and if/when a spring occurred, perhaps the ATL Habsburg’s would be more willing to accept a crown ‘from the gutter’ than were the Hohenzollerns OTL.

 

[Derek Pullem]

A demographic comparison of Britain and America, decade by decade.

	BRITAIN​	AMERICA​	ratio​
1800	15.7 mil	5.3 mil	3 : 1
1820	20.9 mil	9.6 mil	2.2 : 1
1840	26.7 mil	17.1 mil	1.6 : 1
1860	28.9 mil	31.4 mil	1 : 1.1
1880	34.9 mil	50.2 mil	1 : 1.4
1900	44.6 mil	76.3 mil	1 : 1.7

Bit of determinism creeping in here. If the USA loses the revolution then the open immigration policy is not going to be in place so USA demographics will not be the same. It probably won't catch up with the UK until 1880 if we use Canada as a metric and certainly if it is balkanised into several smaller dominions then with some gerrymandering UK is not going to feel swamped until the 20th century.

Not convinced about Spain's empire holding together (certainly in North America). I think you will get British colonial adventurists (alt-carpetbaggers) causing trouble for Spain in Louisiana, Texas, Mexico and California at least.

Russia will hold on to Alaska unless France wants it (unlikley)

But butterflies are huge and unpredictable.

 

[Sarthak]

Immigration will definitely not remain the same. Historically up until after the American Revolution, almost every immigrant in the 13 Colonies barring that from the British isles were German (mostly from Hanover and northern Germany) and Scandinavia and Netherlands, which were remnants of once colonies of Sweden and Netherlands in the area that made up the region. It is likely that for the next half a century or 70 years or so the same trend of immigrants from Britain, Ireland, Northern Germany and Scandinavia being the only immigrants will remain the case, stymying much of meteoric population rises America felt due to the addition of French, Iberian, Italian, Hungarian, Austrian, Polish, Russian, Balkan immigration OTL.

Without the extra population pool, it would also lead to a much slower natural growth rate than OTL in the 13 Colonies and America. The Population would definitely be much much lower.

There is also the fact that if the Colonies remain in the Empire, then the same economic policies that many Englishmen, Scots, Welsh and Irish wanted to escape from into the USA IOTL would remain in place in the Colonies as well, making it highly likely that British immigration to the colonies - in comparison to otl - would be lower, with many others opting to either to go to other probable independent states or remain at home where they were more familiar with the bureaucracy.

 

[Discernible]

Immigration will definitely not remain the same. Historically up until after the American Revolution, almost every immigrant in the 13 Colonies barring that from the British isles were German (mostly from Hanover and northern Germany) and Scandinavia and Netherlands, which were remnants of once colonies of Sweden and Netherlands in the area that made up the region. It is likely that for the next half a century or 70 years or so the same trend of immigrants from Britain, Ireland, Northern Germany and Scandinavia being the only immigrants will remain the case, stymying much of meteoric population rises America felt due to the addition of French, Iberian, Italian, Hungarian, Austrian, Polish, Russian, Balkan immigration OTL.

Most immigrants to the USA up to the 1880s were from the British Isles and Germany. It's only from the 1880s southern and eastern Europeans arrive in great numbers. 1840-50 sees a big surge primarily because of the Irish potato famine and the 1848 revolution in Germany. Maybe an ATL USA being more like any other British overseas colony sees the Irish famine emigrants spread over more of them (i.e. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Cape Colony) and less German emigration because the non-existence of the USA makes other destinations unappealing.

OTL the population of the USA appears to have taken place between 1850-60 and had a greater natural increase than the UK - probably due to the US having a younger population and the UK having high emigration.

 

[Beatriz]

Could American sailors reach New Zealand?