AH Challenge: The USA voluntarily rejoins the British Empire

With a POD no earlier then the Treaty of Paris 1783, what would be required for the majority of the USA to voluntarily rejoin the British Empire?

I understand there was a substantial loyalist faction in New England which presented itself as a credible force in the War of 1812, but obviously this would not constitute a majority.

Also when I say the majority of the USA, I don't mean that the British colonise the remainder of the continent (eg, California, Louisiana etc) and that technically qualifies as the majority. I mean for the majority of the nation to rejoin voluntarily - although perhaps under great pressure to do so. They cannot be annexed or secede the majority of their territory in a peace treaty to Britain (although they may lose some territory in a peace treaty which could lead to pressure later on).

Thank you.

Regards,
Euromellows
 
With a POD no earlier then the Treaty of Paris 1783, what would be required for the majority of the USA to voluntarily rejoin the British Empire?

I understand there was a substantial loyalist faction in New England which presented itself as a credible force in the War of 1812, but obviously this would not constitute a majority.
Err... say what!? Some New Englanders were interested breaking off and forming their own REPUBLIC, were there actually any (beyond a lunatic fringe) that was interested in rejoining the Empire? I never ran across any such references.

A major threat by French-run and allied Mexico? Nope. I think you'd have to have some massive external threat, and I just can't envision one, at least not after 1796... Hmmm... what about an earlier PoD.


OK. Let's try this. The AoC is never replaced by the Constitution. The individual states remain states (i.e. sovereign entities), rather than becoming provinces of a larger state. Then .... ?somehow? Spain and France unite and Spain/France uses Florida as a springboard to try to conquer Georgia. Georgia doesn't get (much) aid from the rest of the Union, so it appeals to Britain for help. Meanwhile, Spain/France pushes up the various rivers flowing into the Gulf, and takes Mississippi territory. THey also push up the Mississippi river and threaten western Kentucky and Tennessee (i.e. west VA and the carolinas). Since those states can't particularly project force over the Appalachians, France/Spain takes OTL Kentucky, Missouri, much of Tennessee, Illinois and Indiana. New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia appeal for help from Britain, who control the Great Lakes...

Maybe?

This would mean the French Revolution would probably have to be butterflied away.


After the Constitution, I don't think you can do it.
 
George Washington contracts malaria or such within his first year of office and dies. John Adams contracts it, as does much of the U.S. government during a small outbreak in Washington.

Following the death or incipacitation of many officials, the few remaining declare a state of emergency. American currency plummets as states begin circulating their own currency again. Many go homeless or starving.

The states North of the Mason-Dixon Line are taken control of by the military. The South, which managed to survive someway or another due to agarian tendencies, resists the North. They wish to continue their own state currencies, which they consider better than the now centralized Northern dollar. A war ensues.

Following the American Civil War (1796-1801), the South wins independence as the United States of America. The North declares the Federated Republic of America. The North is weak economically, and corrupt by the military officials that still rule. The UK, seeing the country as a cesspool of filth and a wonderful place to counqer. The UK begins to question the FRA and claim it to be horrid. New England soon rebels and causes the FRA to declare martial law.

All travel is strictly prohibited, with war being declared on "foriegn invaders". In a secret meeting, the USA decides to work with the UK. The UK and USA fund rebellions in the FRA, leading to the military government losing control in many places to a so-called "Citezen's Army", a UK and USA funded militia and puppet. The Citezen's Republic takes over what is left of the FRA and holds a (rigged) election to decide the country's fate.

The country "votes" to rejoin the UK in 1805, with a few territories being ceded to the USA. The FRA joins the UK, with the USA forging an alliance with the UK.
 
The country "votes" to rejoin the UK in 1805, with a few territories being ceded to the USA. The FRA joins the UK, with the USA forging an alliance with the UK.

Were rigged plebiscites plausible in this period? And why would they rig an election by a now-friendly government? If there's a chance of losing the election, they might as well just ignore the whole plebiscite idea and just vote away independence via a government only containing members who will vote favourably. There's going to be trouble either way, anyway. And I'm not really sure the concept of rigging it is likely, it's just too probable that they get found out (let's face it, I'm pretty sure the concept of a secret ballot hadn't even been dreamt up yet, so it's really all pretty public and someone's going to let slip) and I'm not entirely sure that if London sniffed a dubious result they wouldn't refuse the annexation on the grounds that they didn't want to be involved with vote-fixing.
 
Is it possible this could originate from the other side of the Atlantic? Perhaps a popular British statesman pushes for constitutional reform at home and reconciliation with America. It gains momentum to the point where Britain openly courts with the USA to accommodate it within the British fold - or perhaps the 'british fold' evolves to mean the English speaking world. The said statesmen fully acknowledging Britain was in the wrong and must go to great lengths to make up to its former colony.

Perhaps a few disasters for the young nation along the way. The states fail to draw up a firm constitution, the economy doesn't do so well - they are isolated diplomatically when they go it alone and are always fearful of other imperial powers.

Within a generation or two, the two countries are allied and enjoy the best of relations. When one talks of reconciliation there is a sense of inevitably about it. There are many legal hurdles to get over but eventually people resign themselves to it becoming a reality one day (like Australia's modern push to a republic). When the colony of Canada is set to reorganise itself into a Dominion, many see a golden opportunity to formally reconcile the former rebellious colony.

Perhaps this could also be achieved by a very forward thinking liberal minded Monarch who ascends the throne in Britain?

Over to you.
 
Top