American dominions: effects on India, Africa and the Far East?

From a Anglo-sphere perspective I would suggest that it depends on what sort of autonomy would allow the Thirteen Colonies happy? Are we discussing each Colony becoming a Dominion or it being Federated so that the US is in many ways an early Canada that is even more strongly weighted towards the English speakers as opposed to the Franco-phones.
My personal view is that they would probably continue to organise things along the individual colony lines. IIRC the move from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution wasn't plain sailing, there were squabbles between various colonies, and I think the government in London would be farsighted enough to want avoid any state or grouping that could challenge their dominance. Over time as the colonies grow and as they expand westwards I could see them slowly coming together into regional blocs like Canada nowadays with states being the provinces, especially as they settle their differences and start trading more. There are going to be butterflies but culturally I think you'd still have differences between regions like New England, the Mid-Atlantic, the South - with that potentially split between South and Deep South, which would provide a decent rule of thumb for the groupings to make up the different proto-Canadas.
 
From a Anglo-sphere perspective I would suggest that it depends on what sort of autonomy would allow the Thirteen Colonies happy? Are we discussing each Colony becoming a Dominion or it being Federated so that the US is in many ways an early Canada that is even more strongly weighted towards the English speakers as opposed to the Franco-phones.

Thinking on the Empire, I'm not convinced Britain is going to lose interest in India. The East India Company is going to retain its monopoly for many years, especially as so many in the British establishment are making money off it.

Two issues I am not sure anyone has raised yet: Ireland and Louisiana. Does anyone have any ideas how they might turn out without the American Revolution changing things?

I suggested that in all likelyhood, Lousiana, or a large part of it, would end up British within a generation or two. This is not guaranteed, and it could be interesting to see a continued Spanish rule there and North America divided in two big countries by the Mississippi, but I don't see that as the most probable outcome.
No clue about Ireland, but I suppose that if the Americans are in Westminster (and probably there is no such a thing like an American Parliament), Westminster will see all the more reason to incorporate Ireland as well. "United Kingdom of Great Britain, Ireland and America" sounds awkward, but possible.
 
I suggested that in all likelyhood, Lousiana, or a large part of it, would end up British within a generation or two. This is not guaranteed, and it could be interesting to see a continued Spanish rule there and North America divided in two big countries by the Mississippi, but I don't see that as the most probable outcome.
No clue about Ireland, but I suppose that if the Americans are in Westminster (and probably there is no such a thing like an American Parliament), Westminster will see all the more reason to incorporate Ireland as well. "United Kingdom of Great Britain, Ireland and America" sounds awkward, but possible.

Any thoughts on my questions on the previous page?
 
Missed this before, sorry. Answers in bold.

To pick up on some to brain-storm further:

- I think we're agreed on an earlier wind-up of the EIC and an earlier British Raj. But how much earlier? If it happens before the 1840s, then the British don't hold all of India. Would that still lead to the same zest for conquest of the whole subcontinent?

Probably not much earlier. But I don't see what, as a direct consequence of the POD, prevents a conquest of most if not all the subcontinent
.
- American missionaries in India. Are they really going to go here rather than the American frontier? If they do, it will likely piss off the Indians a lot. An earlier Indian mutiny perhaps?

Difficult to say, butterflies are going to have huge effects here. However, probably not. The Mutiny was a "perfect storm" in my opinion. They may be more diffuse resistance with several small uprisings as opposed to one single big revolt.


- American entrepreneurs: Would they go to India? If they're backed by British gunboats, it would seem like Latin America is the easier bet. Do you really think a lot would go?

Latin America depends on the consequences on Spain, which in turn depend a lot on what forms TTL's *French Revolution takes. Some Americans might go to India, but probably will not have a major impact there overall. If Latin America is unwelcoming, they might take interest in West Africa.



- Where could the British have annexed more in Africa? If they were aware they were money sinks, why did they bother with places like Kenya and Nigeria?

Private companies (who did not believe in the "money sink" thing), rivalry with France, prestige. For Kenya, strategical reasons related in a roundabout way to the defence of the route to India.

- What's your rationale for not great numbers going to Africa? It seems to me like American dominions would have a lot more of the imperialist propaganda Britain saw, and a lot more white people would be inspired by it. Especially if they know how to farm already.

Again, there's a century of butterflies here. Hard to assess.


- China is very interesting to me. Could the *British Empire push the other powers out here, as they did in India?

Difficult, and little need to. Depends also on what happens to Southest Asian European colonies.

How deep could penetration go? It seems to me Chinese nationalism is a much more tangible force than Indian nationalism in the 19th Century, and I can't figure out whether that would stop things or not.

Indian nationalism is largely a consequence of British rule. I don't know enough about Chinese nationalism, but I guess you are right that it is going to be a force earlier. To me, the point is that China is a unitary and functional state, which as such could respond to British meddling in an organized and sort of coherent way regardless of "nationalism". This is going to make any British attempt to outright conquest problematic. OTOH, Britain may acquire a larger economic dominance over Chine ITTL.

- I never knew about Raffles and the Dutch East Indies. Do you have any sources on it?

Not on the web. I was going upon memory based on the outdated "History of South East Asia" by Hall. Basically, it says that Raffles acted as a governor for British-occupied Jawa between 1810 and 1815. He had some grand plans there that promised a lot, but by 1815 he had nothing to show for all money invested there. Whitehall was happy to hand the island back to the Dutch, since they had not proved to be profitable, in addition to general foreign policy reasons.
Raffles was very vocally against it. He was convinced (not without reason) that Indonesia could be turned into a very profitable British possession if sufficient time and investment were provided. It seems to me that in Britain there was a feeling that it was too much to handle. This might change if America is on board, but on the other hand, as noted, there could be no British takeover to begin with.

Thanks a lot. This is really helping me form my opinions better.
 
Was the Indian mutiny really a perfect storm? It seemed like there was a long undercurrent of Indian resentment at British rule, and the suspicion they could force them to change their religion was always very strong. The Indian Mutiny just had the thing about gun cartridges to be the match that started the fire. It seems to me that if there are a lot of American evangelicals added to the mix, that fire is a lot more likely.

I think you're right on China. The British will have more treaty ports, and might even get greater chunks of land carved off (Taiwan? Hainan?) but they will conquer the whole place. That probably means greater Christianity in China, and a greater elite of Western educated Chinese. That could swing the balance away from communism towards nationalism, although obviously it depends on where the butterflies go.

The East Indies is a very interesting one. I had no idea that Raffles pushed so hard for it. It seems like the place was very profitable for the Dutch, so I'd be shocked if the Brits couldn't do the same. As with South Africa, it all depends on whether (1) the Dutch get conquered by the French at some point, or (2) the British outright fight the Dutch. It seems to me that there's a larger than 50% chance of this happening.

Africa is the one that is less clear to me. I can't really see Americans wanting to travel there, and it's not exactly a wealthy place to attract business. I think I'm coming to the view that the British wouldn't be bothered as much, outside the Cape and any mining deposits they come across. Maybe it will be left to private companies, and the British government never takes them over. That would be an interesting timeline.
 
From what I've heard, the British wanted to focus on dismantling the Spanish Empire in Central and South America before American Independence, so maybe they're more likely to concentrate there than elsewhere.

Should they reach the Western coast of North America, they'll also have more access to the Far East than other European powers. We already saw what the US did in our timeline (gunboat diplomacy in Japan, several treaty ports in China), so if those resources were poured into an ideologically imperialist power they could grab major chunks of China. The Philippines are an obvious target for taking off the Spanish too.

Thoughts?
 
From what I've heard, the British wanted to focus on dismantling the Spanish Empire in Central and South America before American Independence, so maybe they're more likely to concentrate there than elsewhere.

Should they reach the Western coast of North America, they'll also have more access to the Far East than other European powers. We already saw what the US did in our timeline (gunboat diplomacy in Japan, several treaty ports in China), so if those resources were poured into an ideologically imperialist power they could grab major chunks of China. The Philippines are an obvious target for taking off the Spanish too.

Thoughts?

A focus on Spanish America will go down well with the Americans, but what actually happens depends a lot on European alignments.
I don't think that Britain, even with the American colonies in the fold, could realistically absorb all of Spanish America. The most populated areas such as Peru and central Mexico are especially unlikely to end up under British rule unless the Spanish Empire thoroughly collapses in a rather spectacular way, and even then, it's not the most likely result. What Britain might do is taking some choice bits such as Cuba and nibbing at the edges in areas like California.
 
A focus on Spanish America will go down well with the Americans, but what actually happens depends a lot on European alignments.
I don't think that Britain, even with the American colonies in the fold, could realistically absorb all of Spanish America. The most populated areas such as Peru and central Mexico are especially unlikely to end up under British rule unless the Spanish Empire thoroughly collapses in a rather spectacular way, and even then, it's not the most likely result. What Britain might do is taking some choice bits such as Cuba and nibbing at the edges in areas like California.

I think I agree. Northern Mexico, the Caribbean and the River Plate seem like the places most like to be chipped off. The Aztec-Inca core would seem to be more protected, although maybe the UK would support their independence as protectorates?
 
Top