American MPs: effects on India, Africa, decolonization, Manifest Destiny.

Let's start with an old AH favorite: a more sensible, compromising Parliament leads to the British colonies in America (13 colonies plus Nova Scotia, Canada, Florida, Jamaica, Bermuda, Lesser Antillies, British Guiana, etc) getting MPs in parliament. Ignoring the feasability of this, here's the question: What effect does this have on 19th century colonization? Would London be as eager to expand west as Washington was? Would the colonists settle the west anyway? Is the impetus for colonization in Africa as strong? Would the industrial revolution spread as fast in America? Would the extra citizens and larger tax base mean that, assuming there still is a Scramble for Africa, decolonization takes place slower? Would more people immigrate to America, or less? Would people in Britain be more likely to not only cross the Atlantic, but settle the Great Plains?
 
Ironically, this might be a major drain on the British economy until they give up mercantilism. Trade between Britain and the 13 colonies was greatly inefficient.

More immigration rather than less, a large number was from Britain and Ireland OTL, the UK authorities tried to steer emigrants toward Canada and Australia rather than the US, but a huge number came anyway. I would expect westward expansion to happen as quickly as it did in OTL Canada, at least. Probably quicker.
 
Ironically, this might be a major drain on the British economy until they give up mercantilism. Trade between Britain and the 13 colonies was greatly inefficient.

More immigration rather than less, a large number was from Britain and Ireland OTL, the UK authorities tried to steer emigrants toward Canada and Australia rather than the US, but a huge number came anyway. I would expect westward expansion to happen as quickly as it did in OTL Canada, at least. Probably quicker.

OTOH with British Honduras and the declining Spanish Empire in the future Britain may not want to deal with fighting Mexico half a world away and might not pick up California.
 
Instead of a Louisiana purchase or anything similar, they probably just end up seizing the territory by force. No way France will sell it to it's old enemy Britain.
 
a more sensible, compromising Parliament leads to the British colonies in America (13 colonies plus Nova Scotia, Canada, Florida, Jamaica, Bermuda, Lesser Antillies, British Guiana, etc) getting MPs in parliament.

*Raises eyebrow*

The Parliament were not the ones not compromising or being sensible, it was the colonies, who were pissed they did'nt get to have their special treatment anymore (IE breaking the bank by getting subsidised tea and paying lower taxes than anywhere else and being religious bigots).


That said, without losing America I suspect the British would'nt be as focused on India, I mean certainly it would still be a major area of interest, but the British may never actually take over the whole subcontinent.

In regards to Africa, well Africa is still gonna be screwed over and Europe is still going to colonize it, however where Britain does will depend on events in the mid 19th century onwards.
 
*Raises eyebrow*

The Parliament were not the ones not compromising or being sensible, it was the colonies, who were pissed they did'nt get to have their special treatment anymore (IE breaking the bank by getting subsidised tea and paying lower taxes than anywhere else and being religious bigots).

Where do you get that argument from? The colonists only had subsidised tea for a year while Parliament was trying to force them to accept the tax on it, the lower taxes were likely made up for by the trade restrictions on the colonies, and legal penalties against Catholics and non-Anglicans were much worse in Britain itself.

And why wouldn't the British take India? They had already kicked the French out, there was nothing to stop them.
 
And why wouldn't the British take India? They had already kicked the French out, there was nothing to stop them.

North America would take away from their attention and resources thus they could'nt focus as much on India as they did IOTL.

The British would very likely remain the preeminent power on the Subcontinent, but it's likely rather than the Raj, with Britain directly and Indirectly controlling the subcontinent, you'd have a situation where the British directly control bengal and its near-abroad, have protectorates surrounding it and then rule bits and pieces either through the OTL method or by essentially puppetizing them.
 
*Raises eyebrow*

The Parliament were not the ones not compromising or being sensible, it was the colonies, who were pissed they did'nt get to have their special treatment anymore (IE breaking the bank by getting subsidised tea and paying lower taxes than anywhere else and being religious bigots).

Meh. Cutting to directly to where this argument will eventually lead (hence the fact that I tried to steer away from it,) you're never gonna convince me that virtual representation was anything but a scam. I personally am a "the people have a divine right to rule themselves" type. Actually I always imagined that (most likely) more liberal suffrage laws in America would prompt more of a push for something like the 1832 Reform Act in Great Britain earlier than OTL- especially if there is no French Revolution, and thus no conservative backlash. Whether those more liberal suffrage laws would still apply for the election of American MPs, admittedly, is up for debate
 
*Raises eyebrow*

The Parliament were not the ones not compromising or being sensible, it was the colonies, who were pissed they did'nt get to have their special treatment anymore (IE breaking the bank by getting subsidised tea and paying lower taxes than anywhere else and being religious bigots).

Special treatment because they were only on the other side of the world and under a mercantile system the home country itself didn't have to go through. As Adams said, full taxes and MPs in Parliament, or the trade breaks if they're not getting MPs at Westminster.

And where did religious bigotry come in, hmmm? Especially with a Britain also still against 'the papists?'

But clearly, heh, you have no particular desire to have anything fair for the colonials. But don't let logic get in the way of the beliefs there.
 
Speaking a Brit from the perspective of your average 18th century Englishman the American Revolution was a good thing. The North American colonies had been an endless money and resource sink that yielded basically no taxes and unlike the Caribbean or India were not terribly lucrative export markets. Britain spent a lot and the Home Isles got nothing in return apart from the pleasure of screwing the French over. The colonists on the other hand had the highest standard of living and the lowest rates of taxation in the world. If they're so ungrateful as to look that gift horse in the mouth fair enough. Much better to get rid of them and focus attention on colonies that were good for the home country rather than good for the colonists.

As for the OP in the event that BNA gets representation in Parliament then religious toleration for Protestant non-Anglicans (Dissenters) is going to come much sooner but based on OTL 19th century attitudes in Massachusetts and elsewhere in New England Catholic Relief is going to be later and slower. Westward settlement is probably going to be roughly the same rate though with more English settlers. OTL Canada on the other hand is going to be settled much more slowly with more attractive southerly land under the Crown. Ontario might well be majority French and settled out of Quebec for example.

Australia and NZ might still be picked up to stop anyone else but are going to be much less populous, NZ for example might still be Maori majority. Or it might be French.
 
Meh. Cutting to directly to where this argument will eventually lead (hence the fact that I tried to steer away from it,) you're never gonna convince me that virtual representation was anything but a scam. I personally am a "the people have a divine right to rule themselves" type. Actually I always imagined that (most likely) more liberal suffrage laws in America would prompt more of a push for something like the 1832 Reform Act in Great Britain earlier than OTL- especially if there is no French Revolution, and thus no conservative backlash. Whether those more liberal suffrage laws would still apply for the election of American MPs, admittedly, is up for debate

So you would be in favor of which of these options:

Completely changing the system (which many entrenched interests will resent)

Giving the colonists special treatment (which Britons will resent) by granting them and them alone direct representation

Viva la Revolution! Kill the king while we're at it!

Because like it, hate it, or accept it, the situation was that virtual representation was how Parliament worked at the time, as has been pointed out repeatedly in threads involving the AR.

It may have been a scam, but it wasn't directed at "the colonies" as some stepchildren - certainly not while the average Briton wasn't, to use the term of the day, an elector, even if we ignore the system of representation that sees Devon given 70 MPs to London's 6.
 
Speaking a Brit from the perspective of your average 18th century Englishman the American Revolution was a good thing. The North American colonies had been an endless money and resource sink that yielded basically no taxes and unlike the Caribbean or India were not terribly lucrative export markets. Britain spent a lot and the Home Isles got nothing in return apart from the pleasure of screwing the French over. The colonists on the other hand had the highest standard of living and the lowest rates of taxation in the world. If they're so ungrateful as to look that gift horse in the mouth fair enough. Much better to get rid of them and focus attention on colonies that were good for the home country rather than good for the colonists.
Hear hear!

As far as religious toleration was concerned the 'Pilgrim Fathers' came to America because English law would not allow them to persecute their members who did not toe the 'Puritan' line. Furthermore their voyage began in the Netherlands who were more tolerant than the English and even they could not stomach the 'Puritans' bigotry.

BTW (and digressing) the keel of the Speedwell (the first ship) is said to lie under the car park next to the Three Crowns in Plymouth. The rest of the vessel having been broken up for the wood.
 
Top