American population without ARW?

Finding estimates of how many Americans died or emigrated during the Revolutionary War period and early Republic is relatively straightforward. The larger question, though - American population growth absent the Revolution - is something I haven't seen worked out in much detail.

What immigration was "lost" in the long period of revolution, war, and economic recovery? How did the war impact the American birth rate? Were any immigration sources permanently altered by the revolutionary interruption?

At a glance it would seem likely that an America not riven by the conflict would be dramatically "ahead" of the OTL United States. Higher populations across the board, especially in ports and their hinterlands; greater and more uniform westward expansion; continued development of the Floridas. Some things could go in the other direction of course: interior cities might be reduced in stature as provincial capitals were not moved inland out of British reach; continued alliance will make displacing the Cherokee and Iroquois slow and awkward; Ontario and especially the Maritimes would develop much more slowly without a Loyalist influx. And there's always the LTTW model - that a BNA might be much more closed to immigration.

Thoughts? Has anyone analyzed this seriously in a timeline?
 
I think it's worth asking who will want to emigrate to the American Commonwealth. Refugees from German liberalism seem less likely to move to another kingdom, for instance, although there was certainly admiration for British-style liberalism. And can the American Commonwealth put tariffs on British goods? If not, won't industrialization be slower?

Why would westward expansion be greater and more uniform?
 
would there have been a movement of 'give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses'? I think that would be diminished.

Hard to say. The British had something of that in OTL, and I could see it getting more powerful.

Plus, everyone knows that in 1832, the American Chartists would ally with the British to implement a trans-atlantic Commonwealth.
 
I think it's worth asking who will want to emigrate to the American Commonwealth. Refugees from German liberalism seem less likely to move to another kingdom, for instance, although there was certainly admiration for British-style liberalism. And can the American Commonwealth put tariffs on British goods? If not, won't industrialization be slower?

That may well be. The flip side to your immigration point is that much of the appeal of America was that it was at peace, where Europe spent it's peacetime preparing for war and warding off revolution.

As for industrialization, that's another point - what impact did industrialization have on population growth? Slowing it obviously leaves a weaker America than that in OTL, but does it actually impact population negatively? Or might reduced industry even translate to a larger population?

Why would westward expansion be greater and more uniform?

After the conquest of Quebec, a pattern was seemingly forming whereby the Indian boundary line was regularly pushed back. During the War, the frontier shifted not based on demand for expansion, but was determined by military campaigns: the thrust into Kentucky and the razing of the Iroquois towns.

I assumed in this scenario expansion would be more along the lines of what had come before, or of the US in the eighteen-teens. A wave of settlement pushing at the continent from multiple angles.
 
In the decades preceding the war, the southern colonies had been attracting the most migrants, whereas New England had been experiencing an outflow since the 1720s. The middle colonies had also been experiencing a net outflow, though much smaller than that of New England since 1760. In the immediate period, this probably means British North America has some 4.5 million inhabitants by 1790.

Prior to the war, the immigration to British America had diversified with Germans after 1700 arriving and settling in Pennsylvania, Maryland, the Carolinas and in the Mohawk Valley of New York. Additionally, Scots settled in the Carolinas and Scots-Irish settled in New Hampshire early on, but in far larger numbers in Appalachia during the end of the colonial period. I imagine that new free immigrants will tend to arrive primarily from the British Isles, and to a lesser extent the Rhineland-Palatinate and Switzerland, whereas forced immigrant will continue with the arrival of slaves until the trade is abolished. The fact that most colonies were hostile to Catholicism means that Catholic immigrants might not be welcomed until the 1830s as was the case in Australia. If things go as in OTL the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829 passes in the UK and the Irish famine occurs, I imagine Irish Catholics will arrive just as IOTL. It is important that half of the Irish Emigration during the famine went to British Colonies and Britain during this period.

The birthrate remained high, and with low levels of urbanisation, it would remain high for quite some time. The mortality rates of the emerging cities like Boston and New York though was higher and was already similar to that of English towns. The birth rates in New England decreased slightly after 1750, as marriage ages rose, but the largest decreases would occur after the 1800. I do not really see this changing as it seemed to be a gradual trend, due to increasing urbanisation. The exception being French-speaking Canada where the trend is probably due to low levels of literacy and an even greater isolation from Anglo-Saxon norms without loyalist refugees.

Regarding industrialisation, it is hard to say what might happen. While there was already a large domestic market, and many of the necessary preconditions for industry in British North America, one has to remember that Britain was far ahead in its industrial development. In the interim at least, high tariffs might be avoided, making certain industries more difficult to compete with lower priced British goods, textiles in particular. This might mean that the mills of New England for instance are unable to attract large numbers of French Canadians. As a result, they might simply remain in agriculture and logging, setting into what IOTL became Ontario. They did establish rural communities in Northern Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont IOTL. On the other hand, with a large grain-producing region the British Parliament might not impose the Corn Laws in 1815, and this would accelerate westward expansion.
 
would there have been a movement of 'give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses'? I think that would be diminished.
Since there was actually very immigration prior to the 1840s (and, in particular, the hunger of the late '40s, which was hardly restricted to Ireland), the numbers of immigrants can hardly do anything but go up.
 
Population would be lower. Why? Because Britain doesn't want to be outnumbered by the colonials. They would restrict immigration and westward settlement and industrialization. All in order to keep access to the resources and goods market there.
 
I could agree with working against industrialisation of North America for the large part but if it kept the peace I would bet they would allow western settlement, if they could even stop it.

But I would imagine they would go for divide and conquer, making multiple 'dominions' or maybe 'kingdoms' or 'princedoms' in this case, using the monarch as a further binding factor and play them against each other, it's not like the colonies didn't have disputes, even the US had this division and arguments over the states and territory they each had.

The government in Westminister could use this to keep control, encouraging many smaller dominions instead of bigger ones like Canada
 
I think it's worth asking who will want to emigrate to the American Commonwealth. Refugees from German liberalism seem less likely to move to another kingdom, for instance, although there was certainly admiration for British-style liberalism.


That might influence a few individuals, but as I understand it most of the German emigration was due to poor harvests and general agricultural depression rather than to politics. After all, in the 1840s there was also massive emigration from Switzerland, Scandinavia and even Britain (not just Ireland - plenty of English and Scots also moved). FTM quite a few Irish went to England [1] and Australia as well as the US. So the different regime might not make that much difference.

[1] I'm sure I read somewhere that most British Catholics (outside NI) are descended from mid-19C Irish immigrants.
 
Top