Anglo-American Empire

Say that the ARW is averted by giving the colonists some representation in the British Parliament, so the Thirteen Colonies remain part of the British Empire. I think it's pretty likely that over time this would result in the British Empire becoming more like an American Empire, but I have a few questions about how this might pan out:

1.) If the centre of imperial gravity moves to North America it's likely that the capital will as well, but moving a country's capital across an ocean isn't the sort of thing that's generally undertaken lightly. What sort of scenarios might provide a plausible catalyst for the British to do so?

2.) What American city would most likely be chosen for the new capital?

3.) How would America remaining part of the British Empire change the culture (compared to OTL) both of America and of Britain?

4.) How would the development of the British Empire by affected compared to OTL? E.g., would there be less expansion in places like India and Africa, would having the resources of (much of) North America behind it mean that the Empire can survive past its OTL end date, etc.?
 
To answer my own question (1)...

I can think of a few scenarios that might result in the capital removing to NA. The first is that Parliament bans or looks like it's going to ban slavery throughout the Empire, so the colonies of OTL's southern USA rebel in a sort of USCW analogue. The government decides to temporarily move over to North America to better supervise the war, and also to help shore up the loyalty of the non-rebellious colonies. When the war is over they stay to supervise the reconstruction and make sure that hostilities don't break out again... And stay... And, basically, never get round to moving back to England.

Secondly, as the colonies grow in population and industrial importance, and to stop them feeling left out and rebelling, it becomes customary to send the heir to the throne over to rule the Americas as regent, kind of like how later Roman Emperors would appoint subordinate Emperors to supervise important provinces. After one particularly long-lived monarch dies, their son, who has by now spent most of his adult life in the Americas, decides not to move back to England, and instead summons Parliament to meet at somewhere in North America. People in Britain grumble over this, but ultimately everybody knows that North America is becoming more important relative to Britain and there's nothing much they can do about it.

Thirdly, the compromise of having American MPs in Westminster creates something like a British imperial West Lothian Question, and it is decided to solve this by creating a new, pan-Imperial, Parliament to deal with Imperial matters and leave Westminster to focus on governing England. Because North America is becoming more important relative to Britain and everybody realises that this trajectory isn't going to change any time soon, it's decided to locate the new Parliament somewhere in North America.
 

fi11222

Banned
Another possible scenario might be that Napoleon invades the British Isles and the King and parliament are "temporarily" evacuated to North America.

After Napoleon commits suicide in Russia like in our TL, the British Isles are freed from French occupation but the government's seat remains in America because UK elites has drawn the conclusion that having an ocean between themselves and "the continent" is safer than just the Channel. Thus, the center of gravity of the British Empire is permanently shifted westward.
 
I do not believe that the center would ever move from London. What is being postulated is in essence Ben Franklin's Albany Plan. This would have left the colonies with local self governance with defense and foreign policy defaulted to Parliament. In OTL the British Empire continued to be governed from London even after the distances became vastly longer to such places as India, China and Australia. I do not think this mindset would really change unless you have the total defeat of the British and then it is no longer the British Empire.
 
I Wonder how this will affect immigration to America? Will the British only allow British people to settle in the American colonies?

I image the Corn laws would not happen as OTL.
The Corn Laws were measures enforced in the United Kingdom between 1815 and 1846, which imposed restrictions and tariffs on imported grain. They were designed to keep grain prices high to favour domestic producers. The laws did indeed raise food prices and became the focus of opposition from urban groups who had far less political power than rural Britain. The Corn Laws imposed steep import duties, making it too expensive to import grain from abroad, even when food supplies were short. The laws were supported byConservative landowners and opposed by Whig industrialists and workers. The Anti-Corn Law League was responsible for turning public and elite opinion against the laws. It was a large, nationwide middle-class moral crusade with a Utopian vision, according to historian Asa Briggs; its leading advocate Richard Cobden promised that repeal would settle four great problems simultaneously:

First, it would guarantee the prosperity of the manufacturer by affording him outlets for his products. Second, it would relieve the Condition of England question by cheapening the price of food and ensuring more regular employment. Third, it would make English agriculture more efficient by stimulating demand for its products in urban and industrial areas. Fourth, it would introduce through mutually advantageous international trade a new era of international fellowship and peace. The only barrier to these four beneficent solutions was the ignorant self-interest of the landlords, the "bread-taxing oligarchy, unprincipled, unfeeling, rapacious and plundering."[1]

The first two years of the Irish famine of 1845–1852 forced a resolution because of the urgent need for new food supplies. Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel, a Conservative, achieved repeal with the support of the Whigs in Parliament, overcoming the opposition of most of his own party.

"Corn" included any grain that requires grinding, especially wheat. The laws were introduced by the Importation Act 1815 (55 Geo. 3 c. 26) and repealed by the Importation Act 1846(9 & 10 Vict. c. 22). The laws are often considered examples of British mercantilism.[2]

The economic issue was food prices. The price of grain was central to the price of the most important staple food, bread, and the working man spent much of his wages on bread.

The political issue was a dispute between landowners (a long-established class, who were heavily over-represented in Parliament) and the new class of manufacturers and industrial workers (who were under-represented). The former desired to maximise their profits from agriculture by keeping the price at which they could sell their grain high. The latter wished to maximise their profits from manufacture by reducing the wages they paid to their factory workers—the difficulty being that men could not work in the factories if a factory wage was not enough to feed them and their families; hence, in practice, high grain prices kept factory wages high also.

The Corn Laws enhanced the profits and political power associated with land ownership. Their abolition saw a significant increase of free trade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_Laws
 
Last edited:

Saphroneth

Banned
3.) How would America remaining part of the British Empire change the culture (compared to OTL) both of America and of Britain?
The best way to look at this is to look at the things the British and Americans differed on in the 18th century. A lot of those differences came about because of the fact of two very similar nations trying to differentiate one another.
 
I do not believe that the center would ever move from London. What is being postulated is in essence Ben Franklin's Albany Plan. This would have left the colonies with local self governance with defense and foreign policy defaulted to Parliament. In OTL the British Empire continued to be governed from London even after the distances became vastly longer to such places as India, China and Australia. I do not think this mindset would really change unless you have the total defeat of the British and then it is no longer the British Empire.

I think that it would change because as time goes on the American part of the empire will consist of a bigger and bigger portion of the electorate and economy. OTL Canada, Australia, and the other white colonies never exceeded the population of the British Isles and so wouldn't be the center of gravity and economy. This in OTL remained in Great Britain but in this ATL the center of economy would inevitably move to North America because of the vast amounts of land available and the population that would live there. If the British give any say in how the empire will be run to at least the white parts of the empire then North America will dominate all of the rest because of the large population it can support. Eventually the colonies will outnumber the homeland which was not a situation faced by the British in OTL because India had no vote so couldn't direct where the empire was going.
 
Say that the ARW is averted by giving the colonists some representation in the British Parliament, so the Thirteen Colonies remain part of the British Empire. I think it's pretty likely that over time this would result in the British Empire becoming more like an American Empire, but I have a few questions about how this might pan out:

1.) If the centre of imperial gravity moves to North America it's likely that the capital will as well, but moving a country's capital across an ocean isn't the sort of thing that's generally undertaken lightly. What sort of scenarios might provide a plausible catalyst for the British to do so?

2.) What American city would most likely be chosen for the new capital?

3.) How would America remaining part of the British Empire change the culture (compared to OTL) both of America and of Britain?

4.) How would the development of the British Empire by affected compared to OTL? E.g., would there be less expansion in places like India and Africa, would having the resources of (much of) North America behind it mean that the Empire can survive past its OTL end date, etc.?

1.) Probably the move would be later rather than sooner. Some kind of global war...with or without added Nazi type foes and maybe a nuclear stand off with some nameless butterfly power in the European Theatre.

2.) New York at a guess, for ease of transatlantic communications however there may never be a clean break with London remaining the ceremonial capital.

3.) Think Canadians but with nukes and supercarriers or worse the kind of money to make us all have to listen to Celine Dion and we thought Anglo-American Nazi War thingies were the archetypal dystopia :eek:

4.) Africa maybe probably India gets dominated anyway as more local Governors and HEIC types looking to make money and a name. Africa might get a lot less of a look in as British North America would attract a lot of the Rhodes types in the period in question.
 
It seems likely that the North American Empire would attract almost all of the available settlers from the Home Islands, just based on the reduced travel time, more attractive climate and relatively smaller native population to push out of the way. Absent the ARW, the first Anglo-French or Anglo-Spanish war will extend that state across Louisiana to the Rockies at least. At some point thereafter alt-Rhodes will begin to look acquisitively at Mexico.

India and Africa may well get off with less imperialism from Britain, aside from coastal colonies for trade similar to OTL Hong Kong. Australia may never be settled, even by convicts and becomes the playground of the other sea going European powers.
 
The mid-19th Century is way too soon to move the capital. If it happens, and its still an if, it will be something that is long overdue. People will have been talking about it for decades and decades and when it finally happens it will be because 75% of the politicians accept it. Perhaps early 20th Century. One thing that complicates the decision is that much of the Empire is still likely to be in Africa, Asia and Australasia, so it would be moving the capital further from them. That could be a bulwark argument against it and you should also not underestimate power of the status quo. Frankly, I think its more likely that power gets moved to province capitals, with London reducing in importance. I imagine that would include the power to determine slavery or not too.
 
It seems likely that the North American Empire would attract almost all of the available settlers from the Home Islands, just based on the reduced travel time, more attractive climate and relatively smaller native population to push out of the way. Absent the ARW, the first Anglo-French or Anglo-Spanish war will extend that state across Louisiana to the Rockies at least. At some point thereafter alt-Rhodes will begin to look acquisitively at Mexico.

India and Africa may well get off with less imperialism from Britain, aside from coastal colonies for trade similar to OTL Hong Kong. Australia may never be settled, even by convicts and becomes the playground of the other sea going European powers.

What will the British do with the Boers, though? If Britain takes control of South Africa during the Napoleonic Wars, they're gonna have do something about them. India, well, if the situation is falling into Britain's lap, I don't see why the British wouldn't continue imperialism there.

And wasn't part of the British settlement in Australia to deny it to the French, at least Western Australia I believe? So maybe this'll let France get a hold of part of Australia, but I think the British might still want something done about the place. New Zealand, however, might be a Maori protectorate.
 
2.) New York at a guess, for ease of transatlantic communications however there may never be a clean break with London remaining the ceremonial capital.

Yeah, I expect London's/the British Isles' position will be like that of Rome after the Third-Century Crisis: ideologically and symbolically of huge importance, even after the real centre of power has moved elsewhere.

It seems likely that the North American Empire would attract almost all of the available settlers from the Home Islands, just based on the reduced travel time, more attractive climate and relatively smaller native population to push out of the way. Absent the ARW, the first Anglo-French or Anglo-Spanish war will extend that state across Louisiana to the Rockies at least. At some point thereafter alt-Rhodes will begin to look acquisitively at Mexico.

India and Africa may well get off with less imperialism from Britain, aside from coastal colonies for trade similar to OTL Hong Kong. Australia may never be settled, even by convicts and becomes the playground of the other sea going European powers.

OTOH if the British do decide to have a convict settler colony, Australia might still get chosen. After all, the American Brits probably wouldn't be too happy having a load of criminals dumped into their portion of the Empire.
 
Thinking about it, the Brits probably would make some effort to settle Australia, if only to mess with the French. The lack of an ARW, for whatever reason would of course alter French political events big time. In the absence of the large expenditures made to support the ARW, the French government would have more financial leeway in the 1780's, perhaps postponing or forestalling the OTL revolution. Personally, I think that sooner or later there was going to be a French Revolution, but perhaps not until well into the19th century. In the mean time the great game between the UK and France would play on. The desire for revenge against Perfidious Albion would still be there.
 
Top