In a timeline where the British keep America, let's say the Albany Plan or the Galloway plan goes through, what are the biggest cities in British America in 2021? I'm imagining all the land the United States has today, plus Canada, plus like Bermuda and the Bahamas and Jamaica. I have a timeline imagined for the acquisition of all of this land, which involves the British beating Napoleon and taking the Louisiana Territory, and the British being able to take Mexico. Easily. Maybe get even more land. But anyway that's not the point. The point is which cities will be big in this timeline? I imagine similar to OTL if you would combine USA and Canada, but I don't know.
Biggest Cities of British America
- Thread starter GregTheWolf144
- Start date
N7Buck
Banned
I have been waiting for a good British America discussion for awhile, so this thread makes my day.
- And the alternate history scenario just becomes an United States within the British sphere.
Working with this scenario.
- New York (Financial center), Philadelphia (Political Capital), a Great Lakes city (Industrial/Transport hub), Vancouver (it has a better port location than Seattle), Los Angeles or San Francisco (Pacific Port city)
Napoleon is butterflied as whatever allows Britain to hold the 13 Colonies would affect France. Such as ARW averted, means French Revolution delayed or prevented. Or ARW ending before French involvement. Or somehow Britain winning ARW once international involvement, which I don't know what effects that would have on Napoleon's rise to power.
Spain will most likely be in control of the Louisiana territory, so whatever war replaces the ARW in the 1770-1800 period could see that land being seized by British colonists, however where the border is drawn is hard to determine. Eventually Britain would span coast to coast, either through war with Mexico or purchase of land.
British America would look very different to otl US and Canada, this is because these countries developed separately. For example, no ARW, means no mass migration of English loyalists to Nova Scotia, thus no New Brunswick. Or Ontario being more industrialised because of access to the US market. Americans would expand west, and this would draw people from expanding north, thus leaving Canadian territories less populated. The North-South dynamic in the US would be averted, because of the different system of governance within the Albany/Galloway plan, and because the North has Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Quebec and Ontario.
Externally British America would look territorially similar to OTL US & Canada, but internally everything is different from OTL US & Canada.
- The Albany/Galloway plan are unlikely because it's unifying the colonies against Britain, whereas if the colonies remain entities, Britain can play New York off against Virginia.
- And the alternate history scenario just becomes an United States within the British sphere.
Working with this scenario.
- New York (Financial center), Philadelphia (Political Capital), a Great Lakes city (Industrial/Transport hub), Vancouver (it has a better port location than Seattle), Los Angeles or San Francisco (Pacific Port city)
Napoleon is butterflied as whatever allows Britain to hold the 13 Colonies would affect France. Such as ARW averted, means French Revolution delayed or prevented. Or ARW ending before French involvement. Or somehow Britain winning ARW once international involvement, which I don't know what effects that would have on Napoleon's rise to power.
Spain will most likely be in control of the Louisiana territory, so whatever war replaces the ARW in the 1770-1800 period could see that land being seized by British colonists, however where the border is drawn is hard to determine. Eventually Britain would span coast to coast, either through war with Mexico or purchase of land.
British America would look very different to otl US and Canada, this is because these countries developed separately. For example, no ARW, means no mass migration of English loyalists to Nova Scotia, thus no New Brunswick. Or Ontario being more industrialised because of access to the US market. Americans would expand west, and this would draw people from expanding north, thus leaving Canadian territories less populated. The North-South dynamic in the US would be averted, because of the different system of governance within the Albany/Galloway plan, and because the North has Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Quebec and Ontario.
Externally British America would look territorially similar to OTL US & Canada, but internally everything is different from OTL US & Canada.
What are the chances / likelyhood that the British-Americans will take on the north of New Spain after Louisiana, if they will have good access to the Pacific already, no shared Dominion over Oregon, and could probably negotiate a better Adams-Onis border from the get-go (say the Brazos River in Texas and the 37th parallel from the Continental Divide to the Pacific)?
Cities wise:
New York will still be the financial capital, and likely the largest city as in OTL.
I agree that Philadelphia might become a political capital of sorts, however, seeing how it is likely that Britain might maintain the colonies as separate dominions to play them against each other, its importance might be overshadowed by the individual Dominion Capitals. If all the colonies are federated into a large Dominion, the capital might be set elsewhere, seeing how other dominions in OTL (Canada and Australia) created new capital cities in "neutral locations".
Ontario would be interesting, Buffalo-Niagara-St. Catherines might grow into a large industrial metropolis, thanks to the hydro-electric power and the canals joining Lakes Eerie and Ontario. It could easily rival Detriot-Windsor. Similarly, Detroit's suburbs will be able to expand eastwards, so Windsor will be larger. The growth of Windsor and the Niagra metropolis will likely come at the expense of Toronto.
Most Canadian cities in the Prairies might be smaller as they will attract fewer settlers, who now have a choice to settle further south.
If British North America does not have access to the California Coast, Vancouver will be its main port to the Pacific (as N7Buck mentions it has a better harbor than Seattle), with the urban sprawl likely extending into Bellingham and inland following the Fraser River. This comes at the expense of Seattle-Tacoma. And in this case (with no California Harbors), Astoria might also be larger as a secondary port-city (due to the mountainous geography of that area it's very difficult to know what the better port location would be).
It's too far up the river, sooner or later everything is going to migrate to Puget Sound because it's an easier access and has a much more vibrant local economy.
Montreal is going to be much bigger because the British will build a St. Lawrence canal in the early 19th century if they've got both banks of the river, and once that happens all of the Great Lakes trade is going to be focused through there. It may not ever be as New York City, but it will certainly be a contender. Likewise, Kingston and Detroit will get big boosts to growth with more Great Lakes trade and ocean-going vessels being able to traverse the lakes. Toronto probably stalls as it's economic hinterland gets eroded by Detroit, Kingston and Buffalo.
No American independence is one of those things where the nature of the POD itself changes more things than the fact of no American independence.
Also no United States of America changes all of the 20th century. And then you have the issue of whether you still get the same French Revolution without the American War of Independence. Plus there is the issue of what happens with the territories the United States acquired after independence (Florida was already British, but nothing west of the Mississippi was) and with what became Canada. Abolition of slavery goes completely differently, which changes the fate of what became the southern states.
So no American independence scenarios are very difficult to speculate about, which is probably why "For a want of a Nail" became so fantastical in the end.
For example, New Orleans may not become part of "British North America", which affects the development of New Orleans. But it gets worse as you get to major cities that grew up later than New Orleans.
Of the cities east of the Mississippi, Chicago is in an excellent location, but is affected by no trans-continental railroad or a different trans-continental railroad. The entire development of twentieth century central and southern Florida gets butterflied. And Washington, DC, never gets built to begin with.
West of the Mississippi, its even worse:
St. Louis ???
Houston probably no independent Texas, and different development of Texas oilfields
Salt Lake City Mormonism develops differently or not at all
Phoenix easily butterflied
Las Vegas won't exist
San Diego probably won't have a naval base here
Los Angeles still exists as a major city, but being the center of the motion picture industry is probably butterflied away
San Francisco easily butterflied, with either San Jose or someplace on the East Bay being the central city of northern California
Seattle main staging area for the Alaska goldfields IOTL, so probably also butteflied away
The "sunbelt" not being a thing, it really was a twentieth century federal government creation, means other cities on the continent will have larger populations.
Also no United States of America changes all of the 20th century. And then you have the issue of whether you still get the same French Revolution without the American War of Independence. Plus there is the issue of what happens with the territories the United States acquired after independence (Florida was already British, but nothing west of the Mississippi was) and with what became Canada. Abolition of slavery goes completely differently, which changes the fate of what became the southern states.
So no American independence scenarios are very difficult to speculate about, which is probably why "For a want of a Nail" became so fantastical in the end.
For example, New Orleans may not become part of "British North America", which affects the development of New Orleans. But it gets worse as you get to major cities that grew up later than New Orleans.
Of the cities east of the Mississippi, Chicago is in an excellent location, but is affected by no trans-continental railroad or a different trans-continental railroad. The entire development of twentieth century central and southern Florida gets butterflied. And Washington, DC, never gets built to begin with.
West of the Mississippi, its even worse:
St. Louis ???
Houston probably no independent Texas, and different development of Texas oilfields
Salt Lake City Mormonism develops differently or not at all
Phoenix easily butterflied
Las Vegas won't exist
San Diego probably won't have a naval base here
Los Angeles still exists as a major city, but being the center of the motion picture industry is probably butterflied away
San Francisco easily butterflied, with either San Jose or someplace on the East Bay being the central city of northern California
Seattle main staging area for the Alaska goldfields IOTL, so probably also butteflied away
The "sunbelt" not being a thing, it really was a twentieth century federal government creation, means other cities on the continent will have larger populations.
A quick take on some of the cities you mention
St. Louis – was already established as a trading post by the French in 1763 and continued to be used by the Spanish. It is in a good enough location to remain as a trans-Mississippi trade hub, but can easily be replaced by another city along the Mississippi. For example, Cape Girardeau just a few miles south and closer to the Ohio River confluence had been established by the French even earlier as was Kaskaskia IL. Either one, or a whole new city in the Little Egypt area (Cario is a favorite of folks in this forum) could replace it.
Houston – is located next to the best location for a port in Texas. So there is likely still a large city in this area. However, like St. Louis it could easily be replaced by a nearby town. San Felipe served as the first capital of Austin’s first colony. The Mission de Nuestra Señora de la Luz del Orcoquisa was a Spanish mission / settlement that could just as easily replace it with a POD that far back.
Salt Lake City – The Utah Valley would likely still be the location of a largest city/towm in the area. However, the region as a whole without Mormon settlement could be fairly depopulated. The HBC had established a trading post in moderday Provo, first set up by the Dominguez-Escalante expedition and expanded by Etienne Provost (its namesake) Provo could replace SLC as the main city.
Phoenix agree, easily butterflied, with Tucson being the main city in Northern Sonora.
Las Vegas unlike Phoenix, Vegas is in a better location as a pit stop for caravans crossing the desert. There are a few fresh water springs and meadows for cattle grazing. It is also down river (rather than a mesa like Phoenix) so getting water there is relatively easy. However, without Hoover Dam and the Aviation industry (which are easily butterflied away) it might remain a pimple on the desert.
San Diego - it is still agreat location for a port, naval or otherwise. And can easily replace Los Angeles / San Pedro as a terminus for any railroad through the Southwest.
Los Angeles agree the film industry in LA was a fluke. But it was already the largest settlement in Alta California, and sooner or later the oil boom will happen, so its relevance as a major city in West Coast is hard to butterfly.
San Francisco San Jose is actually larger in both land area and population than San Francisco in OTL; so SF being replaced by another city in the Bay Area kinda happened in OTL anyways. However the Bay Wetlands make a port in the Santa Clara Valley difficult to build. A port alternative would likely happen around OTL’s Vallejo in the North Bay, or as you mention anything on the East side of the Bay.
Seattle as mentioned easily butterflied in this case, due to Vancouver being in a much better position.
Last edited:
I’m almost certain New York will not be the behemoth it became OTL. Should the American states remain within the empire they are likely to be much more financially fragmented, with the larger multi state financial institutions headquarters being based in London rather than NY. Likewise Montreal probably offers an easier entry port into the Great Lakes ( I suspect the Eire canal will still be built, but probably later).
Outside of the initial East coast colonies the same demographic trends that pushed the USA into French Louisian and Spanish Texas, NM,AZ and California will likely see British North America expand much as the USA did. I suspect slightly later dates of incorporation/conquest as the weight of political influence would take time to shift from European Britain (primarily concerned with the European balance of power), to American British colonies (full of voters wishing to exploit American resources). Over time the cities lying within advantageous geographical locations (St. louis, Kansas City, Denver, ect) will probably resemble their OTL counterparts.
On the West coast we might see an earlier rise of urban conglomerates as the British Empires‘s overwhelming naval power and trading prowess could see grater emphasis on pan pacific trade. San Fransisco and Vancouver would become giants offering the raw materials of the American West to the East.
Outside of the initial East coast colonies the same demographic trends that pushed the USA into French Louisian and Spanish Texas, NM,AZ and California will likely see British North America expand much as the USA did. I suspect slightly later dates of incorporation/conquest as the weight of political influence would take time to shift from European Britain (primarily concerned with the European balance of power), to American British colonies (full of voters wishing to exploit American resources). Over time the cities lying within advantageous geographical locations (St. louis, Kansas City, Denver, ect) will probably resemble their OTL counterparts.
On the West coast we might see an earlier rise of urban conglomerates as the British Empires‘s overwhelming naval power and trading prowess could see grater emphasis on pan pacific trade. San Fransisco and Vancouver would become giants offering the raw materials of the American West to the East.
Last edited:
One thing I think is that DC could easily be replaced in terms of being the major city of the area by Baltimore, or even Georgetown or Arlington.
The comments from jycee are interesting.
Thoughts on the cities on the eastern part of the country:
New York was already the second largest city in the colonies, and along with Philadelphia, used as the federal capitol before the construction of Washington. Will be important due to its harbor. But ITTL you might not get the Erie canal, the equivalent of the USA will be less important, and as noted big finance could easily wind up in Philadelphia, Montreal, or even London instead. Any changes in the timeline will reduce the importance of New York before 1950, though maybe increase it afterwards since the city declined somewhat in the late 20th/ early 21st century. Also New York is the leading candidate to get or keep the entertainment functions done IOTL in LA.
Philadelphia probably more important, though its not certain, since some of the institutions that IOTL wound up in NYC and DC may be here instead.
Montreal as noted earlier, probably more important ITTL.
Detroit due to butterflies, may not necessarily be the center of the auto industry, though that raises the question of which city will be the center of the auto industry. This probably lowers the profile of Detroit in the first half of the twentieth century, but helps Detroit in the second half. It would still be an important city, just never in the top five in population.
Chicago in a good location, but weaker if the ITTL entity never expands past the Mississippi and the trans-continental railroad never happens like in OTL.
New Orleans probably benefits from a timeline where there is no ACW, and may never be part of "British" North America and its successors.
Washington never happens
Ottawa of no importance ITTL
I don't think cities I didn't mention, such as Toronto, Boston and Atlanta, will be affected much.
Thoughts on the cities on the eastern part of the country:
New York was already the second largest city in the colonies, and along with Philadelphia, used as the federal capitol before the construction of Washington. Will be important due to its harbor. But ITTL you might not get the Erie canal, the equivalent of the USA will be less important, and as noted big finance could easily wind up in Philadelphia, Montreal, or even London instead. Any changes in the timeline will reduce the importance of New York before 1950, though maybe increase it afterwards since the city declined somewhat in the late 20th/ early 21st century. Also New York is the leading candidate to get or keep the entertainment functions done IOTL in LA.
Philadelphia probably more important, though its not certain, since some of the institutions that IOTL wound up in NYC and DC may be here instead.
Montreal as noted earlier, probably more important ITTL.
Detroit due to butterflies, may not necessarily be the center of the auto industry, though that raises the question of which city will be the center of the auto industry. This probably lowers the profile of Detroit in the first half of the twentieth century, but helps Detroit in the second half. It would still be an important city, just never in the top five in population.
Chicago in a good location, but weaker if the ITTL entity never expands past the Mississippi and the trans-continental railroad never happens like in OTL.
New Orleans probably benefits from a timeline where there is no ACW, and may never be part of "British" North America and its successors.
Washington never happens
Ottawa of no importance ITTL
I don't think cities I didn't mention, such as Toronto, Boston and Atlanta, will be affected much.
Atlanta is probably butterflied out of existence and while there might still be a major city in northern Georgia there's no reason it will be in the same spot or be named Atlanta, which wasn't the original or even the second or third name of the place set up there. Speaking of which, names and even naming conventions of a lot of American cities and towns would be different, the stereotypical -ville suffix you see in a lot of America would be much more uncommon.
I think St. Louis would end up the capital of a British North America dominion considering the advantageous geography.
Astoria seems more of a fortress, it's pretty much the gateway to the Columbia River and the main port will be somewhere from Sauvie Island to Oregon Falls.
Sauvie Island (OTL considered too marshy and too many Indian villages) would be a perfect place to put a "Venice of the Pacific" as well as a port. A few dikes means the Columbia won't flood it and it has plenty of agricultural land if you protect it from flooding. It should be a good place to build a port (maybe near St. Helens, OR or Woodland, WA). But I think TTL's colonisation of the PNW will be different.
Vancouver ended up the main city in BC because of the fear of American attack. New Westminster is a good enough port. As for the Puget Sound, there's a lot of good land in the Seattle area near Lake Washington.
Astoria seems more of a fortress, it's pretty much the gateway to the Columbia River and the main port will be somewhere from Sauvie Island to Oregon Falls.
It was in competition with Milwaukie and Oregon City OTL but Portland won out. Local politics could mean more dredging for ports around Milwaukie or Oregon City. Lake Oswego might work too since a canal would link the lower Willamette to Lake Oswego and from there to the Tualatin River.
Sauvie Island (OTL considered too marshy and too many Indian villages) would be a perfect place to put a "Venice of the Pacific" as well as a port. A few dikes means the Columbia won't flood it and it has plenty of agricultural land if you protect it from flooding. It should be a good place to build a port (maybe near St. Helens, OR or Woodland, WA). But I think TTL's colonisation of the PNW will be different.
The Columbia River is navigable until the rapids in the Cascades and Oregon City without portages, and with portages can go to the Dalles and as far inland as Eugene, OR. Keep in mind there's a notorious sandbar that is part of the "graveyard of the Pacific". The Willamette Valley is extremely wealthy in terms of agricultural potential as well as forestry. The Cascades (and to a lesser degree the Coast Mountains) have all sorts of mineral reserves.
True, like how Nashboro became Nashville. Although speaking of Nashville if you drew the boundaries differently, a lot of OTL Nashville's development would be drawn off to Paducah and Florence, Alabama. It's one of the quirks of history that the Florence/Muscle Shoals area never developed a major city despite the many advantages.
I wonder about certain other cities in the southern US being much larger than in OTL, such as:
Charleston (SC)
Savannah
Wilmington (NC)
Pensacola
Mobile
Bay St. Louis (MS)
Would Jacksonville, FL end up being as large as in OTL or not? For cities in OTL Florida and the US Gulf Coast - this is assuming the British get their hands on Florida and the Gulf cost to southeast Texas - and the Spanish do not regain that portion in the late 18th Century, then gave it up to the US in 1821 as it did in OTL.
Charleston (SC)
Savannah
Wilmington (NC)
Pensacola
Mobile
Bay St. Louis (MS)
Would Jacksonville, FL end up being as large as in OTL or not? For cities in OTL Florida and the US Gulf Coast - this is assuming the British get their hands on Florida and the Gulf cost to southeast Texas - and the Spanish do not regain that portion in the late 18th Century, then gave it up to the US in 1821 as it did in OTL.
This is pretty much Portland and Vancouver, WA in OTL.
I really like this Venice of the Pacific idea... in another TL, if the internal state/province divisions are different the main city could straddle both sides of the Columbia River (meaning OTLs Portland and Vancouver WA, would be considered the same city).
There is a good chance that East Florida is not combined with most of West Florida, so St. Augustine remains the capital and develops into a major city.
Though it may not be named Atlanta or be in the exact same location, a major city will grow at the southern end of the Appalachians, because due to geography the freight rail lines will have to converge around there. Same with the southern end of Lake Michigan.
Though it may not be named Atlanta or be in the exact same location, a major city will grow at the southern end of the Appalachians, because due to geography the freight rail lines will have to converge around there. Same with the southern end of Lake Michigan.
N7Buck
Banned
Without the ARW many colonial capitals don't get moved inland, so those cities will be bigger. However it is not really possible for the South to have Big cities comparable to the north, due to the lack of industry and the real power laying in the north. If this wasn't a Albany/Galloway plan scenario, and instead individual colonies remaining within the empire, I would say there could be a couple Big southern cities, for political reasons. Such as the regional powers (Virginia) having large amounts of influence over other colonies, and it's cities benefiting from that.