British America: what would the West be like?

What would the West be like in a British America? Could the British police the area effectively, with Royal Mounted Police as it did in Canada? What other differences could there be?
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Depends on how British America stays British America.

I have only the most useless thought that we'd see more titles for the Prince of Wales than.. well.. the Prince of Wales.

Prince of Pittsburgh? :p

Perhaps a more controlled colonization of the Midwest?

Less wild-west more open-west. Subsidies to plantations and mines that serve the crowns purpose.

Perhaps dependent on future successes/failures in Australia, Africa and India - we would see an influx on Indians and Africans into America - and see a large Indian-American middle class?

Some town names may well change - Newcastle-on-the-Mississippi?

I really don't know what else could be said - no idea of the amount of government control, drives for exploitation...

Though I imagine we may see a VAST Irish exodus to America about the time of the potato famine, maybe see a large Irish community emerge in OTL Texas or Colorado.
 

Driftless

Donor
Would OTL Canada & OTL US eventually be rolled into one unit?

Either way, less non-empire immigrants would be a likely outcome I think. That certainly translates to much slower population development, and probably a reduction of warfare with the various native american groups.

No Lousiana Purchase - at all? Or would that occur after one round of Napoleonic defeats? If not, then the West Coast of the US is the Mississippi.

IF the British America went past the Mississippi, a big wild card would be slavery, I think. Would it be allowed? And what happens when Slavery is no longer allowed?

No Republic of Texas? No California?
 

Driftless

Donor
With the immense size of this version of the British Empire, what would likely be the size of the professional Army, both in the whole empire, and specifically in North America? Where would the forces based in North America come from? I would think a combination of locally recruited militia AND regulars (Roger's Rangers=Queens York Rangers), plus some British homeland units as well. The same situation likely applies with the Navy. With the (then....) vast forests of Eastern North America, much of the wooden walls of the RN probably get built from OTL Halifax to Virginia
 
Last edited:
Would our timeline Canada and our timeline US eventually be rolled into one unit?
Not if the British government can help it. Even without a revolution happening sooner or later they're going to realise that with all that open space they run the very real risk of becoming the smaller country. My general feeling is that they'd try and organise things by encouraging the formation of dominions as federations of colonies/provinces and the development of distinct cultural identities. Think like the Dominion of New England but hopefully done somewhat better. :) Granted no revolution or an unsuccessful one means so many butterflies as to make things unrecognisable so they obviously won't develop as in our timeline but just using current US states grouped roughly into the census regions gives you ten dominions with five of them having populations of roughly 20 million, four of them with about 40 million, one clocking in at roughly 50 million and Canada with 35 million people. Spend more than a minute or two on it and I'm sure you can probably even them out a fair bit.
 
I wonder if we see any Chiefly States of North America - smaller scale versions of the Indian Princely States?

Louisiana and Florida are going to be picked up during one the regular wars against France and Spain (you can always rely on land hungry Americans to keep starting those - a la Washington and the French and Indian War).

We may also see an attempted Southern secession in the 1830s or 40s on abolition of the slave trade.
 

Driftless

Donor
I wonder if we see any Chiefly States of North America - smaller scale versions of the Indian Princely States?

A Chief Pontiac, Black Hawk, or Tecumseh, or, or, or...

I'm not sure the experience of the aborigines, the Tasmanians, or even the Canadian First Peoples make me optimistic.

Good point, but my original response wasn't meant to be a sarcastic response to TheKnightIrish either. In this set of conditions, the political drivers would be altogether different, so a particularly well organized tribal group or nation, led by a skilled leader - i.e. a Tecumseh, might pull it off.

With an altogether British source of immigrants, I do see a slower pace of development west of the Appalachians, which I would think leads to somewhat less friction with the Indians, and maybe more patience for a diplomatic solution to hot spots. Britain had other battles to fight beyond settling North America.
 
We may also see an attempted Southern secession in the 1830s or 40s on abolition of the slave trade.

You mean abolition of slavery, not the slave trade. The South didn't have that much use for the slave trade by the end of the 18th century, which is why they accepted the U.S abolishing it.

A BNA is a tricky thing to accomplish, IMO. No matter which way you look at it, Britain will not be able to maintain colonial rule. By the 1760s, New France is no longer a threat, and the colonies are just on the verge of outstripping England in population. With the oncoming settlement of the Midwest alongside our already massive birthrate (Americans were having about twice as many kids survive to adulthood as their counterparts in Britain were) and immigration, this is only going to accelerate.

At this point, British rule now has a lot more cons than pros for the colonists. Things like the Navigation Laws were hurting the economies of all major american cities, especially New England (Why do you think they smuggled so much in the first place?). At the same time, the Thirteen Colonies were largely self-sustaining and eager to expand, which Britain wanted to prevent (not necessarily malevolently, but they certainly didn't want to fight their native allies, which American expansion would have led to). Without the threat of a New France, British military protection was no longer necessary in the American's eyes. America no longer needed Britain.

And if America no longer needed Britain, thoughts of independence will follow. Particularly among the American elite (you should know some of their names;)), who had an almost insecure desire to be seen as equals by their peers in England. It's not like OTL's American Revolution was a bunch of rednecks shouting "I H8 taxes M8!", there were severe social and economic factors pressuring for independence. Add to all this that America was already developing its own way of ruling itself, and they handled themselves fairly well, thank you very much.

So I think that only an even more liberal version of "Home Rule" is possible in the long term for a BNA. BNA would either have to be like middle 20th century Canada (independent in all but name) or Brazil (A colony ruling the mother country). Demographics, economics, politics and culture all agree with me.

On to the actual question: The Americans will still settle at the very least the midwest, probably more. British attempts to protect their native American allies are not going to last long after colonial militias have destroyed them.

I'll say this now: During the 7YW, immigration to Ohio had already begun, and it was picking up the pace fast. The proclamation of 1763 was something that made the American Revolution inevitable, IMO, and any TL with a surviving BNA will have to avoid that. Once colonists flood in (and they will, Americans were used to having lots of free land and once that was gone in say, New England they went for the midwest), the Indians are screwed long term and the British empire will slowly but surely become the American one.

Going into smaller details: it would be interesting to see how the British parcel off land ITTL. OTL's Township system was fairly effective, and I could see something very similar developing ITTL. It would also be cool for some of those grandiose claims by states (didn't Massachusetts of all places claim land in Minnesota?) to come into being. That's highly unlikely, of course. In fact, BNA is highly unlikely.
 

Driftless

Donor
To return to the OP...

What are you considering to be "The West" and what time frame?

The area west of the Appalachians during the Seven Years War/French & Indian War and the American Revolutionary War was deep and distant frontier by almost anyones' definition. Roger Rangers in upstate New York & George Rogers Clark & his campaign in Indiana & Illinois were frontier battles.

The original Northwest Territories (OTL Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and the arrowhead of Minnesota) were frontier well into the first third of the 19th century. The 1814 Battle of Prairie du Chien was fought for control of the Mississippi by less than a 1000 men on both sides - British & US.

OR, are you thinking well West of the Mississippi? Such as OTL Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, etc? Then you need to work out how the Louisiana Territory comes into British hands.
 
To return to the OP...

What are you considering to be "The West" and what time frame?

The area west of the Appalachians during the Seven Years War/French & Indian War and the American Revolutionary War was deep and distant frontier by almost anyones' definition. Roger Rangers in upstate New York & George Rogers Clark & his campaign in Indiana & Illinois were frontier battles.

The original Northwest Territories (OTL Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and the arrowhead of Minnesota) were frontier well into the first third of the 19th century. The 1814 Battle of Prairie du Chien was fought for control of the Mississippi by less than a 1000 men on both sides - British & US.

OR, are you thinking well West of the Mississippi? Such as OTL Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, etc? Then you need to work out how the Louisiana Territory comes into British hands.

I assumed he meant the midwest (Northwest Territory), because any TL with BNA would have some major butterflies by the time it gets to British conquests of thing west of the mississippi.

I still find it very unlikely the British could keep what we consider America for more than 20-30 years longer than OTL.
 
Top