British Colonial Empire with no American Revolution?

[Jesus]

Assume that some sort of deal was made, for the American colonies to gain representation, giving birth to something like the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and North America' (and maybe Ireland, I guess? A big change like that ought to include them), especially since at the time the British Isles would still be able to dominate the (former) Colonies in Parliament.

What would the rest of the British Empire look like in terms of colonies? Would they still move into Africa? Would their hand in India remain a more soft one? Or is it possible that with an 'Atlantic Empire' on their hands, they might be more of a 'Russia of the West', and mostly focus on developing their North American territories? Especially since its unlikely the rest of Europe would allow the British to get too powerful.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

The Europeans didn't "Let" Britain become powerful in India. British Coal and Indian Materials made them powerful when Industrialisation came along.

However, I think the presence of the 13 Colonies remaining as part of the British Empire could radically change its approach to settler colonies at the very least, effectively using whatever model was used for the 13 Colonies to offload responsibility to some colonial institution. But without an actual model, it is hard to say.

 

[DocJamore]

Pretty sure there was a British plan to conquer present day Argentina. The invasion that did happen in OTL failed but if they still had the American Colonies it might have been possible to pull it off.

 

[Jesus]

The Europeans didn't "Let" Britain become powerful in India. British Coal and Indian Materials made them powerful when Industrialisation came along.

However, I think the presence of the 13 Colonies remaining as part of the British Empire could radically change its approach to settler colonies at the very least, effectively using whatever model was used for the 13 Colonies to offload responsibility to some colonial institution. But without an actual model, it is hard to say.

I think the 13 Colonies was the last chance for an early 'Greater UK', since culturally the Americans were not really that different from the British at the time. It was only after and during the Revolution when differences started showing. I'm not so sure a Dominion system would be applied at this point in time. In OTL it was mostly used because British possessions were fairly cut-off. Canada wanted to remain secure in its political independence from the US for example, but still wanted trade with them. With the 13 Colonies, the British would essentially dominate the North Atlantic trade so there'd be no need for that.

Just because the 13 Colonies are integrated with Westminster seats, I don't envision there not being problems though. The British would still want to end slavery, and the Southern states (constituencies?) would still be opposed. So with Britain being so caught up in American affairs, I'm wondering here just how much they'd be invested in gaining other overseas colonies.

Pretty sure there was a British plan to conquer present day Argentina. The invasion that did happen in OTL failed but if they still had the American Colonies it might have been possible to pull it off.

So potentially more of a direct presence in the Americas? A fully British Monroe Doctrine? Then it depends on if they'd be in competition with the Spanish or not, depending on if they can keep their own American empire together.

 

[Lusitania]

What of South Africa or Australia. With British North America would settlement of those two still happen? If so wouldcyheir settlement be put off few decades?

 

[Philip]

What of South Africa or Australia. With British North America would settlement of those two still happen? If so wouldcyheir settlement be put off few decades?

Pre-Suez, SA is too important to the British position in India. Assuming India goes as OTL, a British settler colony in SA is likely. It may be smaller with BNA being larger, especially so if Argentina/Patagonia is also British. Perhaps it would be more Company affair.

In this case I think Australia is less important to the UK, but it does sit on the clipper route. The primary motivation may to be deny France/Spain/Germany/Andorra access.

 

[Jesus]

Could butterflies potentially keep India under the East India Company for longer with the Crown and Parliament being more focused on developing North America?

I also see BNA becoming the economic center of Britain in time, though London would probably stay the political capital. Don't see why it'd be moved unless the Isles fell.

 

[Lusitania]

Could butterflies potentially keep India under the East India Company for longer with the Crown and Parliament being more focused on developing North America?

I also see BNA becoming the economic center of Britain in time, though London would probably stay the political capital. Don't see why it'd be moved unless the Isles fell.

I believe so, India became the center of British imperialism after the ARW, so a more centered BNA Britain would continue to be more concerned with settler colonies in the Atlantic.

 

[Matteo]

I believe so, India became the center of British imperialism after the ARW, so a more centered BNA Britain would continue to be more concerned with settler colonies in the Atlantic.

India was anyway going to be the center of British imperialism with or without the American Revolution. There were 200+ million people in India.

The fact Britain went for India and then, although in a different way, went for China, was not fortuitous. It was a pattern : going for the big prize, and then for the other big prize.

Trade and financial relations with the independent US were quite as profitable as with the 13 colonies. And Britain retained Canada.

This being said, the main cause for the American Revolution was not no taxation without representation. It was land hunger. The leaders of the 13 colonies wanted no limit to their westward expansion ambitions while Britain wanted limit with the proclamation Act and the Quebec Act. It was also the desire for being allowed to trade freely without being forced to pass through the London tolls and to produce freely no matter the considered goods be already produced in Britain.

This contradiction will not disappear. Either Britain gives way to this expansion will and to this desire for economic freedom or it finds a way to divide the 13 colonies and their ruling elites so that the pressure for westward expansion becomes more easily manageable. If Britain does not opt for one of these policies, there will be an American Revolution.

 

[Lusitania]

India was anyway going to be the center of British imperialism with or without the American Revolution. There were 200+ million people in India.

The fact Britain went for India and then, although in a different way, went for China, was not fortuitous. It was a pattern : going for the big prize, and then for the other big prize.

Trade and financial relations with the independent US were quite as profitable as with the 13 colonies. And Britain retained Canada.

This being said, the main cause for the American Revolution was not no taxation without representation. It was land hunger. The leaders of the 13 colonies wanted no limit to their westward expansion ambitions while Britain wanted limit with the proclamation Act and the Quebec Act. It was also the desire for being allowed to trade freely without being forced to pass through the London tolls and to produce freely no matter the considered goods be already produced in Britain.

This contradiction will not disappear. Either Britain gives way to this expansion will and to this desire for economic freedom or it finds a way to divide the 13 colonies and their ruling elites so that the pressure for westward expansion becomes more easily manageable. If Britain does not opt for one of these policies, there will be an American Revolution.

The only way the 13 colonies stay is for Britain to abandon the colonial model with them and treat them as extension of Britain with full rights. The issue of trade will also come about snd Britain needs to allow them to trade fairly and it could receive portion of taxes but majority needs to go to the various colonies. Lastly it needs to allow for expansion. It could reserve areas for natives snd such but westward expansion is required.

 

[Homer Simpson & the Brain]

The only way the 13 colonies stay is for Britain to abandon the colonial model with them and treat them as extension of Britain with full rights. The issue of trade will also come about snd Britain needs to allow them to trade fairly and it could receive portion of taxes but majority needs to go to the various colonies. Lastly it needs to allow for expansion. It could reserve areas for natives snd such but westward expansion is required.

It could help if you had the British ratify as law, preferably as early as the Elizabethan Era, that any chunk of land settled by their colonists in sufficient numbers to count as a shire's population would be automatically given shire status, all rights and duties included, and use this system as a relief valve to avoid succession troubles among the nobles, meaning that while second and later born sons couldn't really expect to inherit their family's lands, they could get estates and titles by leading successful colonial expeditions.

 

[Jesus]

The only way the 13 colonies stay is for Britain to abandon the colonial model with them and treat them as extension of Britain with full rights. The issue of trade will also come about snd Britain needs to allow them to trade fairly and it could receive portion of taxes but majority needs to go to the various colonies. Lastly it needs to allow for expansion. It could reserve areas for natives snd such but westward expansion is required.

I'm not sure adopting some early Dominion model would even be in Britain's favor. Giving the 13 colonies Westminster representation still gives dominance to Britain proper, at least for a century or so.

 

[Lusitania]

I'm not sure adopting some early Dominion model would even be in Britain's favor. Giving the 13 colonies Westminster representation still gives dominance to Britain proper, at least for a century or so.

Oh it would of required major changes in the political of Britain which based on fact they never did it even after loosing the 13 colonies do not think it realistic.

 

[Matteo]

It could help if you had the British ratify as law, preferably as early as the Elizabethan Era, that any chunk of land settled by their colonists in sufficient numbers to count as a shire's population would be automatically given shire status, all rights and duties included, and use this system as a relief valve to avoid succession troubles among the nobles, meaning that while second and later born sons couldn't really expect to inherit their family's lands, they could get estates and titles by leading successful colonial expeditions.

It won’t for several reasons.

Firstly, there was a 6.000 kilometers wide ocean to cross. That was way too far to make a real common polity.

Secondly England and then Britain did not settle North America, eastern coast for this but for profitable exploitation. The only ones the London ruling elite would agree to associate to its jealously guarded power were the very small minority of BNA.

Think of the Roman republic.

Rome by itself was a very unequal republic were a tiny minority led by a very small aristocracy controlled political and economic life.
This was the same situation for Britain at that time.

And concerning the allied, i.e. vassal cities, be they former defeated enemies that had then been brought into the Italian fabric, or cities founded by Roman settlers that left Rome itself, they had less rights.
Only the ruling elites of these allied/vassal cities did enjoy full Roman political rights, and this only on a personal level.
That’s what Britain could offer.

 

[Dan1988]

I'm not sure adopting some early Dominion model would even be in Britain's favor. Giving the 13 colonies Westminster representation still gives dominance to Britain proper, at least for a century or so.

One could try, with the revestment of the Isle of Man as a potential early example. (OK, so it was during the 1760s, which probably makes it a bad example - maybe we can try with the New England colonies as a POD, as an alternative to the centralized Dominion of New England? Keeping in mind here that during the 1600s and 1700s "Dominion" meant something completely different from its current definition.)

 

[pompejus]

What of South Africa.

It realy depends on the butterflies. South Africa was Dutch. If North America remains British without an American Revolution, it would mean that there is no French involvment in the American Revolution. That could mean a better financial position for France, meaning that either the French Revolution is butterflied away or it could be very different than OTL. This could mean no occupation of the Dutch Republic by France, or no Napoleon. Or even that the British manage to defeat the French early because of the American help. Either could mean that the Dutch do not lose the Cape Colony to the British.

 

[Matteo]

It realy depends on the butterflies. South Africa was Dutch. If North America remains British without an American Revolution, it would mean that there is no French involvment in the American Revolution. That could mean a better financial position for France, meaning that either the French Revolution is butterflied away or it could be very different than OTL. This could mean no occupation of the Dutch Republic by France, or no Napoleon. Or even that the British manage to defeat the French early because of the American help. Either could mean that the Dutch do not lose the Cape Colony to the British.

Even if Britain still controlled what would become the US at the time of the napoleonic wars, Britain will probably not significantly use North American resources to fight these wars.

What it needed was the North American wood for the Royal Navy.

But bringing and maintaining troops on the opposite shores of a 6.000 kilometers wide ocean was horribly costly.

That’s why France went quickly bankrupt after the American Revolutionary War although it did not mobilize as many troops as in the previous wars.

Even though Britain had better finances than France and could spend more and for a longer time, it used its financial resources wisely. That’s why it chose to organize coalitions and had european continental powers mobilize big field armies, partially subsidizing them and concentrating British military spending on maintaining crushing naval superiority and conquering profitable colonies.

 

[Homer Simpson & the Brain]

Firstly, there was a 6.000 kilometers wide ocean to cross. That was way too far to make a real common polity.

My idea was just a suggestion on how to butterfly away the casus belli of the American Revolution, the unequal treatment of the colonies' population.

 

[Matteo]

My idea was just a suggestion on how to butterfly away the casus belli of the American Revolution, the unequal treatment of the colonies' population.

I understood this. That’s why I explained that ending what you call unequal treatment was contradictory with the very reason Britain established the settler colonies in continental North America.

Britain did not establish these colonies to have them become competitors that would snatch the colonial markets away. The goal was to have these colonies as captive markets for British manufactured goods and for colonial products imported from other areas of the globe by British merchants, and to have these colonies as purveyors of raw materials for Britain. The goal also was to get rid of populations that had become undesirable on the motherland.

So as the Romans did, the solution could only have been the American elite/aristocracy being brought as a very junior partner into alliance with the British aristocracy and the British ruling class.

Britain did not want to be satellized by a colony that was growing so fast that it would dwarf it in a century (OTL the US demographically caught up with Britain in the 1820’s).

Britain did not colonize North America nor fight all the wars it fought to have its political and economic center displaced in a very distant unpopulated continent that was isolated from Europe and Asia by 2 gigantic oceans.

Mackinder’s strategic realities did not emerge in the late 19th century. Eurasia always was the economic and strategic center of the world, the most populated and richest part of the world, except for a parenthesis between mid 19th century and late 20th century.

As soon as Europeans were able to project power on a long range, they wanted to go for India and China. Columbus and the other sailors sponsored by european monarchies wanted to plug themselves with the Indian and Chinese giants.

Not for Americas. Americas were discovered by chance and, had the Spanish not found Aztec and Inca gold to plunder and Mexican and Bolivian silver mines to exploit, there would have been even less incentive to target this area of the world beside India and China.

Britain will rather severe political links with its North American colonies than being attracted away from the core of world affairs by these colonies. But before coming to such extreme choice, it will do whatever it takes to avoid being forced to make this choice : divide the colonies in order to keep on ruling them the way it wants to rule in order to keep on concentrating on its vital interests.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

There are a number of models that were put forth, such as the Albany and Galloway Plans.

The Galloway plan is the one most likely to succeed, at needed only one more vote to switch from loss to victory - so that would be a practical PoD. The problem is having it be accepted in Westminster. Since it never went there IOTL, we haven't any real idea of their stance on it outside of the fact that the Board of Trade supported the first Congress that led to the Albany Plan.

It may well mean that this Galloway Parliament would have to propose the enforcement of some taxes outlined in the Intolerable Acts but collected by the States. (This would be tied to taking on a portion of the British debt relative to the costs of the French-Indian War). This could well be proposed by the British. Effectively stating "If Taxation requires Representation and as we see it, Protection requires Taxation, then as you have had Protection whilst objecting to Taxation, then that debt must be repaid by your Representatives." This could remain a long-running political battle between the British trying to offload more and more costs for its military to the Americas (i.e. the Americans paying for naval patrols, fleets stations in America however temporarily, etc) and the Americans who obviously would want to pay as little as possible.

However, I think this position is more likely to be accepted by the Moderates, and addresses the concerns of some Radicals.