British imperialism in a world without the United States

If the British either defeated the Patriots in the American Revolutionary War or reached a compromise with the Continental Congress before war could break out, how would this victory or compromise affect British imperialism in the future?
 
Probably depends on whether they defeated the Americans or made a deal. The more resources the British need to make sure the Americans don't rebel again the less they can spend on the rest of the world.
 
That war didn't really change their policy in India OTL.
but it did probably influence policy towards the white dominions. now if the war is averted by an equivilent to the canadian settlement then thats vastly different to a military victory. however if there is a war a lot depends on how britain reacts with generosity or with oppression. if the 2nd british imperialism is frankly doomed long term. Think Dublin 1916.
 
Probably depends on whether they defeated the Americans or made a deal. The more resources the British need to make sure the Americans don't rebel again the less they can spend on the rest of the world.

If the british defeated the insurgents, then they will deal shrewdly. And by shrewdly means that the 13 colonies can kiss goodbye for a century any idea of continental political organization : neither federation nor confederation.

It would be the old principle of divide and rule. Each State may have a large autonomy but will remain on a quite small scale.
 
An effect I can see is that Britain will be able to trade with China easier, since here the British will have access to Appalachian ginseng which Chinese people were willing to pay money for.
 
As others have said, the difference between an averted and a defeated Revolution matters a lot, as does the manner of it being averted/defeated and the political compromises afterwards.

The most important context is the rather rapid move towards liberalism in UK politics during the 1700s and 1800s. The Tories of the mid-1700s were already in the minority and support for them was dwindling quickly. In OTL, they hung on for longer than would have otherwise been the case because George III had Tory instincts and became much, much more interventionist in parliament than his two predecessors to prop them up or to undermine and divide the Whigs. Then there was a rally round the flag effect for North during the war, especially after the French joined the war. They then died out by the 1790s in the old style, and the more conservative Whigs became the new Tories. This group then benefitted from the negative impact of the French Revolution as a cautionary tale for reform.

In terms of changes to this, a patriot defeat in war is likely to boost the Tories for another decade or two. On the other hand, anything that brings Americans into parliament will boost the Whigs. Plus, the presence of broader suffrage in America within the empire is likely to increase the push for parliamentary reform, also helping the Whigs.

How does this impact imperialism? Tories tended to be more hardline and see colonials as children to be obedient. They also supported a foreign policy that stayed out of entangling European alliances in favour of trade with the rest of the world. So Tory rule is likely to be more based around EIC style trade companies. It is also more likely to provoke colonial revolts.

Whig rule is more engaged with Europe and seeing English colonials as equals. They will be more likely to come to a stable compromise with America. They also saw the empire as a matter of strategic choice, in addition to a civiling mission. Thus they are more likely to pick and choose colonial areas to take. I know the River Plate was one such one on their radar.
 

Lusitania

Donor
I actually remember reading a book “two George’s” about 20 years ago about a continental wide British North America tied to British empire fighting a French - Spanish empire. With a un-unified germanizes.

The POD was George Washington representing the British colonies negotiating an appeasement with King George and British government this leading to an autonomous British North America.
 

Maoistic

Banned
Adam Smith said that the 13 colonies were bringing nothing but debt to the British Empire and that Britain was better off without them. I think he was exaggerating, being honest, and I believe the only reason why they were draining is because of the Franco-Spanish support for the American revolutionaries that were the ones to give them a fighting chance. Had France and Spain not intervened, I don't see the American revolutionaries succeeding, and in that case, I don't see Britain stopping its imperialist expansion. I do see changing where Britain expands though, and I think it would be to the rest of the Native American west up to Oregon for a complete control over North America, possibly stealing Florida, Louisiana and northern Mexico from Spain in the process. This would also bring Britain, instead of the US, into direct confrontation with Japan, far more than Britain and Japan had in reality.
 
The problem with Britain is that while they were good at acquiring an Empire, they were not good at keeping it. They had the same problem with India in the 19th and 20th centuries that they did with America in the 18th century. The American Revolution happened because the British saw the colonies as Other. The colonies recognized this. They didn't want to become Ireland, a territory ruthlessly exploited for the benefit of London. There were also problems with limits to British Political Theory about sovereignty.

If the Brits can overcome these issues, they can build an enduring empire. If they can't, you have the timeline for empire's end.
 
well the colonise where very loyal until the British punished all of them because of the rebels just have Britain make a deal whit the colonise watch whatifalthis video on What if the American Revolution Never Happened there is your answer
 
The problem with Britain is that while they were good at acquiring an Empire, they were not good at keeping it. They had the same problem with India in the 19th and 20th centuries that they did with America in the 18th century. The American Revolution happened because the British saw the colonies as Other. The colonies recognized this. They didn't want to become Ireland, a territory ruthlessly exploited for the benefit of London. There were also problems with limits to British Political Theory about sovereignty.

If the Brits can overcome these issues, they can build an enduring empire. If they can't, you have the timeline for empire's end.

You'd need a very different England to overcome those issues. Britain mostly didn't want an empire even when they had one. The empire existed almost solely for the purpose of making money and securing their ability to make money rather than conquest for it's own sake. Britain never wanted to incorporate the people it conquered and cut them loose rather than do so. The only way I can see Britain keeping the empire is if a federal system can be established very early while England still has dominance and the idea of an overseas territory surpassing Britain is centuries away.
 
I think averted or defeated rebellion leads to two different scales of the same approach.

All in all, defeating the colonies will leave Britain in a position to restored the Dominion of New England - which can also have a subservient Parliament.

In an averted scenario, then the same situation is ideal for the British, but the Dominion will probably have fewer obligations, and more powers than a defeated one.

Either way, that Dominion will be early enough to lead to serious long-term approaches to handling expansion. Which is great, as it means that the British can parcel out new Dominions, i.e. in New Orleans perhaps.

Then this approach can be copied and pasted across the Empire. No need to worry about South Africa, when it is large enough, Dominion applied. Same with the various parts of India if the Princely States approach isn't mimicked.
 
The problem with Britain is that while they were good at acquiring an Empire, they were not good at keeping it. They had the same problem with India in the 19th and 20th centuries that they did with America in the 18th century. The American Revolution happened because the British saw the colonies as Other. The colonies recognized this. They didn't want to become Ireland, a territory ruthlessly exploited for the benefit of London. There were also problems with limits to British Political Theory about sovereignty.

If the Brits can overcome these issues, they can build an enduring empire. If they can't, you have the timeline for empire's end.

It's always mistake to attribute an entire nation as having a single view. The Tory and Whig visions of empire were very different. Pitt the Elder - hardly a marginal figure - supported American representation in parliament.
 
Top