British North America

Hi

This has probably been asked a million times, but I'm curious.

Assuming a British victory in the Battle of New York – and a complete defeat of the American Revolution – what would British North America look like in – say – 1830?

DB
 
It would depend entirely on the butterflies that ensued. Assuming the Napoleonic Wars still occur roughly the same I think it's likely that the British colonies would take Louisiana by force some time during the war since it's economically vital to the colonies' expansion into the Midwest. British North America is likely to be very similar in territory to 1830s USA plus Canada.

Even if the Revolution were crushed it would likely result in more home rule for the Americans, probably similar to the Dominion status that appeared in OTL.
 
Even if the Revolution were crushed it would likely result in more home rule for the Americans, probably similar to the Dominion status that appeared in OTL.

I would give the opposite analysis. I've often heard this idea that if the British won the American Revolutionary War the Americans would just become an alt-Dominion, and I think it's very wrong and entirely misunderstands the situation at the time. If there is no rebellion in the first place, quite possibly, but if there is a rebellion and the rebels lose…? I think not. Let me explain why:

IOTL the victory of the Americans humiliated the King's Friends (and I use that as a term for the specific parliamentary faction that held that name) and the fact that British income from British America did not especially diminish, as mercantilism would have suggested, greatly vindicated Adam Smith and weakened old-fashioned mercantilism. If the British win the American Revolutionary War, neither of these things will happen—or, to be more specific, they will not happen soon. So a Great Britain that has defeated the Americans will be a more conservative Great Britain, and a government very much inclined to be overconfident about itself (the King's Friends were, crushingly so) and to treat the rebel leaders exactly as they would typically treat a traitor—in other words, outright execution.

Most importantly of all, the American colonial assemblies have set themselves against the Parliament of Great Britain. (The idea that the rebellion was mainly against the King is an invention of American republican historiography; in truth, the rebels were primarily against Parliament's actions and even appealed to the King, describing themselves as loyal subjects of his who were being unjustly oppressed by others of his subjects—i.e. Parliament—and when the King declined he was essentially abdicating authority to be a centre of loyalty independent of Parliament; the revolutionaries even developed legal theory as to why Parliament had no right to rule them although they were still the King's people.) That's immensely important, because it detracts from the sympathy for them that might be felt in the generally pro-parliamentary and anti-royal power British Whig opposition. So the likely result of a British victory in the American Revolutionary War is not 'home rule' or 'Dominion status' or anything of the sort (it's worth noting that OTL Canada got Dominion status as an attempt to keep it from the United States, not because of some natural British trend for gradually increasing autonomy); it is either outright dissolution of the rebellious colonial assemblies or, at the very least, stuffing them full of loyalists. Letting people whom the victorious Britons view as bandits and traitors to their country—not as patriots of another country like, say, a very great soldier from France or Spain, but as traitors to Great Britain (the point was that the British didn't think that the Americans were a nation separate from Great Britain)—remain in power is simply out of the question. The Québécois, to the British, were merely a conquered people; the American Patriots were traitors, and, if they lost, would be treated accordingly.

Now let us consider the international situation. In the Seven Years' War the British have defeated almost every other colonial power in Europe; they have profited off the hard, very risky work of their Prussian allies and done very little for the Prussians in return; they have antagonised their allies and outraged their enemies by making such vast gains and gaining such vast territories. This is not a sustainable situation; at some point another European war is going to come, and when it does Great Britain will face a coalition of hostile European powers, as it did IOTL (which is the main reason why Great Britain lost the American Revolutionary War—without the involvement of France in particular, the Americans would have been doomed. Pride goeth before a fall, and all that). If Great Britain is distracted by a major conflict in Europe and the American people are as opppressed as described above, what's the likely result?

So if the American Patriots lose the American Revolutionary War, the probable result is American Revolutionary War 2.0—and if that fails (which it very well might), there will be a 3.0, and if that fails then 4.0, and by the time we're reaching the mid-19th century the American population is so high that I'd be really very surprised if they're not independent—as one nation or many—by then.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Yeah, but...

This is not a sustainable situation; at some point another European war is going to come, and when it does Great Britain will face a coalition of hostile European powers, as it did IOTL (which is the main reason why Great Britain lost the American Revolutionary War—without the involvement of France in particular, the Americans would have been doomed.

No European great power rivalries reaching out to the Western Hemisphere means it is pretty unlikely there will be the local wars there, which raises a lot of ripples in itself...

For France to not take advantage of the American Revolution suggests something other than power politics taking root in Paris, which seems pretty unlikely.

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
India in 1857?

Hi

This has probably been asked a million times, but I'm curious.

Assuming a British victory in the Battle of New York – and a complete defeat of the American Revolution – what would British North America look like in – say – 1830?

DB

The US, Canada, Australia, Russia, etc have had a difficulties (at times) governing continent-spanning nations; pretty hard to imagine an ocean-spanning one being governed in the Eighteenth Century from London. Or, vice-versa, from New York.

The British could no more hold the Colonies solely through force of arms than they could fly to the moon, so they have to make a politcal deal of some kind...

But if there is real reform, and governance by consent, than Anglophone North America will end up dominating the British Isles, which hardly seems likely in terms of the elite in Britain giving up control to the more numerous elite in the Americas, at some point, which re-raises the basic issue of the Revolution.

There's a circle here, and it is not going to remain unbroken...;)

Best,
 
No European great power rivalries reaching out to the Western Hemisphere means it is pretty unlikely there will be the local wars there, which raises a lot of ripples in itself...

Oh yes, and undoubtedly it would be very different to OTL… which, nonetheless, doesn't translate to the British keeping America.

I'm not too much of a determinist—I do think that Great Britain could have kept its North American colonies in some scenarios. But if it has got to the point where the Americans are rebelling with overwhelming public support, it is already too late for Great Britain to win that 'war', no matter how many 'battles' (attempted uprisings) it crushes—the population dynamics will just grow too lopsided. For the Americans to remain part of Great Britain in the long term, either they have to have far less territory and a far lower population such that they won't hold such a strong hand (by the time of the American Revolutionary War that ship has long since sailed) or they have to not want to leave Great Britain.

For France to not take advantage of the American Revolution suggests something other than power politics taking root in Paris, which seems pretty unlikely.

Best,

Not if the American Revolution is suppressed before the French choose to intervene. If the revolutionaries lose early in the war, such that by 1777-1778 they're on the back foot if not crushed entirely (and if they suffer a crushing defeat that leads to the capture of much of their army including Washington, it sounds likely that they would be doing very badly indeed) the French may find that, by the time they feel ready to intervene, the opportunity has more-or-less passed. And I do not think Louis XVI was a sufficiently bold and decisive leader that he would have intervened significantly earlier than OTL, before he felt ready to do so.

By the late war, it's a different story, but I'd think that the capture of Washington's army in mid-1776 is enough to doom the American Revolution. Well, American Revolution 1.0, anyway.
 
I just love British North America threads, it either end up as a second revolutionary war after Anglo North America surpasses the mother land in term of population or tge British isle end up becoming less important.
 
The US, Canada, Australia, Russia, etc have had a difficulties (at times) governing continent-spanning nations; pretty hard to imagine an ocean-spanning one being governed in the Eighteenth Century from London. Or, vice-versa, from New York.

The British could no more hold the Colonies solely through force of arms than they could fly to the moon, so they have to make a politcal deal of some kind...

But if there is real reform, and governance by consent, than Anglophone North America will end up dominating the British Isles, which hardly seems likely in terms of the elite in Britain giving up control to the more numerous elite in the Americas, at some point, which re-raises the basic issue of the Revolution.

Not necessarily, I'd say. Benign neglect was a workable solution, however constitutionally messy. If it means that each of the various colonies is de facto highly autonomous but still de jure part of Great Britain, having fought on Great Britain's side in many wars (France comes to mind) and not especially hostile towards the British government (so no Proclamation Line, full British government support for its colonists' expansionism against the Native Americans, no situation of British Army presence regarded as unnecessary by the colonists, probably no conquest of New France), the option for outright independence de jure, even if there is already very great autonomy (i.e. independence de facto), might meet a similar reaction to what happened in Scotland, with the idea of essentially taking over more and more of the actual functions of government but never actually severing the knot.

By 1776 it's too late for that—arguably by 1763 it's too late for that—but it might have been possible before then (though I know you have different views to me on that point!).

I'd also highlight that the inhabitants of British America, at the time of the American Revolution, were not yet more numerous than those of Great Britain; they would only become so later. Even in the scenario of the British colonists in North America being added democratically to a unitary British state (which I think is far less likely than the "benign neglect" scenario, which has the advantage of institutional inertia) they would not be a majority, or even near it, at the beginning; they would be likely to become so ~8 decades later (depending on timing of course).
 
I wish it could have remained a Dominion until say the 1870s and then perhaps when one of Queen Victoria's younger sons visited, he was invited to become King.

Insane fantasy I know but lets say Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh is made King, his father-in-law Tsar Alexander II could provide Alaska as a dowry for his daughter Maria Alexandrovna.
 
I wish it could have remained a Dominion until say the 1870s and then perhaps when one of Queen Victoria's younger sons visited, he was invited to become King.

Insane fantasy I know but lets say Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh is made King, his father-in-law Tsar Alexander II could provide Alaska as a dowry for his daughter Maria Alexandrovna.

I always liked the Prince of America idea, where the heir is given the chance to learn administration etc by having him govern the different colonies. Perhaps aided by a parliament of sorts.

How long before being the Prince was better than being the King would be interesting to see, or whether there wouldn't be an attempt to breakaway as a separate kingdom.

Probably unfeasible, but I like the idea anyway.
 
I always liked the Prince of America idea, where the heir is given the chance to learn administration etc by having him govern the different colonies. Perhaps aided by a parliament of sorts.

How long before being the Prince was better than being the King would be interesting to see, or whether there wouldn't be an attempt to breakaway as a separate kingdom.

Probably unfeasible, but I like the idea anyway.

Yes me too. I like the idea of a British royal presence inspiring a sudden desire for a native monarchy and inviting the royal to stay.

I am sure Britain would have been furious but it would have worked out for the best in the long haul.

I picked Alfred for America (or even Canada) because of the Russian angle, plus he seemed to quite like to irritate his mother Queen Victoria and would have probably taken some pleasure out of replacing her as monarch of one of her dominions.
 
I agree that a British win means a clamping down on America for 10 years or so. But eventually the King goes mad and the power of the King's friends breaks anyway. Combined this with the rising liberalism of the UK, and that the writing will be ever more obviously on the wall in terms of differential population growth, the British will give greater powers at some point. They might get cocky, but they're not idiots. No-ones going to think they're able to occupy the Mississippi basin, so they won't risk another revolution post 1820 or so. Plus sectional splits are going to start kicking in. New York City will have more in common with London than it does with Charleston.
 
The 13 colonies arent likely to be A dominion, but rather 3-7 dominions.

Remember, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and PEI didnt unite until 1867 (when Canada formed), and Newfoundland not until 1949.

So PA,.NY, and VA are likely all in seperate dominions, and New England's at least one, with MD DE NJ NC SC GA and FL in some combination with the above or each other, or holding out on their own.
 
Last edited:
I agree that a British win means a clamping down on America for 10 years or so. But eventually the King goes mad and the power of the King's friends breaks anyway. Combined this with the rising liberalism of the UK, and that the writing will be ever more obviously on the wall in terms of differential population growth, the British will give greater powers at some point. They might get cocky, but they're not idiots. No-ones going to think they're able to occupy the Mississippi basin, so they won't risk another revolution post 1820 or so. Plus sectional splits are going to start kicking in. New York City will have more in common with London than it does with Charleston.

The question is, is there too much bitterness left over from the failed Revolution to make this work? It probably depends on when the British manage to defeat the last of the rebellion, and when more colonial autonomy is granted, as well as how things are going in Europe.

I agree with most of your analysis. At some point fairly soon after the war, a politician is going to realize the status quo is impossible to maintain, and either set the colonies up with sweeping autonomy similar to Dominion status, or else try a scheme of giving them representation in Parliament, which I don't think would have worked out very well. The longer the war goes and the longer it goes before this happens (like, more than a few decades) the more likely another violent rebellion is. At that point, given the likely colonial population (approaching the size of England's at this point) I would expect the British to grant the colonies sweeping autonomy as soon as they see rebellion as otherwise inevitable, but if American Nationalism has taken too strong of a hold as a result of the war, it won't do them any good.

If there is another violent rebellion, it's likely to happen at the same time as a European war, and the British won't be able to contain it. Depending on regional differences, though, they might be able to hang onto some of the mainland colonies. Hard to guess. Bottom line, I think the colonies either get Dominion-ish status by 1820, or go into revolt, and might go into revolt anyway due to anti-British sentiment.

Also, one of the big things going on in the background of this scenario is going to be changing economic theories, because this is the period of the decline and end of Mercantilism. I would expect that to be a major driver behind the change in British government policy towards the North American colonies, starting with unwillingness to grant autonomy for economic reasons, then going to willingness to grant colonial autonomy due to different economic beliefs.
 
Last edited:
The 13 colonies arent likely to be A dominion, but rather 3-7 dominions.

Remember, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and PEI didnt unite until 1867 (when Canada formed), and Newfoundland not until 1949.

So PA,.NY, and VA are likely all in seperate dominions, and New England's at least one, with MD DE NJ NC SC GA and FL in some combination with the above or each other, or holding out on their own.

Yeah, I see roughly 4 Regions: New France, "New Scotland" from Mass northwards, "Atlanta" from Virg southwards, and "New England" in between. Additional Regions being added depending on the expansion west and whatever country is there - USM? California? Texas? Indiana?
 
Prior to the revolution Pennsylvania was still owned by the Penns. So don't see why that would have to change.

It wasn't like they ruled the colony as tyrants, and William Penn had set up an assembly almost at the colonies inception.

At least with no revolution the Penn family would still own most of the land in the province. (Instead of it being seized and them receiving a fraction of its worth)
 
Yeah, I see roughly 4 Regions: New France, "New Scotland" from Mass northwards, "Atlanta" from Virg southwards, and "New England" in between. Additional Regions being added depending on the expansion west and whatever country is there - USM? California? Texas? Indiana?

This is another good point. They might group together for administrative reasons, or maybe to press their demands to Britain, but Canadian Confederation only happened because of the threat of being swallowed by the United States, and then Australian Confederation was modeled on the Canadian one. Either way, it's probably going to happen at a pretty late date, and it's hard to imagine all the colonies on the entire continent, plus the Caribbean colonies (don't forget them! In this TL they'd be aligned with the mainland plantation colonies) uniting into one single Confederation. More likely you'd end up with several.

Prior to the revolution Pennsylvania was still owned by the Penns. So don't see why that would have to change.

It wasn't like they ruled the colony as tyrants, and William Penn had set up an assembly almost at the colonies inception.

At least with no revolution the Penn family would still own most of the land in the province. (Instead of it being seized and them receiving a fraction of its worth)

This would be pretty bad for Pennsylvania's economic growth though.
 
This is another good point. They might group together for administrative reasons, or maybe to press their demands to Britain, but Canadian Confederation only happened because of the threat of being swallowed by the United States, and then Australian Confederation was modeled on the Canadian one. Either way, it's probably going to happen at a pretty late date, and it's hard to imagine all the colonies on the entire continent, plus the Caribbean colonies (don't forget them! In this TL they'd be aligned with the mainland plantation colonies) uniting into one single Confederation. More likely you'd end up with several.



This would be pretty bad for Pennsylvania's economic growth though.


For the first, would this affect the abolition of slavery in the UK, having all of the plantation owners of the south and the caribbean united in opposition could set the cause back a while. If only because the levels of compensation for all the former owners would be astronomical.

As for Pennsylvania, why? The Penns weren't unwilling to sell land, they would just get a fair price for it, the people still have a say through the assembly, there is still religious freedom which will attract a lot of migrants. All that changes is that Pennsylvania isn't stolen. The colony hardly stagnated with the Penns in charge.
 
For the first, would this affect the abolition of slavery in the UK, having all of the plantation owners of the south and the caribbean united in opposition could set the cause back a while. If only because the levels of compensation for all the former owners would be astronomical.

Yee-ep. Don't know how you get around that one. In colonial times the Caribbean Islands were considered as attached to the mainland colonies as the Channel Islands are to Britain. Also the mainland region would inevitably have a large amount of autonomy by the 1830s, for reason I've laid out above. So where does that go? A civil-war analogue actually seems pretty unlikely, since the South's best customer would be its enemy rather than hoped-for ally. So that's out. But I think abolition would be pushed back significantly for the whole British Empire due to the combined lobbying power, and Britain at either point wouldn't have the power to compel the mainland colonies to give up slavery, except by force or by embargo. The last reason might be the reason slavery is eventually dropped, but I think we're looking at at least the 1860s here.

As for Pennsylvania, why? The Penns weren't unwilling to sell land, they would just get a fair price for it, the people still have a say through the assembly, there is still religious freedom which will attract a lot of migrants. All that changes is that Pennsylvania isn't stolen. The colony hardly stagnated with the Penns in charge.

Oh, it wouldn't be horrible, just more like England, with a nobility owning most of the land. Which was a pretty bad situation, though it didn't make the overall country any weaker.
 
Top