British North America

The American Revolution failed, or the British simply gave the Americans the 'taxation with representation' thing they wanted. How would a British Empire without an American Revolution look like? Would the British expand west akin to Manifest Destiny? Would they turn their eyes to Mexico?
 
Probably.

Louisiana could easily be conquered the next time Britain goes to war with France/Spain.

American colonists would ignore any restrictions on where they can settle and go and settle in Mexico. Thus setting the stage for an ATL Texan revolution.

Alaska could be taken in the next British-Russia war.
 
Part of the Empire

Being part of the British Empire would (probably) not slow down Western Expansion, with Louisiana being taken by Conquest not Purchase.
Two big issues would be the British abolition of slavery happening "on schedule", and whether the American colonies would breakoff by sheer force of weight.

And how big would the butterflies be that hit Napoleon?

A minor thing would relate to the British sending criminals to America instead of to Australia. (Would it delay the development of Australia? -- I think yes.)

British America could also, after a minor matter of "border adjustment" , become the Protector of Mexico and America Sud (British version of Monroe Doctrine).

Lots of other possibilities (excepting those in The Two Georges!)
 
immigration would likely be massively affected, which in turn would affect the rate of western expansion.

taking west of the Mississippi is not an automatic thing.
the Texas scenario of moving in and then seceding to join British America is not an automatic thing.

You can't simply replace USA america with British America and expect everything else to go more or less the same.
 
1) immigration would likely be massively affected, which in turn would affect the rate of western expansion.

2) taking west of the Mississippi is not an automatic thing.
3) the Texas scenario of moving in and then seceding to join British America is not an automatic thing.

4) You can't simply replace USA america with British America and expect everything else to go more or less the same.

1) Why? Canada received plenty of immigration per capita from the usual suspects in Europe, it was just lesser due to its proximity to better options (i.e. the USA) combined with a relatively small amount of pleasant-climate zones relative their neighbor; here, with a bigger BNA, I don't see that being an issue at all. And as mentioned before, having a bigger BNA means a closer option to mass-settle convicts to (say, north of the Great Lakes) than Australia....on the other side of the globe. In my estimation, that makes things at worst on par with OTL's USA, and in likelihood could lead to a bigger population.

2) If you look at the role large, traverse-able rivers play in the settlement and development of new lands, it really is. If you reach the Cis-Mississippi, you're within arm's reach of a major waterway (and control of same via New Orleans) facilitating further colonization (or even just commerce alone) that only a fool would hesitate taking, especially since the cost of doing so from Britain's POV is not appreciably greater than when they took Quebec in the Seven Years' War, and would certainly yield better returns on that investment in terms of arable land, access to minerals in the mountainous west, additional routes to connect cities and settlements together, etc.

3) Oh, the Brits would never do a thing like that, filibustering and/or co-opting other settled lands into their own. Just ask the Boers....oh, wait :rolleyes:. Again, nothing is set in stone, but it's also far from impossible as an occurrence.

4) Look, the details may differ, and it may not be specifically Texas that arises (and even if so, they may not join BNA at all) or any other major OTL territorial addition, but the way events unfolded in North America in the 19th century was due to a large number of reasons that the Brits would not be immune to. Manifest Destiny, as established in function if not title by the latter 18th century, would likely still continue (based on OTL trends in Australia and South Africa, why would Britain hesitate to take prime real estate and resources in North America), and there's still a ton of land even east of the Mississippi that would be attractive to immigrants to move to once towns inevitably sprout up (mild climate and relatively short travel time compared to the alternatives, plenty of work to be done by cheap labor by the locals, etc.). The British OTL track record towards native populations does not prove promising for the long-term well-being of Native Americans (Canada doesn't count, it's an outlier in that regard for various reasons), so I don't see that mattering much.
 
Last edited:
Louisiana could go either way. Britain would presumably want it, and could get it, after it won the Napoleonic Wars. The issue is that the people who'd settle it would be backcountry Americans, and Britain may well not want to give them so much more land. The backcountry may still harbor resentment over the British victory in the Rebellion of 1776, or whatever else happened that led to their not getting self-determination, and I can see substantial movements there actively supporting the French Revolution.
 
Louisiana could go either way. Britain would presumably want it, and could get it, after it won the Napoleonic Wars. The issue is that the people who'd settle it would be backcountry Americans, and Britain may well not want to give them so much more land. The backcountry may still harbor resentment over the British victory in the Rebellion of 1776, or whatever else happened that led to their not getting self-determination, and I can see substantial movements there actively supporting the French Revolution.

My thinking is this, that whether the British Crown controls large parts of North America is neither certain nor far from possible. I do think there would be westward Anglo migration of some variety (loyal to the crown or not) that would result either in large populations of same in alt-Louisiana or Mexico, or the emergence of breakaway states that could also be pro-independence as you describe.
 
Since during the Napoleonic Wars an (semi-)Anglo-led revolt in Texas (the Gutierrez Revolt) occurred, a minor American warship captured San Diego, and Pike traversed the Southwest to Santa Fe. I always had a sneaking suspicion that the Southwest would fall to an American dominion's expedition (supplemented by token British help, derp) during that timeframe as much as Louisiana would (or till 1808...but all these incidents happened before then).

Basically the Mexican War thirty years early.
 
My thinking is this, that whether the British Crown controls large parts of North America is neither certain nor far from possible. I do think there would be westward Anglo migration of some variety (loyal to the crown or not) that would result either in large populations of same in alt-Louisiana or Mexico, or the emergence of breakaway states that could also be pro-independence as you describe.

They'd need someone to launch an organized military campaign to get rid of the Indians for them.
 
Top