British North American Federation or Separate States?

British North America governed as a federation or separate states?


  • Total voters
    123
Once the British decide that the colonies should have some form of self-government, it would largely be left up to the colonists to decide the structure that would take. Britain would be interested in only one or two things like making the colonies pay for their own defence and ensuring that any structure would not be inherently unstable.

What is interesting to me is why these colonial conferences mentioned did not amount to more. Britain obviously supported these first attempts at colonial self-rule. The most obvious stumbling block would be the colonies paying for the British army and RN contingents stationed in North America. This problem of financial impost could easily be solved by having local commanders answerable to their colonial executive and therefore it would not be seen as a load to bear but rather an expression of self determination. There would be no need to station British Army regulars in North America but rather ‘American’ units commanded by local officers and staffed by local recruits would exist. Even if the British insisted on appointing the higher officers to command these units, this demand would eventually fade away.

In terms of the structure of any self-governing units, I would expect that the interests of the colonies in the north would be different to those in the south and so I envisage at least two Federations. Their political organizations would be similar to the extent that the colonial organizations were similar between the southern colonies and their northern counterparts. Were there any significant differences?

As these two federated polities would be similar in structure and would share a common attachment through Britain, the political and cultural forces would eventually lead to closer cooperation between the two on matters like defence and customs but perhaps draw them apart on issues like slavery and international relations. The southern states would be in proximity to outposts of foreign powers like France and Spain while the northern ones would have only Native Americans to deal with.

Expansion was I understand common to the north and south. Plenty of opportunity here for both cooperation and competition between the new federations. Again if there are only two federated states, then this tension will be manageable as long as there is goodwill on both sides. If there are many political units, the conflicting interests could lead to tensions. Any sign of chaos on the continent would see British intervention, diplomatic of course, to attempt to resolve it. This in itself could be destabilizing so the political forces at work would tend to favour greater centralization and fewer independent states.
 
Once the British decide that the colonies should have some form of self-government, it would largely be left up to the colonists to decide the structure that would take. Britain would be interested in only one or two things like making the colonies pay for their own defence and ensuring that any structure would not be inherently unstable.

What is interesting to me is why these colonial conferences mentioned did not amount to more. Britain obviously supported these first attempts at colonial self-rule. The most obvious stumbling block would be the colonies paying for the British army and RN contingents stationed in North America. This problem of financial impost could easily be solved by having local commanders answerable to their colonial executive and therefore it would not be seen as a load to bear but rather an expression of self determination. There would be no need to station British Army regulars in North America but rather ‘American’ units commanded by local officers and staffed by local recruits would exist. Even if the British insisted on appointing the higher officers to command these units, this demand would eventually fade away.

It's not that the British care about the nature of the colonial confederation per se, it's that when you combine how much the colonists care about it with the colonists' reluctance to give the British what they needed from the arrangement (money for defence), the British thought it would be simpler not to reform anything, since that seemed like the easiest way to piss everybody off. If only they had seen fit to anger folks slightly in 1754 over enforced union/confedetaions, they probably could have prevented 1776 (or at least a 1776 that we would recognize).

You're probably right as regards to paying for a colonial defence, but as regards a command structure for joint armed forces, I must disagree. Firstly, given the Board of Trade's preference for a colonial system dominated by a British Commander-in-Chief, I think it's unlikely they consent to a system in which the Americans garrison the contitnent with American commanders. The Americans for their party will probably raise no troops whatsoever and then complain that they're not being protected; they may resent any commander the British impose on them. Hence, while I think you're points are rational and eminently suited to solving the problem, they would be suspect to the same forces that scutteled OTL movements.

In terms of the structure of any self-governing units, I would expect that the interests of the colonies in the north would be different to those in the south and so I envisage at least two Federations. Their political organizations would be similar to the extent that the colonial organizations were similar between the southern colonies and their northern counterparts. Were there any significant differences?

The biggest difference is really on the level of townships: to wit, the New England colonies had very democratic town meetings that did a fair bit of governing, while the Southern colonies' plantation economies didn't lend themselves to as much local direct democracy. Pennsylvannia and New York also had their own differences (the former being fairly democratic because of Quaker influence, the later being fairly aristocratic because of the influence of old Dutch families). At the level of colonial government per se, the colonies appear largely similar, but there's this underlying difference in political culture.

As these two federated polities would be similar in structure and would share a common attachment through Britain, the political and cultural forces would eventually lead to closer cooperation between the two on matters like defence and customs but perhaps draw them apart on issues like slavery and international relations. The southern states would be in proximity to outposts of foreign powers like France and Spain while the northern ones would have only Native Americans to deal with.

Expansion was I understand common to the north and south. Plenty of opportunity here for both cooperation and competition between the new federations. Again if there are only two federated states, then this tension will be manageable as long as there is goodwill on both sides. If there are many political units, the conflicting interests could lead to tensions. Any sign of chaos on the continent would see British intervention, diplomatic of course, to attempt to resolve it. This in itself could be destabilizing so the political forces at work would tend to favour greater centralization and fewer independent states.

Well, who the Northern states have to deal with largely depends on if the British successfully take Canada and if they decide to keep it. Also, even then I expect that Canada would not immediately be joined to the New England confederation. The Southern colonies would probably be fairly rambuntious in their expansionism, given their opposition with foreign powers. Hence, I'd imagine tension might grow between the three confederations (northern, southern, and Canadian). If the British do acquire Lousiana, then the Western or Midwestern settlements may want their own union. All in all, I agree that multiple confederations would allows the British to play the colonies against each other and if installed before 1763 probably limit the extent to which the colonies would combine. I don't think it's out of the question that in the *1830s, something like a Reform Bill might contemplate representation for the colonial confederations in Parliament which might in turn prompt some kind of federal solution for relations of the Empire as a whole.

And yet the whole thing overlooks what in my mind is the key fact for the future of British North America in 1754: the British don't think the American colonists are really proper Britons.
 
Last edited:

Glen

Moderator
Okay, no American Revolutionary War.

Rule Britannia!

Anyway, are the British Colonies in North America likelier to end up governed as a federation or as separate states under the Crown?

Still a valid question, and still an open poll....:D
 
IMO they would end up as a handful (3 or 4) of regional confederations, but that's just a gut feeling. Could do several ways but I don't think they would stay as states.
 
Seperate states would make the most sense logically and be most inkeeping with the way things were done.
 
Don't forget 19th century nationalism. If the German and Italian states, Australian and Canadian colonies can do it, so can American confederations/states/etc.
 

Glen

Moderator
It's interesting that most people (slim amount) go for federation here, but I've had several question Canadian Confederation in the absence of a strong US....
 
Separate regional unions since unlike Canada, they have nothing to force them together except Russian Alaska (the horror :eek:) and New Spain. There will probably be a world war or more, and the outcome of this will either push for unity, or give the small regional unions more of an identity. Probably the latter.

However Britain later had colonies unite because it was easier to have one Federated Colonial Army than keep British troops there, so they might eventually unite. Certainly a greater economic union will be formed.
 

Glen

Moderator
Separate regional unions since unlike Canada, they have nothing to force them together except Russian Alaska (the horror :eek:) and New Spain. There will probably be a world war or more, and the outcome of this will either push for unity, or give the small regional unions more of an identity. Probably the latter.

However Britain later had colonies unite because it was easier to have one Federated Colonial Army than keep British troops there, so they might eventually unite. Certainly a greater economic union will be formed.

Federation in Africa didn't work so well, in India pretty well....
 
Top