Butterflies from an Avoided/Defeated American Revolution?

Valdemar II

Banned
I dunno. California would be the area formerly known as New Albion, right?

What makes the northern colonies have less interest in westward expansion than OTL?

I think they will have less interest in expantion into Texas, which seemed mostly a southen thing. It's not like the border are completely clear in the north, so they may very well enter the Northen Louisiana purchase already before it has been bought from Spain (something like USA did with Florida). But why would New England, Pennsylvania, Quebec and New York be interested in expantion into Texas? Beside if the British gain the Louisiana Purchase because it has a lack of population and British settlers has moved in, Spain may very well do more to develop Texas-California with settlers from Europe.
 
If the American revolution is avoided, would Brittain still be interested in Australia and New Zealand? They already have a big colony to dump criminals. I suspect that Brittain is much less interested in those territories. Maybe they will claim part of it to prevent other countries (basicly France) to claim all of it, but I doubt all of it will become British.

Also I heard that a major reason Brittain started focussing on India was the loss of the American colonies. If that is true we will probably see a India that is either dominated by another European power (probably France) or an India that is devided by various European powers (and likely some local powers), as Bisides Brittain, Portugal, France, the Netherlands, Denmark all have colonies there.

Speaking of colonies, if the French revolution is (butterflied away) the Cape colony will most likely remain Dutch. In short if Britain keeps their North American colonies, it might rule Northern America, but their presense and influence across the globe will be less.

Not exactly. One of the many grievences held by the Ameircans just before the revolution was the Transportation of Convicts to the Thirteen Colonies. If the Revolution is Avoided (my prefered scenerio), it is only realy a matter of time before Britian will be forced to halt Transportation to the American Colonies. Therefore, Australia (the best candidate) will probably still become a penal Colony, although there will probably be less free settlement than OTL, at least until Gold is discovered (a gold rush is still likely IMO) . Don't realy know about New Zealand however.

As for India, it would do us well to remember that Britain through the East India Company now controlled a substantial portion of the subcontinent and is poised to gain more (a war at this point with Mahrahtas is virtualy inevitable), all of wich will be as porfitable as OTL, with TTL's British India probably still being the Jewell in the Crown.

I do agree with you about the Dutch though. Although it seams another European War is inevitable, the Dutch probably won't have to suffer the humiliation and disaster they suffered in OTL's Napoleonic Wars and they will porbably end up keeping Cape Colony, Ceylon, the Malay Peninsula and the Portion of Duthc Guiana that went to Britain in OTL. However, i don't realy see the standholdership lasting for much longer and the Netherlands will probably be forced to refrom into a Constitutional Monarchy.
 
Louisiana was ceded to Spain in 1763 and if it remains Spanish, then the Anglo-Spanish border is going to be defined there. The question of MEXICO is going to be a particular irrelevance, since New Spain begins at the Mississippi.
In 1762 Britain began raising a force of American Auxiliaries, to take French New Orleans, However the force got transfered to Havana, as reinforcements there.
In 1803 The Americans, Began raising a Force to Take Spanish New Orleans, However Napoleon Sold New Orleans before the Invasion could begin.
So I don't see either the British or the Americans respecting the Border.

Given the Likely 1790's War with France, and It's Spanish Ally, I see Havana and New Orleans as the main Targets in the Americas.
I think they will have less interest in expansion into Texas
Not sure about this, the first American Filibuster into Texas was in May 1801.
Given a American new Orleans in 1790's, It may be sooner ITTL.
But why would New England, Pennsylvania, Quebec and New York be interested in expansion into Texas?
Not Sure why, but the 1801 Nolan Expedition had the unofficial backing of John Adams.
 
Regarding Louisiana, if there is no ARW then there is no French involvement, and without French involvement the history (and potentially very fact) of the French Revolution will be different.

Louisiana was ceded to Spain in 1763 and if it remains Spanish, then the Anglo-Spanish border is going to be defined there. The question of MEXICO is going to be a particular irrelevance, since New Spain begins at the Mississippi.

In addition, if we are butterflying away, or significantly altering the French Revolution, we are also probably removing the likelihood of Napoleon or one of his ilk arising, and thus no French invasion of Spain, and no collapse of the Spanish Empire during the early 19th century

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

You could have the planed British invasion of New Orleans take place (and sucessfully) in the French and Indian War but thats a different POD. But the Americans would still be pouring into Spanish Louisiana.

I dunno. California would be the area formerly known as New Albion, right?

Yeah, and the original charters of former colonies like Georgia and Connecticut also had claims all the way to the Pacific too.
 
I do agree with you about the Dutch though. Although it seams another European War is inevitable, the Dutch probably won't have to suffer the humiliation and disaster they suffered in OTL's Napoleonic Wars and they will porbably end up keeping Cape Colony, Ceylon, the Malay Peninsula and the Portion of Duthc Guiana that went to Britain in OTL. However, i don't realy see the standholdership lasting for much longer and the Netherlands will probably be forced to refrom into a Constitutional Monarchy.

The problem, however, is that the Dutch are already on their way out. They didnt' have the navy to defend the Cape Colony, the Stadholder is so unpopular that Prussian troops had to restore him in the 1780s, etc.
 
Given how many of the leaders of the Revolution were slave-owners, a defeated Revolution might see large-scale freeing of slaves. IIRC there was a fair bit of that in OTL.

This could have effects.
 
Not exactly. One of the many grievences held by the Ameircans just before the revolution was the Transportation of Convicts to the Thirteen Colonies. If the Revolution is Avoided (my prefered scenerio), it is only realy a matter of time before Britian will be forced to halt Transportation to the American Colonies. Therefore, Australia (the best candidate) will probably still become a penal Colony, although there will probably be less free settlement than OTL, at least until Gold is discovered (a gold rush is still likely IMO) . Don't realy know about New Zealand however.

You may be right about that. I must admit that even with a North American Britain, British involvement in Australia is likely. The thing I suspect happening is less British interest in Australia, with other colonial powers (Basicly France) also trying to get a piece of it. My guess ould be a British south east Australia and a French south west and maybe a Dutch northern part (as they were pretty close). That depends on how interested they are, which wasn't much, but you never know (maybe they are used as a buffer zone between the British and French colony)

I do agree with you about the Dutch though. Although it seams another European War is inevitable, the Dutch probably won't have to suffer the humiliation and disaster they suffered in OTL's Napoleonic Wars and they will porbably end up keeping Cape Colony, Ceylon, the Malay Peninsula and the Portion of Duthc Guiana that went to Britain in OTL. However, i don't realy see the standholdership lasting for much longer and the Netherlands will probably be forced to refrom into a Constitutional Monarchy.

I will not make any predictions about Dutch internal changes. At this point in time the political situation in the Netherlands was completely unstable. Even though the patriot movement was inspired by the American revolution, I doubt that the absense (or failure) of it would butterfly it away. The time was just right for that movement. I suspect that without foreign involvement the stadholders will lose and the Netherlands turns into a full republic, maybe not that unlike of the OTL USA. But foreign powers will get involved. The stadholder had the support of the Prussians (through mariage) and probably the British, which was reason enough for the French to support the patriots. I have no idea how that would end. I suspect that they will force the Netherlands into the status quo (foreign powers love the status quo in other countries), although the stadholder would prefer to become kings (constitutional or not), while the patriots want to completely id themselves of him.


The problem, however, is that the Dutch are already on their way out. They didnt' have the navy to defend the Cape Colony, the Stadholder is so unpopular that Prussian troops had to restore him in the 1780s, etc.

I am not certain what you mean. If you mean that the Netherlands was in decline and losing the power it had during the 17th century you are of course absolutely right. That is not enough reason for the Netherlands to lose any colonies. You usually nly lose colonies in a war and those wars claimed very few colonies. The Netherlands lost only 1 Indian outpost in the fourth Anglo-Dutch war for example, eventhough it completely lost that war. The British didn't even claimed Ceylon, although they occupied it. And at that point in time, the Netherlands was smart enough to avoid wars (it wasn't involved in the seven year war for example). I think that without the Napoleonic wars the Netherlands is likely to keep the cape colony (and with a couple of butterflies maybe even if there are Napoleonic wars).

If you meant that the Cape colony will declare itself independent, I am not sure that would happen. Although it is a cool idea, a Dutch variant of the American Revolution.
 
I think they will have less interest in expantion into Texas, which seemed mostly a southen thing. It's not like the border are completely clear in the north, so they may very well enter the Northen Louisiana purchase already before it has been bought from Spain (something like USA did with Florida). But why would New England, Pennsylvania, Quebec and New York be interested in expantion into Texas? Beside if the British gain the Louisiana Purchase because it has a lack of population and British settlers has moved in, Spain may very well do more to develop Texas-California with settlers from Europe.

The Spanish allowed American settlement in Texas in OTL too you know.
 
Top