Culture of British North America (if the ARW was avoided)

What would the culture in a BNA that included the thirteen colonies along with Canada? Would it have a conflict between ideas of egalitarianism of the Americans and the aristocratic views of the British, and emerge like today's Britain, or remain in a quite classist society?

Also, would ethnic groups like the Native Americans have an influence, like the Iroquois or the Cherokee, such as still enduring to this day as their own cultures assimilated in BNA society? And what about emancipated slaves?

The POD for this would be that the ARW is avoided, something like late 1760s.
 
That's a good question, TBH. Really does depend on how exactly events progress from the POD.....but I can say this:

In a nutshell.....I wouldn't necessarily expect the Native Americans to have much more influence than they did IOTL; the British being consistently better about treating Natives than America was very largely a significantly post-Revolution production, so without Canada.....might be a bit dicey. At best, I could see a few more places set aside for Native Americans with a bit more autonomy, but anything much more than this might well be stretching plausibility a bit.

I also wouldn't be particularly super-optimistic about the future of the African-American community, either. While it's quite possible that slavery might end a little earlier than IOTL, we also wouldn't likely see immediate emancipation, and freedmen might not even get the vote right away, either. If I had to write down something more concrete.....perhaps slavery is banned circa 1850(so a full fifteen years before OTL), but does not entirely end until, say, 1875 or so, with universal suffrage for all men not coming until between 1880 and 1900.
 
Well, I would firstly probably suggest something more like Canada.

Other than that, likely less focus on personal freedom in media. The political culture also is unlikely to emphasise and immutable constitution, and you might see greater gun control, in modern times. In terms of Native Americans, I could see more of them being around, e.g. Hawaii would probably still be independent, and various tribes would have a form of recourse, against aggression, with various british government officials. Slavery would like exist longer in a quasi-form, however you are less likely to see groups like the KKK, and other such groups.
 
Saying that the Americans were purely egalitarian and the British aristocratic isn't exactly accurate. Americans were just as aristocratic but the system was less entrenched so that egalitarians could be more prominent. Even today the U.S. can be quite classist.

A BNA would likely be split into several dominion like entities that have their own character. Some would be similar to OTL Canada, others New Zealand, others Australia, and some like regions of the U.S.
A Dixie region would probably be fairly aristocratic and might have an apartheid system. New England is probably more cosmopolitan and a mix of urban Canada and urban New England.
Areas with significant native citizens could be like New Zealand and the natives holding a Maori status, or like Australia where they were historically ostracized and disenfranchised, or like OTL US with a mix of policies that nevertheless reduced them to reservations and semicitizens.
Frontier regions will depend what the frontier is - Mexico, Wilderness/Outback, native kingdoms, etc.
 
Thanks for all of the inputs.

I can see regionalism develop more as some may want to emulate British aristocracy more (like the South) and some may emulate more of the 19th-century radicals/Whigs/Liberals (Northeast). A national North American identity will take time to develop, though regional identities will take hold. Geography and culture playing out more to make distinguished provinces that would make a BNA nationalism/continentalism a strongly competing current of thought; like British (basic identity) and Southerner (regional identity) vs British and North American (nationalistic somewhat). This of course assumes a federation or confederation of any or all British American colonies, which could happen if it is tolerable to have a weak enough union for Britain it likes. The American Revolution provided a national focal point, it being a long struggle.

Would BNA politics be similar to Britain, with pro-parliament Whigs and pro-monarchy Tories as Dems and Repubs, respectively?

I have a feeling, from other things I have read, that Native Americans may have a better chance of surviving (more population, culture preserved, a higher degree of political autonomy). Perhaps the Iroquois and the Cherokee faring the best given their proximity and history with Britain up to the POD. I wonder how they would be organized politically, all native nations getting their own province or some internal area within a province. Not like a reservation, more like an autonomous area close or on their traditional places.

Slavery would be the tricky thing to figure out on when it ends and how emancipation goes about. 1830s with gradual emancipation (the Slavery Abolition Act), or later? An ACW but quicker for the British to win given the lack of serious military of the pro-slavery groups, the seceding Southern provinces unless they participated in some wars before the BNA civil war? And what about integrating the freed slaves, to mitigate second-class citizenship/a new de facto system of oppression? Is an emancipation date of around the mid 1830s highly improbable, or could it happen but with internal conflict? Would Britain be willing to have an early emancipation or go with a later one?
 
Also, more of sociocultural questions, like arts, music, economics, and political culture.

Freedom of expression (for lifestyles, subcultures) would be less strong because of the greater willingness to restrict it, along with enduring Victorian morality? What about freedom of speech and religion? Those would have more protection given the colonies having been havens for persecuted religious groups? What about the ideas of the "Rights of Englishmen" if the colonists are viewed as more as equals with the mother country?

I can also see a more robust welfare state and more gun control given parliamentary government would be a major influence on the federal and provincial governmental structures. Of course, this would lead into discussions about BNA governmental systems as it federates and adds more provinces.

As for economics, mercantilism would have to end or at least subside if BNA is to be treated more equally with Britain. Perhaps earlier imperial free trade, as Adam Smith hinted at?
 
QUOTE="SashaBonaparte148, post: 16934577, member: 111395"]Thanks for all of the inputs.
I have a feeling, from other things I have read, that Native Americans may have a better chance of surviving (more population, culture preserved, a higher degree of political autonomy). Perhaps the Iroquois and the Cherokee faring the best given their proximity and history with Britain up to the POD. I wonder how they would be organized politically, all native nations getting their own province or some internal area within a province. Not like a reservation, more like an autonomous area close or on their traditional places.[/quote]

Let me push back a little bit. Some might survive, but consider that: 1) The Canadians weren't that great to Natives either (look up the native schools); 2) the Tasmanian Aborigines were wiped out.

Slavery would be the tricky thing to figure out on when it ends and how emancipation goes about. 1830s with gradual emancipation (the Slavery Abolition Act), or later? An ACW but quicker for the British to win given the lack of serious military of the pro-slavery groups, the seceding Southern provinces unless they participated in some wars before the BNA civil war? And what about integrating the freed slaves, to mitigate second-class citizenship/a new de facto system of oppression? Is an emancipation date of around the mid 1830s highly improbable, or could it happen but with internal conflict? Would Britain be willing to have an early emancipation or go with a later one?

I think you need to game this out a bit more since it's highly contingent. Here's one issue that gets glossed over. The northern states in OTL abolished slavery due to the Revolutionary rhetoric and enlightenment. So slavery survives longer in the Northern States, surely?

Freedom of expression (for lifestyles, subcultures) would be less strong because of the greater willingness to restrict it, along with enduring Victorian morality?

Is this a given? You need to look at why Victorian morals arose (which were very different than late Georgian morals) and figure out if that still happens.
 
For me the biggest likely effect is that conservatism is far more likely to stress traditional order, good governance and historic institutions (as Toryism does in the UK/Canada) rather than the OTL outright anti-government ideology. Related to this, a British America is likely to have something equivalent to the Royal Mounted Police to order settlement, rather than the Wild West. That substantially reduces the "rugged frontiersman forging their own destiny" mythology.
 
I think you need to game this out a bit more since it's highly contingent. Here's one issue that gets glossed over. The northern states in OTL abolished slavery due to the Revolutionary rhetoric and enlightenment. So slavery survives longer in the Northern States, surely?

Could Enlightenment ideas still inspire abolitionism in Northern BNA for it abolish slavery in the late 18th century/early 19th century? It would have still have been an influence, even emphasized more if there was a confederation arrangement and stronger regional identities? And what about the reformist era of the 1830s, wouldn't that play a role in pushing for earlier than OTL abolition?

For me the biggest likely effect is that conservatism is far more likely to stress traditional order, good governance and historic institutions (as Toryism does in the UK/Canada) rather than the OTL outright anti-government ideology. Related to this, a British America is likely to have something equivalent to the Royal Mounted Police to order settlement, rather than the Wild West. That substantially reduces the "rugged frontiersman forging their own destiny" mythology.

I can definitely see more conservatism, but wouldn't there still be an element of British America being a land for those seeking freedom and thus have a current of individualistic expression competing with this conservatism? Perhaps people going to the frontiers of BNA, like the West, the grey area between American rule and British imperial rule?

Let me push back a little bit. Some might survive, but consider that: 1) The Canadians weren't that great to Natives either (look up the native schools); 2) the Tasmanian Aborigines were wiped out.

True. Policy towards indigenous populations varied per settler colony, and all ended in some form of massive destruction of those native peoples. Is a "princely state" arrangement for Native Americans still a good possibility, even for just a few native tribes? Or could that be expanded as BNA moved westward?
 
Could Enlightenment ideas still inspire abolitionism in Northern BNA for it abolish slavery in the late 18th century/early 19th century? It would have still have been an influence, even emphasized more if there was a confederation arrangement and stronger regional identities? And what about the reformist era of the 1830s, wouldn't that play a role in pushing for earlier than OTL abolition?

While it's true that Enlightenment debates around US independence did play a role in forcing the Founding Fathers (and their British opponents) to look at contradictions in arguments for liberty, abolitionist sentiment was already widespread (as you might expect for anything that is visibly repulsive to witness as an outsider). James Oglethorpe, founder of Georgia, frequently argued it was a violation of the Gospel. The judge in the Somerset vs Stewart court case in 1772 declared slavery "so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law". Outside of workers, owners and investors, it appears slavery was looked upon negatively. The vast difference in abolitionist sentiment between the pre- (ambivalent) and post-reform (overwhelmingly strong) parliaments demonstrate the different in class perspectives.

I would thus argue that the American Revolution was a catalyst for pushing the sentiment into a political movement. Given Enlightenment debates were ongoing, I think something in the next decade or two would have done the same thing. In addition, expansion of the suffrage with parliamentary reform is almost certain to make parliament much more abolitionist. Also, parliamentary reform was delayed by the French Revolution (and thus indirectly by the American). So my best guess would be that the slave trade lasts another decade or so, but full abolition is likely to happen on time or even sooner than OTL.

I can definitely see more conservatism, but wouldn't there still be an element of British America being a land for those seeking freedom and thus have a current of individualistic expression competing with this conservatism? Perhaps people going to the frontiers of BNA, like the West, the grey area between American rule and British imperial rule?

Sure, an element. But most people moved to America for land and higher living standards, not some abstract notion of liberty. Without the mythology of the American Revolution and those ideals' application to justifcation for Western settlement, the "people come here for freedom" myth would be about as strong as it is in Australia or Canada today. The settlement of the West would be justified instead by British notions of empire - spreading civilization, development and Anglican Christianity to savage peoples and untamed land.
 
By the way, on the aristocracy point, it's highly likely that the colonial assemblies start having appointed upper houses as they get upgraded to "proper" parliaments in the late 1700s/1800s. I imagine they would even be called Lords.
 
Two major points

1) This PoD doesn't seem to involve no East India Company, and seemingly nothing that restrains that. So there will be a relationship between BNA and British India.
2) What impact does BNA have on the British Economic Model.

We're looking at Indian Labour, alternative economic models that work within the political agreements put forward - OTL it was easy enough to just have Britain as the Factory of Europe, but America is unlikely to accept just exporting to the UK, in fact the Eastern Seaboard will become a rival to that. Its political freedoms would likely restrain a tariff model - which leads me to belive that it will lead to an approach of treating colonies more or less as Tax Farming projects - let them do their thing, skim off the top, which will likely change both how BNA operates, but also British India - which in turn will impact BNA - I expect potentially via immigration from India (I love the idea of a British Indian Louisiana.)

There are benefits to this "enforced peace" form of Empire, Britain gets loads of money to act, but has significantly offloaded its obligations to local authorities, but as it isn't destined to ramp up industrial production at home it could well focus on increased efforts to colonise the Americas and other colonies - leading to a more widespread anglosphere, and a more anglo-american BNA.
 
A lot of interesting comments here.

Saying that the Americans were purely egalitarian and the British aristocratic isn't exactly accurate. Americans were just as aristocratic but the system was less entrenched so that egalitarians could be more prominent. Even today the U.S. can be quite classist.

A BNA would likely be split into several dominion like entities that have their own character. Some would be similar to OTL Canada, others New Zealand, others Australia, and some like regions of the U.S.
A Dixie region would probably be fairly aristocratic and might have an apartheid system. New England is probably more cosmopolitan and a mix of urban Canada and urban New England.
Areas with significant native citizens could be like New Zealand and the natives holding a Maori status, or like Australia where they were historically ostracized and disenfranchised, or like OTL US with a mix of policies that nevertheless reduced them to reservations and semicitizens.
Frontier regions will depend what the frontier is - Mexico, Wilderness/Outback, native kingdoms, etc.

Good point, and I can believe Dixie being more aristocratic in particular.

I can see regionalism develop more as some may want to emulate British aristocracy more (like the South) and some may emulate more of the 19th-century radicals/Whigs/Liberals (Northeast). A national North American identity will take time to develop, though regional identities will take hold. Geography and culture playing out more to make distinguished provinces that would make a BNA nationalism/continentalism a strongly competing current of thought; like British (basic identity) and Southerner (regional identity) vs British and North American (nationalistic somewhat). This of course assumes a federation or confederation of any or all British American colonies, which could happen if it is tolerable to have a weak enough union for Britain it likes. The American Revolution provided a national focal point, it being a long struggle.

I would think so as well.

Would BNA politics be similar to Britain, with pro-parliament Whigs and pro-monarchy Tories as Dems and Repubs, respectively?

Possibly, yes.

Slavery would be the tricky thing to figure out on when it ends and how emancipation goes about. 1830s with gradual emancipation (the Slavery Abolition Act), or later? An ACW but quicker for the British to win given the lack of serious military of the pro-slavery groups, the seceding Southern provinces unless they participated in some wars before the BNA civil war? And what about integrating the freed slaves, to mitigate second-class citizenship/a new de facto system of oppression? Is an emancipation date of around the mid 1830s highly improbable, or could it happen but with internal conflict? Would Britain be willing to have an early emancipation or go with a later one?

Sadly, an emancipation date around OTL would, in fact, be fairly improbable, and I'll explain why a little further on.

I can also see a more robust welfare state and more gun control given parliamentary government would be a major influence on the federal and provincial governmental structures. Of course, this would lead into discussions about BNA governmental systems as it federates and adds more provinces.

Gun control, possibly.....not sure about a welfare state, though.

Let me push back a little bit. Some might survive, but consider that: 1) The Canadians weren't that great to Natives either (look up the native schools); 2) the Tasmanian Aborigines were wiped out.

Sadly, good point. Though, to be frank, I'd largely chalk that up to being thanks to imperialism. (So, to add, I'd argue that a republican Canada + Australia would likely have been significantly less willing to treat the indigenous peoples so poorly)

I think you need to game this out a bit more since it's highly contingent. Here's one issue that gets glossed over. The northern states in OTL abolished slavery due to the Revolutionary rhetoric and enlightenment. So slavery survives longer in the Northern States, surely?

Sadly, that is a real possibility.

While it's true that Enlightenment debates around US independence did play a role in forcing the Founding Fathers (and their British opponents) to look at contradictions in arguments for liberty, abolitionist sentiment was already widespread (as you might expect for anything that is visibly repulsive to witness as an outsider). James Oglethorpe, founder of Georgia, frequently argued it was a violation of the Gospel. The judge in the Somerset vs Stewart court case in 1772 declared slavery "so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law". Outside of workers, owners and investors, it appears slavery was looked upon negatively. The vast difference in abolitionist sentiment between the pre- (ambivalent) and post-reform (overwhelmingly strong) parliaments demonstrate the different in class perspectives.

Unfortunately, re: the bold, I'm afraid this was not quite true as of yet in the *Revolutionary era. Don't get me wrong, it certainly did have it's supporters then, as well as prior roots going back a fair few decades: Oglethorpe in particular was indeed a very early sympathizer of abolitionism(and was no doubt considered rather radical for his day). But in regards to the Somerset case, it is undoubtedly clear that Lord Mansfield was, in the legal sense, only referring to eliminating slavery in England itself. And as I've pointed out in the past, the abolitionist movement did not truly take off and begin to enjoy actual widespread support until the 1780s and '90s, with the rise of Wilberforce, et al., and the American Revolution did help give a major boost to that, even if not quite directly on the whole.

I would thus argue that the American Revolution was a catalyst for pushing the sentiment into a political movement. Given Enlightenment debates were ongoing, I think something in the next decade or two would have done the same thing. In addition, expansion of the suffrage with parliamentary reform is almost certain to make parliament much more abolitionist. Also, parliamentary reform was delayed by the French Revolution (and thus indirectly by the American). So my best guess would be that the slave trade lasts another decade or so, but full abolition is likely to happen on time or even sooner than OTL.

Re: the bold, I'm afraid not on this one, either. To add on an elaboration to my response to one of @SashaBonaparte148 's questions(as well as a couple of @Faeelin 's comments), the main reason it likely would have taken longer to abolish slavery in a "Patriots lose Revolutionary War" timeline-other than what I'd already pointed out above-is simply because, IOTL, the plantation side of the British Imperial economy was majorly cut down after the U.S. broke away, hence, also significantly weakening pro-slavery support in Parliament, etc. as well; without that, the planters would retain significantly more influence, and as for mainland North America, it wouldn't just affect the South, but the North as well, as slavery still existed there as well(although, optimistically, Vermont might be allowed to keep their abolition law from 1777 once Britain re-incorporates them). (I can say that it might well be plausible-depending on circumstances-that the international slave trade is eliminated only a decade later than OTL, but it might require a little bit of pushing for anybody writing a TL over this.)

So, while it is possible to indeed have the abolition of slavery happen around 1837 or so-perhaps even a couple of years earlier-in this kind of scenario, it'd be fairly challenging to figure out what kind of ATL developments would lead to that conclusion.

But most people moved to America for land and higher living standards, not some abstract notion of liberty.

Some certainly did primarily due to economic considerations, yes. But there were quite a few who were in part motivated to come to America precisely because of these values, especially in certain cases, like that of the Irish or the Germans in the 1850s.

Really, though, I'd just say that it's probably significantly more complicated than that, and probably would be better elaborated on elsewhere.

The settlement of the West would be justified instead by British notions of empire - spreading civilization, development and Anglican Christianity to savage peoples and untamed land.

I'd think this to be plausible based on my own reading of history-as far as I'm aware, this was true in Canada and Australia to at least some extent IOTL, much like how Manifest Destiny here in the U.S. had a fairly significant religious component as well.

Two major points

1) This PoD doesn't seem to involve no East India Company, and seemingly nothing that restrains that. So there will be a relationship between BNA and British India.
2) What impact does BNA have on the British Economic Model.

We're looking at Indian Labour, alternative economic models that work within the political agreements put forward - OTL it was easy enough to just have Britain as the Factory of Europe, but America is unlikely to accept just exporting to the UK, in fact the Eastern Seaboard will become a rival to that. Its political freedoms would likely restrain a tariff model - which leads me to belive that it will lead to an approach of treating colonies more or less as Tax Farming projects - let them do their thing, skim off the top, which will likely change both how BNA operates, but also British India - which in turn will impact BNA - I expect potentially via immigration from India (I love the idea of a British Indian Louisiana.)

There are benefits to this "enforced peace" form of Empire, Britain gets loads of money to act, but has significantly offloaded its obligations to local authorities, but as it isn't destined to ramp up industrial production at home it could well focus on increased efforts to colonise the Americas and other colonies - leading to a more widespread anglosphere, and a more anglo-american BNA.

Hmm.....I think an earlier wave of Indian influence might be interesting, too. IIRC, @Glen might have done just that for his classic Dominion of Southern America TL, though I dunno if I remember that correctly or not.
 
Last edited:
"The state of slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasions, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory. It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from the decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset_v_Stewart

Much earlier abolition of slavery. This case actually led to lawsuits by slaves against their masters on the basis of it's decision in '73, '74 and '75. Convenient what happened in 1776, for the slaveowners...

It's actually been suggested that Somerset's case was one of the reasons for the ARW:

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3831&context=uclrev

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Slave-Nation-Colonies-American-Revolution-ebook/dp/B001POX714

Less than a generation later the British Empire had 1/6th of it's force devoted to eliminating the slave trade: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa_Squadron
 
Unfortunately, re: the bold, I'm afraid this was not quite true as of yet in the *Revolutionary era. Don't get me wrong, it certainly did have it's supporters then, as well as prior roots going back a fair few decades: Oglethorpe in particular was indeed a very early sympathizer of abolitionism(and was no doubt considered rather radical for his day). But in regards to the Somerset case, it is undoubtedly clear that Lord Mansfield was, in the legal sense, only referring to eliminating slavery in England itself. And as I've pointed out in the past, the abolitionist movement did not truly take off and begin to enjoy actual widespread support until the 1780s and '90s, with the rise of Wilberforce, et al., and the American Revolution did help give a major boost to that, even if not quite directly on the whole.

As I said, sentiment was widespread while political organisation was not. The Somerset case only applied to England itself because his jurisdiction did not extend to the colonies. In addition, his logic of "banned except for where positively made legal" obviously wouldn't apply in places it has positively been made legal anyway. It showed that people were disgusted by slavery, but they weren't actively organised to eliminate it where it mattered. Equally Wilberforce's movement refers to the political organisation, not the sentiment. To pick more examples, Olaudah Equiano was already famed from writing articles that circulated massively in the 1760s and early 1770s, the Quakers regularly preached against slavery in their meetings, Anthony Benezet got plenty of newspaper platforms to write against slavery on both sides of the Atlantic. The energy was there - it was just waiting for organising to catalyse it.

Re: the bold, I'm afraid not on this one, either. To add on an elaboration to my response to one of @SashaBonaparte148 's questions(as well as a couple of @Faeelin 's comments), the main reason it likely would have taken longer to abolish slavery in a "Patriots lose Revolutionary War" timeline-other than what I'd already pointed out above-is simply because, IOTL, the plantation side of the British Imperial economy was majorly cut down after the U.S. broke away, hence, also significantly weakening pro-slavery support in Parliament, etc. as well; without that, the planters would retain significantly more influence, and as for mainland North America, it wouldn't just affect the South, but the North as well, as slavery still existed there as well(although, optimistically, Vermont might be allowed to keep their abolition law from 1777 once Britain re-incorporates them). (I can say that it might well be plausible-depending on circumstances-that the international slave trade is eliminated only a decade later than OTL, but it might require a little bit of pushing for anybody writing a TL over this.)

Slaveholding was tiny in the north, which is why the abolitionist push in most states encountered very little resistance or political strife from it. As for the slave lobby, it's strength was from money, and the cotton plantations (especially pre-cotton gin) only made a fraction of the money of the West Indian planters in Jamaica and elsewhere. Plus, as described above, in the post-reform parliament of 1832 the pro-slave side got completely demolished. They simply didn't have any support among the British middle class. As soon as representation was extended beyond the moneyed elite, and the corrupt rotten boroughs were washed away, the vote wasn't even close. As soon as parliamentary reform happens, abolition is near guaranteed. And with no ARW, parliamentary reform is likely to happen sooner.

I'd argue that a republican Canada + Australia would likely have been significantly less willing to treat the indigenous peoples so poorly.

I disagree. Monarchies tend to have a view of all subjects of the King being under the Crown's protection. Republics, historically, tend to base their legitimacy on being based on defending ethnic group X, so minorities get excluded. There's a reason why the native Americans were better treated under the British than the Americans. Also look at the new Eastern European republics post-WW2.
 
As I said, sentiment was widespread while political organisation was not. The Somerset case only applied to England itself because his jurisdiction did not extend to the colonies. In addition, his logic of "banned except for where positively made legal" obviously wouldn't apply in places it has positively been made legal anyway. It showed that people were disgusted by slavery, but they weren't actively organised to eliminate it where it mattered. Equally Wilberforce's movement refers to the political organisation, not the sentiment. To pick more examples, Olaudah Equiano was already famed from writing articles that circulated massively in the 1760s and early 1770s, the Quakers regularly preached against slavery in their meetings, Anthony Benezet got plenty of newspaper platforms to write against slavery on both sides of the Atlantic. The energy was there - it was just waiting for organising to catalyse it.
.
The Quakers were certainly ahead of the their time, no doubt. But, again, it wasn't just the political organization that was the problem-the sentiment had to be built up as well, and prior to the 1780s IOTL the sentiment wasn't yet strong enough, either. Messrs. Equiano, Benezet and certain others no doubt helped the process along, but it took some time and a good bit of the energy had to be built up by the organizers, at least initially(granted, though, this may not have been the case later on, that may well be true).

Slaveholding was tiny in the north, which is why the abolitionist push in most states encountered very little resistance or political strife from it.

This certainly is true, and further north in Canada, I would add, it was damned near nonexistent.

Plus, as described above, in the post-reform parliament of 1832 the pro-slave side got completely demolished. They simply didn't have any support among the British middle class. As soon as representation was extended beyond the moneyed elite, and the corrupt rotten boroughs were washed away, the vote wasn't even close.

Well, yes, no doubt about that. The hard work of the abolitionists certainly had paid off by 1832 IOTL.

As soon as parliamentary reform happens, abolition is near guaranteed.

That may well be true, though I'm not certain if that would necessarily be the dominant factor, ITTL, though.

And with no ARW, parliamentary reform is likely to happen sooner.

Quite possible, I suppose.

I disagree. Monarchies tend to have a view of all subjects of the King being under the Crown's protection.

In the modern era this is very true.....but I'm afraid this is mainly a more recent phenomenon, for the most part. Even going a fair bit into the 20th Century, you still had the occasional pogroms against the Jewish people and the Roma in many European countries(Especially against the former in Russia, and the latter in parts of central and southeastern Europe), and let's not forget that Italy was still a monarchy up until 1946 IOTL, including during the Fascist period.

(To be quite fair, though, the UK truly was definitely well ahead of the rest of the European countries in that regard; I'd add, however, that this was because Britain already had a fairly significant tradition of liberalism even by the dawn of the 19th Century, and it only got stronger as time went on-on the other hand, this wasn't true until rather later in most of the other European countries, and Russia, sadly, never really got to fully develop a liberal tradition of its own. I honestly believe that perhaps if more of the continental European nations had taken more lessons from the Brits here, the first half of 20th Century especially might well have been rather more peaceful and less tragic than in OTL.)

Republics, historically, tend to base their legitimacy on being based on defending ethnic group X, so minorities get excluded.

There have been some examples of this IOTL, yes, but even IOTL it hasn't exactly been a solid rule, per se(after all, we can look to France for a good example of why not.) and it wouldn't be that difficult for it to be even less common in an ATL.

There's a reason why the native Americans were better treated under the British than the Americans. Also look at the new Eastern European republics post-WW2.

Referring to those areas of Europe post-WWII, we need to keep in mind that Stalinism was very much a strong force in at least many of these countries IOTL, and in not a few cases it, or at least ideologies inspired by it, well after the man himself had died. So, with a POD in the late 18th Century, I don't think it'd be too hard to imagine that at least some of the Eastern European nations-whichever become independent-might well have had better histories than in OTL, depending on circumstances at least.
 
What about gun culture, colonial/provincial militias, and the military of a BNA. Assuming some sort of weakish confederation of BNA that may have its own restricted federal military.

Would gun culture be more, less, or the same as OTL? Would gun control be more likely to happen (say something like OTL's Canada)? Also, not meant to be a pro or anti gun question for our timeline, just an alternate history BNA politics question.

Would the BNA's military be heavily dependent on provincial militias to defend against outside and inside threats as Britain would want to have a divided military to mitigate unifying separatist movements? Perhaps only allowing a federal BNA military in a very restricted form, or perhaps encourage a sister BNA military to work with Britain in the new world? I think the former would be likely, though Britain would realize BNA could be a force for the British Empire in the New World and allow it to develop its own military later on.
 
@SashaBonaparte148
BNA won't be a single unit, that diverts too much power from Britain itself. As such I can see province militias only tolerated in frontier provinces. These will also be where gun law is more lax/liberal.
There's unlikely to be separate provincial armies until power is devolved (compare Canada, Australia, etc). There will be regiments from the provinces but like OTL will be shifted around the Empire. There might however be an RCMP analogue who will probably be armed.
 
I assume BNA includes Canada all the way to the Pacific and will probably consume the Oregon Territory down to Northern California. So, Manifest Destiny will not be the political issue of OTL. What about the Louisiana Territory? Would France be less inclined to sell to strengthen Britain? Or would they do so to get funds for territory they could not logistically control? Suppose the Louisiana Territory becomes part of BNA. Mexico invited Americans to settle Texas in OTL; suppose they did not do so with BNA. So, Texas and California might become Spanish-speaking republics of their own. The northern borders with BNA would be negotiable. In any case, BNA is essentially a super-Canada. Without Texas, the bloc of slave states would be less powerful so there would be no equivalent of a Civil War.
 
Top