Decolonization of North America In A No ARW World?

OTL, the American revolution was the first time Britain lost a major colony, and it created a nation that went on to dominate the world after getting its regional matters sorted out. But before that, the American colonies were rather disparate, with economic interests but no major common identity. Canada, similarly, wasn't united until after the American rebellion- before that, it was multiple smaller colonies, from upper and lower Canada to Quebec to Newfoundland. So, what I want to know is, if we assume the Americans don't revolt (perhaps Britain doesn't issue the proclamation line or creates devolved parliaments for the tax matter) how would the decolonization wind up looking? we'll take the liberty that the south doesn't get funny ideas after around the 1830s.
some thoughts:
  • we'd almost certainly see a country in otl's south, likely going from OTL's Virginia to Mississippi. weather the actual missisippi basin was acquired ttl obviously matters but I'm not sure any of it would wind up here.
    • perhaps the British Caribbean winds up lumped with this colony? OTL, the brits had a bit of a habit of similar things, no?
  • New England and Nova Scotia would likely be another such union since otl the latter was closely tied to the rebellious ones before the war-damaged relations
  • I'm not sure about the middle colonies or the great lakes region. Perhaps the former wind up effectively unified with their border regions, and the latter its own thing (were the french colonists particularly expansionist? OTL London gave the region to Quebec, and the Quebec Act was a bit of a contention point)
  • I could see the Mississippi basin as either split between the countries like otl with states or its own thing
Personally, I'm also curious about other countries such as France, Russia, Spain, and the natives. no ARW means no french revolution, meaning no way for France to easily get louisianna back, making it spanish, which brings us to two things, which Unprincipled Peter expresses quite nicely in the least favorite tropes thread rn:
Spain was actually administering the territory quite nicely, and actively looking to populate it with anglos (Daniel Boone was a land agent for Spain in Missouri). Development of the territory was slow, but picking up steam. Even at the late date of 1800, Spain could have held the region, and with just a little more oomph, made a real colony of it. But the whole Napoleon thing and the tearing apart of Spain kinda put a damper on things.
this is part of his larger point that manifest desitny is not inevitable, and in TTL, i would argue its extremely unlikely, as the colonists are beholden to britsh foreign policy.

hell, does Mexico become the first independent country in the Americas ttl? or is spain able to salvage things?
 
Question for discussion: was the republican discipline and relative stability of the OTL USA a lucky break, and would the ATL spin-offs Thirteen Colonies be as likely to spawn Bolivarian messes as OTL Latin America was? Or was it something in the economy and culture of the British colonies that would have prevailed without the exact OTL conditions of the ARW?

It’s a touchy subject, I think, because there’s always been a more or less overt xenophobic folk mythology that contrasts Anglo-Saxon discipline with Latin impulsivity - which is exactly why it would be more fun, IMO, to see the British Colonies fall to pieces, while ideally setting some other country up to be the stable core of the New World (if not a superpower on the OTL US’s lines).
 
Question for discussion: was the republican discipline and relative stability of the OTL USA a lucky break, and would the ATL spin-offs Thirteen Colonies be as likely to spawn Bolivarian messes as OTL Latin America was? Or was it something in the economy and culture of the British colonies that would have prevailed without the exact OTL conditions of the ARW?

It’s a touchy subject, I think, because there’s always been a more or less overt xenophobic folk mythology that contrasts Anglo-Saxon discipline with Latin impulsivity - which is exactly why it would be more fun, IMO, to see the British Colonies fall to pieces, while ideally setting some other country up to be the stable core of the New World (if not a superpower on the OTL US’s lines).
Personally I chalk it up to slughty better geography for nation building (to my knowledge gran Colombia for example had way more mountains than the 13 that made travel even worse.) And the fact no one general managed or wanted to become what amounted to a dictator.

As for this scenario, I was imagining ttl's decolonization to be more like canada, with the British just sorta granting more autonomy as things went on.
 

Deleted member 147978

If the US is butterflied as we know it, we would likely never see other colonies rebel against their mother countries as well.

Modern Democratic-Republican ideals would also be butterflied as we know it too, perhaps we'll be seeing future Canada-like states in the New World if the Mother Countries become lenient to their colonies for let's just say in the 19th century.
 
Personally I chalk it up to slughty better geography for nation building (to my knowledge gran Colombia for example had way more mountains than the 13 that made travel even worse.) And the fact no one general managed or wanted to become what amounted to a dictator.
I disagree a bit here, while Geography did make things harder the main issue with the Gran Colombia was debt, due to an incompetent handling of debt by the ones who were sent to create it, which meant that the money of the debt barely arrived and what arrived Bolivar demanded it be used in the army, which leads to another issue is that there was a very large over expending in the army, for example from the debt Bolivar had around 5000 men trained and properly armoured, those men never even got to the battle field and around 2000 died in an island, so suffice to say the money was very badly spent by factors that were not really the fault of the governing body, but it should be noted that from 1819 to 1826 the Gran Colombia was very stable and it was only after Miguel Peña managed to start his Venezuela independence movement that the whole thing fell apart.

And there was somebody who did want to become dictator, Bolivar, and he did but his main problem was that he had degenerates a lot, his health was failing, his mental state was incredibly deteriorated and he was incredibly paranoid, which made him a rather innefective ruler.


But on teh question itself, I imagine a big part of the decolonization will come from when it starts, like it could start in the early 1880s, which would be quite curious as it might take a more violent approach but if its later or I wonder if it could become a dominion early on, with different parts of the nation getting different administrations that become their own dominions later on.

I also imagine that the US might not get that much population from immigration, since it's a part of Britain and some might find that undesirable, for example I doubt the Irish would want to move to the US although they might not have an alternative.

I am also curious how race relations would work out, maybe a slow emancipation would start but the contrary might happen as Britain sees slavery as more important due to its economic impact.
 
As for this scenario, I was imagining ttl's decolonization to be more like canada, with the British just sorta granting more autonomy as things went on.
That may be the outcome, but I don't think it'd be entirely peaceful. The Eastern Seaboard is huge, economically diverse, and by 1776 already had a population about one-third of that of England. It'll still have the rapid natural growth and attraction to immigrants that it did OTL, and distinctively American identity is going (identities are going?) to just get stronger, not weaker, as time goes on. Immigration and slavery will be just as hot ITTL as they were OTL, only with another interest in the mix - the British state - which I can’t see being firmly on anybody’s side. The 13 won’t be a model colony by any means, and certainly won’t have OTL Canada’s relatively happy path to autonomy.

If Britain plays their cards right, they'll split the country's interests north and south. Maybe the North will be a compliant alt-Canada (albeit with much, much more say in the Empire's course - to the point of constituting a nation split by the Atlantic), but there will inevitably be a whole host of disasters that, IMO, the British won't be able to address. The British state was and is based on the harmony of mutually competitive interests - the "Most Loyal Opposition" - which is great for a concentrated industrial power with oppressed foreign colonies, but not so great when half of its politically active subjects are living completely different lives across an ocean.
 
Last edited:
Question for discussion: was the republican discipline and relative stability of the OTL USA a lucky break, and would the ATL spin-offs Thirteen Colonies be as likely to spawn Bolivarian messes as OTL Latin America was? Or was it something in the economy and culture of the British colonies that would have prevailed without the exact OTL conditions of the ARW?

It’s a touchy subject, I think, because there’s always been a more or less overt xenophobic folk mythology that contrasts Anglo-Saxon discipline with Latin impulsivity - which is exactly why it would be more fun, IMO, to see the British Colonies fall to pieces, while ideally setting some other country up to be the stable core of the New World (if not a superpower on the OTL US’s lines).
The British North American colonies were not directly reliant on the motherland to run themselves. Broadly speaking, they just ran themselves, paying tribute to the Crown but otherwise being autonomous. So they developed their own political, economic, and legal systems that were more than capable of being continued after the British left. The Spanish, by contrast, involved themselves heavily in the running of their colonies, and created an empire based off resource extraction. It was completely against Spanish interests to let their colonies develop their own systems independent of Spain, or even trade with each other.

So while things could fall apart for the English Colonies and get better for the Spanish, there's a reason OTL happened. The English colonies were given a significant head start in the development of their institutions when compared to spanish america.

I'm actually not sure how Portuguese america fits into this hypothesis, however.
 
I'm actually not sure how Portuguese america fits into this hypothesis, however.
with all the negligence the british and the reliance on the motherland's empire of the Spanish (damn near 40% if the entire transatlantic slave trade went to brazil, with a much higher turn over rate.) But it was more due to the fact Portugal was the only supplier that could match demand
 
I also imagine that the US might not get that much population from immigration, since it's a part of Britain and some might find that undesirable, for example I doubt the Irish would want to move to the US although they might not have an alternative.
That never stopped immigration to Canada in OTL, I fail to see why it changes for the Thirteen Colonies under Britain.
 
The specific ARW of our OTL failing doesn't mean there won't be others. It was really only because of their failure to retain America that Britain learned to have a lighter hand with her colonies. But conceding that they manage to do so (likely by playing regions against one another...)

  • we'd almost certainly see a country in otl's south, likely going from OTL's Virginia to Mississippi. weather the actual missisippi basin was acquired ttl obviously matters but I'm not sure any of it would wind up here.
    • perhaps the British Caribbean winds up lumped with this colony? OTL, the brits had a bit of a habit of similar things, no?


  • New England and Nova Scotia would likely be another such union since otl the latter was closely tied to the rebellious ones before the war-damaged relations
Presumably - New English settlers continue their plantations north into New Brunswick (which may have a different name... New Ireland so we have a fill set that we can call "New Britain", perhaps?)

  • I'm not sure about the middle colonies or the great lakes region. Perhaps the former wind up effectively unified with their border regions, and the latter its own thing (were the french colonists particularly expansionist? OTL London gave the region to Quebec, and the Quebec Act was a bit of a contention point)
Quebec will be much more homogenously French Catholic without an influx of United Empire Loyalist and post-Revolutionary British settlers. I think Upper Canada gets detached and added to the Middle Atlantic states.


  • I could see the Mississippi basin as either split between the countries like otl with states or its own thing

Personally, I'm also curious about other countries such as France, Russia, Spain, and the natives. no ARW means no french revolution, meaning no way for France to easily get louisianna back, making it spanish, which brings us to two things, which Unprincipled Peter expresses quite nicely in the least favorite tropes thread rn:
The Enlightenment has still placed a new lettered elite at odds with the aristocracy and enlightened absolutist monarchy. Honestly, averting the French Revolution and Napoleonic period has massive effects that are hard to reckon with.

this is part of his larger point that manifest desitny is not inevitable, and in TTL, i would argue its extremely unlikely, as the colonists are beholden to britsh foreign policy.

Not inevitable but likely, at least for Louisiana - its far more climactically similar to British *Dixie and the Great Lakes than anything Spain is familiar with developing. Spanish Luisiana will see American incursions from the early 19th century and access to the Mississippi River will still be an imperative to commercially link trans-Appalachian British America with the Atlantic seaboard. And again, we circle back to - if British foreign policy is insufficiently conciliatory to American colonial interests they'll see a rebellion of some sort (or possibly something closer to the South African Boer treks).

with all the negligence the british and the reliance on the motherland's empire of the Spanish (damn near 40% if the entire transatlantic slave trade went to brazil, with a much higher turn over rate.) But it was more due to the fact Portugal was the only supplier that could match demand
Regarding Portuguese America - it was the movement of the Portuguese Crown to Brazil during the Napoleonic Wars that created and centralized Brazilian institutions. I think that without this Brazil would be divided into one or two big and several additional, smaller states. Byz also rightly draws the distinction - English colonies have had their own democratic institutions basically since they were founded, where the Iberian empires went down a different path.
 
Decolonization? In a world where America never tries to gain its independence?

A system of reform where colonies gain representation like they originally wanted seems more likely in such a scenario.
 
I also imagine that the US might not get that much population from immigration, since it's a part of Britain and some might find that undesirable, for example I doubt the Irish would want to move to the US although they might not have an alternative.
I don’t think that tracks. Remember, the early 19th-century state was a lot weaker than today’s; most of the Western world wasn’t even in a formal police jurisdiction, let alone culturally or economically homogenised. Most opportunities that existed in OTL America but not in England in 1820 would probably have existed in ATL British North America too. The average German, Irish or Italian immigrant was a lot more concerned about his ability to feed himself and escape mob violence or the draft than about whose stamp went on his papers.
 
Last edited:
Decolonization? In a world where America never tries to gain its independence?

A system of reform where colonies gain representation like they originally wanted seems more likely in such a scenario.
But that doesn't apply to say, India (under EIC administration at the time)
 
But that doesn't apply to say, India (under EIC administration at the time)
True. And of course the colonies built for economic exploitation are more likely to rebel against the system built by the Europeans. In the same vein, they're also likely to be the ones that'll find it difficult to resist the system.
 

Deleted member 147978

Perhaps the colonies are treated more like dominions over time?
Like I mentioned beforehand, that's if the Mother Countries become more lenient to their colonies. If they don't expect unrest from the colonies then.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think an absence of the American or French revolutions necessarily shortcircuits modern nationalism, although its arrival will likely take longer and the option of integration into the metropole will remain as an option.
Population disparities between the metropole and the colonies will likely precipitate these changes, as well as industrialization+size+resources.
Especially for a 1:many case like a Dutch Empire that retained Indonesia, the Cape, Greater Surinam and North New Holland, the population disparity and the desires of Indonesians, Capelanders etc. to not be under the notoriously tight Dutch administration
Even IOTL plans for Imperial Federation were ultimately scuppered because India had more people than the rest of the Federation put together.
 
Last edited:
Question for discussion: was the republican discipline and relative stability of the OTL USA a lucky break,
No, it was the result of a number of important factors relating back to how the colonies themselves had developed. Each colony for instance had an assembly of representatives, and it was these assemblies which mostly drove the early actions of the ARW. Indeed one of the colonial grievances was the shuttering of these groups by royal governors. And these had developed due to the way administration happened. Which went basically like so (from Birth of the Republic): “administration of the colonies was left to the king, who turned it over to the Secretary of southern affairs, whose actual job was Britain’s affairs with Southern Europe. The Secretary left it to the Board of Trade and Plantations, a group with purely advisory powers. The Board of Trade told the Secretary what to do, he told the king what to do. The king told the Royal governors what to do. The governors told the colonists what to. And the colonists did as they pleased.”
 
Honestly, depending on the way things were going, I could see decolonization still being a thing without the USA example.

For many of the Hispanic American population (even the pure white Criollos) they were shut out from the most important positions, couldn't trade, taxes were high, the population was growing which was making everything expanded while still there wasn't enough jobs, etc.
Spain most likely wouldn't want to give any shred of autonomy to it's colonies and may try to settle the issue with force... Which may ignite a war of independence, that even if it fails, will set the example and have the cat out of the bag:that there's a possible future without the motherland looking on.

Events in Europe might also speed things up as the French crown still had a huge debt and the bad weather that destroyed the crops and caused famine would still happen, all of this could still spell revolt and depending on how things play out, the revolutionary state still gets proclaimed, it would also be interesting to see how a declaration of rights of men would be, and Europe is thrown into chaos.

Another something for the colonists to get inspired by and prepare as their mother country prepares for war or gets defeated.
 
Top