Does a US dominion solve anything for Britain?

The consensus on this board seems to be that should the American Revolution fail the colonies would likely be given something roughly equivalent to our Dominion status. The issue however is that this doesn't solve the problem of colonial population growth and the colonists' demand for westward expansion at all costs. How does Britain deal with the westward expansion and are they eventually forced to embrace the colonists' expansion as policy? Or do they throw up their hands and grand independence?

It seems to me that the goals of the colonies and Britain don't align no matter how much or little self rule they have.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
In a very real sense, unless the British and Irish are

The consensus on this board seems to be that should the American Revolution fail the colonies would likely be given something roughly equivalent to our Dominion status. The issue however is that this doesn't solve the problem of colonial population growth and the colonists' demand for westward expansion at all costs. How does Britain deal with the westward expansion and are they eventually forced to embrace the colonists' expansion as policy? Or do they throw up their hands and grand independence? It seems to me that the goals of the colonies and Britain don't align no matter how much or little self rule they have.

In a very real sense, unless the British and Irish are willing to become ten more stars on the US flag (heptarchy plus Ireland, Scotland, and Wales), you are correct.

It would be an entertaining story, but as has been said: one doubts the English would have wanted to become Americans.;)

Best,
 
The consensus on this board seems to be that should the American Revolution fail the colonies would likely be given something roughly equivalent to our Dominion status. The issue however is that this doesn't solve the problem of colonial population growth and the colonists' demand for westward expansion at all costs. How does Britain deal with the westward expansion and are they eventually forced to embrace the colonists' expansion as policy? Or do they throw up their hands and grand independence?

It seems to me that the goals of the colonies and Britain don't align no matter how much or little self rule they have.

Actually even as separate polities US and British interests aligned more often than not. What would happen with a North American Dominion or Dominions would likely be the same tale told elsewhere in the Empire of the local authorities prevailing on local military commanders to provide a solution to the 'bandit problem, crikey it's terrible around here.."

Then followed by "Well we really need to put this piece of land into good order and fill it with productive white folk."

Central government would resist with stern words sent out from London followed by a pause to consolidate and then oops more bandits!
 
One US dominion doesn't do much.

But a handful of dominions (New England, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Carolina, Georgia?) might postpone the eventual separation by a couple of decades, say to 1850, and make the separation initially one that keeps an alliance going... so that Britain's pre-eminence during the 1800's is even stronger, and its fall during the 1900's might be slowed (as I assume it would make a WW1-like slogfest impossible for a few more decades).

Of course this requires massive changes way before the ARW.
 
Westward expansion could be somewhat slowed, but not eliminated. Keeping the Appalachian settlement line is probably ASB; keeping the Mississippi line with French Louisiana is a coin flip.
 
Actually even as separate polities US and British interests aligned more often than not. What would happen with a North American Dominion or Dominions would likely be the same tale told elsewhere in the Empire of the local authorities prevailing on local military commanders to provide a solution to the 'bandit problem, crikey it's terrible around here.."

Then followed by "Well we really need to put this piece of land into good order and fill it with productive white folk."

Central government would resist with stern words sent out from London followed by a pause to consolidate and then oops more bandits!

This, very much, it is after all, what happened otl, both in the British and american empires.
 
I've wondered this in a topic before, and such a thing was most likely not politically feasible in the 1770s, but would the 13 colonies have accepted something along the lines of the Scotland Act 1998 in order to avoid the revolution in the first place?
 
The consensus on this board seems to be that should the American Revolution fail the colonies would likely be given something roughly equivalent to our Dominion status.

If this is the consensus, I hope that they mean at the very earliest decades after the war.
 
It depends on the POD. Personally I tend to accept a form of the "frontier" thesis, that the ambition and possibility of making a new start out west transformed American colonial society into something undisciplined by British standards. It would be a question of whether Imperial authority would have goals more or less in line with those of the unruly colonists--but if we assume conflicts of interest arise as they did OTL, then keeping the American continental colonies, or even just a subset of them, under the British crown would surely involve coercive measures. If we stipulate these measures are successful and do not merely delay independence, I suspect their nature would have to transform the social situation from OTL considerably. The colonists would have to be effectively restricted from moving west in order for the Crown to keep control. I suspect it is not very well founded to suppose that practice in later British settler colonies is a guide to what they'd do in an attempt to keep the BNA Atlantic coast colonies. OTL, Canada was formed out of colonies that remained loyal when put to the test of revolutionary agitation, plus a military ruled but largely quiescent Quebec that perhaps shrewdly judged they might be no better off in an English-speaking and expansive USA than they could be in a colonial situation where the British needed them, and had already demonstrated that their rule could be tolerable, and finally refugees, clearly loyal to the crown by the very act of their expulsion or retreat from their homelands on behalf of their allegiance to the king, settled Upper Canada. In the postrevolutionary settlement period OTL, the colonies remaining had thus strongly proven their crown loyalty and this would be further reinforced by the War of 1812. So Britain could afford to devolve power to the colonies, and then to countenance their federation, while supporting their expansion westward. The USA itself served as a lightning rod, drawing off any republicans or radical anti-authoritarians to a bigger country that suited them better, leaving Canada mostly loyalist, to a reliable degree.

Thus, this same model was available to guide the pattern of development in Australia and even South Africa, though complicated there by the strong Boer resistance and by the fact that the native African majority was not going to die off and effectively go away.

If Britain hangs on--well, it matters first of all how and when. Does the question of secession never even come up? This must be either because the colonies enjoy close alignment of what they desire and British policy. Given the lack of effective representation, such alignment suggests either a very astute management of colonial affairs in London that is willing to sacrifice British interests for the sake of harmony in the colonies, or just plain dumb luck. Or that the colonials have fears that cause them to look to British power to protect them beyond what they themselves think they can manage; if France or some other European power (say a Spain that in the ATL is much stronger and proactive than it was by the late 18th century OTL--which would have massive consequences for the situation of Britain in general) held strongholds near the North American colonies that menaced them, they might set aside their objects to this or that piece of imperial decree in order to keep the defense the crown provided. But that situation answers the question of expansion--no, no expansion, or anyway limited, because the rival power stands in the way. If that power is eventually beaten and the frontier is open again, I suspect the conflicts of the OTL 1770s will rise up in the wake of that,.

There is a third possibility, besides Utopian luck leading to miraculous harmony, or the colonies being hemmed in by a strong foe--which is that the colonies and metropolis do get out of alignment, the colonies rebel--and fail, the British managing to scrape up enough force and manage it intelligently enough that the rebellion is foiled and sufficient reliable military forces back up a stern new regime that suppresses further tendencies to rebel again. This situation would lead to nothing like what evolved OTL in Canada or Australia! Instead of federating the distinct colonies into a British North America, I suspect the policy of divide and rule will suggest keeping all the existing colonial divisions and reinforcing them; 13 or more distinct entities will each have their own strong, royal/Parliamentary appointed governors, who may confer with each other for informal federation of imperial power over the colonies, but will permit no federation of the colonials themselves. The colonies would be governed paternalistically, industrial development there curtailed and allowed to expand only grudgingly, with an eye toward maintaining the home island's lead. To the west, beyond the Appalachians, Native tribes who stood with the King would be rewarded with extensive protectorate territories and relied on to deny any wildcat pioneering, within their own territories certainly and also called upon to join British regular forces in hunting down others.

Perhaps over the course of the 19th century this might change somewhat, with slow permission for new colonies to form in the interior, and with the Native tribes gradually being assimilated to British norms and acquiring common interests with the colonials. But I suspect that the sentiment for independence of the colonials won't ever die out completely--perhaps never rising to a sufficient critical mass to enable another rebellion, but remaining strong enough that the paternalist restrictions won't be relaxed. Reinforcing this is the interest of Britain to remain predominant. Despite repression, very likely the American territories will come to outweigh British population, and the potential for American industry to surpass British will be clear, so repression will remain the norm to keep them divided and dependent. Relative to OTL, 19th century Britain would be worse off, lacking the vast market for British imports and scope for investment the USA of OTL offered, but to an extent they will not know what they are missing, and to another extent--fear that the continent can indeed achieve vast economic mass, but that it would then either tear loose of British control or dominate the empire by sheer numbers. Note that OTL neither Canada, with its actual settlement zone within a few hundred miles of the US border up against the tundra, nor Australia with its area dominated by the badland Outback, could achieve more than 1/10 the US population, so the issue of the Dominions outweighing the homeland by population or production did not arise. Holding the original 13 colonies and the hinterland given by the 17th century victories over France and Spain, that potential is all too clear and despite repression would probably be realized anyway, in time. And so, the British Empire in such a case must reject the principle of democracy. This may make it actually easier to maintain rule over holdings such as India or South Africa. But it will inhibit industrial development. Perhaps then the outcome would be a bit more multipolar in Europe; Britannia may rule the waves but lack the full depth of industrial power that enables her to keep her navy both numerous and up-to-date, so that rival European powers such as France or eventually Germany can aspire to compete more effectively. Meanwhile the Empire, despite having the North American population to draw on (but selectively, remembering their dubious loyalty) may have a crisis of manpower, attempting to control India and other Asian and African holdings while also dominating the restless North Americans. Perhaps slavery is never abolished, with the general repression of democratic thought and sentiments.

I think I may have seen a TL or two that explores these possibilities but I didn't like them enough to keep reading.:eek:
 
The consensus on this board seems to be that should the American Revolution fail the colonies would likely be given something roughly equivalent to our Dominion status.

Where is this opinion on consensus coming from? I've seen it pointed out that the idea of a 'Dominion' is deeply anachronistic in the context of the American Revolution and that losing the 13 colonies was actually an important step on the road to that idea. In a TL where the British win, the colonies are going to be returned to civilian government -- with a very clear and powerful Imperial influence on colonial politics in the form of appointed governors and upper houses appointed by those governors, to begin with.

Anything like the Dominions of a century hence is nonsense in the context of the time.
 
I've wondered this in a topic before, and such a thing was most likely not politically feasible in the 1770s, but would the 13 colonies have accepted something along the lines of the Scotland Act 1998 in order to avoid the revolution in the first place?

In 1775, just before the war started, the First Continental Congress held a vote sponsered by the Speaker of the Pennslyvania House of Assembly on whether to make Parliament an offer consisting of acquiescing to Parliament's right to tax them in exchange for being granted their own North American Parliament. It failed by one vote.

Now, would the North ministry have accepted this offer? Personally I'm doubtful; the taxes they were currently bringing in on the colonies were said to cost more to collect than they brought in, and Parliament was as worried about the colonies tossing out the trade laws and denying all parliamentary authority over them as they were about them not paying the taxes, which had been first implemented in 1763 and had never raised much of any money. The North ministry laid out their position in 1775 that every concession to the colonies would result in more demands until total independence was achieved, and that the Navigation Acts were in danger. Lord North himself asserted over and over that he didn't particularly want or care about the taxes over the colonies, but that he considered it extremely important to uphold them to uphold Britain's legislative authority over the colonies.

So while I don't think that that proposal's passing would have really changed anything, it's an interesting detail nonetheless.

As for something specifically along the lines of the Scotland Act, I think it would just go around in a circle over the issue of taxation if the UK parliament still upheld the continued right to legislate on all matters if Parliament so wished. The colonies already each had their own assemblies to pass laws and raise colony-wide taxes, so I don't really see how establishing a new continent-wide parliament would have really changed the issue. The issue being "Does Parliament have the right to tax the colonies?" "Does Parliament have the right to overrule the colonial legislatures on all subjects?" If the answer to that is still "Yes" then there would still be the same dispute. The key difference, I think, is that under the Scotland Act Scotland is still represented in the regular parliament.

And in the 18th century, a gradual devolution of the British empire was not on the horizon. It was pretty much an alien concept. If the 13 colonies did wind up in a Dominion-like status, I think it would have been decades later and even then only because the alternative would be a bloodbath. Then again, it's possible that in another few decades trade theory would have shifted so much (helped along by the publication of The Wealth of Nations) that parliament would have cared a lot less about the 13 colonies having an autonomous parliament. "Once the taxes fall, the Navigation Acts will be next" was repeated over and over in parliament in the 1770s. Maybe by 1830 or so nobody would care. Then again, maybe the colonies would have revolted again by then. I really can't say, there's too many uncertainties.

If you really, really want to boil it down, I think the main difference between the conflict between the 13 colonies and Britain in the 1770s and the gradual evolution of Dominion Status for countries like Canada and Australia is that by the 1830s, even British conservatives assumed that those countries would eventually become independent states [I can cite this]. They were prepared for this and were not trying to prevent it from ever happening. In a way British policymakers in 1770 were right; there was no way to give more authority to the colonial assemblies that would not move them closer to the outcome of total independence, something that they thought was insane to acquiesce to willingly.
 
Top