Dominion of the United States/North America: A Possibility or No????

I was reading IchBinDieKaiser’s A Long and Flowing Whig (hopefully some of you have read it)and reading this certain post and i had a crazy idea. Regarding what happened with Canada/Albion in this post,
"In September of 1876, the British Parliament passed the Albion Hemisphere Act. The act allowed Albion to conduct its own foreign policy, as long as it was only with nations in the Americas. Albion would not be allowed to make its own foreign policy regarding European nations.
Is it possible for the United States (with Canada if possible) to remain part of the British Empire/Dominion with the way that it is now. With certain tweaks of course throughout its history.
A certain amount of independence from the Britain would obviously apply with regards to their own domestic affairs, especially if crisis's such as the Civil War and War with Mexico (and the expansion across North America)happen to occur in a same but different manner

Is something like this possible?
 
Alaska cost the U.S. $7,200,000. Plus there were the many millions awarded to the U.S. for the British violating neutrality laws. Plus the Dominion thing seems unlikely. I see no explanation for why California is split either.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
A certain amount of independence from the Britain would obviously apply with regards to their own domestic affairs, especially if crisis's such as the Civil War and War with Mexico (and the expansion across North America)happen to occur in a same but different manner

Is something like this possible?

No; you're assuming the US would have the same history while completely changing a ridiculously fundamental aspect of it
1 - The Dominion of Canada only happened because a) Quebec and Ontario (and in this scenario, the very existence of Ontario (and New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island) as separate colonies is doubtful) wanted it and b) Britain was relatively aware that overseas administration was a money sink and that the provinces, on their own, wouldn't be able to defend themselves - British North America in this timeline would probably be multiple dominions by the 20th century.
2 - Foreign military adventurism is not domestic affairs. They'd be lucky to even get Louisiana.
3 - The British spent the first half of the 19th century competing with France over influence in the American republics. A bunch of moronic colonials attacking one of the most important of the lot does nothing to help.
4 - There will be no civil war, or at least nothing on the scale of OTL; and yes, Britain will send troops. They sent 10,000 people to deal with not even one thousand rebels in Upper and Lower Canada in 1837. But by the mid 30s to the 40s, Slavery is out, and the deep south can do fuck all about it.
5 - British colonies had far lower immigration than the United States (on par with the latin countries), as the masses yearning to be free did not, in fact, yearn to learn the lyrics to God Save the Queen, no matter how much the Rule, Britannia crowd on this board wishes this were true; expect the 48ers to show up in places like Colombia and Mexico, to the advantage of Latin America. The lack of a Mexican-American war could also probably butterfly away Santa Anna's presidencies, largely. Northern Mexico will probably eventually secede, or try to, however, but this is not necessary (and I don't just mean the parts that are in the US today).
6 - Alaska is russian and the only time it may have become British led to a horribly bungled up attempt against the Russian far east instead; Russia is unlikely to sell to Britain.

I'm sure other points will be raised but yeah.

It's like the worst aspects of Britwank and butterfly slaughter rolled in one.
 
Last edited:
If the OP is assuming that the AWI/ARW does not happen then I'm not sure all the stipulated objections work - after all, slavery is not definitely dead if the planters in the South remain British subjects.

I would have thought that creating a dominion out of the N American colonies is more likely than not down the line, especially as technology develops and pulls them together. After all in OTL that's what happened in Canada and Australia.

In the 1770s it would have been seen as a royal imposition to try and impose an over-arcing ruler such as a viceroy. Fifty years later after a very different history (no ARW could result in no French Revolution and thus no Napoleon) it may well be seen as an initiative to give advantages to the Americas - as it was seen by many in Canada, and later Australia

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Top