Help required - Averted American Revolution: Britain and the world after 1800

[Ski]

A couple of months ago I came across the rather underused POD of the 1767 budget passing through the British parliament un-amended as a result of Pitt the Elder's gout not flaring up for another year or two. Over the last few months I have researched British and American politics in the late eighteenth century as well as politics and foreign relations in the same period (although not to the same extent).

Had the budget passed un-amended events unfold very much like those in 'We'll meet again' and Analytical Engine's 'Britwank Empire'. The thirteen colonies have received status similar to that of dominions in OTLs British Empire. Also in 1790 a war between Turkey and Russia balloons into a much larger global/European conflict which ends in 1800/1. Britain gains most of Spain's American colonies, Russia is defeated and France and Spain both become constitutional monarchies.

Other conclusions I made were that Pitt (the Younger), who eventually becomes PM in the mid-1780s, introduces economic and moderate political reforms, whilst also accepting many of the changes Grattan wanted for the Irish parliament (such as near full legislative independence for the Dublin parliament and eventually Catholic emancipation).

So this is all well and good. The effects of the war in Britain and the empire are my next big problem/question. Yes, during the war, Pitt introduces repressive legislation much the same as he did in OTLs Napoleonic Wars, but ITTL he lives beyond the end of the war.

Question one. Does he eventually repeal these laws (i.e Combination Laws, Libels Act, suspension of Habeas Corpus Act)?

Assumption two is Pitt recognises the short comings of his 1785 Reform Act (in OTL the 1785 Reform Bill fails) and proceeds to reform parliament further. Question two. Will this eventually lead to a split in the Tory party and is their the potential for many Liberal Tories to cross the floor to the Whigs?

Another issue I came across was that of Ireland, South America, Catholic Emancipation and George III and the Prince Regent. Another assumption I made was that the United Irishmen rebellion either doesn't occur or is far less widespread as OTL (because the war with France lacks the ideological conviction of monarchy vs republicanism as it did in OTL and also Grattan is able to extract more concessions from Pitt ITTL). So, question three is there the need for an act of union? Doubt it. So where does this leave the issue of Catholic Emancipation? Clearly it needs to come into effect sooner rather than later due to the millions of Catholics in British South America, but what of the antipathy of the British monarchy at the time?

The overriding issue behind all of these is the medium/long term effect on the British political system. Pitt's premiership depends at first on his popularity after an extremely successful war, but then after this he is once again dependent on Tory support in the House of Commons. Reforming parliament further (franchise, seat redistribution etc.), economic reforms (Pitt was interested in a lot of the literature of 1776 which included Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations) and the issue of Catholic emancipation (and the potential of a mass rebellion in South America). Tory split? Pitt and followers (Peel, Canning, Huskisson etc.) ally with the Whigs? Multi-party system (Tories, Pittites, Whigs, Radicals)?

Any help on any of the matters I have raised would be very much appreciated.

 

[Kaiphranos]

I feel like Britain is going to have a devil of a time holding on to all of South America, given both the religious and the linguistic issues involved. It might be easiest to simply give them some level of independence (though without the precedent of the American Revolution, I don't know what form this might take--maybe they'd scrape up some spare royalty if there are enough candidates, either Hanoverian or suitably pliable foreigners.)

Either way, I wonder if it might not be more logical to split it into several pieces, possibly with varying levels of control, with a goal of maintaining economic rather than direct political control of the continent.

 

[Ski]

I feel like Britain is going to have a devil of a time holding on to all of South America, given both the religious and the linguistic issues involved. It might be easiest to simply give them some level of independence (though without the precedent of the American Revolution, I don't know what form this might take--maybe they'd scrape up some spare royalty if there are enough candidates, either Hanoverian or suitably pliable foreigners.)

I'd assume that eventually the British would extend the 'dominion-like' status, the North American colonies were granted, to the South American colonies which would make the task of governing the area far easier. Catholic emancipation would almost certainly be part of the package surely?

 

[Ski]

Bump.
184 replies yet only 2 responses. Surely some of you are interested?

 

[TheKnightIrish]

Catholic emancipation is actually going to be harder while an Irish Parliament exists. The Irish Parliament was consistently and actively more anti-catholic and anti-dissenter than the Westminster Parliament - its the predominance of an Anglican Anglo-Irish aristocracy in Ireland that is immediately threatened by emancipation.

 

[Socrates]

Firstly, it's extremely unlikely that Britain would be given most of South America. If you look at the Seven Years' War, where Britain was completely dominant at the end, they still made choices as getting Quebec OR Guadeloupe. Equally Britain gave places back after the Napoleonic War. A huge colonial grab is going to unite Europe against Britain. It's simply too much to get after one war. Most likely they'd grab the most valuable part, which at this point in history would be Peru (although if Pitt the Younger follows his father's example, he might prefer the settler friendly River Plate, but he'd have to push against political consensus for this).

Secondly, the Tories aren't going to be the same entity in our timeline. The Tories were largely a party of Jacobite sympathies, anti-taxation vigour and anti-imperliasm (because it put up taxes!) and hardline monarchism that almost died out under George II. When George III came to the throne, the Tories came back into favour through an alliance with the King's friends, but they were still numerically small. They only became a proper political party again with the American Revolution and Lord North's government recruiting many Whigs who thought the colonists should do what they were bloody well told. This grouping fell back into minority status with the conclusion of the war and evolving liberal mindsets. However, as the French Revolution got nasty they recruited many moderate Whigs (e.g. Edmund Burke) to become a majority again, but by this point they were very much a party of moderate liberalism rather than outright reaction.

In this timeline, no American Revolution means that the Tories are not going to get their act together. Parliament will likely stay splintered into various factions of Whigs. Both Pitt and Canning, for instance, will be Whigs in this timeline. Peel is a fair bit later, and Irish, so butterflies will matter a lot for him. Thus there'll be no splintering of the Tory party because it hasn't grown big enough to splinter in the first place.

As for Catholic emancipation, the British would probably be willing to do it in Peru/River Plate, as they were in Quebec. The American colonists are not going to like it, but its far enough away they probably won't protest too much. Ireland will simply not be allowed to have a Catholic-controlled parliament at this point, however. It would completely destabilise Britain and New England in anti-Catholic terror that the Papists could grab control of a place so close to Britain. There would be fears they could ally with France and invade. Either emancipation will be restricted with tougher property requirements for Catholics to make sure they stay a minority, or full Catholic emancipation and Union will happen.

PS. How do you avoid a French Revolution?

 

[Faeelin]

Firstly, it's extremely unlikely that Britain would be given most of South America. If you look at the Seven Years' War, where Britain was completely dominant at the end, they still made choices as getting Quebec OR Guadeloupe.

Although Pitt wanted to grab Louisiana, Cuba, and Santo Domingo on the basis that Britain had naval supremacy, and hsould use it.

The American colonists are not going to like it, but its far enough away they probably won't protest too much.

I don't get why people repeat this. Americans didn't have a problem with Catholic Quebecers getting their rights recognized; nobody objected to Catholics in Maryland, for instance.

What they objected to was the establishment of a "Quebec" that encompassed the Ohio Country to deprive American settlers of their rights.

 

[Kaiphranos]

I don't get why people repeat this. Americans didn't have a problem with Catholic Quebecers getting their rights recognized; nobody objected to Catholics in Maryland, for instance.

I'm going to quibble a bit about this--despite its reputation, Catholics were pretty much always a minority in Maryland, and there were people who objected to them, most notably Protestants in Maryland. (Though this seems to have been less of an issue by the time the Revolution rolled around.) Quebec would presumably have had a Catholic majority at the time. Claims on the Ohio Country might have been the biggest issue, but I'm not sure it's correct to dismiss religious differences entirely.

 

[Faeelin]

I'm going to quibble a bit about this--despite its reputation, Catholics were pretty much always a minority in Maryland, and there were people who objected to them, most notably Protestants in Maryland. (Though this seems to have been less of an issue by the time the Revolution rolled around.)

Ya know, the events referenced in this article took place in the 1650s, roughly contemporaneous with the English Civil War.

 

[Grey Wolf]

I am intrigued as to why if Spain and France are the WINNERS of this European war they feel pressurised into granting representative rights and becoming a constitutional monarchy?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Kaiphranos]

Ya know, the events referenced in this article took place in the 1650s, roughly contemporaneous with the English Civil War.

Yeah, I know that. Blame it on an interest in some of the odder bits of local history...

My point is more that the toleration of a Catholic minority in Maryland does not guarantee acceptance of a Catholic majority Quebec--or South America, to get back to the original topic. (And the British colonies on the Eastern Seaboard are not going to have territorial disputes with the Plate or Peru, unlike the situation with Quebec. It'd be even less of an issue if the North and South American colonies are administered separately, I would think.)

 

[Ski]

I am intrigued as to why if Spain and France are the WINNERS of this European war they feel pressurised into granting representative rights and becoming a constitutional monarchy?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Spain and France winning? They are allies of Russia in the war against Britain so they are on the losing side.

 

[Ski]

PS. How do you avoid a French Revolution?

Thanks for all the comments, much appreciated. The French Revolution in the late 1789 is avoided because there is no American revolution and French intervention that causes the countries finances to fall into such a dire state.

However I made the assumption the underlying problems aren't going to go away. France's finances are still poor and the dislike and distrust of the absolute monarchy are still there. However I doubt a failed European war against Britain (this TL) as opposed to a war abroad to help another country gain independence that supposedly didn't concern France (OTL) would be enough to lead to such a violent revolution.

Furthermore, at the end of war with Britain France's army is huge, so the prospect of violent (republican) revolution succeeding in my opinion would be unlikely. Instead I assumed King Louis would prefer to initiate moderate reforms leading to a constitutional monarchy in order to preserve his position and kill off the popular support for the most radical republicans in France. Also the reforms in America, Ireland and also importantly the 1791 May constitution in Poland (which ITTL survives) provide clear examples how the monarchy can continue under a parliamentary arrangement.

 

[Faeelin]

My point is more that the toleration of a Catholic minority in Maryland does not guarantee acceptance of a Catholic majority Quebec--or South America, to get back to the original topic. (And the British colonies on the Eastern Seaboard are not going to have territorial disputes with the Plate or Peru, unlike the situation with Quebec. It'd be even less of an issue if the North and South American colonies are administered separately, I would think.)

Well nobody wants to move to Quebec, they want to move to Ohio, and I can't see Franklin or Hamilton ranting about an established Church in Quebec.

 

[Socrates]

Although Pitt wanted to grab Louisiana, Cuba, and Santo Domingo on the basis that Britain had naval supremacy, and hsould use it.

A fair point, but Pitt was Pitt! Also, all of them combined is not the same as the entirety of Spanish America!

I don't get why people repeat this. Americans didn't have a problem with Catholic Quebecers getting their rights recognized; nobody objected to Catholics in Maryland, for instance.

What they objected to was the establishment of a "Quebec" that encompassed the Ohio Country to deprive American settlers of their rights.

Because it's true. They objected to both things. They accepted the existence of Catholics, they just didn't want them being given political control. Congregationalist New England was a hotbed of anti-Catholicism, and there were several scares during the 18th Century that the British Government was about to enforce Papacy on them. (Yes, it's insane, but that's the religiously devout for you.)

 

[mrmandias]

I'd assume that eventually the British would extend the 'dominion-like' status, the North American colonies were granted, to the South American colonies which would make the task of governing the area far easier. Catholic emancipation would almost certainly be part of the package surely?

As sea hegemon and the already budding center of finance, Britain's interests are served better by supporting lots of smallish independent nations who can be played off against each other and that can be easily knocked over if they don't pay their debts or if they restrain free trade. Exceptions might be some limited areas with extremely high value mineral resources (Peru?) or areas that can take large scale British settlement (Argentina?).

 

[Socrates]

Thanks for all the comments, much appreciated. The French Revolution in the late 1789 is avoided because there is no American revolution and French intervention that causes the countries finances to fall into such a dire state.

A European war is going to be much, much more expensive than getting involved in America. France will run out of money sooner in this timeline.

However I doubt a failed European war against Britain (this TL) as opposed to a war abroad to help another country gain independence that supposedly didn't concern France (OTL) would be enough to lead to such a violent revolution.

Finance aside, it wasn't intervention in the ARW that caused anger at the monarchy.

Furthermore, at the end of war with Britain France's army is huge, so the prospect of violent (republican) revolution succeeding in my opinion would be unlikely.

The violence began before the republicanism. If the army aren't being paid, they will likely join the unrest.

Instead I assumed King Louis would prefer to initiate moderate reforms leading to a constitutional monarchy in order to preserve his position and kill off the popular support for the most radical republicans in France.

Places like Prussia and Austria were going the other way into Enlightened Despotism and seemed to be working just fine. I can't see the French King being persuaded by the English here. Also, what's needed first and foremost is more taxes, and you still need to explain how they're going to get past the parlements. It's not concessions to the merchants and workers that's needed to avoid breakdown, it's concessions to the nobility. And that just makes governance worse.

Also the reforms in America, Ireland and also importantly the 1791 May constitution in Poland (which ITTL survives) provide clear examples how the monarchy can continue under a parliamentary arrangement.

I don't see how these are any stronger examples than governance in Britain in our timeline. The French looked upon the uncouth English with disdain. The King is not going to abandon his power to be like them, unless there's a clear example in the other direction: absolutism leading to crisis.

 

[Ski]

A European war is going to be much, much more expensive than getting involved in America. France will run out of money sooner in this timeline.

Finance aside, it wasn't intervention in the ARW that caused anger at the monarchy.

The violence began before the republicanism. If the army aren't being paid, they will likely join the unrest.

Places like Prussia and Austria were going the other way into Enlightened Despotism and seemed to be working just fine. I can't see the French King being persuaded by the English here. Also, what's needed first and foremost is more taxes, and you still need to explain how they're going to get past the parlements. It's not concessions to the merchants and workers that's needed to avoid breakdown, it's concessions to the nobility. And that just makes governance worse.

Interesting points. When I was looking into the potential effects of the European war in the 1790s one option I weighed up was whether France would erupt into revolution during the conflict, forcing an early end to the conflict in Western Europe. Since you too agree with this I will incorporate this into the timeline.

However I am clueless to what the nature of a revolution at home and a mutiny by troops (who cannot be paid due to France's dire finances) would be if France exploded into rebellion some time between 1795 and 1798. Could you offer any help here too?

 

[Ski]

As sea hegemon and the already budding center of finance, Britain's interests are served better by supporting lots of smallish independent nations who can be played off against each other and that can be easily knocked over if they don't pay their debts or if they restrain free trade. Exceptions might be some limited areas with extremely high value mineral resources (Peru?) or areas that can take large scale British settlement (Argentina?).

Regarding the idea of preferring small and independent nations Britain can trade with, I never assumed Britain would control all of South America directly and there is the potential for the colonies to eventually receive 'dominion-like' status later on (basically independent in every sense of the word except their foreign policy and constitution is still controlled by Britain).

Both in We'll meet again and the Britwank Empire Venezuela becomes a British protectorate, beyond the legislative control of Westminster. Following the conflict in the 1790s I have Britain occupying at least New Spain, Grenada, Peru and all of the Caribbean. I can see perhaps Peru becoming a protectorate too, but would Pitt the Younger (PM) and the Duke of Leeds (foreign secretary) being willing to give up these other gains (whether handing them back to the Spanish or simply granting them independence) after such a long conflict), after all Spain and France have either descended into revolution (as Socrates argues) or have sued for peace a become constitutional monarchies?

 

[Grey Wolf]

Spain and France winning? They are allies of Russia in the war against Britain so they are on the losing side.

Oh sorry, that wasn't actually made explicit

So...Britain with its American dominions beats an alliance of RUSSIA+FRANCE+SPAIN . . .

Does it have Austria on its side? Or the other German states? Presumably the Ottomans are quite strong at this time...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf