How would British America have developed without the American Revolution?

Not necessarily, maybe the British crushed the French Navy à la Trafalgar.
That's theoretically possible, although very hard to pull off -- the French Navy was fatally weakened by the Revolution (most of the officers were noblemen, who were either guillotined or forced to flee, leaving the fleet without enough experienced men to lead it); during the American Revolution, the match-up was much more even.
 

  • Slavery would be abolished in America in 1807, like the rest of the British Empire. The South would still develop its own identity just based on geography (due to isolation) but because slavery didn't boom the way it did, there wouldn't be a conflict like OTL.
  • .
  • The overall population is much more homogenously white and Anglo-based, with some small minorities of French, Irish and German Americans, plus some black people (but much less than OTL due to the earlier abolishment of slavery), some Hispanics and some natives. However, there's unlikely to be a mass migration of Germans, Central Europeans, Italians and Scandinavians like we saw in our timeline, and Asians? Not likely, at least not in a major quantity.
But those are just my guesses, and I could be wrong. No one can say for sure. What do you think?
Slavery wouldn't be abolished in 1807 and probably not in the OTL 1830s. If the British political class is being careful enough about the American colonies to avert a revolution.

My guess is there would still be plenty of immigration. OTL London was a huge destination for immigration, so I don't see why the American part of the UK wouldn't be.
 
Last edited:

N7Buck

Banned
Puritans ceased being a distinct group by the mid-1700's at the latest. There were religious denominations in New England spiritually descended from Puritans, but all the hallmarks of their society weren't really a thing any longer and you can't talk about Puritans by this time since they had effectively ceased to exist. Also, New England had a fair amount of immigrants by this time, and even during the days of Puritanism it wasn't as if every New England colony was just like Massachusetts Bay. There were already a fair amount of Irish coming over to the region by the 1700's for example.
I'm aware of their splintering, but they were their own specific denominations, and wouldn't want to lose their dominance. Because all these puritan splinter groups hated each other, and that would also apply to other religions, such as Anglicans and Catholics.
In New England, conservative naturalization policies kept that part of the country more English than other parts of the colonies would later become. For example, in the early 1700s, Massachusetts required any ship entering its ports to provide a passenger list, and later prohibited the importation of poor, infirm or vicious people.
I have read that the New England colonies were around 90% English or British.
@mrmandias
My guess is there would still be plenty of immigration. OTL London was a huge destination for immigration, so I don't see why the American part of the UK wouldn't be.
The migration London got was not comparable to New York.
 
@N7Buck fair. I just see most of the drivers for American immigration being economic, which I don't think would substantially change in TTL. I see immigration being substantially the same until possibly late into the 19th C., when great power politics may start to affect things. (e.g., I can see BNA clamping down on German immigration once Germany becomes a noted danger. Conversely I can see Germany trying harder to channel emigration elsewhere if the emigration is seen as directly strengthening a rival.)
 
Last edited:
How much immigration was there to Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and where did it come from? That might give us a clue as to migration patterns into a British North America.
 
Probably more and earlier immigration. Why? BNA/the dominion of america would have an economy that wasn't set back from independence for decades the way OTL's post-revolutionary US was.
 
I'm aware of their splintering, but they were their own specific denominations, and wouldn't want to lose their dominance. Because all these puritan splinter groups hated each other, and that would also apply to other religions, such as Anglicans and Catholics.
Yes, they hated each other and so fought viciously in politics. They're not going to ally to push nativistic policies, any more than they did IOTL.
 

N7Buck

Banned
Yes, they hated each other and so fought viciously in politics. They're not going to ally to push nativistic policies, any more than they did IOTL.
They don't have to ally to push nativism, just have their own natvism, as they did otl. And without a central government (otl US federal), they can maintain their own immigration policy.
 

N7Buck

Banned
How much immigration was there to Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and where did it come from? That might give us a clue as to migration patterns into a British North America.
British Australasia was 98% Anglo-Celtic, so all the immigration came from the Isles.
Migration patterns have to be examined, to understand the reasonings and environment. For example, the Ukrainian migration to the Canadian Pairies was to keep Americans from becoming the majority in that region.
 
They don't have to ally to push nativism, just have their own natvism, as they did otl.
This is a contradiction in terms. What do you think "have their own nativism" means except that they're allying to push a common nativistic vision? The "early 1700s" in your quote is significant, because the Puritans and their churches were comparatively unified and dominant at that time, and began to splinter and conflict slightly later on. You also fail to note that by the mid to late 18th century the Puritan-derived churches were under quite a lot of pressure due to the aftereffects of the First Great Awakening (in the mid-18th century), which created a considerable degree of both internal and external pressure that would distract them from maintaining any strictly nativist policies. This culminated, of course, in the total collapse of the state churches during the first quarter of the 19th century and their universal disestablishment. This was somewhat influenced by the formation of the United States, of course, but only somewhat, as it was also an expression of broader social and cultural forces that would still be operative if the colonies were still under the British crown.

And without a central government (otl US federal), they can maintain their own immigration policy.
It's far from clear that there won't be a central government of some kind or another, even if it's just London setting down rules. Indeed, your own link points out that London started setting common immigration policy in the 1740s, and some of the PoDs proposed in the thread, like a more successful Albany Plan, directly involve the formation of a unified colonial government of some kind. Given that the other colonies were desperate for immigrants to fill labor shortages, it is probable that any centrally-directed laws will be more liberal and will force New England to be relatively liberal, as IOTL.

British Australasia was 98% Anglo-Celtic, so all the immigration came from the Isles.
Migration patterns have to be examined, to understand the reasonings and environment. For example, the Ukrainian migration to the Canadian Pairies was to keep Americans from becoming the majority in that region.
On the other hand, now there are other strategic reasons to attract immigrants, mainly to populate areas that would otherwise be basically empty of anyone except American Indians (whom the British and certainly the colonials probably wouldn't think much of). So, yes, migration patterns need to be examined...and there are reasons for more as well as less immigration than seen IOTL.
 
One interesting thing with immigration is you might see far more Asian immigration in the late 19th to early 20th century. The pacific coast will likely be underpopulated still at that time and unlikely to be under the control of any powerful local government. If the British back in London are setting immigration policy I think a Chinese Exclusion Act is a bit less likely. You could also easily see cheap labor imported from India and SE Asia.

One major issue with determining what happens down the line with BNA is that it'll be highly dependent on the rest of the British Empire and the world. 1775-1825 was a time of major changes, affected in no small way by the American Revolution. There's no guarantees you get the same, if any, French Revolution, which in turn massively impacts the possibility of an alt-Napoleonic Wars period, which led to huge growth for Prussia, major realignments in Scandinavia, the establishment of Belgium, huge realignments in colonial empires both in terms of Britain snatching up colonies, the Spanish losing control of theirs, and Brazil rising in power with the Portuguese throne moving there. Without the loss of most of BNA settlement in Australia and New Zealand probably takes somewhat of a back seat.
 

N7Buck

Banned
This is a contradiction in terms. What do you think "have their own nativism" means except that they're allying to push a common nativistic vision? The "early 1700s" in your quote is significant, because the Puritans and their churches were comparatively unified and dominant at that time, and began to splinter and conflict slightly later on. You also fail to note that by the mid to late 18th century the Puritan-derived churches were under quite a lot of pressure due to the aftereffects of the First Great Awakening (in the mid-18th century), which created a considerable degree of both internal and external pressure that would distract them from maintaining any strictly nativist policies. This culminated, of course, in the total collapse of the state churches during the first quarter of the 19th century and their universal disestablishment. This was somewhat influenced by the formation of the United States, of course, but only somewhat, as it was also an expression of broader social and cultural forces that would still be operative if the colonies were still under the British crown.
Why would all these specific puritan splinters want to be turned in religious minorities, which would cause them to lose social and political power.
It's far from clear that there won't be a central government of some kind or another, even if it's just London setting down rules. Indeed, your own link points out that London started setting common immigration policy in the 1740s,
That was to set a consistant standard of naturalisation. It was still up to the colonies on whether to accept migration.
and some of the PoDs proposed in the thread, like a more successful Albany Plan, directly involve the formation of a unified colonial government of some kind
Albany and Galloway plan would just unite American interests against British interests, which wouldn't be in Britain's favor, nor would colonies want to give up their identities for no reason.
. Given that the other colonies were desperate for immigrants to fill labor shortages,
Well Australasia wasn't considering it's lower amount of migration, nor was large amounts of the US. Labour shortages generally just mean industrialists want cheap labour.
it is probable that any centrally-directed laws will be more liberal and will force New England to be relatively liberal, as IOTL.
How is London going to exert power over an autonmous community that want's to be left alone, such as Statutory Neglect.
On the other hand, now there are other strategic reasons to attract immigrants, mainly to populate areas that would otherwise be basically empty of anyone except American Indians (whom the British and certainly the colonials probably wouldn't think much of). So, yes, migration patterns need to be examined...and there are reasons for more as well as less immigration than seen IOTL.
There is also the fundemantal issue of, a majority non-British empire would not want to be part of the British empire. Quebec or the Boers did not want to be under British rule.
 

N7Buck

Banned
One interesting thing with immigration is you might see far more Asian immigration in the late 19th to early 20th century. The pacific coast will likely be underpopulated still at that time and unlikely to be under the control of any powerful local government. If the British back in London are setting immigration policy I think a Chinese Exclusion Act is a bit less likely. You could also easily see cheap labor imported from India and SE Asia.
As soon as the weast coast was aquired by otl US, hundreds of thousands of Americans moved into the terriotry, they would have control over their colony, and wish to limit cheap labour similar to Australia.
 
Slavery wouldn't be abolished in 1807 and probably not in the OTL 1830s. If the British political class is being careful enough about the American colonies to avert a revolution.
Not exactly. The reason Britain abolished slavery was because it was already becoming unnecessary due to industrialization. It would be abolished because why not? (we have an American Civil War in British North America I guess).
 
Why would all these specific puritan splinters want to be turned in religious minorities, which would cause them to lose social and political power.
They were already religious minorities (in the sense that no one of them could claim to form a majority or even a plurality of their colonies) that were shrinking for autocthonic reasons, quite aside from any immigration. In the run-up to the American Revolution, many non-Puritan religious groups such as Anglicans were already growing into quite substantial demographic groups in New England, while the Puritan-derived groups were being eaten at from below by what were effectively new religious movements like the Baptists. This is essentially baked-in by the 1760s and 1770s.

That was to set a consistant standard of naturalisation. It was still up to the colonies on whether to accept migration.
But this effectively takes away the ability of the colonies to decide that, for exactly the same reason that federal control over naturalization did. Even if Massachusetts decides not to accept migrants, New York can, and then naturalized citizens of New York can legally migrate to Boston and there's nothing at all that Boston itself can do to stop them without breaking the fundamental principle that the colonies allow any British citizen to reside there.

Albany and Galloway plan would just unite American interests against British interests, which wouldn't be in Britain's favor, nor would colonies want to give up their identities for no reason.
A unified government would hardly mean "giving up their identities," much less doing it for "no reason" given the utility of a common governance structure to address common problems to the colonies. It is significant that the idea of a unified government repeatedly arose between the Seven Years War and the Revolutionary War and gained more and more support over time until finally the United States formed. Clearly there was a perception--small at first but growing over time--that common institutions were needed to solve common problems.

As for the British, it is certainly much more in their interests to have America unified but in their general sphere and subject to Britain in a loose way than to have them independent and not necessarily friendly. Any kind of resolution of the British-American conflicts between the Seven Years War and the Revolutionary War needs to find some kind of via media between total independence and complete subjugation to the British Parliament, since the latter was unacceptable to the colonists and would be extremely difficult to practically enforce and the former, of course, is simply OTL. That probably means some degree of consolidation of colonial governments, even if not necessarily into a single government, so that the colonies are more subject to representatives from the colonies than to members of Parliament in London who have never even been near America. If Parliament is not able to recognize this then it will not be able to avoid a Revolutionary War.

In any case, I was merely pointing out that this had been advanced as a proposal and your comments did not address it at all.

Well Australasia wasn't considering it's lower amount of migration, nor was large amounts of the US. Labour shortages generally just mean industrialists want cheap labour.
Yes, and? Industrialists are politically powerful and have large influence over policy. Additionally, there's a difference between a labor shortage and a labor shortage; given the land area of the future United States, there were just not enough people to go around to fulfill many tasks, not just industrial ones, which was something that was rightly noted in many colonies before the Revolutionary War and addressed partially through attempts to import many immigrants. Australia, by contrast, is largely desert and considerably less suited for dense settlement, in addition to being much farther from Europe. It is not a very good point of comparison. By comparison Canada attracted a large number of immigrants from both British and non-British backgrounds.

How is London going to exert power over an autonmous community that want's to be left alone, such as Statutory Neglect.
Presumably through the fact that they are the supreme law-making body in the Empire and control the courts and the army, just the same way that the federal government did IOTL. In practice, the Revolutionary War stemmed from a collision between Parliamentary attempts to increase central control over the colonies and make them pay more in revenue and colonial desires to be left alone to direct their own policy. As I said, some type of middle ground needs to be found between total subjugation and total independence. While this might mean that London has limited power over this "autonomous community," it will definitely have some power (or we've just gone back to OTL and the whole exercise was pointless).

There is also the fundemantal issue of, a majority non-British empire would not want to be part of the British empire. Quebec or the Boers did not want to be under British rule.
And yet Quebec was actually rather placid through most of Canada's history as part of the British Empire. And you are assuming that immigrants will not assimilate into the local population (as happened historically in Canada) and that attracting groups such as the Doukhobors, Mennonites, and Hutterites for strategic reasons to frontier areas means a "majority non-British" empire somehow.
 
  • The rise of the anti-slavery movement in Britain was in part a result of the moral re-evaluation Britain conducted after losing the American Revolution.
    • While it's death in the 19th century is near-inevitable, a continent-spanning buyback seems unlikely - gradual emancipation seems more feasible at that scale.
    • Indian migrant labor could be an option for a cheap labor source in post-slavery Dixie, as it was in the West Indies.
  • If the Revolution is averted most of the initial colonies do not move their capitals inland.
  • The Great Lakes will likely be more developed, with earlier Niagara canals.
    • A Champlain-Richilieu canal will probably be more important for a British New York than an Erie Canal.
    • Montreal seems the more likely candidate as an initial port city for 19th century European mass immigration.
    • New York is probably the biggest loser compared to OTL - it's still a major financial center but by no means paramount as it is IOTL. It will probably be a lot smaller without an Ellis Island type surge. But its origin as a Dutch colony gives it a culture of tolerance that will make for an interesting milieu compared to Puritanical Boston, Quaker Philadelphia, or a Montreal mired in Anglo-Quebecois tension.
  • Quebec is actually more French without the United Empire Loyalists. Given the seigneurial system I'm not sure that French settlement extends much further west than OTL. The Ontario peninsula is certainly much more recognizably Yankee (meaning New England) without any pressure to get post-Revolutionary War settlers there to prevent Americanization.
  • Australia's settlement is delayed as penal settlers can still be pushed to the southern American frontier (Florida seems a likely target assuming its retained from the 1763 Treaty of Paris).
    • I don't know if any other country has the will to settle it though by this POD, so it seems British by default (and with more of a purpose if they don't pick up the Cape during the Napoleonic Wars...)
  • Britain will only be able to prevent industrialization for so long - I think at some point they will recognize it's potential value for the Empire and British capital will flow just as it did IOTL..
  • Given the short history of the United States major cities inevitably reflect geographically optimal settlement for the technological capacity at the time. Chicago is an inevitably large city given it's short portage between Lake Michigan and the Mississippi River system - even if it doesn't also end up a rail hub which, frankly seems unlikely.
    • Detroit might be better off if we see a more developed St. Lawrence Seaway, since political tension between the US and Canada was the major factor that delayed it. Could we see a Suezmax/Neopanamax-equivalent St. Lawrence Seaway ITTL's 2000?
 
Last edited:

N7Buck

Banned
They were already religious minorities (in the sense that no one of them could claim to form a majority or even a plurality of their colonies) that were shrinking for autocthonic reasons, quite aside from any immigration. In the run-up to the American Revolution, many non-Puritan religious groups such as Anglicans were already growing into quite substantial demographic groups in New England, while the Puritan-derived groups were being eaten at from below by what were effectively new religious movements like the Baptists. This is essentially baked-in by the 1760s and 1770s.
Your are probably right about the Puritan splinters, my knowledge on the subject is very limited. I always thought the new religious movements and awakening mostly affected the South.
But this effectively takes away the ability of the colonies to decide that, for exactly the same reason that federal control over naturalization did. Even if Massachusetts decides not to accept migrants, New York can, and then naturalized citizens of New York can legally migrate to Boston and there's nothing at all that Boston itself can do to stop them without breaking the fundamental principle that the colonies allow any British citizen to reside there.
Britain seemed to be defining the standard more, than actually doing the naturalisation. On the ground where Britain had little presence, it was the colonial administrations giving people Denizen status, that only had affect within that colony.
A unified government would hardly mean "giving up their identities," much less doing it for "no reason" given the utility of a common governance structure to address common problems to the colonies. It is significant that the idea of a unified government repeatedly arose between the Seven Years War and the Revolutionary War and gained more and more support over time until finally the United States formed. Clearly there was a perception--small at first but growing over time--that common institutions were needed to solve common problems.
US states fought skirmishes against each other over little contested lands, and colonies contested lands. So Colonial and State identity was significant.
Why would Massachutes want be governed by New York and Virginia? What common interest do they have without an ARW. And during the 7YW they had a unifiying cause, there is no cause once the French are kicked out of North America, and Britain avoids the ARW.
As for the British, it is certainly much more in their interests to have America unified but in their general sphere and subject to Britain in a loose way than to have them independent and not necessarily friendly.
Having the colonies be separate is far more favorable to the British, as it can play American interests of each other, and maintain a strong presence. Any unified American colonial state would largely replace Britain's role in the colonies.
Any kind of resolution of the British-American conflicts between the Seven Years War and the Revolutionary War needs to find some kind of via media between total independence and complete subjugation to the British Parliament, since the latter was unacceptable to the colonists and would be extremely difficult to practically enforce and the former, of course, is simply OTL. That probably means some degree of consolidation of colonial governments, even if not necessarily into a single government
I do think the colonies would be consolidated based on regions.
so that the colonies are more subject to representatives from the colonies than to members of Parliament in London who have never even been near America. If Parliament is not able to recognize this then it will not be able to avoid a Revolutionary War.
The options Britain had to keep the colonies, was status quo (defacto large autonomy), more autonomy or full integration. So if the Whigs are in charge post-7YW, Statutory Neglect will remain in place largely. The likelihood of representation for the colonies seems so bleak, as many areas with Britain lacked representation.
Yes, and? Industrialists are politically powerful and have large influence over policy.
Colonists had a lot of power compared to European democracies.
Additionally, there's a difference between a labor shortage and a labor shortage; given the land area of the future United States, there were just not enough people to go around to fulfill many tasks, not just industrial ones, which was something that was rightly noted in many colonies before the Revolutionary War and addressed partially through attempts to import many immigrants.

Australia, by contrast, is largely desert and considerably less suited for dense settlement, in addition to being much farther from Europe. It is not a very good point of comparison. By comparison Canada attracted a large number of immigrants from both British and non-British backgrounds.

Presumably through the fact that they are the supreme law-making body in the Empire and control the courts and the army, just the same way that the federal government did IOTL. In practice, the Revolutionary War stemmed from a collision between Parliamentary attempts to increase central control over the colonies and make them pay more in revenue and colonial desires to be left alone to direct their own policy. As I said, some type of middle ground needs to be found between total subjugation and total independence. While this might mean that London has limited power over this "autonomous community," it will definitely have some power (or we've just gone back to OTL and the whole exercise was pointless).
I agree.
And yet Quebec was actually rather placid through most of Canada's history as part of the British Empire.
Well they generally opposed many policies that were pro-imperial.
And you are assuming that immigrants will not assimilate into the local population (as happened historically in Canada) and that attracting groups such as the Doukhobors, Mennonites, and Hutterites for strategic reasons to frontier areas means a "majority non-British" empire somehow.
Otl American immigration was far larger than Canadian.
 
Last edited:
Before the revolution the colonies were divided into three areas, the southern colonies Maryland to Georgia, the middle colonies Delaware to New York and the New England colonies. So there could be a revolt but say John Adams cuts a deal with Britain so the New England colonies stay out so basically it is just the southern colonies. The French could support the rebels with money stressing their economy and leading to their own revolution at sometime in the future. The southern colonies once beaten would be under martial law for a period so not a good idea to send convict there for the time being so the colonization of Australia still happens. Plantations are confiscated from those involved it the revolt and given to loyalist supporters, the slaves are technically freed but as they are an essential part of the running of a plantation become more serf like or indentured labour.
 
It tends to be rather forgotten now, but originally the Colonial Americans considered themselves citizens of the British Empire and were proud of it, with their argument Britain originally being to get better represented in the Empire, rather than being independent because that was radical back then. "No taxation without representation", as they say. However, because King George was unreasonable to say the least, America instead went on the path of independence and the rest is history.

It does make me wonder: How would British America have developed over time if it stayed British and the United States never became a thing? Let's say they either had a different, more reasonable king at the time who was more pragmatic and listened to them, or we just give King George a more clear, stable personality. I'm not too focused on that part, but on what comes after.
There are two ways for a longer-lived British America: butterflying away the ARW/resolving it with compromise and Britain winning the ARW. Obviously the situation you present implies the first one.

Some points:
  • British America would be absolutely massive. It would encompass the Continental United States and Canada, as well as territories like Bermuda, the Bahamas, Jamaica and the Virgin Islands. However, it wouldn't include Alaska (which would remain Russian) or Hawaii (considered separate). Hell, it could even be more land, as I can see Britain taking more from Mexico or in the Caribbean, but that's besides the point.
I can definitely see British America getting Alaska out of some alternate Crimean War. In fact part of the reason Russia sold it was to keep it out of British hands.[QUOTE
  • The main cities would be New York (financial center), Philadelphia (political capital), Boston (port city), Halifax (also a port city), Detroit (or whatever it's called here; industrial center), Vancouver (Northern Pacific port city), and Los Angeles (likely has a different name; West Coast port city), and Kingston (Caribbean center).
    ...
  • Many cities are butterflied away, like San Diego, Phoenix, Seattle, Topeka, much of Texas, and so on. That said, we could expect new cities to emerge in westward expansion, many of which at roughly the same strategic areas.
I'm not sure Vancouver would replace Seattle, though there would likely be a large city or group of cities in the Salish Sea area. You might even see twin or triplet cities.
[*]Much of the north that makes up OTL's Canada would be underpopulated, since you wouldn't see mass migration of Loyalists up there, and instead the population would largely settle in small pockets of land, the rest being a resource well/buffer between them and Russia.
Although there would be no mass migration of loyalists, there were plenty of settlers other than loyalists, even if we only focus on the Anglophones. Anglophone settlement of the area would be slower, and we might see a more bilingual Ontario, but I think it would still have a 21st century population comparable to OTL. There's good farmland, and the geography of the Great Lakes means trade will favor placing major cities in Ontario.
[*]Slavery would be abolished in America in 1807, like the rest of the British Empire. The South would still develop its own identity just based on geography (due to isolation) but because slavery didn't boom the way it did, there wouldn't be a conflict like OTL.
[*]The overall population is much more homogenously white and Anglo-based, with some small minorities of French, Irish and German Americans, plus some black people (but much less than OTL due to the earlier abolishment of slavery), some Hispanics and some natives. However, there's unlikely to be a mass migration of Germans, Central Europeans, Italians and Scandinavians like we saw in our timeline, and Asians? Not likely, at least not in a major quantity.
Congress banned the importation of slaves in the early 19th century. So I don't think this would have much of an effect on the size of the black population. Britain only banned savery throughout the empire in the 1830s. given that this involved paying compensation to slave-holders, doing so would be more expensive in the ATL because this would include the American South. I think it would still happen but it might be delayed until the 1840s or 1850s.
[*]America's architecture would look quite different, and likely more akin to Britain's cities than the traditional American ones. I can just imagine cities like Los Angeles as looking more traditionally European than what we know.
Many of the "traditionally" European parts are quite old (or are reconstructions of old buildings destroyed in the World Wars).
[*]Overall, culture would be at a middle ground between the traditional American from OTL and British overall. British America would still have a different overall culture just due to nature (being in its own land with different circumstances has that effect), the fact that Britain is still the dominant force will still be highly influential.
I think the northern provinces/states/colonies wouldn't be that different aside from perhaps a larger portion of Francophones in Ontario. People in "Canada" wouldn't have an identity based on not being American and although they'd still favor liberal democracy "Americans" probably wouldn't have quite as much fixation with freedom including the strong anti-colonial streak
Britain was never fond of settler uncontrolled expansion over Native lands as it would create all sorts of problems for them.
That didn't stop Australia, although granted Australia's interior is much more sparsely populated. I think the amount of OTL USA that gets incorporated depends on how things go with Spain, assuming the POD is after the French and Indian War. Yes, British attempts to limit westward settlement were a major factor in the ARW, but I don't see those limits lasting. Britain had no problem with settlers displacing indigenous people in Canada, Australia, or New Zealand.
 
Top