If America remains British, can Britain rule the world?

Does Britain really care what America is doing? Honestly, one of the most plausible and interesting parts of LTTW is the Empire of America, which is part of Britain but basically does its own thing most of the time.

The problem is simple: the 19th century was a key period for the US and the UK. They can't just do their thing ignoring completely what happens in the other side of the Empire does. It's just too much: Manifest Destiny, Mexican-American War, Crimean War, consolidation of British India, Suez, colonization of Australia, South Africa, etc.

EDIT: Also, as I pointed out, tax policy is the elephant in the room in this union.
 
Would these guys care?

I did say "likely" rivals, not necessarily the enemies of Britain. However, so long as the empires have rival strategic interests in Africa, Asia, the Americas, and the Pacific, then yes, they will care what Britain, and by extension her American dominions, are doing. The American dominions would be a source of manpower and materials which would effect Britain's ability to expand her influence elsewhere.

Does Britain really care what America is doing? Honestly, one of the most plausible and interesting parts of LTTW is the Empire of America, which is part of Britain but basically does its own thing most of the time.

Yes it will. Britain was historically adverse to sharing power with its daughter colonies (which was why they only really got a voice after WWI) which means that Britain will want to keep a sharp eye on what exactly British pounds are being spent on in America. In return they would no doubt expect to be able to call on American men and material when the need arises.

Of course it was those issues which led to the split in OTL, which is why I don't find it likely that Britain could actually maintain control over this area indefinitely. A split would be unavoidable IMHO.
 
Two words: Continental system.

Well, that didn't work too effectively IRL, and I'm not sure it would be any more effective here. Plus to properly enforce it you'd need some sort of Napoleon-like leader dominating the continent, which is a situation that hasn't tended to arise too often historically, or to last very long when it did.

Other two words: Manifest destiny.

An idea which didn't really get going till the 19th century, and might therefore have been butterflied away entirely with a POD pre-1776.
 
Yes it will. Britain was historically adverse to sharing power with its daughter colonies (which was why they only really got a voice after WWI) which means that Britain will want to keep a sharp eye on what exactly British pounds are being spent on in America.

It depends on what you mean by "sharing power", I suppose. The Dominions pre-WW1 might not have had much of a say in, say, Imperial foreign policy, but they had a considerable amount of autonomy in managing their own affairs, more (I think; I could be wrong) than any other contemporary empire allowed its colonies. Plus, before the Seven Years' War Parliament didn't really interfere in the American colonies' internal management, and in the run-up to the AWI Parliament's attempts to impose its authority over the colonial legislatures were pretty controversial in Britain. So I don't think Britain will necessarily "want to keep a sharp eye on what exactly British pounds are being spent on in America".
 
Well, that didn't work too effectively IRL, and I'm not sure it would be any more effective here. Plus to properly enforce it you'd need some sort of Napoleon-like leader dominating the continent, which is a situation that hasn't tended to arise too often historically, or to last very long when it did.



An idea which didn't really get going till the 19th century, and might therefore have been butterflied away entirely with a POD pre-1776.

I wasn't suggesting that these specific events would happen ITTL, I was only citing some OTL developments to counter-argue.
 
After almost 50 years of protectionism, the US already had a well-developed industry and a continuous influx of immigrants due to the Irish Famine and the 1848 Revolutions. The liberalization was somehow a refletion of the pre-Civil War tensions. Once the South was defeated, the tariffs went up again.

It still lagged Britain. Britain became 50% urban in 1851. The US wasn't even close - it only became 25% urban in 1876. That's why the industrialist interests wanted tariffs back up in the Civil War in the first place - it's not like in the 1920s, when the US was in the global industrial core, and key business interests (e.g. Henry Ford) opposed the Smoot-Hawley tariffs.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
After the Cold War what need for all those US bases in Britain, again?

The invitation of the duly democratically elected British government, that even as an independent nation state chose to request the USAF to remain, presumably had something to do with it, correct?

Best,
 
It depends on what you mean by "sharing power", I suppose. The Dominions pre-WW1 might not have had much of a say in, say, Imperial foreign policy, but they had a considerable amount of autonomy in managing their own affairs, more (I think; I could be wrong) than any other contemporary empire allowed its colonies. Plus, before the Seven Years' War Parliament didn't really interfere in the American colonies' internal management, and in the run-up to the AWI Parliament's attempts to impose its authority over the colonial legislatures were pretty controversial in Britain. So I don't think Britain will necessarily "want to keep a sharp eye on what exactly British pounds are being spent on in America".

Hmm also true. My biggest concern I suppose is that this massive pool of manpower and raw materials would always be of supreme interest to the Empire in its wars and expansions. I'm not sure how much autonomy the British would be comfortable with them having, it would be far larger than any of the other daughter colonies that came after it.

Though perhaps they'd learn from the "First Rebellion" and attempt to adopt some kind of dominion status earlier in order to placate the colonial elite.
 
Hmm also true. My biggest concern I suppose is that this massive pool of manpower and raw materials would always be of supreme interest to the Empire in its wars and expansions. I'm not sure how much autonomy the British would be comfortable with them having, it would be far larger than any of the other daughter colonies that came after it.

Though perhaps they'd learn from the "First Rebellion" and attempt to adopt some kind of dominion status earlier in order to placate the colonial elite.

Yeah some sort of dominion-type arrangement would almost certainly be necessary. Probably with each of the Thirteen Colonies being its own dominion, to stop them forming a single bloc and unbalancing things too much.
 
Yeah some sort of dominion-type arrangement would almost certainly be necessary. Probably with each of the Thirteen Colonies being its own dominion, to stop them forming a single bloc and unbalancing things too much.

Hadn't thought of that. A divide and conquer strategy would probably be quite clever on London's part. Of course that might delay westward expansion.
 
But, why wouldn't the American dominions unite to break the balance? IOTL the Northern states surpasses the British Isles population around the 1850s.
 
But, why wouldn't the American dominions unite to break the balance? IOTL the Northern states surpasses the British Isles population around the 1850s.

Because they are mostly getting what they want without having to make any concessions to New York (though you can insert a different name there for some of the provinces or dominions as their main bugaboo). Delay does not by any means stop. The history of the British Empire may be considered a series of documents going out from London saying "That's enough chaps stop there" which are then ignored by folks on the ground including ambitious officers and administrators sent out by London. So the dominions will quietly nibble away at the local Indian (Native American) population at their own pace and if things turn nasty then a few regular battalions will be sent out to quiet the natives before things resume as before when they go home.
 
Because they are mostly getting what they want without having to make any concessions to New York (though you can insert a different name there for some of the provinces or dominions as their main bugaboo). Delay does not by any means stop. The history of the British Empire may be considered a series of documents going out from London saying "That's enough chaps stop there" which are then ignored by folks on the ground including ambitious officers and administrators sent out by London. So the dominions will quietly nibble away at the local Indian (Native American) population at their own pace and if things turn nasty then a few regular battalions will be sent out to quiet the natives before things resume as before when they go home.

Could happen for a while. I imagine though at some point, as Lampiao suggests, they will wise up and unite in order to better coordinate their own policies. Could be for reasons like expanding beyond the Appalachians, could be for or against the whole slavery issue, could be to gain more negotiating power with London. Divide and conquer won't work forever but I would bet it works for a time.

But, why wouldn't the American dominions unite to break the balance? IOTL the Northern states surpasses the British Isles population around the 1850s.

They would at some point. That would be when things get "sticky" to use some British understatement.
 
Could happen for a while. I imagine though at some point, as Lampiao suggests, they will wise up and unite in order to better coordinate their own policies. Could be for reasons like expanding beyond the Appalachians, could be for or against the whole slavery issue, could be to gain more negotiating power with London. Divide and conquer won't work forever but I would bet it works for a time.

Maybe they'd all support trans-Appalachian expansion, but beyond that I'm not sure that the differences between the colonies wouldn't prevent them uniting into a proper bloc. Heck, IOTL the differences between North and South were so great they had a massive civil war in the mid-19th century, and even if things don't get quite that out of hand ITTL, there doesn't seem any particular reason why the interests of South Carolina would generally align with those of New York or Pennsylvania any more than they would with the rest of the Empire.
 
There are some kind of physics laws that apply to geopolitics.

If you want a very big and distant group of territories to stick together, you need them to be tied together by a common sense of danger.

If an anglo-saxon empire crushingly dominated the world, then it will break into pieces, especially because individualism is very strong in anglo-saxon culture, much stronger than in other cultures.

The anglo-saxon countries never were more closely allies and united than when they faced the nazi and then soviet dangers during WW2 and the come war.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
But, why wouldn't the American dominions unite to break the balance? IOTL the Northern states surpasses the British Isles population around the 1850s.

Because the sun never sets, of course. Same reason the Argentines welcomed their new British overlords in 1806 and 1807..,

Oh, wait.

Best,
 
It still lagged Britain. Britain became 50% urban in 1851. The US wasn't even close - it only became 25% urban in 1876. That's why the industrialist interests wanted tariffs back up in the Civil War in the first place - it's not like in the 1920s, when the US was in the global industrial core, and key business interests (e.g. Henry Ford) opposed the Smoot-Hawley tariffs.

Putting aside percentages, when did the total number of Americans living in urban areas surpass those of the UK?
 
Putting aside percentages, when did the total number of Americans living in urban areas surpass those of the UK?

I'm not sure. By not long into the postwar era, the US was effectively entirely urban (and the UK had been so a few decades longer). I mean, right now both countries are about 80% urban on paper, but in practice most of the other 20% are not farmers, routinely get services from and provide services to the main cities, and may well live in towns that are close enough to major city centers to qualify as suburbs. Of note, in the Depression, 40% of the US lived in rural areas and 25% were farmers; today, it's 18% and 1.3% respectively - in other words, the proportion of farmers among nominally rural Americans has fallen from >60% to <10%.
 
At its peak, the British Empire would control a quarter of both the land and population of Earth. Even then, it wasn't even the strongest industrial power. That was the United States, their former colony. Today, that former colony is now the world's super power.

Had the 13 colonies stayed in the Empire and spread across the continent, could the added resources, population, and industrial might be enough to conquer the world?

I recall that I have an Alt History Anthology somewhere about this very thing. Britain backed off on colonies and effectively gave America Dominion status. They abolished slavery in 1830's in the American south along with the rest of the British Empire.

They eventually took much of the Spanish Empire, then China.

The short story takes place in the Crimean War where there are those seriously considering making Victoria Czarina of Russia.

Robert E. Lee is an American cavalry Colonel who effectively leads a light Brigade of southern cavalry against the Russians.
 
Top