If America retained in empire, Australia still settled by the British?

It's

Banned
If the American war of independence /"revolution" had not occurred, because of a negotiated agreement regarding devolution and expansion of representative government to the North American dominions, I.e. An amicable settlement ensuring stability of the British empire in North america, would Britain still have started new South wales? If so, what impacts would there have been on Britain's colonisation of Australia (and New Zealand, I suppose)?

One of the reasons for starting Australian settlement was the loss of the American colonies, so there was nowhere to transport convicts.

Otl pod 1775 (or thereabouts- I'll leave that to contributors with a better knowledge of American history!)

First fleet arrived in Australia in 1788, for reference.
 

It's

Banned
French ambitions and changed British ones?

The French certainly were snooping around Australia iotl before Waterloo. The names of many coastal features around The Bite attest to that.
But with British empire so much in the ascendant ITTL, would britain's priority more be on North america, with the potential riches that the continent (I.e. especially OTL future USA) had to offer, which would include removing the French and Spanish presence there?
 
The French certainly were snooping around Australia iotl before Waterloo. The names of many coastal features around The Bite attest to that.
But with British empire so much in the ascendant ITTL, would britain's priority more be on North america, with the potential riches that the continent (I.e. especially OTL future USA) had to offer, which would include removing the French and Spanish presence there?

Since the topic-maker specifically said America was retained amicably and given devolution/*responsible government, that leaves a massive pool of American troops to handle the North American theater against the French and Spanish colonies, which are far weaker than the British colonies - especially if American regiments are made to help offset the cost and resentment of British troops being stationed in the colonies.

Britain can thus put as much effort into Australia as it does OTL, especially with the classic 'we need a place to dump convicts' argument made in this kind of what-if since the Americans don't want prisoners around anymore.
 
The Americans were already agitating against convict deportation before independence. Additionally, Cook had sent a report following his voyage indicating areas suitable for colonisation.

With that is mind, I think it quite likely that the British would still ship convicts to the East coast of Australia, which would be joined by free settlers following the discovery of gold. I don't know if the British would claim the West coast though, considering the limited habitability of the area and ITTL lack of interest in the region.
 

It's

Banned
Since the topic-maker specifically said America was retained amicably and given devolution/*responsible government, that leaves a massive pool of American troops to handle the North American theater against the French and Spanish colonies, which are far weaker than the British colonies - especially if American regiments are made to help offset the cost and resentment of British troops being stationed in the colonies.

Britain can thus put as much effort into Australia as it does OTL, especially with the classic 'we need a place to dump convicts' argument made in this kind of what-if since the Americans don't want prisoners around anymore.

Thanks Umbric man.
I guess the newly independent Dominion of North America (whatever) would have eventually built up a large army if they hadn't already done so by around 1775.
But since armies are expensive, along with navies (which I understand was part of the British parliament's argument for taxing the colonists - to pitch in for the cost of the French wars), would not the North American government, rather than resenting British troops (and not regarding them as foreigners) petition for their continued presence to assist with the young nation's defence / empire wars, at least until they became strong enough themselves?
Also, a "happy family" loyal British North America might have altered Spanish priorities too - and French.
Maybe another European power would be interested in Australia if the French became pre occupied with spoiling britain's NA empire- Dutch and/ or Russian?
Just a thought.
 

It's

Banned
The Americans were already agitating against convict deportation before independence. Additionally, Cook had sent a report following his voyage indicating areas suitable for colonisation.

With that is mind, I think it quite likely that the British would still ship convicts to the East coast of Australia, which would be joined by free settlers following the discovery of gold. I don't know if the British would claim the West coast though, considering the limited habitability of the area and ITTL lack of interest in the region.

Agreed. Interesting to speculate. Dutch "white" colony to rule Dutch East indies from, anyone?
 
Thanks Umbric man.
I guess the newly independent Dominion of North America (whatever) would have eventually built up a large army if they hadn't already done so by around 1775.
But since armies are expensive, along with navies (which I understand was part of the British parliament's argument for taxing the colonists - to pitch in for the cost of the French wars), would not the North American government, rather than resenting British troops (and not regarding them as foreigners) petition for their continued presence to assist with the young nation's defence / empire wars, at least until they became strong enough themselves?
Also, a "happy family" loyal British North America might have altered Spanish priorities too - and French.
Maybe another European power would be interested in Australia if the French became pre occupied with spoiling britain's NA empire- Dutch and/ or Russian?
Just a thought.

All this is true.

British troops will definitely exist on the frontier, but you will see American regiments - more disciplined militia as regular troops are developed - be put in service alongside the British ones. That's almost just common sense, since American regiments in a ARW-less world won't be made out of 'thin air' (compared to how the Continental Army eventually developed, which is really a miracle).

But, American population will keep going on in numbers that Louisiana and Texas will also be attractive - and the settlers are plumping for them just in time for them to be taken by the *French Revolutionary Wars occur.

I can see all-Australia being claimed simply to keep another power out, especially for India's sake.
 
Top