Imperial Federation?

Also, about the more aggressive immigration making the Dominions more populated, I have to agree with Flocc that they might not get all that more populated.

For one, it did take a certain personality to emmigrate in that era. It was not like today, where moving overseas was a plane ride or two away. Trips could take weeks and there was a good chance you might rarely or never see your family or home again. It takes a certain personality to just get up and leave.

Also, more specifically for Canada, it actually received pretty significant immigration. If it had kept those immigrants, Canada's population would probably be far higher than it was today. Unfortunately, many immigrants to Canada then moved on to the United States. There was significant population drain to the States which had far more usable land and a far larger economy.

Canada was still really nice but if someone had troubles in Canada, they were very likely to try anew in the United States instead. Someone having the same troubles in the States was more likely (some did come to Canada, but far less than us Canadians lost going the other way) to just try in a different part of the United States.

There was also no way to stop this immigration drain either.
 
This was at the heart of the entire concept of Empire- so much so to the extent that in effect Britain hung it's own agricultural sector out to dry. In the late 19th C, cheaper more plentiful agricultural imports from places like Canada and Australia totally undercut the British agricultural sector contributing to an agricultural depression, that not coincidentally pushed many farm workers off the land and into the factories. Again, the fact that these factories had the capacity to absorb the new labour due to increasing demand from the very Empire which provided the raw materials was due to the Imperial system. Promoting industrialisation in the colonies means hurting both the British agricultural and industrial sectors which is something no British government would do- it works against their interests.

The not promoting Industry in the White Dominions also became a point of contention between Canada and Britain, along with a few other reasons.

I mean, British rule wasn't perfect for Canada. There was big issue way back at the beginning of the 20th century

In 1903, Canada and the United States were having a dispute over what would end up being the Alaskan border with Canada. Canada wanted a port for the Yukon territory (due to the Gold Rush), and United States obviously just wanted as much land as their claim allowed. The whole thing went to arbitration, with a six panel dictating what the result would be. The panel was made up of 2 Canadians, 1 British lord, and 3 Americans.

Now, in all probability, the result that came out of the arbitration was the most likely one, but really shocked all of Canada was that the British Lord Alverstone voted and sided with the Americans! The British were attempting a rapprochement with the Americans, and in favour of some concessions elsewhere in South America, the British delegate was told to side with the Americans. Canada did not get that sea access for the Yukon.

Obviously Canada was shocked and angered. Not so much at the Americans, as they were expected to press their claims, but at the British, who were viewed as throwing Canada under the bus for some benefits far away from Canada.

At least in British Columbia, school textbooks are still angry about this. It was one of the wake up calls to Canada that Britain's interests were not its own.

Also it should be said, unlike the stereotype today, Quebec was the hotbed of Canadian nationalism during this era.
 
Perhaps, yes, two-tier system:

A British Commonwealth ( BC ) consisting of:

1. Concentrate the white settler colonies into expanded unitary ( but internally devolved in various degrees for practical reasons ) United Kingdom ( UK ) of England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, ... ... Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Oceania, Carribea ... ... + the white colonies of South Africa, Namibia...

UK with single Parliament, Gvt etc. in London.

and

2. Indian empire ( IE ) - to which to be given/included all the non-white lands - Africa, Papua ... ...

IE - federal state of hundreds of states, provinces and territories governed by a vice-roy appointed for 4 yrs term by the UK king after election by the IE 2-houses separate Parliament with approx. the powers of the US President.

such IE will have the power, economics and demographics to keep the African colonies and even to expand in Africa. ( per instance Congo and Portuguese Africa joining "voluntary" at some point ).

I reckon Hindustani elites would prefer to be furnished with and empire for free instead of being "independent".

BC = UK + IE = NATO like military union with joined command + EU like monetary, tax, economical union...

I guess such structure will be stable.

such BC would have both the strongest economy and the biggest population / territory in the World.
 
I don't recall that Britain itself spent a lot of effort encouraging migration in direct (as opposed to indirect) policies to the colonies/dominions much after 1850. So far as NZ was concerned, most of the immigration was privately organised, free travel, or NZ government sponsored.

It seems that the number and type of immigrants depended on economy of regional Britain and the destinations, along with the efforts of the recruiting agents. So in NZ's case, it seems that very few Welsh migrated if just due to the fact that the government never bothered to station permanent agents in Welsh regions. Whereas they did in say Kent or Cornwall, let alone Scotland or Ulster.

Anyway, time for my usual plug for Replenishing the Earth. The Settler Revolution and the Rise of the Anglo-World, 1783-1939 by James Belich.
 
It's not the most successful example of a multi-ethic state but if you compare the British empire from 1858 and the Austro-Hungarian empire from 1867, the challenges are somewhat similar. A large ethnically different unit inside a larger empire which from a population pov would dominate the single unit even if politically they are not as influential.

India Raj = Kingdom of Hungary

The British even had a similar structure (Queen of United Kingdom / Empress of India)

A dual federation of United Kingdom (and dominions) and India (and associated states as per Indian office) analagous to Austria-Hungary would founder on 19th century racism. But if that could be overcome it might remove many of the issues around a single federation

As in the case of Austria-Hungary a losing war would split the federation apart - but with a winning war the potential would be for each half of the federation to be happier together than apart.
 
It's not the most successful example of a multi-ethic state but if you compare the British empire from 1858 and the Austro-Hungarian empire from 1867, the challenges are somewhat similar. A large ethnically different unit inside a larger empire which from a population pov would dominate the single unit even if politically they are not as influential.

India Raj = Kingdom of Hungary

The British even had a similar structure (Queen of United Kingdom / Empress of India)

A dual federation of United Kingdom (and dominions) and India (and associated states as per Indian office) analagous to Austria-Hungary would founder on 19th century racism. But if that could be overcome it might remove many of the issues around a single federation

As in the case of Austria-Hungary a losing war would split the federation apart - but with a winning war the potential would be for each half of the federation to be happier together than apart.

As you mention, the racism issue is a problem for the British when dealing with India, and it really is a big issue.

While Austria might have had its fears of being dominated by Hungary, Hungary was at least still white, Catholic, and sharing a similar culture (due to proximity) to Austria. The difference between Hungary and Austria is far more equivalent to the difference between England and France rather than Britain and India.

For Britain, India is full of lots of brown people, it is not Christian, and the cultures are in many respects very different (not to mention differences in cultures within India). That is an incredibly hard pill to swallow for the British to swallow; for most British folk at the time up to World War II, accepting Indian people as equals would be the equivalent of taking a comically large suppository.:rolleyes:
 
As you mention, the racism issue is a problem for the British when dealing with India, and it really is a big issue.

While Austria might have had its fears of being dominated by Hungary, Hungary was at least still white, Catholic, and sharing a similar culture (due to proximity) to Austria. The difference between Hungary and Austria is far more equivalent to the difference between England and France rather than Britain and India.

For Britain, India is full of lots of brown people, it is not Christian, and the cultures are in many respects very different (not to mention differences in cultures within India). That is an incredibly hard pill to swallow for the British to swallow; for most British folk at the time up to World War II, accepting Indian people as equals would be the equivalent of taking a comically large suppository.:rolleyes:

I agree its a challenge - but then even Hungary wasn't equal in all senses to Austria. The Indian Empire would still be ruled by a British head of state with a British dominated (but indianising) civil service.

The crunch point would come in the late 30's and would depend upon what kind of representative body was formed in the Raj. I would suspect that an "11 state" solution inside of India (or more if Burmaa and Ceylon and East Africa are included) analagous to the format of the British Empire and its dominions. Would this be enough to defuse pan-Indian nationalism?
 
I agree its a challenge - but then even Hungary wasn't equal in all senses to Austria. The Indian Empire would still be ruled by a British head of state with a British dominated (but indianising) civil service.

The crunch point would come in the late 30's and would depend upon what kind of representative body was formed in the Raj. I would suspect that an "11 state" solution inside of India (or more if Burmaa and Ceylon and East Africa are included) analagous to the format of the British Empire and its dominions. Would this be enough to defuse pan-Indian nationalism?

Handwaving the idea that this is implemented early enough (very, very hard to imagine), say the 1870s, that gives you the generation of British educated Indian elites who IOTL were the initial core of the Indian nationalist movement being coopted into the administration and civil service of the Raj...

The problem then will be communism and other such ideologies. The masses aren't just population units- they'll be affected by various ideological issues and changes too.

IOTL the Anglicised elite were able to present themselves as valid national leaders even though they had little in common with 99% of Indians (Nehru, for example, has been called the last Englishman to rule India) with help from validly populist intermediaries such as Gandhi. ITTL, however, the elites will have been successfully co-opted which leaves the vast mass of Indian wide open for communist/radical ideology, which IOTL in India was moderated by having some voice in the wider Independence movement (with Indian communists peacefully and successfully forming amicable state governments in the Indian framework at various points after Independence). In a situation like this the Communists and other Radicals have nothing to keep them on side with the Establishment...hell you might see a [Gandhi]-analogue driven to radicalism preaching a gospel of agrarian back-to-basics just as Gandhi did, but this time with violence <shudder>

I could very well see the Indian Empire locked in an increasing insurgency in the 1930s- the Indian elite will have been used to establishment power for decades by then and will be neither willing nor able to accomodate.
 
I reckon Hindustani elites would prefer to be furnished with and empire for free instead of being "independent".

Hindustani is a vague linguistic group, not an ethnicity and not even with a single culture, certainly not covering most of India.

Plus what makes you think these elites would really be allowed a role governing this Afro-Asian Empire? and if they were see my pervious post for the problems you're going to see cropping up among the Indian masses.

Even that aside, why would Britain ever think of allowing it's prime resource-extraction regions to operate outside the control of Westminster?
 
As you mention, the racism issue is a problem for the British when dealing with India, and it really is a big issue.

While Austria might have had its fears of being dominated by Hungary, Hungary was at least still white, Catholic, and sharing a similar culture (due to proximity) to Austria. The difference between Hungary and Austria is far more equivalent to the difference between England and France rather than Britain and India.

For Britain, India is full of lots of brown people, it is not Christian, and the cultures are in many respects very different (not to mention differences in cultures within India). That is an incredibly hard pill to swallow for the British to swallow; for most British folk at the time up to World War II, accepting Indian people as equals would be the equivalent of taking a comically large suppository.:rolleyes:

Not really. Pre-WW2 most Brits were fine with people of other ethnicities as they rarely had anything to do with them. Racism in the UK is quite the post-war phenomena as significant numbers of minorities begin to appear around the country then, rather than in small isolated communities as they were before hand. Its wrong to transplant American problems onto British history. In the UK class has always been the big problem, that isn't to say Britain has always been totally colour blind to race, but it was a very different issue and not as big of a problem as you see elsewhere.

The big problem I see with India isn't race so much as India being utterly foreign and 20 times as big as the UK.
Generally I don't see India in the Imperial Federation working without making it less of a Federation and more of an EU type organisation. Britain never intended to rule India forever, it was only by fluke of history that they ended up running it in the first place. Adding India to the IF is really changing the nature of the beast from the pretty cool and nice one of uniting the British people into one country into something very un-British (in many senses of the word).

The best thing IMO would be a British IF of only the core British cultured places; the white dominions, maybe the Carribean, maybe one or two parts of Africa and then on top of that to have a better Commonwealth- perhaps with an Indian IF as a key member alongside the British IF.
 
bcukie.jpg
 
To be honest I would expect IE to manage everything in Asia (including Singapore but maybe not Hong Kong).

Africa would be a fee for all betwee nthe two entities (maybe the new colonies will be part of neither - "new colonies"?)

White dominions will be BC of course irrespective of their location
 
Perhaps, yes, two-tier system:

A British Commonwealth ( BC ) consisting of:

1. Concentrate the white settler colonies into expanded unitary ( but internally devolved in various degrees for practical reasons ) United Kingdom ( UK ) of England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, ... ... Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Oceania, Carribea ... ... + the white colonies of South Africa, Namibia...

UK with single Parliament, Gvt etc. in London.

and

2. Indian empire ( IE ) - to which to be given/included all the non-white lands - Africa, Papua ... ...

IE - federal state of hundreds of states, provinces and territories governed by a vice-roy appointed for 4 yrs term by the UK king after election by the IE 2-houses separate Parliament with approx. the powers of the US President.

such IE will have the power, economics and demographics to keep the African colonies and even to expand in Africa. ( per instance Congo and Portuguese Africa joining "voluntary" at some point ).

I reckon Hindustani elites would prefer to be furnished with and empire for free instead of being "independent".

BC = UK + IE = NATO like military union with joined command + EU like monetary, tax, economical union...

I guess such structure will be stable.

such BC would have both the strongest economy and the biggest population / territory in the World.

Try this.

Step 1, circa 1820:
as a method of dealing with internal unrest, the Governors of each white settler colony (WSC) are split into two parts: the Governorship and the Lieutenant Governorship. The Governor is appointed by the Queen and sits in the UK cabinet in London, splitting the role of "Secretary of State for the Colonies" into several people. The Lieutenant Governor is appointed by the Governor and sits in the colony capital, wielding the power of the Crown over that colony.

Step 2, circa 1840:
as a method of dealing with a desire for greater democracy, local electoral colleges (LECs) are set up in each WSC. The Lieutenant Governor is voted for by this college at regular intervals and the one with the majority is appointed Lieutenant Governor by the Governor. The Governor can fire the Lieutenant Governor if/when he wants (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis for a IRL example)

(This is how the Isle of Man is governed, by the way)

Step 3, circa 1870:
as a method for administering "responsible government", each LEC is given limited powers to scrutinise and change legislation proposed by the Lieutenant Governors. Each LEC becomes a devolved legislature.

Step 4: circa 1890:
as a method of creating "Imperial Federation", each Governor is elected by the people of each WSC. The Cabinet becomes a senate.

Steps 5-8: circa 1870-1910:
as a method for dealing with India's complaints that "this is actually pretty racist, Queeny", a similar structure is set up for the non-white bits (NWSCs).

To try and disguise the fact that this is one of the most segregated governments in history, the white bits are prefixed by "Western", the non-white bits are prefixed by "Eastern". So, we have the following structure by, say 1911

THE CROWN
  • Head of State:Victoria (if still alive at this point), Queen of the Western Realm, Empress of the Eastern Realm, Daughter of the Fifth House, Holder of the Sacred Chalice, Heiress to the Holy Rings of Betazed, whatever.

YOUR BLUE BITS ON THE MAP
  • Head of Western Imperial Government: a man appointed by Queen Victoria who can command a majority in the Western Senate
  • Western Senate. Sits in London. Made up of all the Western Governors.
  • Western Governor. Sits in London. Wields the power of the Crown in its WSC on behalf of the Queen, who can fire him at whim. Each Governor is elected by the people of its WSC
  • Western Lieutenant Governors. Sits in local capital. Appointed by the Governor on the advice of the local devolved legislature. He is the government of the WSC. He wields the power of the Crown on behalf of the Governor, who can fire him at whim.
  • Western local devolved legislature. Sits in local capital. Scrutinises and changes legislation proposed by its Lieutenant Governor.

YOUR PINK BITS ON THE MAP
  • Head of Eastern Imperial Government: a man appointed by Empress Victoria who can command a majority in the Eastern Senate
  • Eastern Senate: Sits in Delhi. Made up of all the Eastern Governors.
  • Eastern Governors. Sits in Delhi. Wields the power of the Crown in its NWSC on behalf of the Queen, who can fire him at whim. Each Governor is elected by the people of its NWSC
  • Eastern Lieutenant Governors. Sits in local capital. Appointed by the Governor on the advice of the local devolved legislature. He is the government of the NWSC. He wields the power of the Crown on behalf of the Governor, who can fire him at whim.
  • Eastern local devolved legislature. Sits in local capital. Scrutinises and changes legislation proposed by its Lieutenant Governor.

I need to point out this method of administration has obvious problems: it's structurally racist (which will eventually kill it), one side will go to war with the other eventually, and it reminds me too much of the Eastern and Western Roman Empires. But if you want a feasible way of getting to your two-imperial-government solution, there it is.
 
What if the vice regal system was a two way street where the King or Queen appoints a Governor/Governor General but in return a representive of the state/provience/country is sent to a High Council headed by the regent.
 
Top