What would it mean for native Americans if the British kept control?

frankly, they'd probably still be shafted like IOTL :(

It really does depend on the circumstances. "Shafted" does leave a rather large range of circumstances. It could be that they are treated akin to OTL, or more like the Maori (Who were admittedly swindled. Still bad, but better), or the Canadian First nations (who have some interesting taxation laws there).

I mean, my scenario created a situation where the Crown and Parliaments were in conflict where for all intents and purposes, the Native Americans were treated as a foreign entity and could have been granted citizenship with positions in the House of Lords. Importantly with British Law - is how the first incident is handled. If the British Empire went to work on an alt-trail of tears? Then this is the start of OTL all over again - but if that first circumstance is made complicated (i.e. who has the authority to do such a thing?) Then we can have a better timeline.
 
I think Native peoples would continue to be "shafted," but not quite exactly like OTL. As RougeTraderEnthusiast says, it will depend on circumstances; some peoples will be wiped out as ruthlessly as the USA ever did (which rarely results in the total death of all people in a tribe unless it is a tiny band, but does end in cultural genocide as the few remnants of a group intermarry and thus are stricken from the count of the group's survival, and their distinctive culture is pretty much forgotten) but others will get a considerably better deal.

I believe that the prohibition placed on colonists moving west over the Appalachians was one of the major drivers of the rise in popularity of revolutionary sentiment. And that some leading British authorities had the impression, which I would say is correct, that the perception that anyone could always abandon their position in the eastern settled parts and go west to the frontier to try again was a major cause of what looked to them like indiscipline and disrespect for class hierarchy, indeed for any accountability to the larger British system at all. Restricting British American colonists from expanding farther west was in fact recommended policy of some officials put in charge of trying to retain American territory; the hope was that then they'd come around to a more properly British respect of appropriate stations.

This is in fact the largest single reason why I believe conflict was inevitable and would happen very soon, not being postponable by many years let alone avoidable. It was against leading British interests to allow either of the two major paths by which British American colonists could get rich--expansion onto new territory, or entrepreneurial competition on an equal basis with British-based enterprises. The third path--prosperity by agricultural enterprise that is complimentary to British production, producing crops that cannot be grown in Britain, was supposed to be the first and only way according to colonial theory, and could make someone quite rich--but with the expansion of settler territory checked, this benefits only the few who happen to already own the most suitable land. Thus the drift of British policy for the north American colonies was to impose an aristocracy characterized by dependency on Britain, and to stunt the economic growth prospects of all others. This is what Americans were so angry about. And the British perception that simply letting the colonists do what they wanted to would surely lead to more insolence, more democratic loss of deference, and money-losing conflicts of interest was also correct.

I believe George III also very sincerely felt he had a moral and indeed legal obligation to protect the interests of those Native peoples who had submitted to his rule. Their and his negotiators had made a solemn treaty with each other and Britain had to uphold its side of it in order to retain basic credibility. It was plain to anyone by then that unchecked interactions between settlers and Native people always led to great grief for the latter. A blanket prohibition on settlers entering the region where substantial Native tribes still survived was necessary to protect them even if it had not also been recommended to hem in colonial expansionism anyway. To be sure also, particular British interests, such as fur traders wishing to operate along the same sort of lines as the French had, or the Hudson Bay company did, recruiting Native people to bring in the goods to trading posts, also existed or wished to exist, and had the ear of British governing circles too.

So, with the conflict inevitable, the only way Britain preserves sovereign control of BNA is to win the Revolutionary War, or rather in the language of the ATL, quash the insurrection and keep order. Since this will be a major hurdle, the investment of military repression will be large and will leave much resentment behind, therefore the major point of contention, the freedom of colonists to expand west (and engage in productive enterprises such as factories or world-wide merchant shipping as nominal Britons) versus the imperial interest of Britain to keep them in a subservient, useful but not threatening status, would be sharply outlined, and the imperial side will have won. Furthermore, the Indians (to use contemporary terms) will have sided with the Crown against the colonists. The Crown now owes them an even greater obligation, and lest the King's men be tempted to forget it, needs them still to help hold resentful colonials in check. It was after all British policy after conceding defeat and recognizing the USA in OTL to continue to try to check American ambitions by supporting the Indians in the territory between the Mississippi and Appalachians they had legally conceded to the USA in insurrection against Americans OTL, a major issue leading to and in the prosecution of the War of 1812. ITTL with Rebel pretensions to self-government crushed and Britain's and the Crown's rule prevailing all across the territory to the Atlantic, surely the Crown will act to protect Indian interests, and prioritize only those enterprises that do not conflict with Indian interests, such as a fur-trading monopoly. The Indians for their part will quickly come to recognize the Crown as their advocate versus rapacious colonials, and sound the alarm should any disgruntled would-be revolutionaries decide to defy the law and pull off wildcat settlements comparable to the South African Voortrekkers.

Now in the long run, the Indian position in the west would continue to deteriorate despite major advantages over OTL. Eurasian diseases will continue to devastate them; with the best will in the world 18th and 19th century European medical "science," such as it was, would hardly be able to do much to help them. The main protection would be isolation, but a certain degree of contact is necessary to preserve their status as Crown subjects and supporters. Therefore peoples once numerous enough to effectively occupy vast territories (especially with the support of British armies) would melt away to remnants, and large tracts of land would appear to be completely vacant. Versus the colonists the Crown needs the Indians, but they are declining, whereas the basic greed that led to the original foundation of the colonies in the first place remains in place, all the hungrier as industrial development proceeds in Britain. Sooner or later, the Crown will permit carefully vetted colonists to move into the West, and negotiate the withdrawal of even strong and closely allied and somewhat assimilated Indian peoples into more compact territories sized for their diminished population. The west will become a patchwork of British settlements (largely drawn from colonial Americans, despite the desire to Anglicize them for maximum loyalty and control--after all, about as many Americans were Loyalist/Tory as Rebel/Patriot OTL, with another third of the population trying to sit it out with as little commitment to one side or the other as possible, so despite added resentments in the wake of harsh British measures after winning the war, a lot of American colonials will be of proved loyalty to the Crown too), largely assimilated Native territories that probably will have a lot of European settlers among them, and more xenophobic tribal territories attempting to live more or less traditionally. These latter will be in a weak position on several grounds and tend to give way to settlers or the more engaged tribes.

I think there might be an interesting phenomenon for the British system as a whole, that the Crown itself, as opposed to the Westminster Parliament, might have opportunities to secure revenues and even manpower recruitment bypassing Parliamentary control. Someone more familiar with the legalities of the Westminster parliamentary system and the Glorious Revolution might be better able to rule on this--if Parliament automatically gets control of every revenue the Crown might claim, this won't happen on paper anyway. But if Parliament was merely given control over existing taxes and excises, perhaps in the course of the emergency putting down the rebels and then keeping order in the colonies, the King's people get control of revenues (a portion of the fur trade profits for instance; tributes paid by Native peoples for protection, punitive fines on the Americans for rebelling) that never get routed to the Exchequer but instead stay in the hands of royal appointees. Parliament might legislate terms on which these agents ought to act, but as the King's own agencies perhaps their de facto independence, underscored by Royal majesty, would mean it is more a negotiation than a command relationship.

In the short run the King would definitely need to somewhat centralize regional command in some viceregal capital, but I think that the effect of having to quash American rebellion would tend to recommend that as much power as is practical gets centralized in Britain. An elaborate colonial administration might exist, but legally subordinated to policies set in London. As communications improve over the 19th century, with railroads, telegraphy, and steamships, ultimately a transAtlantic cable, centralizing control in Britain becomes more practical despite the vast rise in American populations to be controlled. In terms of legally recognized agencies of democracy, policy will be divide and rule--create lots of small regional bailiwicks such as the pre-Revolutionary colonies, but all local legislatures are subject to override by the British Parliament and/or Royal decree. Native tribal governments will fit in this same framework--they would be legally protectorates, their self-government under Royal, which might or might not mean British Parliamentary, direction. No democratic overarching body coordinating the many colonial or protectorate regimes would be allowed; any element of democracy challenging Royal administration would have to take the form of petitioning Parliament to act on their behalf. Would the British Parliament come to include representatives of the various colonies (not just North American, but also South Africa, Australia, NZ) elected directly? If British subjects resident in Britain are not to see their many MPs reduced from a thousand to mere hundreds, it would be necessary for Parliament to be greatly expanded, to many thousands; I doubt this would be practical. Perhaps overseas (white!) subjects would have to content themselves with a very fractional representation, with a handful of MPs elected by far larger electorates than in Britain, and Parliament expands only modestly, to 1200 or 1500 or so. (That would neatly solve the problem of how to include India without being overwhelmed by it of course. At the cost of the vast majority of British subjects, white or otherwise, being terribly underrepresented). Racism could also come into play. Another big topic for this thread is how slavery gets handled on an Empire scale including the American south, but here I might suggest that anyway neither people deemed "black" in America nor Indians, and thus perhaps not Metis, are considered for Parliamentary representation at all--perhaps instead parallel agencies such as a Council of subject Kings has standing to be heard in Parliament and via their treaty relationships with the Monarch a practical alternative input into Imperial government. Assuming slaves are ever freed, they might get folded into "white" America for purposes of voting, might simply be denied any franchise at all, or might get some parallel representation, perhaps through an administrative Freedman's Ministry or some such.

I expect whatever emerges to be a bewildering patchwork of historically based regions with special privileges and obligations; the principle of uniformity in rights and power would not strongly apply, with everything being solved ad hoc.

The question of what happens to Native peoples also relates to the question of what geographic expansion, if any, would BNA have. Is Britain sure to seek to grab territory from Spain eventually? Perhaps not; the contingencies of British diplomacy in the 19th century OTL put them on the side of Spain more often than not, at any rate on the Spanish monarchy in exile's side. It was generally British policy, from some time before the ARW and long after it, to pursue her interests in Latin America by means of getting acquiescence for British trade in Spanish ports, including handling the slave trade from Africa to Spanish colonies, and later to get compliant Latin American governments that would again mean informal British hegemony over nominally independent republics.

Now this world is majorly butterflied by the defeat of the American rebels in BNA of course! Many would assume there would be no French Revolution at all in such a TL. I'm not so sure though; the notion that the French Revolution was triggered by the American one seems questionable. Certainly the major debts the French monarchy took on to assist the American rebels (and pursue French interests at British expense all around the world) were a direct factor in the chain of events leading to the OTL 1789 uprisings and eventually the First Republic. But it is entirely possible that the French will go all in if the Americans rebel, even if they are eventually defeated. The lack of an example of a successful republic overseas might be offset, or more than offset, by the French being on the wrong side of the war and the disgrace that might bring the monarchy.

Without a French Revolution, the factors that brought Britain and Spain to the same side would not be in play; the Bourbon Spanish monarchy would be seen as a catspaw of the French one. Britain might then perhaps favor Latin American uprisings and declarations of independence, but that would be a dangerous game to play considering the sentiments it might stir up in North America. Britain might instead offer to support a Spanish empire plagued by uprisings in return for territorial considerations.

We'd really have to game out European events carefully. After all with no French Revolution, would there have been sufficient drive, over the long run, for a fully and fairly democratically representative Parliament for Britain? If not, the whole question of equal and fair representation would be mooted; a handful of American MPs might seem like progress to Americans rather than humiliation; the House of Lords might retain considerably more power, and be a more suitable instrument for pragmatic representation of strong (that is, rich) colonial interests, even those of Indian (south Asian subcontinent and American Native also) potentates and millionaires. Empire policy might slip over to the Lords even in Britain.

The very idea of universal democracy might seem as strange, outlandish, radical, and Utopian as the abolition of private property, all across the European ruled world.
 
This forum tends to have a strong deterministic streak. Which I think is folly. Given early and dramatic enough of a POD damned near anything is possible. The UK kept other populous colonies for a very long time, so I see no reason they couldn't keep more of North America, too, but a lot would have to change. As has been mentioned, before 1776 essentially all Americans considered themselves first and foremost to be Englishmen, and there was a strong pro-American faction in Parliament. Something could have been worked out, but for quite a bit of pigheadedness (on both sides). Yes, for whatever reason Americans are a bit more raucous and demanding than Canadians or Australians, and that has to be taken into account- the center of power in the UK would have to be somewhere in the North Atlantic, per se. Exactly where is debatable, but somewhere. Perhaps a bit south of Iceland. ;)
 
Last edited:

longsword14

Banned
The UK kept other populous colonies for a very long time
For example? India does not count.
Americans are a bit more raucous and demanding than Canadians or Australians
Really, inherent to Americans? Is that en empirical observation proven by historical accounts ?:rolleyes:
The question is about surviving thirteen colonies. Sure you could have them being governed by Britain, on paper. The idea of shifting the center of the Empire is something that was not ever thought of. Had the colonies been an integral part for quite some time and had developed along with Britain and not been on the other side of the Atlantic, then keeping the construct together makes sense. By the time Britain considers America worth changing its policies for N. America would have gone off by itself in practice.
 
This forum tends to have a strong deterministic streak. Which I think is folly. Given early and dramatic enough of a POD damned near anything is possible. The UK kept other populous colonies for a very long time, so I see no reason they couldn't keep more of North America, too, but a lot would have to change. As has been mentioned, before 1776 essentially all Americans considered themselves first and foremost to be Englishmen, and there was a strong pro-American faction in Parliament. Something could have been worked out, but for quite a bit of pigheadedness (on both sides). Yes, for whatever reason Americans are a bit more raucous and demanding than Canadians or Australians, and that has to be taken into account- the center of power in the UK would have to be somewhere in the North Atlantic, per se. Exactly where is debatable, but somewhere. Perhaps a bit south of Iceland. ;)

When you say "deterministic," what it seems you mean is, some of us think things happen for reasons. Guilty as charged. Americans and Britons did not suddenly wake up with a pigheadedness flu in 1765, rather, for reasons, a different society than British had developed in North America (a reason for conflict) that had common interests with its mother country due to circumstances (such as the threat of New France--a concrete reason) that changed to unmask the growing conflict when those circumstances changed. Furthermore the circumstances that used to keep them together were circumstances both branches of Britons were working diligently to change, so it was no random happenstance they did change. Once the threat of New France was gone, the commonality of interests was much weakened and offset by the conflicts. Yeah, if it is "deterministic" to say that at that point one side or the other had to prevail, so be it.

It was not a matter of whims. The British (English and Scots, separately, originally) had their reasons to found the colonies and to foster them, the colonists had their reasons to go, and since the latter were fundamentally and all along conceived of by the rulers of the former as instruments of their purposes, much as they conceived the nation as a whole, there should be no surprise there was a conflict, only that cooperation lasted as long as it did.

Alternate History, as I conceive it, certainly does imply everything that could have happened did happen somewhere. So a lot of worlds with very little logic to them probably do exist. But it is more interesting to show how and why something happens for good and solid reasons that just giggle and say "it happened just because!"

It could be that Americans are more raucous and demanding than Canadians, or Australians. It certainly is not my assertion and I don't have to defend it, but honestly I do think the charge has some merit. See Douglas Adams on the subject...however it does seem like a poor way of explaining things in history. It might have been good enough for some Classical philosopher or other to just assert that different peoples have different natures and leave it at that.

But Americans came from the same source as Canadians or Australians, pretty much--why do you think one batch turned out one way and others another? Personally I see more similarity than difference and attribute the observable differences to circumstances and institutions.

After all, before Britain organized either set of surviving colonies (reorganized in the Canadian case), they had the awful example of things going wrong in the rest of BNA to consider. I think it made for different decisions, different circumstances (a huge one being, Canada is where a lot of Loyalist former British Americans took refuge) and thus different outcomes.

Does it really seem so unreasonable to try to tease out the whys and hows, and is it really preferable to just label different people as being just different so they do different things?
-----------------------
Edited to remove unreasonable incivility on my part
 
Last edited:

It's

Banned
What would it mean for native Americans if the British kept control?
Not much difference, I reckon. In the 18th and 19th centuries, shoved around for getting in the way of "progress" (i.e. other people trying to making money), followed in the 20th and 21st centuries by condescending PC hand-wringing, like in the other large white dominions.
 
I believe that the prohibition placed on colonists moving west over the Appalachians was one of the major drivers of the rise in popularity of revolutionary sentiment. And that some leading British authorities had the impression, which I would say is correct, that the perception that anyone could always abandon their position in the eastern settled parts and go west to the frontier to try again was a major cause of what looked to them like indiscipline and disrespect for class hierarchy, indeed for any accountability to the larger British system at all. Restricting British American colonists from expanding farther west was in fact recommended policy of some officials put in charge of trying to retain American territory; the hope was that then they'd come around to a more properly British respect of appropriate stations.

There's too much money to be made by westward expansion, IMO. Some of the biggest speculators were British!
 
There's too much money to be made by westward expansion, IMO. Some of the biggest speculators were British!
That's why it would resume and Native people wind up pretty much screwed. Some on the other hand would be considerably less screwed than OTL. The die back due to diseases is pretty much inevitable though. Even if the monarchy favors trader monopoly companies a long time over much area, and the companies in turn adopt sensible quarantine policies (and to an extent, quarantine is a bit inherent in long slow communication lines) nasty poxes will leak over regardless. And when that happens, as I did say, good land will appear to be vacant.

Also, tribes being recognized as good loyal allies of the Crown is a game of musical chairs, to an extent. Much less likely to be so after a British crackdown on rebellious colonists; few if any Indians are going to think allying with disgruntled rebellious colonists is a good idea. A few did OTL though and their name will be mud in the post-rebellion regime, while I daresay any neo-Patriots who might flare up later won't do much to honor their remnants if any by then. But it may be that tribes will have disputes and disagreements with the Crown and then they might find themselves recategorized amazingly fast. Taking a lesson from the outcome of the abortive ARW and such exemplary incidents later, most tribal leaders will learn to cling to the status of "Crown Loyalist" through thick and thin.

And I do think the British monarchy has the integrity to go to bat for those who run this gauntlet. Their fate will not be as raw as OTL.

Nor is Canada or Australia today a certain guide to just how calloused the British will be. I stressed that a lesson would be taken from the ARW, that the white colonists cannot be trusted indiscriminately. I don't believe that the Crown ever felt the need to mobilize the Natives against any settlers, or even transportees, in Australia or Canada or South Africa. (Actually, it would not surprise me though if certain aspects of native policy in British run South Africa were in fact instances of setting up various tribes to check the Afrikaners, and so one huge element of Nationalist resentment against non-whites in SA was that they had been so used. I've never seen that thesis but it would not be amazing if it turned out to have some truth to it). In New Zealand of course the invaders did eventually negotiate a treaty with the Maori. In Canada of course even if it was generally true most later colonists were just self-interested and thus as potentially liable to turn rebel as their Yank predecessors, still a significant and early stratum of settlement was the Loyalists from the ARW and so calling on wild Indians to help keep down a rebellion would be superfluous; the children of Loyalists and those who aspired to their status or social circles could be counted on to assist against such goings-on.

So on the whole I expect a situation somewhere between Canada's and New Zealand's. The Native peoples will not get credit for being too tough to destroy, but they will get points for signing a treaty and sticking to it. The ultimate courts determining their fates would still be a white man's court and a white man's government, but it won't be the same crowd who are trying to take their land making the rules. British courts and Parliament and the Monarch will have some inclination to gratify those who want to seize the opportunities of Indian lands, but they won't be the exact same people to whom this seizure is the top and only priority. I dare say that the Parliament will try to grab, the courts will favor Britons, and even the King will keep compromising former compromises, splitting the difference in Zeno's Paradox fashion. But judges will hear of treaties with the King, and will take note of good compliance, and service to Britain in times of need--and if they won't stop the grab, they will limit it, impose compensation terms, and seek various win-win compromises that had no traction to even be considered in OTL US circumstances. And the USA's raw deals simplified things for Canadian authorities; all they had to do was maintain a somewhat less awful standard than south of the border and their First Nations would see that they'd better take the British deal. In British North America there is no such lower standard to leverage the Indians down.

Especially since their services as Royal auxiliaries might be needed. It would be necessary to game out the evolution of the suppressed colonies in detail, with reference to world conditions, especially how pinched the British government is and how unruly the masses back in the British Isles are, to predict the likelihood and intensity of possible new rebel outbreaks. If the Crown and Parliament were not foresightful enough to value their Indian allies while they have them, perhaps some Indians would join Anglo revolutionaries after all--but then perhaps we'd not be in a "surviving colonies" ATL, since Britain would belatedly lose them. If the Indians do have reason to think the Crown has given them a square deal, and every reason to fear unchecked British colonials, if there are risings in America the Indians are quite likely to rally to the colors and assist in putting them down. After that, Native arguments in British courts and before Parliament will indeed be stronger.

Nothing will be allowed to block the main chances of British captains of industry, but surely there is room for negotiation of fair exchanges; these might leave some tribes very rich indeed. And powerful. In addition to protection of negotiated treaties and probable money rewards, reliable tribes are likely to see suitably Anglicized leaders promoted to Lordship. To an extent, the Indians will be inside the government that rules on their rights. They will have prestige reaching beyond their direct power to influence the consciences and judgements of Britons.

And who is to say that none of the Indians will get in on the game of industrial development themselves? They are at disadvantages to Britons or even colonists, true. But they hold some cards also, cards that will appreciate in value. As generations pass, more and more Native people, especially the royally recognized elites, will be Christianized and Anglicized, educated in the elite European fashion, and thus liable to be as good businessmen as the British. A tribe might win the right to be left alone on some territory, and then turn around to build factories forbidden to white colonists, on their sovereign territory. If sufficient numbers of Britons profit from this, the protests of others might be ignored. They might uphold the right to exclude settlers, and then accept immigrants on their own terms.

I'd think a common pattern would be that a tribal protectorate will be governed fairly democratically--by members of the tribe. But these are a minority, in effect an aristocracy, greatly outnumbered by the British colonial immigrants they've allowed in to farm and mine and work in, and perhaps to a great extent, run, factories. But they have no vote, not being tribe members, and they don't live in a British colony where they have local franchise or someday perhaps the standing to elect an MP. In this respect these tribes are like Kuwait or other oil duchies that have a legal population of citizens dwarfed by outside guest workers. But these guest workers will have the British Empire looking after their interests, and perhaps the principle of universal democracy does not have the traction in the English speaking world it does OTL. As many of the guest residents would be of the somewhat despised Colonial class, British institutions would have only a limited interest in upholding their rights. It would be the more favored truly British subjects--family and employees of important British firms, people from families that have proven strongly loyal and been recognized for it, and so on who will be strongly protected by British scrutiny; others will be told if they don't like how the tribe treats them they can leave, and if there is a contract of some kind preventing them from leaving, it might pass scrutiny in a British court.

All of this, mind, is against a background in which Native peoples were small in numbers to begin with, and then had their populations badly decimated by disease; some tribes with Royal recognition will simply fall too low in numbers to sustain themselves, the survivors would merge into other peoples, who either inherit some or all of their claims--or these claims vanish completely and the Crown may annex their lands. Tribes claiming a lot of territory whose numbers have halved since the treaty was made will be asked to give up half. I don't expect Tribal territories to be the majority of the total land area and I do expect large patches of Anglo settlement to open up and be exploited. There is no way the Indians will hold the bulk of power.
 
Well, if we really want to go down this path, we may as well take the darkest one. I'll grab the mask:
latest

but seriously, this scenario is fun to watch people talk about.
 
Well, if we really want to go down this path, we may as well take the darkest one. I'll grab the mask:
latest

but seriously, this scenario is fun to watch people talk about.
agreed. a realistic version of Britain-Wins-The-Revolution is something i don't think has ever come up in fiction. it's relatively common in American media but it's always just an overload of offensive British stereotypes (and i say that as a born-and-bred American)
 
When you say "deterministic," what it seems you mean is, some of us think things happen for reasons. Guilty as charged.

No, that's not what I'm saying. You're presuming to put an awful lot of words in my mouth, Brother. So I'll call you on that monumental straw man. I never said that there aren't reasons that things happen, for instance, and you are trying to change the argument by defining "at that point", when I had never in fact specified a timeframe. I said that there are parties here who would deny that some things are possible even with what I would consider to be very remote and dramatic PODs. In other words, they have a "deterministic" view of history- i.e. they believe that essentially no matter what some things will happen certain ways, presumably due to some magical historical inertial force or something. Which is odd when one considers that this is Alternate History dot com, after all, as you have pointed out. The Unmentionable Pinniped comes to mind. I agree that it is doomed with any conceivable POD after WWI or thereabouts, or maybe even in the 20th century, but disagree that it is doomed even with a POD in (to make an absurd example, since I don't know enough about the naval treaties involved) 1860 or so. As I said, and very vaguely I may add- early and dramatic PODs. It boggles my mind that people would argue with that statement, which seems self-evident to me. With an early enough POD one could probably envision a monolithic global civilization that worships lemurs, fer chrissakes, let alone BNA.

You obviously at least considered my 'early and dramatic POD' point, since you essentially restate it in different words. But then making an attempt to trivialize those who disagree with you with remarks about giggling and "just because" and your claim to a monopoly on "facts" really tells me more about you than about your argument. Because I was answering the OP, which was "is there ANY way" this could happen. [His emphasis, and without a time limit on POD specified.] And, yes, with an early and dramatic enough POD, sure, I don't see why not. He did not specify a British-won ARW or even any particular POD for that matter.

That's what I said.

And that being said, I've seen no arguments against BNA here that are irrational. They are all good arguments. They just don't involve a POD that was early and dramatic enough. It would obviously (I think) have to be a political POD that dramatically changes the way colonialism is thought of in London, among other things.

EDIT-- Maybe I'm getting defensive, though. How about f I try to state what I meant in my previous post a bit more succinctly? Something like:

"I agree that the Thirteen Colonies remaining under British control into the 20th century is unlikely with any single POD close to 1776. There were sociopolitical forces at work that drove things that way. It might have remained under British control much longer if they had backed down on the Intolerable Acts, but most likely some sort of independence was in the making within (total SWAG*, here) at most 50 years or so. So to get a BNA you would need a pretty profound POD- at least as remote as the early 1700s (i.e. a few generations) which results in a very different philosophy about colonialism in London. They would have to start wanting a multi-continent state, rather than fixating on the colony/metropole model. Some sort of more egalitarian rule would be needed. Since we are talking about the British as colonists rather than dealing with a dominated foreign people (as in India or China) I do not believe that this is beyond the realm of possibility. Almost up until the DOI everyone was clamoring about their rights as "loyal British subjects." But as I said, it would have to be a pretty profound political POD. It might help- I'm less sure, here- if vigorous immigration from other states (e.g. Germany) were curtailed."

* Scientific Wild-Assed Guess. Also, edited to remove the typical ignorant English/British cockup.
 
Last edited:
I'd think a common pattern would be that a tribal protectorate will be governed fairly democratically--by members of the tribe. But these are a minority, in effect an aristocracy, greatly outnumbered by the British colonial immigrants they've allowed in to farm and mine and work in, and perhaps to a great extent, run, factories. But they have no vote, not being tribe members, and they don't live in a British colony where they have local franchise or someday perhaps the standing to elect an MP. In this respect these tribes are like Kuwait or other oil duchies that have a legal population of citizens dwarfed by outside guest workers. But these guest workers will have the British Empire looking after their interests, and perhaps the principle of universal democracy does not have the traction in the English speaking world it does OTL. As many of the guest residents would be of the somewhat despised Colonial class, British institutions would have only a limited interest in upholding their rights. It would be the more favored truly British subjects--family and employees of important British firms, people from families that have proven strongly loyal and been recognized for it, and so on who will be strongly protected by British scrutiny; others will be told if they don't like how the tribe treats them they can leave, and if there is a contract of some kind preventing them from leaving, it might pass scrutiny in a British court.

I think this would most likely result in trouble sooner or later -- IOTL one of the official casus belli of the South African War was that the Boers didn't give equal rights to the uitlanders, and I wouldn't be surprised if something similar happens ITTL.
 
.... Because I was answering the OP, which was "is there ANY way" this could happen. [His emphasis, and without a time limit on POD specified.] And, yes, with an early and dramatic enough POD, sure, I don't see why not. He did not specify a British-won ARW or even any particular POD for that matter....
...And that being said, I've seen no arguments against BNA here that are irrational. They are all good arguments. They just don't involve a POD that was early and dramatic enough. It would obviously (I think) have to be a political POD that dramatically changes the way colonialism is thought of in London, among other things....
...I agree that the Thirteen Colonies remaining under British control into the 20th century is unlikely with any single POD close to 1776. There were sociopolitical forces at work that drove things that way. It might have remained under British control much longer if they had backed down on the Intolerable Acts, but most likely some sort of independence was in the making within (total SWAG*, here) at most 50 years or so. So to get a BNA you would need a pretty profound POD- at least as remote as the early 1700s...

I do owe you a public apology as well as the private one.

But the humorous thing here is that, writing as a self-confessed "determinist," perhaps not in the sense you meant it, and perhaps an even worse one than you meant, I could think of a POD that meets the spec well after 1700, indeed well after 1776--which is that the British do whatever it takes to win the ARW once it starts as OTL. This might require, at that late date, something like the American Patriots making a big mistake early on that leaves them vulnerable before the many factors that undermined the British ability to prosecute the war with their hands tied behind their backs came into strong play. I'm pretty sure upon reflection that I have previously and elsewhere weighted in with the faction that says no way no how could the Patriots lose, but I think I would have qualified that with a "probably not."

Even if the likelihood that the Rebels stumble or the Royalists hit upon a brilliant early plan that meets success by amazing luck is low, it is a possibility, and then if it does happen I don't think anyone can prove that their pacification of the continent and subsequent governance must sooner or later fail. Having learned lessons, they can do better. And speaking as someone who takes the patriotic legacy of 1776 very seriously and hates to contemplate a TL where figures like Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, and all the various Adames are branded rabble and scum, I don't think it can either be proven that the British must de facto govern along their principles. No, I think that having beaten the armed insurrection they can go on to contradict every ringing principle of the Declaration and Constitution, do the bloody opposite, sit on the colonials good and hard, and come out the winners in the long run. Over the long run I do think they'd soften up and reabsorb most American colonials as fellow Britons, eventually. Might take generations though, especially if there are new flare-ups of secessionism. I do think the long-term legacy would be the formation of some kind of functional aristocracy in America, and in all other British colonies, settler or otherwise. And a deep principle of as much centralization of power in London as is bloody possible, such that devolved and dispersed institutions strictly necessary due to long communications and logistic lines early in the 19th century would, despite being functional enough, be replaced with tighter control in Britain once more rapid communications, railroads, steam ships and telegraph lines are in place.

So actually I usually find, given a challenge, no matter how silly it might seem initially, there is a way to game it so it happens. The trick is to identify the relevant social forces at work, and see what it takes to tie them up in the knot you want, bearing in mind their depth and force--which are often obscure to actors on the ground, so you often have to move some mountains around in the background.

In this case, I resolve the irreconcilable conflict by brute force on the side that's got it, and figure they are smart enough to know they have to keep applying it for a good long time to bend this Frankenstein baby of theirs into the shape they want.

I think this would most likely result in trouble sooner or later -- IOTL one of the official casus belli of the South African War was that the Boers didn't give equal rights to the uitlanders, and I wouldn't be surprised if something similar happens ITTL.

The situation of an American Indian tribe in good standing with the British system in the 19th or 20th century would be very different than the Boers sitting as hostile and resentful mini-states on the periphery of a British colony they had fled, though. The Indians are not outside the British system, they are deep deep inside it. As tribes under British protectorate, they have rendered aid and service again and again at the call of the Crown that protects them. Their leaders have been shaped to be socially compatible and comfortable with British leaders, they probably all went to Oxford or Cambridge together, officers of Tribal Regiments served alongside Regulars, younger sons of chiefs and ranking sachems as Royal Navy officers. They know the judges. And to be sure, their membership inside the system puts all kinds of constraints on how they are going to treat proper British subjects of European descent. They will by and large be applying the same standards as British elites apply in regular English and colonial communities, and would be shocked at being accused of doing anything worse. Very possibly, they would mitigate the invidious effects of local government being a creature of the tribe and not any random British subject who wanders in by extending temporary and honorary limited "membership" to Britons of appropriate status who choose to join their community, as long as they choose to. So that might buy off the resentments of a lot of the "guests." The ones who might be likely to have grievances would be the same classes of people that British system elites look down on in any part of the Empire, in Britain itself, in the regularly governed parts of the colonies, anywhere. Rabble, "jack-tars," whatever else John Adams called the mob that the soldiers under Preston fired upon in the Boston Massacre when he was defending Preston in court.

In the case of South Africa, the British were keen to find any excuse to jump on the Boer republics, and had no interest in seeing them last. Here it is quite the opposite. In South Africa, it would not matter how despicable a British judge would find a particular Briton complaining about the Boers; as a Briton he or she is surely a gentleman or fine lady. Here, the class discriminations that apply elsewhere in the Empire apply in the tribal territories as well. It's all one big Old Boys mafia in the British Empire, that's what I'm assuming. The question is, are you in or are you out? Indians can be in, pure-blooded Englishmen can be out, depending on wealth and the legacy of one's family service to the realm.
 
I've been skittering through AH.com and researching about the possibility of Great Britain granting their thirteen colonies more autonomy in the 18th century as opposed to attempting to crush them like IOTL, and the vast majority of people seem to disagree. According to them:
-the concept of a colony breaking free of their metropole was completely alien for the time and, thus, unacceptable.
-the colonies were too far away from London to actually see heeding to Parliament's rules as something okay.
However, i digress. I still think Britain's decision not to give their colonies' autonomy and not to listen to them was just stupidity on Parliament's side. So, is there any, ANY way the United Kingdom can realize that their "intolerable laws" are costing them their colonies' loyalty, effectively making them shy away from such repression and grant more autonomy to their thirteen colonies?

The hidden factor here is likely Mercantilism. The British were opposed to granting the colonies more autonomy not because they just didn't like the idea of the colonies having more autonomy, but because they were worried that if they had more autonomy, the first thing they would do would be to toss out any mercantilist trade laws over them that they didn't like. This was specifically a feared result if the taxes were repealed due to colonial opposition. Edmund Burke accused the Government of "Enacting taxes you can't collect for the sake of protecting trade laws you can't enforce." Neither of those things were entirely true, but it's what he saw the government's motive as being.

And it's true, those probably would be the first things to go if the colonial legislatures gained enough power to challenge the trade laws covering their colonies. There was a reason why smuggling was so rampant, and some of those involved in smuggling had high positions in colonial government.

So, I think in order to prevent an ARW you'd need to bump up the development of free(er) trade ideology.
 
Along the lines of "the British Tories win by main force," perhaps a minimal POD goes like this:

I've got a book from a college history class entitled Paul Revere that discusses his role in the events of 1775 in great detail. It is from this book that I draw the claim that some British officials were of the view that the colonials, among other things, needed to have their free migration to the frontier checked. This was the view of the British governor-general of Massachusetts, General Gage. Gage had a plan to suppress rebellion--he would simply seize the stocks of gunpowder (and other munitions stored with them) and then the colonials could not effectively rise. It was frustrating this plan of his that Revere and his gang of conspirators accomplished, and in the act triggered the direct military confrontation of colonial militias with the Regulars brought in previously to keep order in Boston. Revere had intelligence from inside Gage's HQ that informed the Patriots of the plan to sequester the powder, and his Rides (one before the famous one) were to alarm the locals and block the seizures; this led straight to the Battle of Lexington.

Now who was the spy? The author, Fischer, could not provide conclusive proof, but he marshaled evidence pointing none other than Mrs. Gage, the Baltimore born American wife of the Governor-General himself. Among other things, after Lexington, she was estranged from her husband.

Now suppose Gage had married a British wife, or simply a different American woman, or left his OTL wife in Britain instead of bringing her with him to Boston? Suppose a different American wife saw more eye to eye than the OTL woman on the question of appropriate policy and goals, and stayed out of intrigue? If the Patriots of Boston lacked key intelligence they had OTL, Gage might have pulled off his very secretive and careful plan to seize the powder. After the fact, the colonials would have been more angry than ever, but also a lot more helpless.

If New England can be kept from rising (Gage also aimed at arsenals outside of Massachusetts, as in Connecticut--he was successful at at least one armory) will the rest of the Patriots in Virginia and elsewhere be deterred? It seems likely this would hardly be the end of the story in the ATL formed by the POD of no-spy-in-Gage's-HQ (whoever he or she may have been). The New England colonies especially would remain resentful and astir; Virginia's grievances (which I have not studied so closely) would also remain, along with those in most other colonies. Indeed OTL substantial numbers rose against the Crown even in New Brunswick. Obviously the latter were put down--which shows that the British Regulars could indeed stamp out rebellion. Could they go on and on doing it, in all 13 colonies? Would it be necessary at some point to conciliate the colonists by demarcating boundaries between the powers of the Westminster Parliament and local legislatures, providing courts the colonials deemed fair in America (these existed, so the question is really, ending trials overseas and eliminating or reforming courts Americans deemed unfair), leave taxation to the colonials, etc etc? Or could the Royal authority, expressing the will of the current Parliament in Britain, crack down hard enough to silence all of these demands and leave people grateful to be left alive, free, and able to conduct business for profit as British subjects on the terms London thought best?

It is commonly said that the populace of the British colonials was divided roughly evenly into three parts in the ACW--a third or so were ardent Patriot/Rebels, a third or so were equally firm Loyalists, and the middle third simply wanted to be left alone, keeping their heads down and their fingers to the wind. If Patriot sentiment could be halved, and Loyalist somewhat augmented, so that 15 percent stood against 40 percent augmented with a fair number of loyal British Regulars and perhaps a few mercenary units in the tough cases, would that be enough not only to silence the protests but set an example that would chill revolutionary sentiment for generations to come?

If in the course of suppressing rebellion the Regulars also enabled the London-appointed and compliant colonial officials, British and American born, to carry out Parliamentary laws such as imposing effective taxes on the colonies to cover the costs of their defense--which now would include the cost of the occupation compelling them to do it--would Britain be able to spare enough Regulars posted in America while standing ready to meet all the other challenges the Army was for (including putting down sedition in Britain itself!)? Considering that the colonials are now being made to pay for part of it, I'd venture to guess yes. Also considering that certain numbers of Colonials were in fact Loyalist and ready to take up arms against their countrymen on the wrong side of the law, especially so. A certain critical mass of Regulars might need to be kept indefinitely to protect the Loyalists and come down hard on troublemakers, but if they are paid for by colonial taxes they cost Britain little. And if order can be kept by few enough Loyalists, others are free to be called up to actually augment the Realm's forces.

As for dissidents fleeing west to set up as wildcat independents in the wilderness, this is what having Indian allies is all about. They will observe them if they try to make new clearings, indeed probably if they try to sneak stealthily beyond British borders across the Mississippi. They will sound the alarm, and authorized by their general treaties with the Crown and the order prohibiting general immigration into their reserves, engage them and possibly kill them--if not, decimate them and delay and track them until Regulars can finish them off.

Britain can control the landscape, they can control the ports, and with Indian help, the western frontier. All it takes is enough force, and the right sort of plans, and the right sort of luck. The irreconcilable conflict can be resolved by suppressing dissidence until it dies. And the colonials can be made to pay for their own repression too.

The fact that this would make infallible prophets of the most overblown Patriot ranters would be laid at the feet of the rebels for stirring up unrest.

Is a different Mrs Gage enough to accomplish a Tory victory? Perhaps!
 
I do owe you a public apology as well as the private one.

As I said, Brother- no problem. I never saw this supposedly out-of-line post, anyway.

But the humorous thing here is that, writing as a self-confessed "determinist," perhaps not in the sense you meant it, and perhaps an even worse one than you meant, I could think of a POD that meets the spec well after 1700, indeed well after 1776--which is that the British do whatever it takes to win the ARW once it starts as OTL. This might require, at that late date, something like the American Patriots making a big mistake early on that leaves them vulnerable before the many factors that undermined the British ability to prosecute the war with their hands tied behind their backs came into strong play. I'm pretty sure upon reflection that I have previously and elsewhere weighted in with the faction that says no way no how could the Patriots lose, but I think I would have qualified that with a "probably not."

Oh I can easily imagine the Rebels losing the ARW. That was a damned close-run thing, both politically and militarily. (Certainly not the essentially forgone conclusion that was e.g. the ACW.) I just think that eventually it would boil over again.

Where can I find the arguments of the "no how could the Patriots lose" faction? That just seems odd to me.

Even if the likelihood that the Rebels stumble or the Royalists hit upon a brilliant early plan that meets success by amazing luck is low, it is a possibility, and then if it does happen I don't think anyone can prove that their pacification of the continent and subsequent governance must sooner or later fail.

I would of course agree that there is no way to prove that, regarding pacification/governance, given your POD during the ARW. But I'll put this out there- I have no trouble envisioning the colonies turning into a larger and better-armed equivalent of Ireland, i.e. with the possible exception of the southern colonies they'd turn into a festering center of nascent rebellion. Under this scenario the colonies are quite literally forced to continue in the imperialist/colony/metropole model, and by then American and British interests were just very different. (Mercantilism has been mentioned e.g.) So I suspect that there would have been another round of *Troubles at some point. Possibly during the *Napoleonic Wars, if they happen. That's why I was doubtful that a POD too close to 1776 would work long term, like into the 20th century. But short term, ja, youbetcha.

If the British do "learn their lesson" as you say... well, yes, that might be different. Sort of like Reconstruction. Tell the colonials that they are still British subjects and eventually return full rights to them. And if they really want to calm things down say something like "despite the recent unpleasantness we have heard your concerns" and address the various petty oppressions that started the whole mess in the first place.

So, yeah, I guess I could see that going either way. Arguments to be made on either side. I still think there would have to be more power-sharing over time, though. Iceland, Brother. Iceland.

So actually I usually find, given a challenge, no matter how silly it might seem initially, there is a way to game it so it happens. The trick is to identify the relevant social forces at work, and see what it takes to tie them up in the knot you want, bearing in mind their depth and force--which are often obscure to actors on the ground, so you often have to move some mountains around in the background.

That's sort of what I was saying. I will grant that eventually conditions can get to the point that there is only one really possible outcome of whatever you are talking about (Pinniped e.g.) but if you go back far enough you can change that with the right POD.

EDIT- Re: Mrs. Gage et al. Interesting. But I don't know enough about the logistical state of the militias to know if losing a few New England armories would be enough to quash things, so I won't comment.
 
Last edited:
The hidden factor here is likely Mercantilism. The British were opposed to granting the colonies more autonomy not because they just didn't like the idea of the colonies having more autonomy, but because they were worried that if they had more autonomy, the first thing they would do would be to toss out any mercantilist trade laws over them that they didn't like. This was specifically a feared result if the taxes were repealed due to colonial opposition. Edmund Burke accused the Government of "Enacting taxes you can't collect for the sake of protecting trade laws you can't enforce." Neither of those things were entirely true, but it's what he saw the government's motive as being.

And it's true, those probably would be the first things to go if the colonial legislatures gained enough power to challenge the trade laws covering their colonies. There was a reason why smuggling was so rampant, and some of those involved in smuggling had high positions in colonial government.

So, I think in order to prevent an ARW you'd need to bump up the development of free(er) trade ideology.

Yes, if instead of the colonials being stomped on until they gave up their notions of self-interested freedom, the Tories of Britain were forced somehow, presumably by enlightened and persuasive free trade ideologists, to roll over and shut up and let the colonies be, presumably the colonials would in the main remain happy to fly the Union Jack and salute the (hands tied and gagged) majestic monarch. And consider Parliament to be run by fine fellows too.

Would this be in Britain's rational interest though? A lot depends on who counts and who doesn't in reckoning rational interest. If all the subjects of the Crown in Britain were considered equally, no amount of bloodshed in the colonies is worth any benefit they'd bring--not not the whole! But they were not considered equally. The elites had a lot to lose by letting Americans compete with equal terms against them.

Free trade was not an ideology the British government backed until Britain had first gained a massive advantage in production efficiency and in the world markets by sheer scale. Under those conditions, British interests did well in free trade. No other rising industrial nation except maybe Belgium developed an advanced and comprehensive industrial systems with completely free trade. Not Germany, not the United States; without tight "dirigisme" France surely would have slipped back even farther.

Free trade, implemented at this point, would have American firms capable of competing for the same markets British traders hoped to dominate, American factories operating in completion with British, American built ships hauling cargoes to every port British ships could visit.

If ordered by the RN admiralty acting on war powers in a declared war to embargo an enemy such as Napoleon, would they regard the orders or profit by smuggling to the enemy?

If the people of the islands of Britain are committed to building and maintaining the world's biggest war fleet, and manning them by impressing men off the streets if necessary, will the colonials spend as much out of their purses to build and maintain more ships, duly subordinated to a British appointed admiralty, and man them with volunteers or if need be, draftees? Or will they coast on the protection of the British built and manned ships, or if asked to make and man ships make them subject to colonial authorities on the grounds that they are their own? Will such ships enforce Parliament's regulations, be they ever so mild, evenhandedly, or will they wink at blatant violations of their own vessels? Are the only Parliamentary rules light enough to be obeyed those which ask them to do nothing at all?

Even with the Americans paying a fair share for a common navy, America could pull ahead and snatch world market supremacy away from Britain.

It might be a matter of indifference to the working man or woman whether England or New England becomes the workshop of the world; they can emigrate if need be.

The rich and powerful of Britain did not seek to restrict the trade and other actions of Yankees because a mindless medieval dead hand of mercantilist ideology lay on their brains. They rather invented and maintained an ideology of merchantilism to justify the actions it was in their interest to take anyway. When the balance of their interests shifted, the tune changed. And the next verse was no more eternal gospel of prosperity for all than the previous one was.

Since the balance of force lay on the British side, it is possible to consider what happens if they are willing as well as able to get their way, or anyway have the luck to bring the full force they control to bear before a million Lilliputians can tie them down. In the ARW, the Americans could never bring force to bear to change British minds, merely attempt to use some of their great potential, and mortgage off other parts (to get French alliance and so forth) to drive off British attempts to change theirs. The choices were American submission or British supremacy, there was no magical win-win lying in the direction of Britons seeing the superior light of American wisdom.

Not unless anyway one believes in mass revolution and mass democracy, and a new order in Britain where the common people ruled directly in their own interest and ran the workshops for their own benefit. In such a Red Revolutionary scenario, yes, a win win could be on the horizon--if one thinks democratic communism is a good idea! Then of course it does not stop with people of one former kingdom; the same logic applies to all the peoples of the world and we have The Communist Manifesto. Except of course Marx believed that capitalism had essential tasks to perform in preparing the ground for a world workers democracy, and 1776 is far too early for the Revolution to be at hand. Nor were Americans themselves on the entirely righteous path, as their practice of slavery demonstrated so horribly.

If we discredit Communism, we are left with either affirming that capitalist free markets provide the best possible good for everyone, automatically, and then left to account for why so many nations flouting its principles do all right and so many with leaders affirming them are so hellish.

Anyway, Britain was not under the rule of the majority, the minority stood to lose clearly and immediately, and the case that simple open cooperation would have led to Utopia for all is very very dubious.
 
I don't really see continuing British rule fundamentally changing the situation of Native Americans, not when most of the decisions made will still be made locally and the demographic situation that really dooms Native Americans isn't going to be much different. British rule will not be maintained if they insist on centralization or preventing settlement out west, accommodations in the regard will be required.
 
Top