Manifest Destiny in British North America?

RyanF

Banned
If Britain had managed to hold on to the Thirteen Colonies and keep the Americans relatively content, could some concept along the lines that Manifest Destiny was in the United States take hold, in the colonies or the entire empire?

If so, could this concept successfully lead to great expansion in North America along the lines of the United States?

Some possibilities:

-Britain/British North America annexes/purchases Spanish/French/Russian territories during/after wars.
-Assuming Britain opens up Japan to Western trade, could a proposal such as that put forward by Commodore Perry in OTL that the US annex Formosa be implemented, possibly leading to far more British East Asian territories.
-Might fillibusters along the lines of William Walker be far more successful in this world, perhaps because this version of Manifest Destiny might include the whole British Empire and therefore be a more global version.
 
If Britain had managed to hold on to the Thirteen Colonies and keep the Americans relatively content, could some concept along the lines that Manifest Destiny was in the United States take hold, in the colonies or the entire empire?

If so, could this concept successfully lead to great expansion in North America along the lines of the United States?

Some possibilities:

-Britain/British North America annexes/purchases Spanish/French/Russian territories during/after wars.
-Assuming Britain opens up Japan to Western trade, could a proposal such as that put forward by Commodore Perry in OTL that the US annex Formosa be implemented, possibly leading to far more British East Asian territories.
-Might fillibusters along the lines of William Walker be far more successful in this world, perhaps because this version of Manifest Destiny might include the whole British Empire and therefore be a more global version.

Generally, with a few exceptions, the government in London was generally less supportive to expansion in many areas. In part because the British population and taxpayers would have to pay the bill for administrating and defending any such gains. [For instance in Southern Africa Rhodes was often bitterly hostile and dismissive of the politicians in London for not supporting the expansions of British control than he and many of the local settlers urged for and often sought to impose on Britain.

As such probably a slightly lesser impulse for expansion, although again Washington sometimes opposed expansion and found locals forcing their hands. Also if say the solution that prevent US independence meant the tax problem was resolved, so that the colonists took up at least a share of the burden, then there might be less opposition from London.

On the other side, especially before modern technology speeded communications the people on the ground tended to make decisions and drive issues. Also, with the protection of Britain's military and economic might the American colonists might be even more pushy for expansion, especially against colonies of other powers. Coupled with the lack of tension between British loyalists and republican America which would leave more resources locally to support such expansion.

As such it could go either way. Very likely population pressure and clashes with Spain/France would mean that Louisiana and Oregon would very likely come under British control. Texas and California might be less likely as Mexico would be less willing to accept settlers from an overwhelmingly powerful Britain while once it became independent from Spain Mexico would probably be courted by Britain as a friend and trading partner. You might see the gold rush leading to an Anglosing of California and rebellion there which could led to either a separate state or it later asking for union with Britain.

You might see a bit less British territory in Asia if there is more room for settlement and expansion in N America, although once resources from then start to grow that gives greater capacity. Hence might see larger holdings and say a formal rather than an informal protectorate over China.

On the other hand most of Europe was increasingly worried about British power after 1763. Coupled with a period of poor diplomacy it was one reason why so many powers joined against Britain in the war with the rebels. If Britain keeps the American colonies and especially once Britain industrialises and the American colonies increase in strength I can see a continental alliance being formed to curtail British power. Hence probably some pretty might wars or an extended cold/economic war in the early 19thC. This could have effects in increasing or decreasing the territory under British control depending on the circumstances. This of course assumes that the continued union between homeland and colonies is permanent. That could come under a lot of strain as interests could well diverge even more than in 1760-70.

Steve
 
In a world where the British win the Revolutionary war, the colonists aren't going to suddenly become good British citizens eager to expand the Empire.

More likely they're going to rebel again during the Napoleonic wars.
 
Just a random thought being tossed out there. Assuming a continuation of generally cordial relations between the colonies and Britain, and if there does form a great continental alliance against Britain, is it possible that a full-on war against Britain might lead to the occupation of the British Isles, and the monarchy fleeing and setting up court in North America, similar to what happened between Portugal and Brazil during what would have been that same proximate time period?
 
In a world where the British win the Revolutionary war, the colonists aren't going to suddenly become good British citizens eager to expand the Empire.
Well, as stated before, "good British citizens" wouldn't be for expansion, as it controverted Crown policy. What it is possible to get, however, are increasing numbers of colonists dissatisfied with Crown rule moving westward of their own accord in an effort to escape further British meddling.

What might such a scenario lead to?
 
Just a random thought being tossed out there. Assuming a continuation of generally cordial relations between the colonies and Britain, and if there does form a great continental alliance against Britain, is it possible that a full-on war against Britain might lead to the occupation of the British Isles, and the monarchy fleeing and setting up court in North America, similar to what happened between Portugal and Brazil during what would have been that same proximate time period?

Just wondering, how large is the Royal Navy compared to the rest of the Great Powers during the 19th Century? If smaller then that is plausible, if not the invasion forces would be crushed before they ever landed on British soil.
 

Susano

Banned
In a world where the British win the Revolutionary war, the colonists aren't going to suddenly become good British citizens eager to expand the Empire.

More likely they're going to rebel again during the Napoleonic wars.

I dont think so. Even during the ARW, the loyalists were the majority of the population. If the patriot minority is defeated, the people of the American colonies will return to feeling as Brits. This of course counts doubled if the PoD is "no ARW" instead of "Brits win ARW".
 
In a world where the British win the Revolutionary war, the colonists aren't going to suddenly become good British citizens eager to expand the Empire.

More likely they're going to rebel again during the Napoleonic wars.

I interpreted the OP as meaning there was no War of Independence, period.
 
Well, I'd assume population in the colonies still keeps increasing, so I can't imagine there wouldn't be families moving west, particularly Scotch/Irish or other disgruntled ethnic groups (as OTL Appalacia in colonial times). This in turn means conflicts with Indians and French/Spanish claims. Either way all that vast and empty territory is likely to be "wide open" to British-American settlers as OTL. I'm certain the crown will want New Orleans and may take over after the next Anglo-French war, and California's ports alone are a worthwhile prize even without gold discovery.

I'm of the mind that no or unsucessful ARW likely means no French Revolution so no Napoleon (maybe rises to high officer rank in the Imperial Army?) and might mean no Mexican Revolution. Therefore Louisiana and "Mexico" are for the taking in any continental conflict.
 
Louisiana especially. When British North America expanded to be right next to New Orleans, and that population is only increasing and moving west, one of the best ports in the Americas will look especially inviting.

After all, OTL Canada is still mostly empty, supposedly frozen wilderness. All of the more temperate lands in OTL USA, to the Pacific Ocean, will still look mighty attractive.
 
Just wondering, how large is the Royal Navy compared to the rest of the Great Powers during the 19th Century? If smaller then that is plausible, if not the invasion forces would be crushed before they ever landed on British soil.

Something

For most of the 19thC I think it was larger than just about everybody else combined. That was partly due to the fact it was so large and dominant that there was no point to the huge costs of such a challenge. If it was a case of an allance of the major continental powers combining because they were concerned about British power then over a period of time they would pose a serious challenge to British power. Although presuming the industrial revolution takes over in Britain 1st coupled with the growing resources of British North America that could be one hell of a naval race. Provided that they don't get too complacent I would bet on Britain as keeping an alliance together and investing heavily in a prolonged naval race for probably a generation would be very difficult if any compertence in British leadership. Not to mention that with a British leadership in a technological race it would be a long stern chase.

One possible trigger for this situation would be if something like the French revolution occurred. Possibly either a TL in which, fearing British power as much as French revolution or later imperialism, the pro-French forces triumph on the continent. Or posisbly more likely their eventually defeated but this sees Spain weakened and British support for the independence of the Spanish American colonies is the trigger for an hostile alliance being formed in Europe.

Steve
 
Well.... First of all the British couldn't just "keep" the colonies, not in the sense that France kept Brittany (or even in the vague and inaccurate sense that England "kept" Scotland). There would be representation, local or otherwise, and the realities of population and distance would allow the Americas a great deal of leeway in governing themselves.

But on to the topic at hand. All you need to do is look at what happened in every other British colony. The British set up some small outpost or colony that was somewhat to their profit or of use against the slave trade, then unsuccessfully resisted as the colonies took it on themselves to expand where they could.

The colonization of Rhodesia was driven by forces in South Africa, and actively resisted in the UK right up until the Scramble. For that matter, the British had zero interest in expanding into what is now most of South Africa - it was the Boers who did that for them. Annexing the Boer states only took place after they had found huge amounts of wealth.... and even then intervention took the states filling up with British and South African citizens who were "mistreated" by the Afrikaners.

Australia was started and allowed to fill itself up, but the extent of British interest was in preventing anyone else from getting in a position to attack the colony, not in sweeping the continent per se. In the case of New Zealand, Britain actually refused to support its colonists in their wars against the Maori. They honestly didn't care how much of New Zealand was white-run. The colonists did all the work.

They were marginally more encouraging of Canada from the 1870s, but into the 1860s there were discussions in Parliament of the "inevitability" of the place being annexed by the Americans and the necessity of avoiding a war over the matter.

So in short, with an America bound up with Britain's fate you will certainly see Manifest Destiny. The British may put the brakes on from the moment of taking Quebec but it will do them no good at all. A large part of the relations between Britain and America during the 19th century are likely to involve the British dealing with the consequences - war and diplomatic crisis - of American expansionism.
 
Speaking of Quebec, Quebec City alone in 1860 was 40% English-speaking in OTL alone, with the Eastern Townships and Montreal presumably having even greater numbers. What would the percentage of Anglo-Americans be in the province with the far vaster numbers of them coming in from TTL USA as well as Anglo-Canadian/British immigration? Would it become a northern Louisiana of sorts?
 
If the American colonies stayed in the British Empire it would have to peaceful. I think that the Parliament would be able to get the Americans to pay taxes, but they had to wait for an Empire-wide crisis. I think that crisis would be extended war- which I will explain below.

IMO between 1763 and the (IMO inevitable) French Revolution (which HAS to start in '89 because of the crisis in food prices, the factor which also sparked the '30 and '48 Revolutions) there is going to be another Anglo-French War. So lets say a healthier Pitt the Elder, who holds off American taxation, and a war that starts in the 1780's between the French-Austrians and Anglo-Prussians sparked by a Dutch Civil War between the Organists and Patriots.

So the Continental throw-down occurs in the 1780s, probably during the new ministry of William Pitt the Younger. The expense of the war (the French will be spending even more money than they did during the ARW- since the Austrians were basically unable to fight a war w/o a foreign subsidy) drags down French finances. France, tied to an incompetent Austria and facing a determined Britain, loses the war.

The war ends in the late 1780s with the Second Treaty of Paris (say 1787). In 1789 the Estates-General are called, and we have the French Revolution. IMO the American Revolution was not nearly as important an intellectual factor in bringing on the French Revolution (obviously the financial stress of the ARW was a major factor) as the Enlightenment thinking that intellectually drove both Revolutions.

The French Revolution rapidly gets violent, and they execute Louis XVI in 1791, forcing a general European war.

I think that if you can keep the Americans in the Empire until the French Revolutionary Wars, then you've permanently kept the Americans inside the Empire. The Revolutionary Wars are going to allow lots of pro-British feeling, with the kind of territorial gains in the Americas that will attract popular support among Americans (Louisiana at a minimum, perhaps also Cuba?). The British had planned on launching a major war in South America in support of South American independence leaders (Wellington was originally headed to Venezuala before the French invaded Spain). So American troops are fighting and dying for the Empire, alongside troops and officers from the UK.

The whole key is for Parliament to come up with a way so that the Americans share the financial burden of the Empire, while avoiding direct taxation of the Americans. Some kind of reorganization of the American colonies, so that they can be made responsible for their own defense might do it, shifiting the financial burden onto the Ameicans. Delegating oversight of settler-Native American relations to this new body would also be important, so that the Americans can fight Indian Wars on their own.

Under a longer Pitt the Elder ministry, the Albany Plan is adopted, with Benjamin Franklin selected to be the first Governor-General (or whatever its called), would be a total cop-out, but I think that if Mr. Franklin's new colonial government is given the power over Indian relations and the land west of the Appalachians then it could have enough heft to both unite the colonial governments and allow Parliament to shift financial burdens to that body. If Parliament also assinged the Albany body oversight of enforcing the Navigation Acts, that could work too.

To answer the POD, I think that a British North America would be just as expansionist as its OTL counterpart. Moreover, I think that British North America can be just as expasionist as OTL, while the rest of the British Empire proceeds a pace. This combined Anglo-American Empire is going to be overwhelmingly powerful by the mid-19th century. I think that the 20th century in this TL is 'Pax Brittania' with the Anglo-American Empire keeping the peace.
 
Top