N/A
- Thread starter 037771
- Start date
Or is this all fine?
Pitty you didn't get other replies. Overall it's an interesting premise: the Rebellion snuffed out soon enough to prevent the development of radical republican sentiment but late enough to get the British to enact reforms.
First, I think we need more information on the development of the Provincial assemblies. How do they come about? Which party in Britain supports this reform? Does it generate support for wider British political reform? Are the colonies being granted de facto independence (i.e. home rule / dominion status) or is the stage set for a consolidated British Empire? You mention a 100th Anniversay of the British North American Act, but not the occurence itself. What is it? Also, why kill Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, but not George Washington? I could see Samuel Adams, as the leader of the Sons of Liberty getting the noose and maybe John, but John's your most likely neo-Tory once the Revolution dies down. The rest are likely to be just as happy if you can guarantee their rights, especially since the younger ones aren't likely to have risen to any kind of prominence by 1775-6.
I'm a big believer that it's possible to have the colonies stick to Britain for long enough to allow for the creation of an imperial system, but it'll take some work and a lot of luck. One way to do this, however, is to have the colonists engage in another war for empire that they support. Hence, you'd have somekind of conflict between the British and the French / Spanish that allows the British colonists to seize Spanish possessions in North America. You might even have a slave insurrection put down by crown troops or a rebellion of southern colonies put down by loyalist northern ones (this looks to be "Tatler's Rebellion in your list of events). Also, there'll be some kind of reckoning once the British themselves figure out that they'll be outvoted...on everything. So some kind of war like the kind you envision is a convient device, but I'm not sure I understand how this one occurs. A ship sinks--okay--but why 23 years of war? What does the rest of Europe do in the meantime?
Also, having the British carve out new settler colonies from former Spanish America doesn't seem likely the further into the 19th century you get. Firstly, if the British still have North America (not too mention Australia and New Zealand), then they've got tons of room. Next, it's far easier to fund independence movements. That part I seriously question.
I suppose having Louis XVI see the light and grant refroms is possible--certainly the events of 1789-93 are quite malleable--but why the initial disturbance without the expense of fighting in the American Revolutionary War?
How does Germany rise without a Napoleonic conquest to destroy the Holy Roman Empire and install fear through the nobility of the petty German states?
No problem; I'm glad to help. As a newcomer myself, I've noticed that the forum can at times become rather clique-y. Just because other folks have advanced their versions doesn't mean you shouldn't have your chance.
Overall, I quite agree with the basic premise, that Britain will find it easier to hold on to the American colonies the more divided it keeps them. The problem with having the Revolution itself fall apart is that you'll still have held the Stamp Act Congress and the First Contintental Congress to set a precedent for colonial cooperation. See this thread for more on that point and on the generally likelihood of a settlement. One way around this is to have the British offer reconciliation to individual colonies and hence break up the Congress as a means of settling the Revolution. Such a scheme is discussed at length in this thread.
Another possibility (and my preference for a settlement) is to have a confedereation of federations: that is, the colonies unite in regional groupings with differeing amounts of shared powers. These groups then join in common council with each other and with Britian to fight wars and raise taxes. See a disscussion of this scheme here.
The problem with any settlement is really two fold. First, Britain needs its taxes and the colonies don't want to give them. Second, the supremacy of Parliament over Empire. Granting the colonies either individually or in groups the power to tax themselves with no power of Parliament to compel taxation is essentially to concede everything the colonists want. Affirming the colonies' rights while demanding taxation is to concede to the British.
Now, this might happen if the Revolution begins to fail on the ground. I expect things will get sorted out later. Such a compromise might be for Parliament to explictly recognize the rights of the colonists as British subjects; the colonists then have to chose between taxing themselves or sending representatives to Parliament (such is the choice offered them by North whose become very Burkian all of a sudden). Things get different very quickly if once the British have crushed dissent, they act magnanimously in making guarantees to the colonists.
I've never thought American MPs of some kind out of the question: for two decades prior to 1776, the colonies had been in the pracitce of sending agents to London to deal with Parliament on issues concerning them (e.g. Ben Franklin for PA). Also, granting representation to the colonials makes for a convient pivot point for Reformers to push for greater reform to rotten borroughs. One compromise may be to differentiate between an Imperial and UK Parliament: when Parliament makes any law concerning the colonies, the Parliament is understood to be sitting "Imperial" and the American MPs have a vote. If not, they have none. I'd also expect the turning point to come during a potential campaign: i.e. when Parliament thinks the Carolinas might be amenable, they propose to grant them this kind of provisional status in order to break the Continental Union.
I'd expect reform in this case to come in two phases, with some kind of general promise delivered in 1776 and genuine Parliamentary / Imperial reform in the 1830s along the same timeframe as the Great Reform Bill, or perhaps earlier as necessitated by abolition of slavery movements.
I think you're right that another war could very easily occur around the same time as the French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars. I think it's much harder for them to last as long if the French haven't discovered nationalist sentiment in order to motivate their troops. However, if the war is primarily between the French / Spanish and the British (and doesn't involve the rest of Europe too much) then I suppose it could last a very long time indeed.
Oh, I think it's possible. But I think it's easier if the change is being conquered by Britain rather than indepently deciding to adhere to Britain. The republics of South America were certainly British dominated, but they did grow to resent that domination over time.
Certainly struggle between the two is very much in the cards, but not the outcome. Austria might win. Prussia might lose to France (under only slightly different circumstances in OTL might well have). Personally, though, I think it's hard to find the context for such changes (particularly Bismark's personality) without the Napoleonic invasions. Hence, the extent of the Great War probably plays a crucial role.
If anything the overweening force of British power might induce them to use the German Confederation (or its ATL equivalent) to rally together. Jared's Decades of Darkness has just such a Germany, formed by slow imperial / federal union of Austria, Prussia, and the Netherlands.
Thank you very much for the suggestions.
I'm glad you find them helpful. Hopefully the above are as well. Best of luck. And of course....RULE BRITANNIA.
Does this seem feasible?
It's getting better. Up until the mid-19th century, things seem plausible. Afterwards, I have a few questions.
What is British American's immigration policy? This is a huge issue. First, if the British treat their TTL conquests as they did OTL then all of North America (and eventually all of South Ameria) is open to British migration. Hence, folks who OTL went to Canada may decide to go to Nebraska or the like instead. More troubling is that folks who went to Australia or New Zealand may decide to go to the America. The difference should begin compound so that by 1900 all the historical personages are different. Hence, I find it very hard to swallow the idea that Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, etc. are all around in their OTL forms to run for PM of BNA.
Furthermore, would the British be enthusiastic for foreign immigrants, from the rest of Europe and from Asia. Would natives from India find their way to America as they did to East Africa? How would the Americans react? Nativism (OTL American reaction to immigrants) would play a huge role in the policies of BNA, just as it did in Australia and South Africa.
I'll grant the expedience of eventual self-government for the British dominions (and love the title "Emperor of the Britannic Dominions"), but it seems that you have the UK and Westminster retain near exclusive portfolio over foreign affairs. After BA surpasses Great Britain itself in population and GDP and then wins a war on the back of that supremacy, I'd see some serious tension developing.
Indeed, with such expansive territories and many, many more British subjects living in the Britannic Dominions, I'd see the emergence of an eventual Imperial Parliament gaining in likelihood. This likelihood increases as the telegraph and oceanic transport (and eventual air transport) tie the Empire together. Such a solution should also help to resolve problems within the British isles (i.e. Home Rule for Ireland). If the Empire creates some kind of Imperial Council / Parliament that would supplant Westminster as the Imperial Parliament, it seems to me far easier to grant Ireland some kind of status which would asuage their continual complaints. In fact, your British Empire is so big that it may actually be able to absorb India's population without being subsumed by it! [Though there are some cultural issues, primarily around religion in that case. Anaxagoras' Rule Britannia TL has a nice fix]
For the last important point, I really can't see wars such as WWI and WWII occuring on schedule. The Crimean War seems fine, since Russia is probably high up on Britain's radar as a possible threat. But Britain won't be as threatened by Germany nor will she have as much reason to trust France or make-up with Russia in order to form the Entente; all the power political calculations should have changed.
I do want to point out that I wouldn't consider these "butterfly effects" these are direct results of the increased power of the British Empire due to the differing outcome in 1776. A butterfly would be if these changes somehow lead to the resugence of the Qing dynasty in China before the 1830s (i.e. before the interaction with Britain might have introduced direct changes).
There are some murkier changes you might want to consider: Britain will be far and away the premier banking center of the Empire (and of the World, of course). This may alter the flows of capital and thus of the pace of industrialization in British America. Does Britain ever acquire Alaska from Russia? (Easy to squeeze into the *Crimean War). Does Britain introduce a colonial aristocracy? Are there houses of Lords in British America or analogues to the Senates of OTL's Canada and Australia? If the later, does the difference impel reformers in Britain to a similar result? Which cities in North America grow and which wither as a result of the POD? New York's growth might be stunted because the Eerie Canal won't be as essential: British ships can simply use the St. Lawrence (whereas American ships couldn't count on such commerce). Cities in Texas and California and the Midwest might have different names and patterns of development.
Finally, you might want to think about adding in some greater difficulties for the Empire, just to spice things up. Surely a workers movement or Labour Party for the entirety of TTL's Empire begins to look all by itself very much like an International Movement. Does transportation still affect the settlement of Australia? What do the other European powers do in reaction to the overweening might of Britain? Are there anything like the Revolutions of 1848 without the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars? (There seems to be little mention of France after 1816 until 1914). How does the Empire adapt to governing all the Code-centered systems of governance in Latin America? What happens to Brazil? Who builds the Panama Canal? Are airships more important (an eternal question)? Is technological development retarded or advanced?
Do you mean the re establishment of the Massachusetts Assembly that had been banned in the 1770's - one of the causes of Massachusetts's rebellion.
before 1775 all the British colonies in the Americas except Florida had long established Colonial Assemblies
Huh
All Bunker [Breed's] Hill did was to show that the American Irregulars could hold up against the Professional British Soldiers.It had nothing to do about the rebellion itself.
If Bunker hill had been a British victory, the Colonials would have returned to boycotts & Terrorism [Beating officials - Tar and Feathers, etc].
You give no reason for the British to Change their views on the Colonies need to support the Mother country, or for the Americans to comply with the British Attempts.
Note that only the Adams in this list lived in Massachusetts, and only Massachusetts was offically in Rebellion in 1775.
Therefore if there is no Rebellion in 1776, none of the others will even be charged.
Entirely different French war of 1790-1816
And whe still have the same Queen Victoria, Crimean War, Prussian War, Fashoda incident, Boer war, and Victoria's Death.
Firstly, I'm glad you're thinking on this. I doubt the Eastern Seabord is ever truly overshadowed, but it's importance will diminish importantly. Whereas New York, Philiadelphia, and Boston were the primary trading points and banking centers for the US, they won't be for the British Empire in North America: the greater access to river transport means that goods can bypass the seaboard and go to London (as they did in the 18th century).
However, the Seaboard is still the core population center. With access to both the St. Lawrence and the Mississippi, the axes of settlement may change. Since the British will have access to the former sooner, you may see earlier and stronger settlements established there. Note that you'll have to rectify Indian policy. The British were loathe to allow further western settlement because it would stir up the tribes; do they simply relent and allow the colonials to cause wars up and down the contry? There were some serious wars against the native population when the Ohio Country and the Old Northwest were settled. Here those wars will come sooner and so they may be harder to win.
As to where a capital for BNA develops is probably a question of when that capital is built. If it's delayed until the mid 19th century, then someplace along the Great Lakes may work. Chicago is probably a bit much, since it was very small even in 1860 (though if it's founded much sooner that might be different); however, it's the closest to the Great Lake river system and the Mississippi.
The question is really whether the Americans feel the need to build a new city for their capital. In OTL's US this was important both because of the feeling of a New Republic for a New World (which needs a new city), but also because agrarians (i.e. Jeffersonians) feared the influences of having a capital in a large urban centre. Hence, they preferred a newly minted settlement; Washington was far from a city until at least 1900. Even today, it's population is only about that of Nashville, Tennessee. Your British Americans may be more comfortable with the idea of an urban capital; indeed, they may want one that can compete with London, in which case it's either New York or Philadelphia. I could see New York wining out, because there might be adverse associations with Philly. Plus, you could do something fun and have Statten Island become "Government Island" where most of BNA's government is housed.
As to the other posts, I thought the most plausible was the confrontation with South Africa. I was surprised that London is the primary instigator and driver; after your descriptions of BNA emergence in the late-20th century, I'd expect that London would need strong support from BNA's government.
India seemed plausbile, though I think you're wrong to kill off Ghandi. Without him the Nationalist movement is more likely to become violent, IMHO.
Is there a Russian Revolution and / or communism in this TL?
As to wider points, I see your point about an Imperial Parliament. I'm not sure it really means thousands of members (the EU Parliament doesn't), but it will be different from Westminster. I could see something like an "Imperial Council" develop, which is more like a more formal setting for an Imperial Conference. However, your system is plausible and highly possible, given OTL Britain's relucatnce to introduce a formal system on the Empire.
I'm still curious to discover exactly how the Revolution peters out, however.
Also, I'll grant you the ultility of keeping as much of the same cast of historical figures as possible. It is more fun. My current project (an Athenian TL) is quite daunting, since I will probably preclude the existence of more major historical figures post 350 BC. I can sympathize! You might consider, however, that there's no reason that the figures who won OTL will in TTL. First, the difference in position between PM and President is big enough that it may reward differing personality types. For example, Nixon's probably a poor PM; LBJ is probably a natural.
Kudos on contacting Fergusson directly. Hard to criticize someone of his acheivement, although I must admit I've rarely agreed with his take on history. Nonetheless, I wouldn't dismiss his opinions; they're thoughtfull and well-argued at the very least.
Africa probably does need a bit more: I'd expect less white settlement in East Africa, given the availability elsewhere. Also, I'd expect a more Boer dominated South Africa, but that just plays to your TL. I'm more curious to see the extent of foreign colonization. Is there a still a Cape to Cairo RR?
About India, it seems to me that given the counterweight of BNA, giving India dominion status is more likely and more likely sooner. Since your British seem fairly enlightened and they have the expereince of BNA, I'd expect that an ealier grant of dominion status will mute further demands for independence. You might have a limited form introduced in the 1910s. Then, Muslim-Hindu tensions escalate to the point that Federataion of India is split into several smaller dominions (same time frame as your Sikh state, I'd think). This pretty much ensures British domination.
What's the status of China?
Interesting timeline.
My one critique would be British involvement in South America extending to formal control as it seems it has in your tl. OTL Britain was more then happy to economically control the South America states, rather then increasing formal control. With Britain paramount after 1815, the South American republics are going to rely on her for imported goods, markets for their exports and on British markets for raising loans and capital. So I'd question why the British government would bother with direct interference.
Besides that I enjoyed the timeline.
My one critique would be British involvement in South America extending to formal control as it seems it has in your tl. OTL Britain was more then happy to economically control the South America states, rather then increasing formal control. With Britain paramount after 1815, the South American republics are going to rely on her for imported goods, markets for their exports and on British markets for raising loans and capital. So I'd question why the British government would bother with direct interference.
Besides that I enjoyed the timeline.
All fair points. However I would counter that Catholicism of the region is an obstacle to greater British political control, and informal Empire being cheaper to maintain and no power within the hemisphere challenging the British position(OTL US) the South American states would become economically intertwined with the British economic system and be de facto colonies.
As with South America, the question is this: why does Britain need to exert formal control? It will entail much cost for little immediate gain. Controling HK is one thing: for one thing, it's necessary as a port and a base for the reason. Beyond that, it seems of dubious value to defend and police.
In all honesty, I'd expect to see some kind of resurgence in China, because if the Boxer Rebellion happens (or something very much like it), then Britain will discover it has a vested interest in maintaining order in China and hence in the development of China as that of India. Certainly, Britain learned in the later than direct rule could mean all sorts of trouble.
By George i think ive got it! Before 1899, the major powers (Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany) maintained "spheres of influence"; this stopped when the USA, realising it hadnt anything to gain from this, suggested an "open door" policy, where a weak Qing China was maintained, but with Westerners buying all the assets. The spheres disappeared thereafter. But we have no USA; therefore the spheres might be consolidated and eventually annexed.
That's true. However, that does suppose that the other powers have the imperial might to do. Quite nice of Britain to let them have a piece of the cake.
Sorry, I meant to comment on this earlier:
First, it occurs to me that a long war to replace the Revolutionary / Napoleonic wars is feasible since it will be fought with far fewer troops than those unleashed by the nationalists. I would also imagine, perhaps, that the war sees much intrigue in Germany, which unlike in previous conflicts prevents (for a while) one of these nations from serving as a handy ally. You allude to this when you talk about the dissolution of the HRE and Louis' bid for that title. Prussia and Austria switch sides or make peace so often that the British cannot finance an army on the contient and are loathe to invade themselves. The war serves as a crucible then to get reform passed in France, ensuring Louis' control but also giving him a convient patsy to blame for his troubles.
I quite like the different conflict in 1914 / 15. Quite reasonable, since Britain with its wider Empire has little reason to reconicle with France or Russia.
The aftermath of the Ottoman dissolution is interesting: it shows that in this world, colonialism never ended and the Great Powers seem willing to jump on just about any power to carve out new territories for themselves. My one quibble is that the Russians get Constantiople, but at the same time, the Greeks declare themselves Byzantium. Firstly, there might be some conflict since the Byzantines themselves thought they were Romans, though that would make for great irony. Second, since Byzantium is Constantinople, there seems to something of a disconnect.
I love the bit about the cult of the monarch being all that holds France together in the 1950s! Bit like de Gaule, really.
The only thing I would object to is the last paragraph. I can seen the idea of a Great Power Concert emerging as the British work to manage their Empire and the world and keep things peaceful, but without a war like WWI, there seems little reason for a formal organization. Certainly little to no call for an international body with full sovereingty over New York. If nothing else, why keep an arsenal in the middle of city? Why not in the middle of no-where Alaska or the like?
Even the best TL's benefit from drafting and criticism. I agree about British hesitancy about allowing Russia control of Constantinople. I could however see Greece getting control of the straits with Russians promised bases and passage. The British guarantee the independence of Greece, but the Russians get warm water access, and the Greeks get an Empire. Also, this would let them call themselves Byzantium.