Other settler colonies

They might compete with the Boer trek, maybe they have their own Farmer trek (Boer = Farmer);), restricting it will be much harder.

The tip of Africa is a good location, but I'm sure that the British could enforce their will from their position.

Well in the end Britain and the Netherlands did have similar ideals, much more than France or Prussia. Philosophically (in the broadest sense) one could argue that the Netherlands had conquered Britain before Willem ehh William III, traditionally the Netherlands and Britain defended free trade, which explains, together with the more economic argument, that the Dutch Republic vehemently was against the (nationalistic) acts of navigation.
 
Would a British Argentina in the 1780s be for or against slavery?

The territory that's now Argentina had slaves in 1780, but most of them, at least in the area around Buenos Aires, worked* as domestic servants, not in plantations. Argentina* didn't have big plantations, unlike other Spanish South American colonnies.

so I think the colony would eventualy be against slavery, given it's climate (unless, of course, the British conquer and settle the Chaco and Misiones, remove the Indians and instal big plantations there).

IOTL, it was established in 1812 (2 years after the revolution and 4 years before the formal declaration of independence) that all sons of slaves born after the 1st january 1813 would be free. Others were freed after serving in the army. Slavery graduaylly fade away in the 1820ies and 1830ies, without much resistance. Slaves even adquired some political power in Buenos Aires as supporters of the Federal party, after universal sufrage was established in Buenos Aires in 1821.

By the way, there as a good documentary on Argentinean tV (Channel Encuentro) based on the fictional live of a slave, captured as a kid in the 1780s, and realesed d after serving in the army in the 1810s. I lost the first half, hope they pass it again
 
I was thinking more that the British in Africa might be able to head off the Boer trek north from their position in Natal, wanting to restrict Dutch expansion.

The Dutch and the British aren't rivals anymore. The Netherlands wasn't that important for Britain anymore. I doubt the British would care if the Netherlands expanded a bit further into Africa. Britiain will focus on India and Northern America and less on Ssouthern Africa. If it had been France, the big opponent, than the British would try to do something.

You make a strong case. It always seems a bit of a mystery why the British didn't grab more Dutch possessions when they had a chance after various peace treaties. If not the Cape, then surely the Dutch East Indies must have been worth it?
Don't forget, there is always the danger of overextending yourself. The Dutch (and other) colonies might be useful, but would Britain be able to control and India, and Indonesia, and Northern America and Australia and large parts of southern America and, this and that. In the end it will be too much too keep. Also in peace treaties, you don't completely ruin your opponent. Your opponent today, may be your ally tomorrow and ruining your enemies is a good way to make other enemies, including nations that will fear that the same thing will happen to them. England neds allies, friends and even neutral nations.
 
unless, of course, the British conquer and settle the Chaco and Misiones, remove the Indians and instal big plantations there

What sort of plantations would these be? Seems to suggest they're rainforest on wikipedia...

Do you think British Argentina would expand into southern Brazil? I can imagine this could be a colonial-homeland split, as the colonials would want to but London would not want to upset the Spanish. If they did grab parts of it, that would surely enhance the pro-slavery position.
 
In terms of Argentina, does anyone know why British strategists thought it was such a good site for a colony? How much trade went round South America? Was it for other reasons?

Flat terrain, separate from the rest of Spanish colonies, the area of River Plate controls access to Brazilian Hinterlands and if they want to export cheap and easy, they have to use the Parana River.

Also was a potential base to control South Atlantic, although as a military base, Montevideo has the good natural harbor. And it can be used to expand towards Patagonia, as during this time, ship traffic through Magallanes Strait was increasingly growing.
 
Flat terrain, separate from the rest of Spanish colonies, the area of River Plate controls access to Brazilian Hinterlands and if they want to export cheap and easy, they have to use the Parana River.

Also was a potential base to control South Atlantic, although as a military base, Montevideo has the good natural harbor. And it can be used to expand towards Patagonia, as during this time, ship traffic through Magallanes Strait was increasingly growing.

Where else do you think the British would identify as good places for colonies on the same basis, had the Empire not split in the 1780s. I would imagine the Cape and New Orleans would have been pretty far up the list. Anywhere else?
 

archaeogeek

Banned
If Britain had held on to the American colonies, what would their settler colonisation efforts look like elsewhere?

The River Plate was known to have been a British target before the ARW - is it possible this area could have been settled from both Britain and the Eastern seaboard? With the right landgrants, its access to a port city would presumably make it more promising than the American interior. What about the Cape Colony? I assume Australia is off limits...

It would lessen, not increase their efforts.

Also, I would refer to the war of Jenkins ear, for what british amphibious operations against Spain looked like even with the american colonies still there. Or maybe the invasion of Rio de la Plata during the Napoleonic wars.

It forever remains a great mystery for me why some people seem to think that the british empire would have expanded more instead of less... It's not like grabbing India led to Britain taking over all of Africa.

Where else do you think the British would identify as good places for colonies on the same basis, had the Empire not split in the 1780s. I would imagine the Cape and New Orleans would have been pretty far up the list. Anywhere else?

The Cape is dutch and only changed hands because the government of the Netherlands was on the french side, and New Orleans has been spanish since the 7 years war. They'll have to fight to take them, and if they win those battles as well as they "won" at Cartagena, they might as well hand over everything back to the french without wasting lives.

If anything, America remaining British makes a dutch or french dominated Australia (or a split one) all the more likely, not less.

I would also add that Louisiana and the Provincias Internas remaining Spanish and French wouldn't have that much of an effect on the population of the "United Dominions" until the 20th century; out of a population of 76 millions in 1901, you get only 6 in Texas and the south west, 13 in what used to be Louisiana territory (15 if you count Minnesota) and about 1 for the pacific northwest (I made the calculations at some point for a balkanized America/Brazil vs 3 relatively united spanish successor states - the thing is, the US is absolutely overwhelming thanks to the sheer amount of people who settled in the north and the midwest, to the point where even with Louisiana as a neighbour, it still has almost 40% of the population of the entire continent). Also, Florida at that point had only half a million people.

For an idea comparison wise, these are population equivalencies in 1901
- Argentina and its rebellious province = Illinois
- Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Panama = New York + New Jersey
- Bolivia-Peru = Ohio
- Paraguay = Rhode Island
- Chile = the Virginias
- Canada and Newfoundland = Pennsylvania
- Central America = the Carolinas
- Brazil = the Midwest
- And you could have had the population of Mexico in New England + New York.

On the other hand, politics were a large part of this. I'm not terribly sure the same poor and huddled masses will be yearning to sing God Save the Queen. There wasn't that much more immigration to the british colonies than there was to the regularly war-torn former Spanish colonies.
 
Last edited:
Also, I would refer to the war of Jenkins ear, for what british amphibious operations against Spain looked like even with the american colonies still there. Or maybe the invasion of Rio de la Plata during the Napoleonic wars.

Fair points. However, the British do have a huge, and increasing, population advantage over French America. They would surely reach a tipping point. As counter-examples, during the Seven Year's War the British managed to take Cuba, Philippines, Senegal and various French Caribbean islands with amphibious operations.

It forever remains a great mystery for me why some people seem to think that the british empire would have expanded more instead of less... It's not like grabbing India led to Britain taking over all of Africa.

Not all of Africa, no. But the money made from India surely helped the British in their efforts to colonise Egypt for example. Did losing Silesia strengthen or weaken Austria's attempts to expand into Bavaria? Did the Spanish capture of mesoamerica hinder or help their attempts to get the Philippines? Did France losing its holdings in India speed or slow its expansion into other parts of Asia? I would argue the latter in all cases.

I appreciate there can be a zero-sum game to these things when colonies became a sink for resources (like the European empires did when independence movements kicked off). This would probably be the case with the thirteen colonies had they been subjugated by force during the ARW. But if the war was simply averted, and the population remained loyal, they would contribute to the empire in terms of both men and finance. That helps further expansion, IMHO.

The Cape is dutch and only changed hands because the government of the Netherlands was on the french side, and New Orleans has been spanish since the 7 years war. They'll have to fight to take them, and if they win those battles as well as they "won" at Cartagena, they might as well hand over everything back to the french without wasting lives.

Yes, I agree the Cape colony is not easy for the British to take, or have the willingness to do so. But my argument was where, ideally, would they want to be, if they could. As for New Orleans, I would say the British navy was a lot stronger at the end of the 18th century than it was sixty years earlier.

If anything, America remaining British makes a dutch or french dominated Australia (or a split one) all the more likely, not less.

I think you're right with Australia. By "off limits" I meant not worth it for the Brits. I don't imagine the Dutch or French would bother either. It would probably just be left for another century, with butterflies deciding its fate.

I would also add that Louisiana and the Provincias Internas remaining Spanish and French wouldn't have that much of an effect on the population of the "United Dominions" until the 20th century; out of a population of 76 millions in 1901, you get only 6 in Texas and the south west, 13 in what used to be Louisiana territory (15 if you count Minnesota) and about 1 for the pacific northwest (I made the calculations at some point for a balkanized America/Brazil vs 3 relatively united spanish successor states - the thing is, the US is absolutely overwhelming thanks to the sheer amount of people who settled in the north and the midwest, to the point where even with Louisiana as a neighbour, it still has almost 40% of the population of the entire continent). Also, Florida at that point had only half a million people.
Again, tend to agree. I think the British might would ideally want to capture rich trade ports on the coast, like New Orleans and Veracruz, but would happily leave the interior in French/Spanish/Native hands.

On the other hand, politics were a large part of this. I'm not terribly sure the same poor and huddled masses will be yearning to sing God Save the Queen. There wasn't that much more immigration to the british colonies than there was to the regularly war-torn former Spanish colonies.

Agreed. There would be both less immigration to a British America, and more disagreement, possibly conflict, with the British coastal colonies, and an illegally settled, often non-British interior.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Fair points. However, the British do have a huge, and increasing, population advantage over French America. They would surely reach a tipping point. As counter-examples, during the Seven Year's War the British managed to take Cuba, Philippines, Senegal and various French Caribbean islands with amphibious operations.
They only managed to take a small part of Cuba. Senegal was three small forts in the suburbs of Dakar, apart for Martinique, and Barbados, nobody bothered to defend the lesser Antilles and they changed hands regularly, and the Philippines were a generally undefended province.


Not all of Africa, no. But the money made from India surely helped the British in their efforts to colonise Egypt for example. Did losing Silesia strengthen or weaken Austria's attempts to expand into Bavaria? Did the Spanish capture of mesoamerica hinder or help their attempts to get the Philippines? Did France losing its holdings in India speed or slow its expansion into other parts of Asia? I would argue the latter in all cases.
In order
- Not really, that was military conquest and "colonization" never really happened. Egypt was a british puppet state with only Sudan as a colony. India did give the impetus for it, as Britain was seeking a more reliable route to do it than its network of desolate islands and then a long stretch of sea (until they conquered Mauritius and the Seychelles)
- This has little to do with the point at hand, but I'll go with strengthen, since they did expand into Bavaria afterwards, grabbing the Innviertel (and other traditionally bavarian territories; Salzburg should have been Bavarian, for example)
- Again, I'm not sure what the point is, but for the record, both France and the UK only really started to expand in South East Asia during the 1880s, after the scramble for Africa had started. Both sides also started doing the Oceanian protectorates game in the 1840s, and protectorates generally only lasted so long as one side had ships in harbor at the polynesian capitals.

I appreciate there can be a zero-sum game to these things when colonies became a sink for resources (like the European empires did when independence movements kicked off). This would probably be the case with the thirteen colonies had they been subjugated by force during the ARW. But if the war was simply averted, and the population remained loyal, they would contribute to the empire in terms of both men and finance. That helps further expansion, IMHO.
They're still going to cost money for defence, administration, etc. Especially considering that there are at least three colonies which aren't going to abolish slavery on their own.


Yes, I agree the Cape colony is not easy for the British to take, or have the willingness to do so. But my argument was where, ideally, would they want to be, if they could. As for New Orleans, I would say the British navy was a lot stronger at the end of the 18th century than it was sixty years earlier.
And I'm sure the Argentines are very proud of kicking their asses sixty years later if they were that much stronger. I'll also add Toulon and Santa Cruz de Tenerife to the list of the glorious royal navy's debacles in the era (1793 and 1797; Nelson even commanded at Santa Cruz).

Again, tend to agree. I think the British might would ideally want to capture rich trade ports on the coast, like New Orleans and Veracruz, but would happily leave the interior in French/Spanish/Native hands.
It's not about what they want, it's about what they can do and hold on to. If the British act like they did after 1763, they will get the same diplomatic deal as they got in 1776, whether the americans want to separate or not: for a quick recap
- Pacte de Famille plus the Netherlands at war against Britain
- First League of Armed Neutrality, with Russia, Denmark, Sweden and Prussia, and quite willing to shoot at British ships.
Veracruz and New Orleans are not Gibraltar, they're provincial capitals (Gibraltar was a fishing village nobody gave a damn about).

What more, there is no guarantee that the French revolution will happen within the same timeframe or with the same political results: the french navy before the revolution had quite enough personnel and ships to complement Spain and the Netherlands into a solid anti-british coalition if they weren't busy dealing with more important matters in Europe.

Agreed. There would be both less immigration to a British America, and more disagreement, possibly conflict, with the British coastal colonies, and an illegally settled, often non-British interior.

A Yankee Trek of sorts would be interesting. I could also see a number of Emigres settling not only in the interior, but in Upper Louisiana, and potentially in the spanish colonies or, hell, France. The repercussions for things like the Mexican and first Colombian revolutions could be interesting .
 
Last edited:
They only managed to take a small part of Cuba. Senegal was three small forts in the suburbs of Dakar, apart for Martinique, and Barbados, nobody bothered to defend the lesser Antilles and they changed hands regularly, and the Philippines were a generally undefended province.

Guadeloupe was surely defended also. The part of Cuba they managed to take was Havana which was surely as well defended as New Orleans.

In order
- Not really, that was military conquest and "colonization" never really happened. Egypt was a british puppet state with only Sudan as a colony. India did give the impetus for it, as Britain was seeking a more reliable route to do it than its network of desolate islands and then a long stretch of sea (until they conquered Mauritius and the Seychelles)
- This has little to do with the point at hand, but I'll go with strengthen, since they did expand into Bavaria afterwards, grabbing the Innviertel (and other traditionally bavarian territories; Salzburg should have been Bavarian, for example)
- Again, I'm not sure what the point is, but for the record, both France and the UK only really started to expand in South East Asia during the 1880s, after the scramble for Africa had started. Both sides also started doing the Oceanian protectorates game in the 1840s, and protectorates generally only lasted so long as one side had ships in harbor at the polynesian capitals.

The point is that, in many cases, territorial gains can often strengthen a polity's ability to get further gains. Yes, Austria managed to grab bits of Bavaria, but had it held on to Silesia it could have probably enforced its claims to Bavaria later on. Prussia taking Silesia was a key driver in Prussia's later expansion due the economic base it provided. The American colonies would have been similar for the British.

They're still going to cost money for defence, administration, etc. Especially considering that there are at least three colonies which aren't going to abolish slavery on their own.

The very independence of the US clearly shows the economy activity of those areas could more than afford to pay for the necessary defence and administration. The problem here was political, not structural, and the political part is our POD.


What more, there is no guarantee that the French revolution will happen within the same timeframe or with the same political results: the french navy before the revolution had quite enough personnel and ships to complement Spain and the Netherlands into a solid anti-british coalition if they weren't busy dealing with more important matters in Europe.

The lack of a French revolution could well weaken the French in the longer run, due to the continued appalling disarray of their taxation system.

A Yankee Trek of sorts would be interesting. I could also see a number of Emigres settling not only in the interior, but in Upper Louisiana, and potentially in the spanish colonies or, hell, France. The repercussions for things like the Mexican and first Colombian revolutions could be interesting .

Emigres from Louisiana you mean? How would it affect Colombia?
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Guadeloupe was surely defended also. The part of Cuba they managed to take was Havana which was surely as well defended as New Orleans.
Point taken. And yes, Guadeloupe gained some defences. The rest was entirely peripheral and IIRC had a population combined that was less than any of these three colonies.

The point is that, in many cases, territorial gains can often strengthen a polity's ability to get further gains. Yes, Austria managed to grab bits of Bavaria, but had it held on to Silesia it could have probably enforced its claims to Bavaria later on. Prussia taking Silesia was a key driver in Prussia's later expansion due the economic base it provided. The American colonies would have been similar for the British.
I actually rather doubt it. World politics is not a game of Victoria; wars of expansion paid for with american blood will increase unrest in the colonies, for example.


The very independence of the US clearly shows the economy activity of those areas could more than afford to pay for the necessary defence and administration. The problem here was political, not structural, and the political part is our POD.
Their economy, a few million pounds of loans, and the military support of two great powers ;)


The lack of a French revolution could well weaken the French in the longer run, due to the continued appalling disarray of their taxation system.
That's a very different matter - the thing which weakened the french navy first was a loss of qualified personnel, not a matter of economics.

Emigres from Louisiana you mean? How would it affect Colombia?

Emigres from America. By fostering more enlightenment thinking in the region, right in time for Miranda's uprising.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't increasing technology mean that Britain's Caribbean possessions become increasingly tied to her American possessions, especially as the trade between the two was significant? This would then make the strengthening of the one in the interest of the other.

As a note, I remember that in the 7 Years War Britain handed back Guadeloupe and Martinique partly as a result of political pressure from the British sugar islands, since their markets had already been undercut during the period of British occupation of the islands and they did not want this to become a permanent case of affairs

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
hmmm a Yankee 'Boer' like trek would be interesting, especially since there could be quite some colonials, which could have issues with the influence of the mother country, just as IOTL the VOC and later the British weren't popular among the Boers in South Africa. So IMHO such an event could also occur in British North America.
 
hmmm a Yankee 'Boer' like trek would be interesting, especially since there could be quite some colonials, which could have issues with the influence of the mother country, just as IOTL the VOC and later the British weren't popular among the Boers in South Africa. So IMHO such an event could also occur in British North America.

Didn't it in a sense? Or how do you explain the English-speaking majority in Oregon? :D
 
Top