Other settler colonies

[Socrates]

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...

 

[Janprimus]

Wouldn't Britain settle less in other areas, if it kept the American Colonies? Britain though very successful, did have competition from Spain, France, Portugal, the Netherlands...; regarding the River Plate Spain already controlled that area. In any case IMHO keeping these territories will go at the expense of something else.

The Cape Colony was Dutch, but as it was halfway to either British India or the Dutch East Indies (and thus a strategic location), the British could decide to take it in one of the conflicts with the Dutch Republic or they could expand at Natal.

 

[Umbric Man]

Britain did claim east Australia by 1770, and further, the penal dumping into the American colonies had become exceedingly unpopular by this time. You might well see Australia still being colonized per its origins in OTL, though whether or not it takes the whole continent is the question.

Since one or two more rounds of anti-France wars are likely whether you have the French Revolution/Boney or not, and Spain may very well be against Britain per the traditional Franco-Spanish alliance, it's not unfathomable for Louisiana territory to be taken. Especially if the green light is given to the colonies to head west.

Hell, Texas and California too - America and France in OTL claimed Louisiana extended to the Rio Grande based on old French colonization schemes (Fort St. Louis) AND the First Texas Republic filibuster was successfully done for a bit in the early 1800s...

..as for Cali an American armed merchantman in OTL captured San Diego in 1804 (!?!). So certainly if they could, and US Navy ships could take on the Barbary Coast in the same year... so can full-fledged Royal Navy ships in the same timeframe.

TL;DR large swaths of territory being captured in North America is pretty far off but certainly has a small chance based on filibuster events alone as predecent.

 

[Petete123123]

I'm doing a TL about the British in Rio de La Plata(in my signature), although it's just started and time for updates is scarce.

 

[Cook]

Britain did claim east Australia by 1770, and further, the penal dumping into the American colonies had become exceedingly unpopular by this time. You might well see Australia still being colonized per its origins in OTL, though whether or not it takes the whole continent is the question.

No. They Sydney colony was an enormously expensive undertaking that would not have been taken if any alternative was considered viable. With the colonies in North America still available a smaller scale undertaking in Australia might have been considered, but probably would have been abandoned when it failed to pay for itself and continued to incur huge debts.

 

[Julius Vogel]

Hmm, now that could be really interesting.

If we assume a loyalist America TL and also an Australia claimed but not settled by Britain, then we could see some rather interesting changes, assuming Britain's claim is respected.

IOTL American whalers from the east coast did a lot of the early commercial contact with Maori in New Zealand. I assume a lot of that would still happen as the commercial/industrial need for whaling probably won't change too much. However if the American traders/whalers are still part of Britain maybe they might have a bigger impact on the Maori and indeed parts of Australia. Without a settled NSW/Victoria/Tasmania there is also far less reason for a British settled NZ as well, as there won't be a large, adventurous British population nearby, nor will there be a huge economic reason for the early trans-Tasman trading networks (apparently NZ Maori groups traded extensively with the Australian colonies - food for guns etc)

We might end up with a NZ Maori protectorate of some kind, heavily influenced by British American traders!

 

[Janprimus]

If Britain would only claim Australia, but fails to settle it, then some other European Colonial Power eventually will; for instance the Western half of Australia, New Holland, was claimed by the Dutch Republic, but never settled and ended up English.

All the Colonial Nations would have to enforce their claim, just claiming an area isn't enough, don't forget that they were rivals in the colonial game, so they won't give each other gifts.

Or alternatively Britain could end up selling their claim or they could hand it over in a peace treaty.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Britain might be more inclined, and more able, to make permanent territorial inroads into other parts of the Americas - Central America building on their holding of Belize and dominion over Miskitia, and Guyana, trying to permanently wrestle more of it away from the Dutch and French

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Super Parker Brothers]

Does this have the British hold on to the colonies with or without a Revolution?

 

[Socrates]

Does this have the British hold on to the colonies with or without a Revolution?

I'm going with a partially successful movement for political rights, and no revolutionary war.

regarding the River Plate Spain already controlled that area. In any case IMHO keeping these territories will go at the expense of something else.

I believe the River Plate was considered ripe for the taking by the British since the mid-18th century. The area was sparsely populated by the Spanish, who did not have a firm control on the place due to the distance from other Spanish American power centres. The British almost took it during the Napoleonic wars. Another war with the Bourbons in the late 18th century, assuming no revolutions in America and France, would have made the defence a lot weaker.

Would a British Argentina in the 1780s be for or against slavery?

The Cape Colony was Dutch, but as it was halfway to either British India or the Dutch East Indies (and thus a strategic location), the British could decide to take it in one of the conflicts with the Dutch Republic or they could expand at Natal.

I think a more powerful British Empire, backed by its American population, is almost bound to take the Cape Colony at some point, due to its strategic position.

Britain might be more inclined, and more able, to make permanent territorial inroads into other parts of the Americas - Central America building on their holding of Belize and dominion over Miskitia, and Guyana, trying to permanently wrestle more of it away from the Dutch and French

Yes, I imagine the British would be looking to establish their own version of a Monroe doctrine to utterly dominate the Americas. Might the concentration on this lead to less focus on their Asian posssessions?

 

[Super Parker Brothers]

The Monroe Doctrine was in Britain's interests as it meant that countries became independent and they got to pruchase what they wanted without the Spanish government trying to stop them. No revolutions would mean that this could not happen though. Unless you could split the Castilians from the others. As for South Africa, it is a thought if the French did go around conquering their neighbors anyways, that the British keep the Dutch colonies and integrate their population. Is the Procolmation Line still set at the Appalaachians?

 

[pompejus]

I think a more powerful British Empire, backed by its American population, is almost bound to take the Cape Colony at some point, due to its strategic position.

That 's far from certain. Without the American revolution or a failed revolution, the French revolution and the Napoleonic wars will be (if not butterflied away) very different and the loss of the cape colony was directly linked to the occupation of the Netherlands by Napoleon and the cooperation of the Batavian republic (and the kingdom of Holland) with France.

Britain might be more inclined, and more able, to make permanent territorial inroads into other parts of the Americas - Central America building on their holding of Belize and dominion over Miskitia, and Guyana, trying to permanently wrestle more of it away from the Dutch and French

Don't forget, that British Guyana was still Dutch. So unless the British capture it somehow from the Dutch in an Anglo-Dutch war, unlikely but possible, it would remain so. And in an Anglo-Dutch war the British would probably focus on Dutch India and maybe Ceylon, like during the 4th Anglo-Dutch war and leave Dutch America to the Dutch.

 

[Socrates]

That 's far from certain. Without the American revolution or a failed revolution, the French revolution and the Napoleonic wars will be (if not butterflied away) very different and the loss of the cape colony was directly linked to the occupation of the Netherlands by Napoleon and the cooperation of the Batavian republic (and the kingdom of Holland) with France.

I think a lot depends on how well the Kingdom of France manages its debt. However, I think it is highly likely to come to war with the Dutch at some point in the future, and would likely win on ground at least.

Don't forget, that British Guyana was still Dutch. So unless the British capture it somehow from the Dutch in an Anglo-Dutch war, unlikely but possible, it would remain so. And in an Anglo-Dutch war the British would probably focus on Dutch India and maybe Ceylon, like during the 4th Anglo-Dutch war and leave Dutch America to the Dutch.

Of course, during this period, the British military and that of the EIC were fairly separate, so I'm not sure how much they could have a joint "focus". Or are you meaning in peace negotiations afterwards?

The Monroe Doctrine was in Britain's interests as it meant that countries became independent and they got to pruchase what they wanted without the Spanish government trying to stop them. No revolutions would mean that this could not happen though. Unless you could split the Castilians from the others.

I meant more of a doctrine of "The Americas are a British sphere - don't interfere." How Britain deals with Spanish American independence movements is an interesting one. It would all depend on how integrated British America has become to the empire, but I imagine republics led by pro-British criollo elites, and dependent on imperial trade would generally be welcomed. Perhaps with the idea they might one day join the empire?

Is the Procolmation Line still set at the Appalaachians?

I would imagine a Britain trying to balance the needs of American representatives to parliament and their Native allies would support something between the proclamation line and the post-ARW free for all of our time line.

 

[pompejus]

I think a lot depends on how well the Kingdom of France manages its debt. However, I think it is highly likely to come to war with the Dutch at some point in the future, and would likely win on ground at least.

You mean France defeating the Netherlands? Possible. That happened a lot during the 17th and 18th century. But without an American revolution, or a failed revolution, Dutch internal politicals will be very different. The patriot movement was inspired by the American revolution after all. Also any war revolutionary France starts against the Netherlands will be very different than OTL revolutionairy wars and could be defeated by an alliance of European states, the Netherlands might not fall, like it did not during the other wars with France or could even not get involved, like it wasn't involved in the 7 year war. It could even be possible for the Netherlands continuing the fight from the colonies (kind of like during WWII). All reasons Britain won't be able to snatch away the Cape colony from an occupied Netherlands and that is ignoring that during the time of the Batavian Republic (the Dutch vasal of France) the cape colony remained Dutch and Britain even returned it after occupation.

Unless you mean a Anglo-Dutch war. That is possible too, though unlikely. During the 4th Anglo-Dutch war (a stupid misscalculation from naive Dutch idealists), the Dutch were defeated, without hope of winning. Assuming the OTL 4th Anglo-Dutch war is butterflied away (likely as it was the direct result of the American revolution), it is possible another could happen for a related reason. I do consider it unlikely, as the Anglo-Dutch rivalry was basicly over in the late 18th century as it was clear the Dutch had lost. Still assuming a war happens, it will be more or less like OTL Anglo-Dutch 4th war. The Dutch lose bigtime and won't be stupid enough to try again. The peace will probably look the same. OTL the Netherlands lost 1, and I repeat it, only one outpost in India, although they lost big. So I expect a similair peace will be made. At worst the Netherlands loses more Indian outposts and maybe Ceylon. The Cape colony will not be a target. Instead of occupying a colony full of Dutchman, who do not wish to be English, it will be far easier for the English to start a new colony next to the Dutch colony in Natal. So in my opinion the most likely occurence is a Dutch Cape colony.

Of course, during this period, the British military and that of the EIC were fairly separate, so I'm not sure how much they could have a joint "focus". Or are you meaning in peace negotiations afterwards?

I am not sure what you mean. What I meant to say was that Guyana was Dutch, so would most likely remain Dutch. Even if an Anglo-Dutch war occurs, the peace treaty will focus on Dutch consessions in India, not in the America's. So even in that case Guyana (including British Guyana and Surinam) will remain Dutch.

 

[Janprimus]

I'm going with a partially successful movement for political rights, and no revolutionary war.



I believe the River Plate was considered ripe for the taking by the British since the mid-18th century. The area was sparsely populated by the Spanish, who did not have a firm control on the place due to the distance from other Spanish American power centres. The British almost took it during the Napoleonic wars. Another war with the Bourbons in the late 18th century, assuming no revolutions in America and France, would have made the defence a lot weaker.

Would a British Argentina in the 1780s be for or against slavery?



I think a more powerful British Empire, backed by its American population, is almost bound to take the Cape Colony at some point, due to its strategic position.



Yes, I imagine the British would be looking to establish their own version of a Monroe doctrine to utterly dominate the Americas. Might the concentration on this lead to less focus on their Asian posssessions?

With all due respect, but I have my doubts about that, the British Empire will shift some of its focus, because it keeps the American Colonies; this will most likely go at the expense of other areas. Furthermore such a situation will also change the policies of their Colonial rivals, maybe the British Empire turns out smaller than OTL ITTL.
Since the situation has changed for all colonial powers not just Britain.

 

[Socrates]

With all due respect, but I have my doubts about that, the British Empire will shift some of its focus, because it keeps the American Colonies; this will most likely go at the expense of other areas. Furthermore such a situation will also change the policies of their Colonial rivals, maybe the British Empire turns out smaller than OTL ITTL.
Since the situation has changed for all colonial powers not just Britain.

I'm not so sure. Generally, history has shown that almost every powerful people has sought to dominate the weaker peoples it comes across. In OTL, the United States was a strange animal, in that the nature of its birth meant it envisioned itself as the underdog against the imperialists - despite the fact they were a very powerful people. This means America has always had dual strands as the 'natural' tendency towards imperialism struggled against its anti-imperialist ideology.

Without this anti-imperialist ideology being a core value, I can see the cities of Boston, Philadelphia and New York being as pro-empire as London and Glasgow. That's a huge addition of finance and man power towards future expansion.

I don't think "focus" is as much an issue, due to the empire being acquired in "a fit of absence of mind". i.e. It's not London-directed, but various members of the empire acquiring further territory. If there are a lot more people doing that, London's focus isn't all that relevant. Just think of what William Walker could have achieved under the banner of Britannia.

The Cape colony will not be a target. Instead of occupying a colony full of Dutchman, who do not wish to be English, it will be far easier for the English to start a new colony next to the Dutch colony in Natal.

How do you think such a colony would look? How would it interract with the Dutch colonies around it? Could it prevent the Boers' trek north?

Would such a place be able to control traffic to India as the Cape did? If no, wouldn't the British still want the Cape?

 

[Janprimus]

What they want isn't that relevant, but can they take it if they want to have it. Not even Britain can have it all, more successes somewhere else could go at the expense of something else. Other rivals, especially France and Spain, could become or stay more successful as well.

I'm not saying that Britain wouldn't be powerful, but some seem to forget that there was competition as well, which had their own ambitions.
Or are you saying that the other colonial powers, France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands etc. were weaker peoples?

 

[Socrates]

What they want isn't that relevant, but can they take it if they want to have it. Not even Britain can have it all, more successes somewhere else could go at the expense of something else. Other rivals, especially France and Spain, could become or stay more successful as well.

I'm not saying that Britain wouldn't be powerful, but some seem to forget that there was competition as well, which had their own ambitions.
Or are you saying that the other colonial powers, France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands etc. were weaker peoples?

By the time we're looking (early 19th century) the Dutch, Portuguese and Spanish had their best days behind them. As for the French, it all depends on how much they get their financial state in order. During the ARW, the British were fighting their own rebels, the French, the Spanish and the Dutch - and they managed to hang on to their empire. If the rebels were on their side, they would have had the balance of power on their side.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not expecting Britain to walk all over the world easily. But I do think a British-American empire would have a very strong domination over Spanish America that the Spanish would have a lot of difficulty holding on to its empire.

I also don't buy that having one area necessarily means it has to be at the expense of something else. If the area in question is a net contributor of resources, it means MORE can be taken, not less. For example, did gaining Silesia improve or weaken Prussia's chances of other gains in Germany? Overexpansion is only an issue if the extra area is a net drain on resources rather than a net gain.

 

[pompejus]

How do you think such a colony would look? How would it interract with the Dutch colonies around it? Could it prevent the Boers' trek north?

It all depends on the Anglo-Dutch relations. They never were realy bad, with th exception of the time the Netherlands was a French vasal. So I guess two relatively friendly neighbours, although most of the time ignoring each other.

Would the Boer trek be avoided? Kinda, if the Cape colony remains Dutch, there will be less incentive to move away, but there already was an overpopulation in the Cape colony and the VOC who owned the colony wasn't well liked. I think there will still be a Boertrek but smaller and it will not lead to independent countries, but just to enlargement of the the Cape colony or maybe independed colonies will be founded, which are still connected to the Netherlands somehow.

Would such a place be able to control traffic to India as the Cape did? If no, wouldn't the British still want the Cape?

I see no reason why it won't be able to control traffic, or at least British travel. It would just be a British Cape colony just a bit to the east. The Portuguese would use Angola and Mocambique, the Dutch the Cape Colony and the British Natal (or maybe Madagaskar, or whatever) to go from Europe to their Asian colonies.

Also remember, the British didn't want the Cape, or at least not very badly. The British and the Dutch fought 4 wars and in none of them the British got the Cape colony (although I must admit 1-3 don't realy count). The British even returned the Cape colony to the Batavan Republic, a French Vasal and only recaptured it in 1807 after which they kept it. If the British had realy wanted the Cape Colony they would have captured it earlier.

 

[Socrates]

Would the Boer trek be avoided? Kinda, if the Cape colony remains Dutch, there will be less incentive to move away, but there already was an overpopulation in the Cape colony and the VOC who owned the colony wasn't well liked. I think there will still be a Boertrek but smaller and it will not lead to independent countries, but just to enlargement of the the Cape colony or maybe independed colonies will be founded, which are still connected to the Netherlands somehow.

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.

I see no reason why it won't be able to control traffic, or at least British travel. It would just be a British Cape colony just a bit to the east. The Portuguese would use Angola and Mocambique, the Dutch the Cape Colony and the British Natal (or maybe Madagaskar, or whatever) to go from Europe to their Asian colonies.

I was under the impression that controlling the tip of the Cape was important because it allowed the British to control all trade going round Africa, rather than just the British stuff. Am I wrong on this?

Also remember, the British didn't want the Cape, or at least not very badly. The British and the Dutch fought 4 wars and in none of them the British got the Cape colony (although I must admit 1-3 don't realy count). The British even returned the Cape colony to the Batavan Republic, a French Vasal and only recaptured it in 1807 after which they kept it. If the British had realy wanted the Cape Colony they would have captured it earlier.

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?


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?