Political Structure of a British North America (No U.S.)

So let's say the revolutionaries are defeated, or that the rebellion never happens at such a large scale due to more appeasing British management. Just hand-wave the whole thing, it doesn't matter how.

My question is, how would the political subdivisions look and develop? What would the provinces look like, with the 13 Colonies and Canada all being British? Would it all become one dominion, or would the borders be kept? I'm not particularly well-informed on this area of history, but I'm sure someone here has an idea of what it would look like.
 
Did this map for my EPQ Project. This is immediatly following a compromise in 1775.

britishempire(core)postcompromise.png
 
Did this map for my EPQ Project. This is immediatly following a compromise in 1775.

If you look at Canada and Australia, borders were constantly reorganised, so I imagine some degree of consolidation and border-moving would take place here too. I don't think one dominion would be formed, as it threatens Britain's dominant standing in the empire. New England obviously forms a natural unit. However they'd need to be big enough to stop them from later combining.

One province uniting the Canadas as you have here. One around the Great Lakes. Maybe the middle colonies East of the Appalachians as one . Virginia is strong enough on its own, although it could swallow Maryland and Delaware. One combining claims East of the Appalachians. Then one or two from North Carolina down to Florida, and one in the Deep South, based around New Orleans. (Certainly I can't see Georgia stretching westwards like you have here - those lands more naturally sit with the rivers that flow to the south coast.)
 
Last edited:
Assuming that we just hand wave away the Ohio problem, then I think the plan was to have locally elected represpenatives and a British appointed Governor for each territory, much like the Caribean Islands.

As the terriotories grew it may be that they appointed a Governor of Governors as they did in India.

Given the more direct rule from London I would think that we can avoid the slavery issue as well, London would just have to find the funds to pay for the slaves in the way they did in the parts of the Empire.

I would also imaging that the Louisiana Purchase would not go thru, but that the French would loose a war in the Napoleonic times allowing the terriotories to expand Westward in the 1790's
 
Well, initially, something like the Albany Plan could be put into practice. After that, one could imagine that things develop such that NOrth America gains greater autonomy (and size) over time.
 
Well, initially, something like the Albany Plan could be put into practice. After that, one could imagine that things develop such that NOrth America gains greater autonomy (and size) over time.

One of the things I've always liked about the Albany Plan was the Grand Council which would have been proportional representation by population. It would be a unicameral legislature, probably very similar to the House of Commons. Each colony would have its own elected governor and appointed (at first) representatives to the Grand Council.

The position of President-General would also initially be Crown appointed, but most likely someone from British North America and eventually being chosen by Grand Council and confirmed by the Crown. The position would be similar to that of Prime Minister. A cabinet to assist would quickly evolve. One could also see that a High Court of sorts will also develop over time.

There would still be a colonial representative in Parliament, much as Franklin served for years, which could evolve into the Secretary of State for North America in the British cabinet. This position would probably start out as a cabinet position with the President-General and evolve into a powerful secondary post.

Military affairs may be mostly ad hoc and left to the various colonies until a permanent Royal Army is established. There may eventually be the position of Commander-in-Chief of North America, since military matters will most likely be split off from the position of President-General and given to a professional officer.

It would be intriguing to consider that the phrase 'Great Game' could also evolve in relations to British political affairs with the various North American Indian Nations, Spain and Russia in the nebulous regions of the 'Wild West'
 
Last edited:
...It would be intriguing to consider that the phrase 'Great Game' could also evolve in relations to British political affairs with the various North American Indian Nations, Spain and Russia in the nebulous regions of the 'Wild West'

Thank you very much! I've been contemplating what phrase 20th century historians in my CoHE TL might use RE: 18th & 19th century interactions between Albion and the Indian tribes of North America.
 
In this scenario, unless North America somehow falls out of British hands, said purchase (or acquisition by force of arms) is a probability.

Would it really? In this scenario, the British Empire would have most of North America, control of the Caribbean, the Indian subcontinent, likely small colonies throughout Latin America, and significant colonies in Africa. Would they really care that much about Alaska? What's there that's worth a war over, bearing in mind they can get oil elsewhere?
 
Would it really? In this scenario, the British Empire would have most of North America, control of the Caribbean, the Indian subcontinent, likely small colonies throughout Latin America, and significant colonies in Africa. Would they really care that much about Alaska? What's there that's worth a war over, bearing in mind they can get oil elsewhere?

Oil was not the main drive for buying Alaska (given that the purchase happened in 1867) it was bought so they could surround British Columbia.

In OTL the Brits were not interested in buying it, but if the Tsar was clever and started to populate Alaska with people and soliders this may change and Britain would buy it just to remove another boundary between the Empire and the Russians.
 
The territory that in OTL became the Louisiana-Purchase was given to the Kingdom of Spain in the 1763 Treaty of Paris, ending the Seven Years War. If there is no ARW or if it turns out to be a failure (probably due to a lack of french support) France will not gain back this territory. In this TL, there will also be no French Revolution in 1789, since there will not be OTLs coincidence of factors leading to it. Since France does not help the american revolutionaries, the substantial financial strains this meant for the French treasury will no be there and France will thus not be on the verge of bankruptcy in 1789, thus butterflying away the need to summon the Estates-General. Thus the representatives of the third Estate won't have the opportunity to proclaim themselves to be the National Assembly. And since in TTL there will have been no french troops fighting along the american revolutionaries, far fewer common Frenchmen will have come into touch with the contageous ideas of liberty, equality and civil rights. Those ideas will definately continue to be passionately discussed by proponents of the enlightenment in the cafés of the palais royal and the salons, but without the example of a successful bourgeois revolution in America, those discussion will stay mostly philosophical. A revolution still may come alomg later, but without coinciding with the crop failures of 1788 and 1789 and the following hunger revolts, it would likely run along the lines of the Glorious Revolution in England or the Revolution of 1830 in France with a fairly smooth transition of power.

Without the dislodging effects of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars and also without the example of the successful United States, the iberoamerican colonies will stay much more docile and merely petition for some of the concessions and privileges the British granted their american colonies instead of fighting wars of independence. So by the mid 19th century, the americas would still be made up exclusively of european colonies. The question how much British North America will expand now depends on several factors. Since it can by and large only expand at the cost of the Spanish posessions, the question is: Will there be another war in the style of the Seven Years War? Most probably yes, since there have been wars like this every second or third decade in the 18th century. Will Spain be at war with Britain? Most Probably yes, maybe not in in the first one, but sooner or later Britain and Spain will find find themselves as members of opposing coalitions once again. Is Britain going to win this war? Most probably yes, since it was the most industrialised country in the world. Would Spain then loose territories in North America? Most Probably yes. The situation between Britain / British North America and Spain would be similar to the one between OTLs USA and Mexico. Taking into account Spains precarious financial situation, Spain might be inclined to sell parts of its possetions in North America even without losing a war, after losing a war it would be next to inevitable. As to Alaska, the Russians knew they couldn't hold on to it in OTL and therefore sold it to the USA. If they don't sell it in TTL as well, they will lose it one way or the other sooner or later anyway, there is no way for them to resupply it in a conflict with Britain and its Royal Navy.
 
Top