How is US expansion affected by this situation (see the main post) (pick the 2 most likely)

  • No expansion past the innitial post-revolutionary borders

    Votes: 2 6.9%
  • Takes all of Florida, but nothing else

    Votes: 3 10.3%
  • Takes northern Florida during a seperate Floridian revolution

    Votes: 6 20.7%
  • Buys Louisiana, but doesn't take Texas

    Votes: 12 41.4%
  • Expands like OTL, its problems will only cathc up to the US later

    Votes: 11 37.9%
  • Expands more than OTl (why do you think this is likely, explain in comments)

    Votes: 4 13.8%

  • Total voters
    29

Skallagrim

Banned
Can you tell me what it is that makes the US more likely to choose a monarchy while the OTL aristocratic Spanish colonies chose republicanism? These differences could be pretty important for me to take into account. Was it just that the US would be the first Colony to break away, it was well suited for a republic OTL, and other colonies just copied it?

In addition to what @Dolan has noted, there's the fact that in OTL, a lot of inhabitants of the Spanish colonies despised being ruled by the Spanish elite. Said elite was in a position of power, and the on-goings in Europe (French occupation of Spain etc.) severely weakened that power. Some flipped their support to the colonial population, others attempted to support Spain in keeping or re-taking its colonies later on. But the independence struggles of the Spanish Empire were directed against an aristocratic elite. That, and the example of the USA, made the independence fighters ready to support republicanism.

We are working on the premise that in ATL British North America, it will be the aristocrats who are leading the charge for independence. They simply have no reason to desire a republic. This doesn't rule out some kind of deliberate "aristocracy" model, but consider how the colonies are almost certain to be governed in this ATL. To even get aristocrats in charge, you by definition need a system of chartered fiefs. Some aristocrat gets the right to organise and exploit Carolina Colony on behalf of the crown, making him (presumably) the Duke of Carolina. He no doubt does this by granting his own charters and fiefs to other aristocrats, who form Counties within his Duchy. (Yes, in this America, the counties will have actual Counts!) If independence comes about, and no monarch is chosen, then the Duke of New York and the Duke of Virginia are essentially sovereign heads of state. There can by a 'Grand Ducal Council' or something, where they gather periodically and work together, but it would lead to an America that is set to be an alliance of sovereign countries.

If, however, they choose a monarch, there is a uniting factor in the kind of social and cultural context that they all understand and respect. It promises stability and certainty. It also removes the greatest existential risk there is to the new independent order: that two Ducal Houses unite their Duchies by marriage and start conquering the neighbours. Basically, the aristocratic states would want a common monarch for the same reason that the USA in OTL wanted a Constitution and a President. (Which doesn't mean the King has to have the exact same powers as the OTL federal government. As I have often pointed out, the USA could have replaced the Articles of Confederation with a much weaker Constitution and that would have been fine, too. The central issues were that there was no chief executive, and that the general goernment had no real power to force the states to obey its edicts. In this aristocratic context, those same problems exist, and a monarch solves both of them.)
 
Option C would be even more interesting if Parliements trying to try the King/Crown Prince and make him another Charles, only for said Royalty to fled to Loyalist America while it is the Parliament at London who declare a (Cromwellian) Republic.

I don't think the British ruling class had much desire for a republic of any kind, so most likely Parliament would follow the precedent of the Glorious Revolution, declare the king's flight an implicit abdication and offer the throne to an acceptable relative.
 

Dolan

Banned
I don't think the British ruling class had much desire for a republic of any kind, so most likely Parliament would follow the precedent of the Glorious Revolution, declare the king's flight an implicit abdication and offer the throne to an acceptable relative.
And thus, this will be the most likely way America become separated with British ITTL.

The war will end up taking more aspects of civil war instead of War of Independence.

This in turn, will force one or both Claimants to widen their support base and thus recruiting outside the Aristocracy.
 
I have a new question here.

It's about the integration of new territory.

The northwest territories of the US (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan & Wisconsin) were disputed between the states post-revolution. The various claims to the region were quite unsustainable for the most part (lots of exclaves, with Connecticut and Maine claiming a lot of the land). In this scenario, how likely is the government to take the land? Would they make new states or leave them as territories (Canada and Australia both have large territories OTL, but they were incorporated later than the old northwest)? Would Virginia end up getting a lot of the land? They were pretty dominant in the US even OTL, they're very populous and have a pretty good blend between agriculture and trade. New York also had significant claims in the area, though without the puritans, New England and New York would generally be a little more sparsely settled, so would their power be butterflied away? Basically, does Virginia get it, do VA and NY split the old northwest, does it stay as territories or does it get split into new states?

The possibility of new states with new "fiefs" or really large properties for the landowners or their younger sons (becoming to the US what the US was to Britain in a sense) is interesting. The problem is that this isn't exactly prime farmland, though like OTL, this would be solved by focusing on animal farming, since the south provided cotton for clothes, wool wouldn't be particularly important, so, at least until the incorporation of the plains, I can see the (old) northwest being the heart of American cattle herding.

I've gotten way off track. To get back to my question: what do you think would happen with the region?
 
Ok, so lets say that the US was not allowed to be settled by heretics, and that the king gave out land to aristocrats. Basically, an all Anglican society with English landholders, black slaves, and white tenant craftspeople and servants, where colonial governors are directly appointed by the British crown (at least until the revolution, in which the aristocrats rile up the masses to take power for themselves).

Get the Idea?
Good.
Now, a few questions:

  • How does the US expand? Does it Buy Louisiana? Take Florida (or maybe just part of it, to complete Georgia's promised territory)?
  • Do Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia stay huge (since they're super influential, TTL, they would control the government, and thus not let themselves be carved up, right?) Does New York keep Vermont?
  • Industrialization and abolition almost certainly happen later than OTL, when would this happen roughly? Would it be as late as Brazil, or a little earlier, around when most South American countries abolished Slavery?
  • A weird question: Virginia controlled Bermuda for a while OTL, would it keep it TTL (post-revolution)?
  • Would the US ever rebuild relations with Britain like it did OTL? or would it hate it like south America hates Spain (Britain TTL would be a worse colonial "parent" than OTL, but still not as bad as Spain)

Thanks for the help
Maybe a nobility Republic. Or one das an Independent kingdom all together.
 
Maybe a nobility Republic.

See I initially thought an aristocratic republic inspired by the roman republic and renaissance Italian city states was a possibility, though everyone here seems to agree that a monarchy is very likely.

The way I saw it was that the landowners would want greater individual autonomy, and wouldn't risk a powerful king interfering, though a desire to be seen as legitimate could easily cause some kind of limited monarchy.
 
Top