UK Compromises with Americans: Likely map of British North America?

Perhaps, but there was not only a lot of consolidation (political and economic) TTL, but also a shared sense at wanting unity in the face of the British. Also, big business (which was especially powerful in Columbia Northeast) was behind the pan-Columbian movement, since they felt that combined the 4 Columbias would be powerful economically, and more than the sum of their parts.

1) to all intents and purposes the colonies will be British. They may count themselves as Dixian or New English first, much as do the Welsh and Scottish, but they'll be counted as British. Look at how Canadian identity is still strongly provincial and non-US despite being in a union. You can't grow a shared identity from nowhere.
2) where is this consolidation coming from? Assuming a lack or failed ARW the only consolidation is creation of a few states into dominions - several of them.
3) where is this cross dominion big business coming from? Surely at most there'd be rival big business in each dominion? Compare how big business works crossing the US-Canada border OTL. How many of them are pushing for political union there? I can see an equivalent NAFTA being pushed, especially assuming continuing Empire Free Trade ideals, but what more benefit political union if Free Trade gets them profit with less cost?

You seem to be strongly assuming that politics and business and society are going to develop the exact same way in an ARWless TL as in OTL. This assumption is unwarranted and I've yet to see anything backing it up.
 
1) to all intents and purposes the colonies will be British. They may count themselves as Dixian or New English first, much as do the Welsh and Scottish, but they'll be counted as British. Look at how Canadian identity is still strongly provincial and non-US despite being in a union. You can't grow a shared identity from nowhere.
2) where is this consolidation coming from? Assuming a lack or failed ARW the only consolidation is creation of a few states into dominions - several of them.
3) where is this cross dominion big business coming from? Surely at most there'd be rival big business in each dominion? Compare how big business works crossing the US-Canada border OTL. How many of them are pushing for political union there? I can see an equivalent NAFTA being pushed, especially assuming continuing Empire Free Trade ideals, but what more benefit political union if Free Trade gets them profit with less cost?

You seem to be strongly assuming that politics and business and society are going to develop the exact same way in an ARWless TL as in OTL. This assumption is unwarranted and I've yet to see anything backing it up.
1) they develop a different identity than British because the sheer amount of independence they get allows for immigration to alter the culture of the country. They may be nominally part of the British ecosystem in 1863 but they are very, very detached. Not a colony at all.
2) the states still exist but another level of government is placed above them. This was designed for administrative efficiency, but in the long-run this results in the crystallization of regional identity.
3) there isn't much (or really, any) additional cost to pushing for a political union and a large amount of big business is supportive because they feel it will be more effective than a NAFTA-type arrangement.
There's also the fact even the failure of the ARW would not stop the areas forming the 13 colonies from wanting to get more independence at a later date. Culture will be different TTL; an American Revolution analogue might occur elsewhere. In OTL America set an example for the rest of the world (alongside France). In TTL Columbia will not; it will be more akin to Canada in culture with US borders. Some other nation will claim the title.
 
1) they develop a different identity than British because the sheer amount of independence they get allows for immigration to alter the culture of the country. They may be nominally part of the British ecosystem in 1863 but they are very, very detached. Not a colony at all.
But they won't be one single country is the point I am making. You seem to assume that union is inevitable.
2) the states still exist but another level of government is placed above them. This was designed for administrative efficiency, but in the long-run this results in the crystallization of regional identity.
How?
It's more likely that several INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER dominions are created so there won't be this single level you've assumed.

3) there isn't much (or really, any) additional cost to pushing for a political union and a large amount of big business is supportive because they feel it will be more effective than a NAFTA-type arrangement.
There's also the fact even the failure of the ARW would not stop the areas forming the 13 colonies from wanting to get more independence at a later date. Culture will be different TTL; an American Revolution analogue might occur elsewhere. In OTL America set an example for the rest of the world (alongside France). In TTL Columbia will not; it will be more akin to Canada in culture with US borders. Some other nation will claim the title.
But Canada formed in response to the US existing so how can something similar happen without the same political pressures of an existing US?

I'm not sure you're quite understanding what I'm trying to say.
You need to explain, STEP BY STEP, how several separate colonies develop in such a way that political union becomes desirable and is successfully implemented without there being any obvious external or internal pressures to do so.
 
Nitpick, but the "Tristate Area" is New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. I assume you mean New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania, since Connecdticut would fall under the rubric of New England and the Tristate Area did not exist until the 2oth century. Midatlantic would probably be a better term, though that risks lumping in the Chesapeake.

/pointless criticism

Middle Colonies was the terms that was used at the time. Roughly the Delaware/Hudson basins to the Chesapeake.
 
But they won't be one single country is the point I am making. You seem to assume that union is inevitable.
It's not inevitable. It's just one of many possibilities. (with the range of possibilities increasing the further back one goes). If the South won its rebellion against the British, Columbia would not have been united, presumably.
But Canada formed in response to the US existing so how can something similar happen without the same political pressures of an existing US?

I'm not sure you're quite understanding what I'm trying to say.
You need to explain, STEP BY STEP, how several separate colonies develop in such a way that political union becomes desirable and is successfully implemented without there being any obvious external or internal pressures to do so.
1. In the aftermath of the (in TTL, failed) ARW, to solve the issues that led to it, self-government, and increasing economical power gave them more de facto autonomy than they had on paper. (the factors behind this reality got stronger and more important over time). It was their privilege as, arguably, the most important part of the British Empire outside of Britain itself.
2. The South, historically the most pro-British region, got estranged after the British forcibly abolished slavery in all of Columbia. They even rebelled against the British, but with the Northeast's support, it was crushed. In the aftermath, they moved it closer to the Midwest, economically and politically.
3. The Midwest and South soon eyed Mexico's land, and they invaded in 1840. They won but it took longer than winning the OTL Mexican-American War did for the US. There was dispute over the spoils, and in the aftermath, war threatened between them. Thus the British solved the issue by making the gains be part of a whole new dominion. This annoyed both the Midwest and the South, which gained little in the end, but the British did get a dominion that was, relatively, very supportive of them. Columbia West soon got rich off the California gold rush, which intensified the unhappiness of the Midwest and South.
4. The events surrounding Columbia West led to Columbia Midwest and Columbia South to strengthen their alliance further, and with the pan-Columbian movement getting stronger as well, the biggest obstacle was the Northeast holding out. Hamilton's successors grew more and more amenable though, and the thought of the combined country's economic power only increasing the influence of ports like New York, Baltimore, and Boston steadily convinced the Hamiltonian big business elite to get fully on board with the pan-Columbian vision.
5. Eventually the West was convinced to get behind Lincoln's vision thanks to the promise of a transcontinental railroad. Nonetheless it was the most reluctant of the four. In 1865, the four Columbias agreed to send Britain an ultimatum - a union of the Columbias into one united nation, their own head of state (which nonetheless could come from the British royal family), and a 50-year alliance with the British, to sweeten the deal with London. The British had no choice but to accept. The Kingdom of Columbia formally came into existence in 1867, after a constitution was agreed upon.
6. Columbia, thanks to the aforementioned autonomy, is almost as much of the immigration magnet that the US was in OTL. Its industry and agriculture grew rapidly for much of the same reasons as OTL America did - the natives, unfortunately, do not fare much better.
 
3. The Midwest and South soon eyed Mexico's land, and they invaded in 1840. They won but it took longer than winning the OTL Mexican-American War did for the US. There was dispute over the spoils, and in the aftermath, war threatened between them. Thus the British solved the issue by making the gains be part of a whole new dominion. This annoyed both the Midwest and the South, which gained little in the end, but the British did get a dominion that was, relatively, very supportive of them. Columbia West soon got rich off the California gold rush, which intensified the unhappiness of the Midwest and South.

Why the hell would the Crown let it's dominions go to war without permission. The Statue of Westminster shouldn't exist then so dominions don't have independent foreign policies. And Britain wouldn't bother to go to war with Mexico of all countries when it's probably busy in Europe.
 
Why the hell would the Crown let it's dominions go to war without permission. The Statue of Westminster shouldn't exist then so dominions don't have independent foreign policies. And Britain wouldn't bother to go to war with Mexico of all countries when it's probably busy in Europe.
Perhaps they might have been 1) surprised by the ambitions of their two dominions, 2) not very willing to defend Mexico, and/or 3) not concerned much with events in that corner of the world.
It might not have occurred exactly how I described it, but a land war is rather likely since Mexico was in such choas in that era and the land it owns are going to be eyed by someone eventually.
 
Perhaps they might have been 1) surprised by the ambitions of their two dominions, 2) not very willing to defend Mexico, and/or 3) not concerned much with events in that corner of the world.
It might not have occurred exactly how I described it, but a land war is rather likely since Mexico was in such choas in that era and the land it owns are going to be eyed by someone eventually.


Alright let me ask you this; could the State of Texas use its National Guard to invade Mexico without the Federal government stopping them? Even if the US doesn't care about what happens to Mexico.
 
Alright let me ask you this; could the State of Texas use its National Guard to invade Mexico without the Federal government stopping them? Even if the US doesn't care about what happens to Mexico.
not an equivalent situation.
The situation in Mexico is more relevant to the US in OTL present day than it would have been to a government far away in London TTL, whose attention is spread across six continents.
Also, here, two dominions the British don't want to really alienate decide to go gung-ho attacking a country with very little ability to really protect such prodigious amounts of land. How do the British say no? They don't have the appetite for confrontation with the Midwest and South. What they would do is that they learn of the invasion and give it their ex-post-facto blessing. They've been letting the Columbias mostly do their thing for decades anyway.
This invasion would not have been possible if Mexico was a British ally, or a British subject. But it was in the rain, and not under the umbrella.
 
Last edited:
Top