United British Empire: would Americans settle in other parts?

I've been wondering about a timeline where the ARW was averted, and some sort of appropriate governing structure is set up that's suitable for both sides, and the empire is kept together until the modern day.

In this situation, would people from America be interested in settling in other parts of the empire, such as Kenya, Rhodesia etc? Would it have the same appeal to them in the way it did to many Britons? Does it offer them the frontier in the US doesn't?
 
I think that the life would essentially be the same - you'd have the same idea of establishing a town in the middle of nowhere, having to build your houses out of whatever was available, slowly upgrading and establishing transport links to the surrounding area, gradually evolving such institutions such as a postal service, rail links, etc etc. The thing you wouldn't get is the idea of literally being on a frontier, as the other areas of the British Empire tended to have much more of a feel of "well here's a big open plain for you to settle. There are some native groups here but by now we've integrated with them and there are already European settler towns all the way to the border". Whether that would matter to them - whether it would be a concern, or a hindrance to the frontier idyll that the frontier was NOT with a load of semi-hostile natives - I don't know I must admit.

Of course, the other thing is that you might find that American settlers to these areas take over their mentality they had in America and start causing trouble with the natives - act aggressively to them, perhaps even conduct violent raids in response to the slightest misunderstandings. It could be that where American settlers go, the British Diplomatic Corps is forced to follow, to desperately attempt to solve every crisis that the American frontiersmen cause...
 
Well, look at it this way: historically, did Canadians, Australians, and/or New Zealanders settle in large numbers in the "non-white" colonies?
 
Well, look at it this way: historically, did Canadians, Australians, and/or New Zealanders settle in large numbers in the "non-white" colonies?

I actually have no idea - does anyone have any knowledge of this?

One difference between these places and the US, is that the US has much denser populations in the North East and the Great Lakes area that might be looking for a life elsewhere, like the poor of London and Manchester did. It's just a question of whether Africa would offer them anything, say, Dakota didn't?

When did moving to the frontier stop happening due to all the land being taken? Is there an opportunity for migration somewhere else after that point?
 
Until quinine is introduced, pretty much all tropical areas are off limits to white settlement. Nobody wants to endure the high risk of dying slowly and painfully.
 
Guys

I would say some but probably not many in the near term. There is simply took much good land in British North America to fill up. Some, for assorted reasons, might go to Australia or S/E Africa or might end up as traders/diplomats/missionaries who end up setting somewhere else. However most would probably be more interested in the nearer and generally richer land available in N America.

This could be compounded by the fact that with the bulk of N America British its quite possible that the government would be more interested in restricting immigration from outside the empire.

Steve
 
Of course, the other thing is that you might find that American settlers to these areas take over their mentality they had in America and start causing trouble with the natives - act aggressively to them, perhaps even conduct violent raids in response to the slightest misunderstandings. It could be that where American settlers go, the British Diplomatic Corps is forced to follow, to desperately attempt to solve every crisis that the American frontiersmen cause...

Because the settlers directly from the British isles or dominions in other areas of the world - or even those Englishmen when first settling America - were perfectly polite to the aboriginals of the lands they settled. :)
 
Because the settlers directly from the British isles or dominions in other areas of the world - or even those Englishmen when first settling America - were perfectly polite to the aboriginals of the lands they settled. :)

Well yes, but from an early stage the actions of American colonists was not only hostile towards the natives but diametrically opposed to the official line of the British government and their appointed Governors and officials. The actions of colonists constantly upset the much more moderate plans of colonial government and the Diplomatic Corps was constantly having to apologise for the actions of the colonists - even worse when the colonists became enraged by the calming influence of their government, desiring hostile confrontation as a means of exterminating their enemies and/or gaining land.

If American colonists moved in large numbers to other settler colonies in the Empire then I suspect that they would carry with them their by-now deep-seated views on how natives needed treating - that is, with hostility and violence. While the British government was far from angelic, it did at least tend to attempt to gain land peaceably and at least respected the existence of natives even if it didn't always respect their rights. I suspect that American colonists would attempt to...ahem..."correct this lapse of common sense". After all, what is a frontier if there is not a border to actively defend? And every military man will know the old maxim "offence is the best form of defence".
 
Until quinine is introduced, pretty much all tropical areas are off limits to white settlement. Nobody wants to endure the high risk of dying slowly and painfully.

Firstly, quinine was used as an anti-malarial pretty early, and secondly much of the white settlement in Africa was above the mosqito line.

I would say some but probably not many in the near term. There is simply took much good land in British North America to fill up. Some, for assorted reasons, might go to Australia or S/E Africa or might end up as traders/diplomats/missionaries who end up setting somewhere else. However most would probably be more interested in the nearer and generally richer land available in N America.

This could be compounded by the fact that with the bulk of N America British its quite possible that the government would be more interested in restricting immigration from outside the empire.

I suspected as much, and you raise a good point about less immigration. When was North America "full up" for these purposes in OTL? How much do you think it would be delayed ITTL? Could we get 20th Century colonisation?
 
Firstly, quinine was used as an anti-malarial pretty early, and secondly much of the white settlement in Africa was above the mosqito line.

Quinine is old, what is recent is production in sufficient quantities for widespread and continuous use. Also the malaria free highlands are (outside the deserts), hard to find and need infrastructure to reach and settle.
 
Any agreement that staved off the ARW would have to sort out the Ohio River problem. That is the colonists wanted to claim the territories over the river and the British government wanted them to stay in the hands of the natives.

Assuming that some sort of comprimise was reached and settlement still occured west of the Ohio I can't see the Americans going to other parts of the Empire.

The population density for the US is still nearly 8 times less than that of the UK so there are still lots of oppertunities to expand without the need to emmigrate.
 
The population density for the US is still nearly 8 times less than that of the UK so there are still lots of oppertunities to expand without the need to emmigrate.

You may be right, but this argument is weak. Population density comparisons are only worth anything if the country you are using as your control (in this case, the UK) stands as an international point of reference. The UK is not this. The UK, even back a few centuries ago, was too overcrowded to possibly be a logical place to leave one's homestead to found a new town, frontier or no. In fact I'd say it was several times too overcrowded, even then. In that regard, the UK being 8 times more densely populated than the USA makes little impact, as it doesn't suggest anything about at what point the USA is therefore also too crowded for establishing new towns to be feasible. It's the same thing as me saying "the UK is about 25 times less densely populated than Hong Kong, so there is plenty of time before UK cities will begin to build skyscrapers".
 
Any agreement that staved off the ARW would have to sort out the Ohio River problem. That is the colonists wanted to claim the territories over the river and the British government wanted them to stay in the hands of the natives.

Assuming that some sort of comprimise was reached and settlement still occured west of the Ohio I can't see the Americans going to other parts of the Empire.

The population density for the US is still nearly 8 times less than that of the UK so there are still lots of oppertunities to expand without the need to emmigrate.

I think we have to assume that any agreement would have to give the Americans autonomy for virtually as much Western settlement as they wanted.

The population density point is misleading. If you can have a square mile of land in America versus ten square miles in Africa, many people would opt for the latter, even if there is spare space in America. I just don't know at what point its economically worth it.
 
To be honest I think that the westward expansion to cover the whole continent ethos is so engrained in the psyche of America (the original colonial charters were all extended to the pacific) that any attempt by Britain to restrict it permanently would result in America leaving the British Empire.

I don't see any american colonization of anywhere else until there is enough americans where emigration is considered something newer than the 'virgin' lands to the west. Sometime like the 1870s, assuming a similar rate of westward expansion.
 
Last edited:
Have the Americans contained to the east side of the Mississippi. Have the river be dominated by another colonial power (French, Spanish German?) with a large enough population and simply have that population armed to the teeth and hostile to the British. French settlers could easy fill that role. With westward expansion halted, by the other settlers and British policy, the Americans would eventually decided to settle somewhere else.
 
According to Wikipedia, the frontier line had broken up by 1890, but unclaimed land continued to be settled for the next couple of decades:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Old_West#End_of_the_Old_West

So I guess by the early twentieth century, there's no more fresh land in America. Emigration to places like Rhodesia continued into the second half of the twentieth century, do people think that American emigration would happen then?

(I'm not really *trying* to make it happen, I'm wondering about the plausibility of it happening.)
 
According to Wikipedia, the frontier line had broken up by 1890, but unclaimed land continued to be settled for the next couple of decades:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Old_West#End_of_the_Old_West

So I guess by the early twentieth century, there's no more fresh land in America. Emigration to places like Rhodesia continued into the second half of the twentieth century, do people think that American emigration would happen then?

(I'm not really *trying* to make it happen, I'm wondering about the plausibility of it happening.)

Yeah absolutely, and if you shrink the amount of western land the Americans can go into; you could push back that date.
 
I think there would be plenty of onwards immigration within the empire, just as there was IOTL. There was plenty of onwards immigration between NZ, SA, other African colonies, the Australian colonies and I'd assume the Canadian colonies too. Even where there was land or opportunity available in the source.

People will always move on if they think there is better opportunity and settlers more than most. The land could be cheaper, it could be better quality, or it could have just been recently publicised as such, regardless of the actual truth. Colonial developers (governments or companies) were notorious for talking up the merits of their particular land or prospect to potential immigrants or investors. To a certain extent, so were the regular settlers, for all sorts of other reasons

There could be other reasons too - religious, or ethnic
 
Top