Rambam23
Banned
Typical in assuming that a continued British America would just be a giant Canada.
https://www.vox.com/2015/7/2/8884885/american-revolution-mistake
https://www.vox.com/2015/7/2/8884885/american-revolution-mistake
Vox tries its hand at alternate history
- Thread starter Rambam23
- Start date
-
- Tags
- british america july 4th vox
Vox's think pieces are all silly like that. Not as crazy as that Daily Mail future piece about Corbyn winning, though.
Canada expelled Native Americans to reservations as well and sent thousands of First Nations kids to boarding schools, so I don't think the fate of the natives would be much different in a British America. Also, I'm not sure if slavery would still be abolished in 1833 when you had thousands more slave owners and millions more slaves.
To be fair, it is not that bad. Their four points are
1-less slavery - true
2-native Americans - debatealbe
3-palimentrism - true but the points they make do little to confidence me other than less likely to be decatorship and weaker upper houses
4 -counstertutional monarchy - great
Not that bad all round then
1-less slavery - true
2-native Americans - debatealbe
3-palimentrism - true but the points they make do little to confidence me other than less likely to be decatorship and weaker upper houses
4 -counstertutional monarchy - great
Not that bad all round then
You know, I did a response to this back when it came out, we had an entire thread about it.
It still makes me laugh. Besides, quoting the last thread, we all know what would really happen:
It still makes me laugh. Besides, quoting the last thread, we all know what would really happen:
The biggest flaw in this piece is the presumption that Britain would still abolish slavery in the same timeframe as it did in our world if they still owned the southern states. With them still part of the empire, Britain would likely reap more benefits from the practice than OTL. It might possibly end slightly earlier than it did in US history, but that is far from guaranteed. It could just as easily take longer.
Also, it seems unlikely a larger British North American territory would treat the natives too well, considering Canada's track record isn't much better than the US's. One can argue that a parliamentary system is superior to the American model (I myself sympathize with that perspective), but that in and of itself does not prove that American independence was a mistake.
Also, it seems unlikely a larger British North American territory would treat the natives too well, considering Canada's track record isn't much better than the US's. One can argue that a parliamentary system is superior to the American model (I myself sympathize with that perspective), but that in and of itself does not prove that American independence was a mistake.
British abolitionism would be delayed with a slaveholding South still under British rule. Slavery would not be abolished in the 1830s if it’s still a big money maker for Britain. And, of course, Britain tended to replace slavery with Indian indentured servitude - better than slavery, sure, but still horrific. It also lasted until the 1910s IOTL. So, perhaps shorter slavery, but definitely a longer period of unpaid labour.
The biggest reason Native Americans were mistreated was because of the American expansionist drive, which would still exist ITTL. Canadian natives were treated just as awfully as American ones, anyways.
I don’t disagree with much of this, as I am a fan of the Westminster system. In any case, I think this is irrelevant since it’s all the opinion of whoever is writing this article.
A good answer to this articel.
http://historyunfolding.blogspot.com/2018/07/history-and-politics.html
http://historyunfolding.blogspot.com/2018/07/history-and-politics.html
And of course everyone always assumes a fully British North America would have a single government...
Right? Why would the British unite all of the colonies that they just fought colonies with different cultures and societies, mind you, into one powerful state?
Because Napoleon invaded the British Isles and took it over, and thus Britain is in North America, and it's easier to rule a single country than seventeen separate ones in personal union?
Literally the only reason I could think of.
Well yeah, but that's still not very likely and different than a British Dominion of North America anyway. Don't get me wrong, I think a United Dominion of North America is a cool idea and I'm sure a very well-researched timeline could accomplish such a feat, but I just don't find it likely. Heck, the US kind of just started out as a pact of states resisting the British. None of them wanted a unified government and I doubt the British would want a unified force full of formal rebellious colonies within their empire.
That was my point though. United British North America probably wouldn't happen unless it was the base of their Empire.