What are the more obscure butterfly effects of a failed American Revolution?

Thinking about how the U.S independence modelled the system of government of hundreds of countries. The constitution, the tripartite power, the elections, the parliament, the presidency, and all that stuff (the way they were put up in practice in the U.S) influenced almost all of Latin America and then Europe, Africa and Asia.

How would post-ARW revolutions happen and what governments would they produce? Would the world still be dominated by monarchs or would another alternative arise sometime, somewhere? How would we think the concepts of Republic, Democracy, Parliament, "Presidency" (it could be called other thing!), and so on. I think this might be one of the biggest effects long term
The USA was not the first republic with a modern written constitution. That distinction goes to Corsica (if you don't consider San Marino's governance as "modern.") Corsica's constitution was, of course, heavily influential on America's; Alexander Hamilton founded a club called the Corsicans while still at King's College, New York (now Columbia.) Enlightenment ideals and progressive politics may be delayed but will not be stopped by a failed American Rebellion. We would likely see constitutional monarchies be the norm in the Americas, which would have both advantages and disadvantages, if Pedro II of Brazil and Maximilian I of Mexico would show.
 
It's pretty much impossible to separate the British colonization of Australia, and later New Zealand, from the ARW. James Cook claiming the eastern coast in 1770 is hardly relevant, everybody and their grandma had claimed the entirety or part of Australia by that point. And just like with all the other countries that claim didn't actually originate from or result in an interest to settle the place.

For starters the British decision to settle Australia in 1786 was the end result of over a decade of negotiations in the British government about the creation of new penal colonies. Those negotiations were themselves caused by the outbreak of the ARW, and Australia wasn't actually considered as an option until after that war had already ended. Until the winter of '84-'85 the only thing being seriously considered (and tested) were various locations in Africa. Secondly the reason why near the end of the negotiations Australia actually ended up on the list of possibilities (and was eventually chosen) was because of the American loyalist James Matra. James had the idea to resettle other American loyalists on Australia, managed to present this idea to the secretary of state himself, and got an amended version of his plan (now including convicts as well) delivered to the prime minister in late 1784.​
American colonists were unhappy with penal colonies, with founding fathers criticising it and legislatures attempting to ban it. For Britain to keep the colonies, they need to give concessions, not sending convicts there, is a likely comprimise.

Considering all of that it's safe to say that without the ARW British colonization in Australia will (at the very least) be delayed, and not just by a couple of years. This along with all the other knock-on effects of a failed ARW also increase the chances that another country will actually settle there first. Louis XVI for example had a passion for the navy, geography, and sciences, and otl funded a bunch of scientific voyages. It's not hard to imagine him doing more of that when he doesn't have to fund a war in the USA as well.
With what finances? Even without French support in the ARW, an economic crisis is still going to happen, which could upend the social order.
 
Last edited:
I doubt this has been mentioned, but a weaker central government. London would not have the sway DC had. So instead of 50 federal law enforcement agencies, there would be a lot less.

The US already has an addiction with duplicates, FBI, ATF, DEA & Marshalls all doing the same thing. This probbaly wouldn't exist in a British state. There is even a postal service detective agency & it's own SWAT, US needs rehab.

I doubt there would be an equivalent of Federal law either. British law to a minimal extent, mostly constitutional did exist in colonies, but they were not enforcing criminal law in Canada or South Africa. However with such a large expansive territory, there would be some kind of law enforcement that handles inter-state crime.
 
Last edited:
American colonists were unhappy with penal colonies, with founding fathers criticising it and legislatures attempting to ban it. For Britain to keep the colonies, they need to give concessions, not sending convicts there, is a likely comprimise.
There was plenty of land in North America under British control that wasn't a part of the 13 colonies so that doesn't really matter.
With what finances? Even without French support in the ARW, an economic crisis is still going to happen, which could upend the social order.
Did you miss the part where he actually did that stuff iotl, and after he spent nearly a decade funding a war in the Americas? Every single monarchy in Europe was in debt in the 18th century, including the British, it didn't stop a single one of them from spending money. Compared to the ARW this is pocket change.
Also without the ARW there's almost no chance that the French Revolution will go like ours, so for all we know the monarchy might never even be abolished and the Revolutionary wars might not even happen. Napoleonic France is a goner for sure.
 
Last edited:
There was plenty of land in North America under British control that wasn't a part of the 13 colonies so that doesn't really matter.
There is plenty of land in Australia, without a pre-existing colonial population that will abhor penal colonies.
Did you miss the part where he actually did that stuff iotl, and after he spent nearly a decade funding a war in the Americas? Every single monarchy in Europe was in debt in the 18th century, including the British, it didn't stop a single one of them from spending money. Compared to the ARW this is pocket change.
It's not that Australia would be expensive, it's that France already has too much debt, in fact the ARW helped delay the economic crisis.
Also without the ARW there's almost no chance that the French Revolution will go like ours, so for all we know the monarchy might never even be abolished and the Revolutionary wars might not even happen. Napoleonic France is a goner for sure.
Napoleon is gone for sure, but a shake up isn't.
 
There is plenty of land in Australia, without a pre-existing colonial population that will abhor penal colonies.
Why would they go to Australia if they still had North America with boatloads of land without a pre-existing colonial population, and otl they considered Africa as a replacement when the North American option was gone? And what makes you think Britain would care about the complaints of some traitors after the American Revolution has failed?
It's not that Australia would be expensive, it's that France already has too much debt, in fact the ARW helped delay the economic crisis.
If they can pay for a war they can fund a small colony, this argument doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
Why would they go to Australia if they still had North America with boatloads of land without a pre-existing colonial population,
Because those lands are wanted by the colonists, the whole westward expansion, proclomation line fiasco. Also the native tribes that would be within raiding distance of penal colonies, imagine how much that would cost, the soldiers would have to guard the frontier and their own convict colonists. Also it's inland, the logistics would be impossible.
and otl they considered Africa as a replacement when the North American option was gone?
Parliament was well aware that the African climate and disease would cause high fatalities among the prisoner colonists.
And what makes you think Britain would care about the complaints of some traitors after the American Revolution has failed?
It's not just traitors, do you think "honourable, upstanding" loyalists want convicts dumped on them?
If they can pay for a war they can fund a small colony, this argument doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
And then whatever social disruption would leave the colony vulnerable. Aside from the fact that France is not inclined towards settler colonialism.
 
Last edited:
I think that whatever happens to Louisiana will be crucial to the development of North America as a whole. If the Brits gobble up Louisiana, then New Mexico and the Californias are easy pickings; if Louisiana resists, however, the Southwest would likely remain predominantly Spanish, with the border between Alta California and New Albion being highly contested. The latter scenario is far more interesting for me and is the one I used in my ATL Rapt.
 
Or Baja California is included within a British America, as it's likely to expand more. Canada under the British expanded to the second largest country in the world.
That was basically into totally unorganized lands that were not really under the control of any state. By contrast, such an expansion of British North America into the Southwest will definitely involve Britain in conflict with other states (to wit Mexico/Spain), which is a distinct reason for London to reign in such adventurism. I can see Britain expanding into Louisiana if a conflict arises between Britain and France/Spain in the future (which is reasonably likely), but probably not farther than that.

No baseball or American Football.
Tea over coffee.
Hardly certain. British North America is separate from the island, it's not going to culturally develop in just the same way merely because it continues to be led from the same center. Look at how Australia has its own football code and drinks much less tea than Britain, for example (still a lot of tea by global standards, mind you, but less than half as much per person as the Brits).
 
Or Baja California is included within a British America, as it's likely to expand more. Canada under the British expanded to the second largest country in the world.
Isn't it popularly theorized that if America remained British, the present day British North America would encompass the present day continental United States and Canada put together, plus some others?
 
With nowhere to go to get away from the yoke, maybe massive Irish emigration to Catholic Argentina and Chile during the famine. Probably the famine still happens because American food was blocked, the longer voyage produces more coffin ships, more deaths, opportunity knocks and instead of clearing out the Scottish Highlands the Empire really pushes ethnic cleansing with deportations in Ireland.
 
With nowhere to go to get away from the yoke, maybe massive Irish emigration to Catholic Argentina and Chile during the famine. Probably the famine still happens because American food was blocked, the longer voyage produces more coffin ships, more deaths, opportunity knocks and instead of clearing out the Scottish Highlands the Empire really pushes ethnic cleansing with deportations in Ireland.
American food was not blocked. Indian corn was imported into Ireland during the famine.
There was a tariff on wheat imports into the British isles if the price dropped below a set price.
The corn laws were abolished in the later 1840s. This made it hard for tenants to pay their rent.
Argentina would be too expensive to travel to.
Landlords often paid the fare so they would not have the feed the evicted tenants in the workhouse.
The cheapest fares to the new world was to Canada.
People who went to Argentina after the 1860s were the better off who could afford the fare, not the starving escaping the famine.
 
Last edited:
No baseball or American Football.
Tea over coffee.
Spanish/Mexican American Southwest and California.
Tea was popular in the antebellum south
Afternoon teas, attended only by women, were usually served around 4PM, and could last up to two hours. The 6 o'clock supper or high tea was a full meal shared by the entire family.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuisine_of_Antebellum_America#Background
Sassafras tea was also popular in the southern states.
Now banned by the FDA.
 
Last edited:
The west minister model of parliamentary government is more common than the American one.
three distinct branches: legislative, executive, and judicial, are not common in governments.
The written constitution is probably the most common one copied for the American system.


Ideas like the Republic or democracy would still be around even without the U.S independence.
Before American Revolution, "republic" and "democracy" only applied to small states
 
The Province of Quebec vs. The 13 colonies borders could look different. Rather than handing over the Midwest to become US territories via the Jay Treaty, Britain could keep the land north of the Ohio under one colony in the short term. Though I don’t think they will stay governed from Quebec City in the long term since trans-Appalachian Anglo migration will continue while the Quebecois never really moved south of Kingston. Perhaps a legacy of French place names for the Midwest.

Without the United Empire Loyalists, Upper Canada would not exist while population expansion into the pays d’en haut would be slower, much to the Hudson’s Bay Company/Northwest Company/Métis’ delight. No Revolution also means the 6 Nations Iroquois, OTL Canada’s most populous indigenous community, stay in northern New York.
 
Top