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

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.
Did London have any say over the 7YW? Not really. London is thousands of miles away, unless they plan on fully occupying their colonists, colonists are going to expand regardless of Parliament's wishes.
And preventing expansion was a ARW cause as well, such as the Proclamation Line.

Whether independent settlers take the lands, or settlers pull Britain into easily winnable wars, the lands would be seized.
For example by 1860, American lands will outnumber Britain, so they have the physical numbers to do what they want.
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).
That's my point, these entire sports won't vanish, because they already existed had multiple variants across the empire.
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?
Yeah, however the likelihood of the same exact same border line is low. So I'd imagine they would have somewhat more territory, and would have to fit their interests, so sparsely populated areas.
So a British America at least would be Coast-to-Coast, USA+Canada. There is no way a Russian enclave such as Alaska survives. Gold discovered, settlers steal it, regardless of gold, it's a weak unprofitable extension that poses a threat to Americans, so bought or intervention.
More British people
How many? I think the US has 72 million and 10 million in Canada.
 
Would a failed American Revolution prevent the settlement of Anglo settlers into Texas?
Or for that matter, the fact that the independence of most of Latin America can be traced to a combination of the ideals espoused by the American and French Revolutions and the collapse of rule from Madrid.
 
OTL a huge number of irish people settled in the US - who were not too friendly towards the UK to say the least. We can assume they would go elsewhere TTL. Where do you think that would be?
 
OTL a huge number of irish people settled in the US - who were not too friendly towards the UK to say the least. We can assume they would go elsewhere TTL. Where do you think that would be?
Perhaps in Argentina. OTL also saw a good amount of Irish immigration there as well (Argentina in fact has the largest Irish diaspora in Latin America), albeit to a overall lesser degree than in the US. I can see why Argentina would be an appealing prospect to an Irishman in such a timeline: White, Catholic, rich farmlands, and away from the British.

It's also interesting to imagine the impact on Argentine culture and its development. Argentina mainly draws from the Latin region of Europe (being the "whitest" country in South America), with Spanish roots and language, a high volume of Italian immigrants (62% of Argentines have an Italian ancestor), as well as a high French emigration in its own right. The most common non-Latin ancestry is German... rather infamously so, but this was true even before World War II. One could imagine how a higher population of Irish settlers would affect the overall culture.
 
Perhaps in Argentina. OTL also saw a good amount of Irish immigration there as well (Argentina in fact has the largest Irish diaspora in Latin America), albeit to a overall lesser degree than in the US. I can see why Argentina would be an appealing prospect to an Irishman in such a timeline: White, Catholic, rich farmlands, and away from the British.

It's also interesting to imagine the impact on Argentine culture and its development. Argentina mainly draws from the Latin region of Europe (being the "whitest" country in South America), with Spanish roots and language, a high volume of Italian immigrants (62% of Argentines have an Italian ancestor), as well as a high French emigration in its own right. The most common non-Latin ancestry is German... rather infamously so, but this was true even before World War II. One could imagine how a higher population of Irish settlers would affect the overall culture.
The falklands war (maybe wars TTL) would gain in intensity for sure.
 
Spain, and then Mexico, actively encouraged migration from the US into Louisiana/Texas. Foreign migration to Louisiana was accepted prior to ARW.

Irish migrated to Mexico. IF this ATL creates a more stable situation there, look for increased migration there. While it was further than Canada/USA, it has the advantage of being a Catholic region.
 
Spain, and then Mexico, actively encouraged migration from the US into Louisiana/Texas. Foreign migration to Louisiana was accepted prior to ARW.

Irish migrated to Mexico. IF this ATL creates a more stable situation there, look for increased migration there. While it was further than Canada/USA, it has the advantage of being a Catholic region.
it does not matter to the Irish if it is a catholic country or not.
Irish Catholics in America lived in their own communities built their own schools and churches and bought their own priests and nuns from Ireland with them.
 
Did London have any say over the 7YW? Not really. London is thousands of miles away, unless they plan on fully occupying their colonists, colonists are going to expand regardless of Parliament's wishes.
Sure it did. The colonists were totally dependent on British military support to have their successes; if London hadn't wanted to fight the war, they had a great deal of power in preventing the colonists from being able to successfully prosecute it, without needing to "occupy" them (merely denying them British Army and Royal Navy support would have had much the same effect). The same would be even more true of a hypothetical attack on Mexico, which would be utterly dependent on British military forces given the size and terrain of the region. It would not be difficult for London to prevent effective prosecution of the war, if they so desired.

In any case, Mexico and the Southwest are very distant from the demographic center of a hypothetical British North America, and with the slavery issue taking a much different shape there is far less incentive for the colonists to attack the region. The whole political setup of the continent is going to be significantly different, and this is likely to make attacking Mexico less interesting than IOTL.
 
it does not matter to the Irish if it is a catholic country or not.
Irish Catholics in America lived in their own communities built their own schools and churches and bought their own priests and nuns from Ireland with them.
But...
I'm guessing it'd be a little more inviting if the shops didn't have windows that said "Irish need not apply". Many, if not most, immigrants tended to form their own communities, so the Irish wouldn't be unique in that regard. There was a definite bias against Catholics in USA. It was the land of opportunity, so Catholics went there anyway. If a decent alternative existed, I've no doubt religion would be a factor in deciding where to go. We still have a lot of work to do in New Spain/Mexico to make it that decent alternative, though. In OTL, Mexico did snag a portion of the Irish diaspora. Clean things up in Mexico, and it probably snags an even bigger portion. Jobs and stability are the biggest attraction. going to a place where you're in the religious majority would be a consideration. Mexico had jobs and the religion. They didn't have the stability/infrastructure to be more attractive.
 
Corsica was the first to break this rule in the 1750s.
Corsica is and was, by any reasonable definition, small. It has an area of 3400 mi^2 and a population (today) of 370 000, which is less than the population of the canton of Geneva in Switzerland. I doubt it was any more populous in the 1750s, and it certainly wasn't larger in land area. By contrast, consider that in 1783 the U.S. had a land are of 800 000 mi^2 and a population of just under 4 million in 1790 (so probably closer to 3 million in 1783; it was growing very fast at the time). This is clearly on a whole different scale from republics such as Corsica, Switzerland, the Italian republics, and so on, which were well-known at the time but which were not perceived as having much relevance to the governance of such a large country (this is directly noted in the Federalist Papers, incidentally).
 
If the American Revolution fails the members of the Black Company of Pioneers and other loyalist blacks would not be resettled in Nova Scotia and would return to the Americas. This would butterfly away the Sierra Leone Company, so that colony would either not be settled by the British or would see colonization happen in smaller numbers.
 
Sure it did. The colonists were totally dependent on British military support to have their successes; if London hadn't wanted to fight the war, they had a great deal of power in preventing the colonists from being able to successfully prosecute it, without needing to "occupy" them (merely denying them British Army and Royal Navy support would have had much the same effect).
In the 7YW colonists were more vulnerable, however that is less true by the 1840s.
The same would be even more true of a hypothetical attack on Mexico, which would be utterly dependent on British military forces given the size and terrain of the region. It would not be difficult for London to prevent effective prosecution of the war, if they so desired.
Texas forces were able to hold their own against Mexico without DC or London. So that would also be true for colonies nearby with their own provincial troops. And if for whatever reason London randomly betrays their own population for courting Mexico to no benefit, colonial provincial troops would be effective.
In any case, Mexico and the Southwest are very distant from the demographic center of a hypothetical British North America,
Not any different than the US otl, which the demographic gravity was in the east.
and with the slavery issue taking a much different shape there is far less incentive for the colonists to attack the region.
Well if Anglo-Americans immigrate to the region, they're still likely to rebel. And westward expansion, manifest destiny orginates in 18th century.
The whole political setup of the continent is going to be significantly different, and this is likely to make attacking Mexico less interesting than IOTL.
The political setup would be different, a vast array of british colonies in north america. These Americans want to expand west. And they're even more powerful than otl, with the combined power of US, UK & Canadian areas.
 
Last edited:
The funny thing is that in a failed American Revolution scenario I can see see the Anglo settlers of Texas decide to take a third option after realizing that London would throw them under the proverbial bus if it meant securing their borders with Mexico.

Also Mexico might get to keep the rest of California ITTL, though British North America will still stretch to the Pacific.
 
Texas forces were able to hold their own against Mexico without DC or London. So that would also be true for colonies nearby with their own provincial troops. And if for whatever reason London randomly betrays their own population for courting Mexico to no benefit, colonial provincial troops would be effective.
Texas was able to defend itself, which is quite a different matter from marching into Mexico and dictating terms. In fact attempts by Texas to enforce their more outlandish and speculative land claims (that is, on the lands between the Nueces and the Rio Grande) entirely failed. Conquering those lands and the rest of the Southwest depended on the U.S. Navy and U.S. Army stepping in and doing it, with colonial provincial troops proving mostly as useless as they ever had.

As for "randomly betraying," it would be more like, "London is attempting to build up relations with Mexico for the benefit of merchants in London and so that it doesn't need to waste attention on America when it could be focused on more important areas". This was not exactly an unimportant motivation for Britain IOTL...

Well if Anglo-Americans immigrate to the region, they're still likely to rebel. And westward expansion, manifest destiny orginates in 18th century.
Are they? The Texas Revolution was a very contingent happening, and many aspects of this PoD could easily derail them. Besides the options of the Mexican Revolution simply not happening to begin with or the differing abolition of slavery eliminating or greatly altering the motivation to emigrate, there are major possibilities for changing the details of Mexico's political situation and leadership. Santa Anna was born in 1794, well after the PoD, for example, so it's completely possible that Mexican leadership is much more competent and there is no revolution in the first place or the rebels are easily crushed militarily. It is very far from certain that there would be a Texas Revolution, that it would succeed, or that it would ultimately result in Texas joining British North America (London would certainly have the final word on that, if nothing else), much less conquering the entire Southwest.

And, sure, there might have been some feelings of "manifest destiny" that originated in the 18th century, but if the United States had remained part of Britain and thus had less of sense of its own specialness and more orientation towards Europe, it is very likely that this attitude would have had less importance in the culture of the area.
 
Top