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

Texas was able to defend itself, which is quite a different matter from marching into Mexico and dictating terms.
And there could be Anglo migration there, so those settlers would be able to defend themselves.
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.
There would be multiple colonies nearby the border, and they would mostly likely have troops, as most British colonies did. For example, almost all of British Australasia had naval forces, so colonial military capability was no joke.
So in the timeframe of 1850, these colonies would have a population size similar to Britain, a great power, and have access to all of it's advantages. So even if London, thousands of miles away, ignores their own population & money interests, colonials stand a fair chance against Mexico, just as they did against Britain in 1776, albiet with a equal population to Britain.

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...
There was no worthwhile interests there otl, nothing of considerable value in comparison to owning the southwest. Which from a settler persepctive has good land and is low populated.
Are they? The Texas Revolution was a very contingent happening, and many aspects of this PoD could easily derail them.
No it doesn't. Settlers were immigrating West constantly, in Appalachia without British consent, in Indian lands without consent from natives or DC, in Canada, in Texas, in California.
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.
In terms of raw power, Mexico was not a great power, or high standing militarily. Britain was, and this is downstreamed to the colonies, especially such highly developed ones in North America. Colonials would have a fair number of ex-military from the Army, as well as their own experienced forces.
And, sure, there might have been some feelings of "manifest destiny" that originated in the 18th century,
"Some feelings" It was a major cause in the revolution.
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,
Half of this Britain's population is located in North America. It's a fair assumption it's focus towards Europe would be disrupted.
it is very likely that this attitude would have had less importance in the culture of the area.
Most likely more importance than otl. It's not just a small amount of Canadians pushing west, but the 13 colonies population too.
 
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.
Most of Britain's indifference towards Republic of Texas came from 2 issues;
Slavery, which considering a loyalist South, would not be as controversial within Britain as it otl.
The independence of the USA. If it hadn't become independent, Britain would not be trying to isolate the US, by aligning with Mexico.
 
And there could be Anglo migration there, so those settlers would be able to defend themselves.
There could be, but there are reasons to doubt that there would be in anything like the numbers of OTL. For example, if Britain has to conquer Louisiana rather than buying it, then the Spanish and Mexicans have a pretty strong incentive to deny settlers access to Texas. Moreover, as I also pointed out, if Mexican leadership is more competent, they may prevent revolutions from happening at all--again, I point out that the Texas Revolution was part of a wave of revolution across Mexico triggered by the revocation of the 1824 Constitution. It's completely plausible in this scenario that no such triggering incident occurs and Anglo settlers remain basically peaceful (it's not like the Mormon colonies in Mexico have ever rebelled). Moreover, even slight changes to the military campaign could easily result in the Texians being crushed and their revolution being put down like every other revolution against Mexico in the period.

There would be multiple colonies nearby the border, and they would mostly likely have troops, as most British colonies did. For example, almost all of British Australasia had naval forces, so colonial military capability was no joke.
No, it was a complete joke. If you look at the history of state militias they were uniformly completely worthless for anything other than defending their own states. Nothing but regular forces will do, and none of the colonies maintained regular forces in this period. Without the American Revolution, they're unlikely to suddenly start doing so.

There was no worthwhile interests there otl, nothing of considerable value in comparison to owning the southwest. Which from a settler persepctive has good land and is low populated.
The hell are you talking about? The Southwest has garbage land, it's mostly desert and mountains that's virtually useless from a farming perspective. It took huge amounts of government investment to make it useful for agriculture. California has value, true, and Texas, but the land in between? Worthless from a 19th century perspective. There is zero incentive for anyone to want to try to take it over except that it happens to be in between the actually useful areas and California. Now, California is a different story, but California is also actually extremely distant from anywhere the Anglos are likely to be, so operations there are going to be very tricky and mostly dependent on naval support. In other words, they're something that London has to explicitly consent to and support, or they're not going anywhere.

As for worthwhile interests, they have the potential value of trade with Mexico, which is actually quite substantial, and potentially trade links with Spain and the Spanish Empire if the Mexican Revolution is defused, delayed, or defeated, also quite possible given that the PoD will explicitly have effects on the main causes of the Revolution in the first place. These are certainly important counterbalances to helping rogue settlers run riot in foreign countries, which is what we were talking about, or helping the colonies invading independent countries for vast amounts of worthless land when they already have lots of underdeveloped land already.

In terms of raw power, Mexico was not a great power, or high standing militarily. Britain was, and this is downstreamed to the colonies, especially such highly developed ones in North America. Colonials would have a fair number of ex-military from the Army, as well as their own experienced forces.
I think you're dramatically underestimating Mexican (or Spanish) military capability, especially when merely subduing revolutions in their own country, which is what I was talking about. It's worth noting that the Texas Revolution was the only successful revolution against the Mexican government in the time period, despite being merely one of many, which indicates that they were fairly good at suppressing rebellion internally (and honestly came *this* close to crushing the Texas Revolution as well; a more competent leader than Santa Anna likely would have destroyed the Texas Revolution, and then there wouldn't be a wedge to beat Mexico with anyway). You're also dramatically overestimating the competency of local forces, who never distinguished themselves at all on the offensive, which is required for your scenario to come to pass.

Most likely more importance than otl. It's not just a small amount of Canadians pushing west, but the 13 colonies population too.
There is no way that it's going to be more important than OTL, given that British North America is unlikely to be unified and is definitely not going to be unified under a republic with a messianic self-perception of itself.
 
There could be, but there are reasons to doubt that there would be in anything like the numbers of OTL. For example, if Britain has to conquer Louisiana rather than buying it,
Walk right into Louisiana. There was a non-existent colonial population in that region, so it would mostly be against native tribes. And when they conquer it, whos to say where they stop, they could futher than Spanish Louisiana.
then the Spanish and Mexicans have a pretty strong incentive to deny settlers access to Texas.
They let them in otl. And the land is sparsely populated. Most of it's claimed in, rather than controlled.
Moreover, as I also pointed out, if Mexican leadership is more competent, they may prevent revolutions from happening at all--again, I point out that the Texas Revolution was part of a wave of revolution across Mexico triggered by the revocation of the 1824 Constitution. It's completely plausible in this scenario that no such triggering incident occurs and Anglo settlers remain basically peaceful (it's not like the Mormon colonies in Mexico have ever rebelled).
Mormons never had the same demographic strength as texans. Aside from potential instability in Mexico, a Anglo Protestant area ruled by non-Anglo catholics right next door to an Anglo state, is naturally inclined towards sepratism.
Moreover, even slight changes to the military campaign could easily result in the Texians being crushed and their revolution being put down like every other revolution against Mexico in the period.
Potentially, but arguably they'd have more support from nearby states "colonies".
No, it was a complete joke. If you look at the history of state militias they were uniformly completely worthless for anything other than defending their own states.
I'm not talking about colonial militia, but Provinical Troops, these are regulars.
Nothing but regular forces will do, and none of the colonies maintained regular forces in this period.
I'm not sure about Canada. But 13 colonies maintained provincial troops throughout the 17th & 18th century.
Without the American Revolution, they're unlikely to suddenly start doing so.
Without any revolution, Australian colonies built up modern navies, so totally within the realm of possibility for American colonies to have military power.
The hell are you talking about? The Southwest has garbage land, it's mostly desert and mountains that's virtually useless from a farming perspective. It took huge amounts of government investment to make it useful for agriculture. California has value, true, and Texas, but the land in between? Worthless from a 19th century perspective. There is zero incentive for anyone to want to try to take it over except that it happens to be in between the actually useful areas and California.
That's what land is used for, farming. That's largely what settlers were, farmers. Cattle ranching proved to work effectively for American migrants
Now, California is a different story, but California is also actually extremely distant from anywhere the Anglos are likely to be,
Yea, California was also extremely distant from anywhere Americans are likely to be, but they still expanded, and we are talking about the same population.
so operations there are going to be very tricky and mostly dependent on naval support. In other words, they're something that London has to explicitly consent to and support, or they're not going anywhere.
I'd agree that California, or called New Albion by British claims, does require London's support.
As for worthwhile interests, they have the potential value of trade with Mexico, which is actually quite substantial, and potentially trade links with Spain and the Spanish Empire if the Mexican Revolution is defused, delayed, or defeated, also quite possible given that the PoD will explicitly have effects on the main causes of the Revolution in the first place.
Spain Empire is most likely to collapse, no way is Madrid sustaining that. Just because Britain avoids ARW, doesn't mean Spain does.
These are certainly important counterbalances to helping rogue settlers run riot in foreign countries, which is what we were talking about,
That is what the British Empire was. Most things were done by people on the ground, decentralised interests not London's directions.
or helping the colonies invading independent countries for vast amounts of worthless land when they already have lots of underdeveloped land already.
This applies to US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, they took more land, despite already having lots of undeveloped land. Because interests pushed them there.
There is no way that it's going to be more important than OTL,
It would be more important than what Canada's westward expansion was otl.
given that British North America is unlikely to be unified and is definitely not going to be unified under a republic with a messianic self-perception of itself.
It would be similar to Canada or Australia colonies, that expanded until there was no land left.
 
They let them in otl. And the land is sparsely populated. Most of it's claimed in, rather than controlled.
But we're not talking about OTL, we're talking about ITTL. IOTL, the Mexicans did have an incentive to let in Anglo-American settlers: to populate a thinly-settled border area and strengthen it against Comanche raids. They had a reasonably friendly relationship with the United States and did not, in the 1820s, have any particular reason to see Anglo settlers as their enemies or perceive a war with the United States as likely in the future. ITTL, the British have at a minimum fought a war against Spain or France or both to conquer Louisiana, since the latter sure aren't going to sell it, meaning that they are the enemy. That is, one of the rationales for populating Texas ITTL is going to be defending it against Britain. It would be incredibly stupid to invite British settlers to settle a border area for the purpose of defending it against British aggression!

You seem to be thinking that TTL is going to be OTL with a red coat of paint dashed on top of whatever happened IOTL. That is not true. It is going to be TTL, and will definitely not simply match OTL but with the Union Jack instead of the Stars and Stripes. For example, note that interest in Texas and the Southwest, to whatever extent the latter existed, was a decidedly Southern thing, and a lot of it was about maintaining some kind of sectional dominance in Congress by creating more slave states. Well, the South is going to be much more marginalized in a setting like this, and far less capable of dominating the government than it was IOTL. Additionally, Southerners were always much more interested in Cuba and other Caribbean islands than they were in the Southwest, given that they already had slavery and profitable slave agriculture, so even accepting your basic premises it's at least as likely that "British North America" expends its efforts on conquering Cuba and the Caribbean islands away from Spain and France instead of bothering with worthless desert and Indian-infested wilderness.

Mormons never had the same demographic strength as texans.
What "demographic strength"? Texas had perhaps 40 000 non-native inhabitants in 1836, which would include not just the Anglo settlers but also Hispanic settlers from Mexico itself. Mexico as a whole had a population of about 7 million at the same time. The Mormons certainly were not far behind the Texians in terms of actual demographic strength in any practical terms.

(Anyway, I was discussing the Mormon colonies in modern-day Mexico, rather than those in Utah, and the point was in any case a lack of unrest, not revolutionary activity and overthrow of the Mexican government regionally; this shows that Anglo Protestant settlers were not inherently fated to be hostile to the government, and that it was specific actions in the context of Mexico of the 1830s that spurred the Texians to rebel, not some inherent quality of Anglo-American settlers)

That's what land is used for, farming. That's largely what settlers were, farmers. Cattle ranching proved to work effectively for American migrants
Yes, land was used for farming then. And guess what? As I described the Southwest is utterly useless for farming unless you build enormous amounts of irrigation infrastructure. There's a reason Nevada was the least populated state in the country until after the Hoover Dam and Las Vegas (i.e., non-farming industry) was built and Arizona and New Mexico took until the 20th century to become states (and it wasn't just racism). Again, literally the only reason the U.S. conquered them was because they happened to be in between the places the U.S. already controlled and the places the U.S. actually wanted (i.e., California).

Spain Empire is most likely to collapse, no way is Madrid sustaining that. Just because Britain avoids ARW, doesn't mean Spain does.
This has been discussed extensively in the forums, and while there were fundamental weaknesses in the Spanish Empire, there was no particular reason it had to collapse anywhere near the time that it did IOTL. And delaying this collapse is likely to have wide-ranging effects on the potential for expansionism; it's noteworthy that Texas and to a rather different way Hawai'i are literally the only instances of American settlers taking over a country successfully (the attempt at a California Revolution was a miserable failure that had the good fortune of the Mexican-American War causing the U.S. military to conquer California anyway, and the filibusters were all unsuccessful as well)

This applies to US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, they took more land, despite already having lots of undeveloped land. Because interests pushed them there.

It would be more important than what Canada's westward expansion was otl.

It would be similar to Canada or Australia colonies, that expanded until there was no land left.
In nearly every case you're describing, the expansion took place against disorganized, weak, native enemies and was mostly a matter of making effective claims that were already implicit when Britain showed up. They simply are not relevant to discussions of whether the British will expand into Mexico, any more than the Russian expansion into Siberia was similar to Europe. Yes, the Russians did expand in Europe, but that was a matter of formal wars that were directed by central authority, not border adventurers looking to make money as it was in Siberia, and for overarching strategic goals and objectives, not just grabbing whatever random territories someone decided might be nice to have.
 
IF we are stipulating that a failed AR butterflies the French Revolution as we know it, SPAIN, not Mexico is holding all the OTL USAmerican southwest. A Spain not torn to shreds will be able to control that region. In the event of a Spanish-British war, the territory might be up for grabs, but Britain is unlikely to start a war to capture it. At the time of POD, the British still had all of west of Appalachians and all of Canada, and all of the south, and all of the old Northwest Territory, and all of the Oregon Territory to populate. By the time they fill all that up, Spain will have a firm hold on Louisiana and northern New Spain. Pushing OTL migration patterns on to TTL is folly.

And, Workable Goblin has it right regarding most of OTL USA southwest. Ranching is about it, for the most part, and even there, a lot of the southwest needs a LOT of land per cow, so there is going to be a very low population density. Outside of the minerals, which are plentiful in the entirety of it, Texas and California are the viable settler destinations. If Spain still holds Louisiana, they can control the migration to both.
 
IF we are stipulating that a failed AR butterflies the French Revolution as we know it, SPAIN, not Mexico is holding all the OTL USAmerican southwest. A Spain not torn to shreds will be able to control that region. In the event of a Spanish-British war, the territory might be up for grabs, but Britain is unlikely to start a war to capture it. At the time of POD, the British still had all of west of Appalachians and all of Canada, and all of the south, and all of the old Northwest Territory, and all of the Oregon Territory to populate. By the time they fill all that up, Spain will have a firm hold on Louisiana and northern New Spain. Pushing OTL migration patterns on to TTL is folly.
Well, there will definitely be a lot of pressure to take Louisiana before that happens, because of how important the Mississippi is to transport in trans-Appalachia prior to the development of railroads. So I feel that Louisiana will probably end up under British control if a war breaks out between Spain and Britain. It's the more westerly territories that I'm more skeptical of.
 
Well, if Australia isn’t colonized ITTL, it could mean a majority white South Africa. Prior to colonization South Africa was surprisingly sparsely populated. If Australia gets snapped up I could see South Africa becoming much more Anglo, much less black.
 
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.
Not at all; a failed American Rebellion would likely accelerate Patriot settlement in Louisiana and give Texas and Arkansas a decidedly French flavor. And Latin American independence may be the charmed third time of realizing republican ideals, after the Corsican and American failures.
 
how does Patriot (British/anglo descent) settlement make for French flavor?
I mean, at least in my timeline, the Patriots were in the camp of the French Enlightenment, or at least shared their ideas (Montesquieu, Rousseau etc.) Louisiana was controlled by the Spanish at this time, but barely, so a Francophone patriotism develops in New Orleans, to counter both London and Madrid (or New York and Mexico City if you prefer.) Some American ex-Patriots would hate Britain so much they even give up the English language.
 

Beatriz

Gone Fishin'
Would the Sikh Empire of the Punjab be able to form and survive without the Napoleonic wars resulting from a FRW?
One reason the Maratha were finally conquered during the Napoleonic wars was a fear of a Franco-Persian-Maratha attempt to invade British India.
1652601555683.jpeg

Map of OTL India c. 1800
 
Last edited:
Well, if Australia isn’t colonized ITTL, it could mean a majority white South Africa. Prior to colonization South Africa was surprisingly sparsely populated. If Australia gets snapped up I could see South Africa becoming much more Anglo, much less black.
Perhaps the Cape, but not all of South Africa.
 
No ARW, or a brief failure of an ARW, means the Marquis de Lafayette never rises to prominence. This would have significant effects on the course of the French Revolution (if that still happens) since he was a major figure in the early stages of the FR thanks to the prestige and revolutionary experience he gained in the US. Not to mention his central role in a couple of the subsequent French Revolutions. Probably any specific consequence gets drowned out in all of the other butterflies, though.
 
I mean, at least in my timeline, the Patriots were in the camp of the French Enlightenment, or at least shared their ideas (Montesquieu, Rousseau etc.) Louisiana was controlled by the Spanish at this time, but barely, so a Francophone patriotism develops in New Orleans, to counter both London and Madrid (or New York and Mexico City if you prefer.) Some American ex-Patriots would hate Britain so much they even give up the English language.
Perhaps some of the rich people, but the vast majority were frontier Scots-Irish. They're certainly not switching to Frenchness.
 
Top