What if Britain captured, and permanently retained, the Cape Colony earlier than OTL?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
PoD 1 - 1st Anglo-Dutch War, so its a English Cape from 1654 onward

PoD 2 - 2nd Anglo-Dutch War, so its a English Cape from 1667 onward

PoD 3 - 3rd Anglo-Dutch War, so its a English Cape from from 1674 onward

PoD 4 - 4th Anglo-Dutch War, so its a British Cape from 1784 onward

I could see Britain acquiring and maintaining the Cape in a few ways.

I think a prerequisite would be an actual expedition that successfully occupies the place during any of the above wars. I know there was an attempt in the 4th war that was abandoned when the Cape got French reinforcements. I do not know if there were earlier attempts. Nor do I know if circumstances made a successful expedition implausible.

After capture, the Cape has to be not traded back to the Netherlands.

This could be a) because of better English (or later British) performance in the overall war, which leaves England or Britain with no need to arrange a tradeback, or b) Britain performs about the same except for the Cape expedition being added, and it trades back something else to the Netherlands while keeping the Cape (possibly a captured Dutch island in the Caribbean or Indies, piece of Guiana, New Netherlands, a west African fort, etc.)

How does the future of the Cape most likely unfold in any of the scenarios listed above?
 
If the British acquire the Cape Colony earlier than OTL, preferably around the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War, would their interest in Canada as a settler colony diminish even further?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
If the British acquire the Cape Colony earlier than OTL, preferably around the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War, would their interest in Canada as a settler colony diminish even further?

Probably not overmuch. The maritimes still have good naval bases and fishing. Transport costs for Loyalists to Canada are cheaper than to southern Africa (although many British Loyalists may choose to go there). There is still money to be made in the fur trades. Eventual increased settlement and agriculture in Ontario means the French are more securely boxed in and there is ultimately more of a market for British exports.
 
I'd imagine Australia gets the short end of the stick here; the Cape is far closer and sufficiently less interesting to perspective settlers to make it an ideal location for English convicts to be sent here. Thus you'd probably remove Australia from settlement, most likely with France getting it. I'd also imagine such a setup would eventually result in a Brazil like entity for the Cape, in so far as the demographics and such given the convicts would be overwhelmingly male and thus would seek wives among the natives.
 
I'd imagine Australia gets the short end of the stick here; the Cape is far closer and sufficiently less interesting to perspective settlers to make it an ideal location for English convicts to be sent here. Thus you'd probably remove Australia from settlement, most likely with France getting it. I'd also imagine such a setup would eventually result in a Brazil like entity for the Cape, in so far as the demographics and such given the convicts would be overwhelmingly male and thus would seek wives among the natives.

Maybe the loss of the Cape could result in the Dutch instead showing interest in Australia.
 
I'd imagine Australia gets the short end of the stick here; the Cape is far closer and sufficiently less interesting to perspective settlers to make it an ideal location for English convicts to be sent here. Thus you'd probably remove Australia from settlement, most likely with France getting it. I'd also imagine such a setup would eventually result in a Brazil like entity for the Cape, in so far as the demographics and such given the convicts would be overwhelmingly male and thus would seek wives among the natives.

I don't see it. The British took Australia to stop anyone else getting it. They would do the same here.
 
I'd imagine Australia gets the short end of the stick here; the Cape is far closer and sufficiently less interesting to perspective settlers to make it an ideal location for English convicts to be sent here. Thus you'd probably remove Australia from settlement, most likely with France getting it. I'd also imagine such a setup would eventually result in a Brazil like entity for the Cape, in so far as the demographics and such given the convicts would be overwhelmingly male and thus would seek wives among the natives.

Depends on when Britain gets the Cape. If its ~20years after Jan van Riebeeck gets there, then its probably a-go for a penal colony. If it gets it ~20years before she got it OTL (1784), then no dice. Britain tried to send convicts to the Cape in the early 19th century (shortly after they got it) and the Kapenaars told them to sod off. Britain either had a lot of real-estate or got the message because while they did sporadically TRY (one prison ship was left lying at anchor in Table Bay, then False Bay for a few months), they more or less let the matter lie. The Cape would provision the ships, but they (the Capetonians) would not let the convicts set foot on shore.

As to a mixed race population, I doubt it. Spain, France and Portugal had no issue with it. Britain's colonialism was a horse of a different colour. And usually they kept "white" and "non-white" separate AFAIK, for instance sending the so-called Brothel Ships (or somesuch) down to Australia with women (mostly arrested prostitutes) to meet the needs of the fledgling communities rather than encouraging intermarrying with the locals (which would've presumably been easier and cheaper).
 
Depends on when Britain gets the Cape. If its ~20years after Jan van Riebeeck gets there, then its probably a-go for a penal colony. If it gets it ~20years before she got it OTL (1784), then no dice. Britain tried to send convicts to the Cape in the early 19th century (shortly after they got it) and the Kapenaars told them to sod off. Britain either had a lot of real-estate or got the message because while they did sporadically TRY (one prison ship was left lying at anchor in Table Bay, then False Bay for a few months), they more or less let the matter lie. The Cape would provision the ships, but they (the Capetonians) would not let the convicts set foot on shore.

As to a mixed race population, I doubt it. Spain, France and Portugal had no issue with it. Britain's colonialism was a horse of a different colour. And usually they kept "white" and "non-white" separate AFAIK, for instance sending the so-called Brothel Ships (or somesuch) down to Australia with women (mostly arrested prostitutes) to meet the needs of the fledgling communities rather than encouraging intermarrying with the locals (which would've presumably been easier and cheaper).

Emphasis mine; sure it was, in the 1700s. However the development of slave codes forbidding interracialism didn't really exist pre-1650 (as your pre-Jan van Riebeeck notion postulates), nor would such policy necessarily reach an English Cape Colony, nor was there any hullaballoo over the "M" word like would later arise in the post-1880s era. So with that time-frame in mind, the English wouldn't be any different in that practice than the Dutch were.

Post 1700, you probably have a point, at least insofar as British practices go.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
neat ideas, all.

I wonder if black loyalists from the American revolutionary war are even more likely to be settled at the Cape than white loyalists.
 
I'd imagine Australia gets the short end of the stick here; the Cape is far closer and sufficiently less interesting to perspective settlers to make it an ideal location for English convicts to be sent here. Thus you'd probably remove Australia from settlement, most likely with France getting it. I'd also imagine such a setup would eventually result in a Brazil like entity for the Cape, in so far as the demographics and such given the convicts would be overwhelmingly male and thus would seek wives among the natives.

Isn't there a large community in South Africa that reflects just that? The Coloureds, or Cape Coloureds?
 
I don't see it. The British took Australia to stop anyone else getting it. They would do the same here.

If she has no settlers immediately available, it matters not. We do know even the Russians were poking around in the 1830s/1840s in the region.

Depends on when Britain gets the Cape. If its ~20years after Jan van Riebeeck gets there, then its probably a-go for a penal colony. If it gets it ~20years before she got it OTL (1784), then no dice. Britain tried to send convicts to the Cape in the early 19th century (shortly after they got it) and the Kapenaars told them to sod off. Britain either had a lot of real-estate or got the message because while they did sporadically TRY (one prison ship was left lying at anchor in Table Bay, then False Bay for a few months), they more or less let the matter lie. The Cape would provision the ships, but they (the Capetonians) would not let the convicts set foot on shore.

Given how Britain would come about the territorial acquisition, via warfare instead of gaining it via diplomatic wrangling, I wonder if that would make them less inclined to deal with the wants of the inhabitants.

As to a mixed race population, I doubt it. Spain, France and Portugal had no issue with it. Britain's colonialism was a horse of a different colour. And usually they kept "white" and "non-white" separate AFAIK, for instance sending the so-called Brothel Ships (or somesuch) down to Australia with women (mostly arrested prostitutes) to meet the needs of the fledgling communities rather than encouraging intermarrying with the locals (which would've presumably been easier and cheaper).

British colonialism was different in that it followed the model of family unit settlers, as opposed to most everyone else who generally sent out single men. Given the most likely first colonists will be single young men, we can certainly expect mixed race societies to form as a rather doubt said men are going to willingly remain celibate for undefined reasons.

Isn't there a large community in South Africa that reflects just that? The Coloureds, or Cape Coloureds?

Yes, I just meant larger and more established in a Brazil fashion.
 
Last edited:
Top