What If Britain had been Able to keep the 13 colonies?

Sissco

Banned
People,

What If Britain had been able to keep the 13 colonies? what if Britain had managed to break a deal with the British American's that they could have their own form of Government, loyal to the British Crown! would Britain have eventually kicked the French out of the rest of, what we now call the USA? Would Britain have colonised the rest of North America, except for Mexico? Would this have meant that Britain had no real need to search for another place to put their prision population and thus mean that Britian never found Australia? How would the Napolinic (Spelling) have turned out? Britain would'nt have had to fight two wars at the same time now that the whole of the U.S and Canada was loyal to the crown!

Please throw your ideas at me....how would history habve been different had Britain managed to keep the 13 colonies, either through force or diplomacy?

Please discuss

Sissco
 

Sissco

Banned
I know this is NOT he place to ask but I often wonder how WW2 and the Cold war would've turned out had Britain had North America and Austrailia in it's hands? Would Britain have been the nation with the A And H bombs and not America? LOL but thats for the other board!!! However I've often wondered how History would've been had Britain had managed to Keep the 13 colonies!


Thanks

sissco
 

Sissco

Banned
That Unreconisable?? Really??? I'm shocked to say the least as I come from Britain!!!! One think I can think of is that Britian may not have found, searched for or even needed Australia and New zealand had we kept the 13 colonies!!

Again, thanks for making me think

Sissco
 
As in, fail in the revolution but come to some kind of understanding? Become a Dominion?

Would the US still see massive immigration? Would we still have a near continuous population boom? Would we still see rapid industrialization? Would we be in Union with Canada?
 

Sissco

Banned
Bopater,

As in, fail in the revolution but come to some kind of understanding? Become a Dominion?

More or less, yes!! Imagine if the King of England saw sense and granted the 13 colonies their own form of Governmnet under their own people but still remain loyal to the king! They'd have to pay for their own army and defence and they may even have to pay Britian a little for extra experienced Brittish troops but hey, if it worked with Canada why did it fail with America

Would the US still see massive immigration? Would we still have a near continuous population boom? Would we still see rapid industrialization? Would we be in Union with Canada?

Yes There would probably be a contious supply Brits and Irish people pouring into the 13 colonies and Canada! And yes, the 13 colonies and Canada would probably have their own joint Government!

Would Britain manage to kick the French, complatly outa North America? Would the whole of NOrth America, except mexico be British by 1900?

sissco
 
Would Britain manage to kick the French, complatly outa North America?

I honestly have to ask, where else were the French in North America?

if it worked with Canada why did it fail with America

The only reason it DID work in Canada was because the British didn't want another America.

The first thing I think would have to be looked at would be westward migration IN North America. No matter what kind of Andrew Jackson is developed ITTL, I doubt there'd be anything resembling the Trail of Tears.

More likely, IMO, the British would create their own reservations for the Indians, signing deals with the ones that they consider powerful and civilized enough, and eliminating (along with their Indian allies) the ones in their way. Westward movement to the Mississippi I think would be a lot slower, but all together prosperous with the trading to the Natives along the way.

I think the second factor that has to be looked at would be the everpresent problem of slavery. The British Empire would issue manumission in 1833. Given the political status of the colonies at this time and depending on the agreement you have between Britain and the 13 Troublemakers, then Wilburforce's efforts may or may not have an effect in the colonies.

Of course, assuming that there isn't a higher pro-slavery faction in Parliament by this time. Or assuming there is, I still believe the social conditions in England would have issued gradual manumission by at LEAST 1840.

Would this have taken effect in the colonies? If it did, would we end up with a SECOND American Rebellion, this time in the south led by South Carolinian governor John Calhoun?

It's also worth looking at the heroes both British and American that were affected (negatively and positively) by the War of 1812, which has now been immediately butterflied away.

Would the whole of NOrth America, except mexico be British by 1900?

You have to remember, BNA stopped at the Mississippi (not counting Canada). Past the Mississippi, it bordered Spanish Louisiana. You could go two ways with this:

1. Napoleon signs an "agreement" with the Spanish returning Louisiana to France.

2. Napoleon doesn't do anything and leaves Louisiana to the Spanish.

With the first option, there'd be no Louisiana Purchase. Amidst one of the Napoleonic Wars, Britain would surely take control of the Mississippi River and New Orleans and thus, BNA would control Louisiana Territory and incorporate it as a new colony to their dominion.

With the second option, there'd still be no Louisiana Purchase. In fact, I can't see the British touching it. There's simply no need to. True, Spain was a Napoleonic ally, but Britain saw them as a French puppet.

When the Spanish Empire dissolves in the 1820s, Louisiana has another two roads it could follow:

1. Become a part of the new nation of Mexico.

2. Become its own country.

The second option leads to pretty much nothing more but a Latin American nation just across the Mississippi that constantly falls to coups and recovers eventually with a "Democratic revolutionary" time and time again.

The first option could lead to a Texas-like situation. The British North Americans will still be Americans. Being the nation just a hop over, many BNAmericans will probably seek the adventure and republicanism that is, traditionally, a British value. Louisiana could become this TLs Texas. Perhaps this means future annexation into BNA and expansion to the Pacific via Texas and Oregon.

I know this is NOT he place to ask but I often wonder how WW2 and the Cold war would've turned out had Britain had North America and Austrailia in it's hands? Would Britain have been the nation with the A And H bombs and not America? LOL but thats for the other board!!! However I've often wondered how History would've been had Britain had managed to Keep the 13 colonies!

As stated before, 1776 is far too early to be determining what would happen in 1945.

And please calm down with the quotation marks. I know we all get excited about Alternate History, but it makes me think you're sitting at your computer snorting Sweet n' Low.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
The thing is the American Revolution heavily influneced the French Revolution, there are serious risks the French revolution would be butterflied away or seriously taking different turns than IRL.
 
As long as there was no Parliamentary union, slavery would still be abolished in the Empire in 1833 and the result of which would be an earlier civil war. The French, at this stage would still have a monarchy and would probably relish the opportunity to intervene on behalf of the South. Obviously they would easily be defeated by Britain and the Northern Dominions. So, the France is bankrupted and the belated revolution is ignited, inspired by the Southern rebels and their struggle against British imperialism. It's difficult to speculate whether the new French Republic would try to export their revolution, for want of a Napoleon figure. But the entente cordial might be seriously postponed by a 19th Century 'Cold War' between the two opposing ideologies.
 
Benedict Arnols saves the Empire?

How it could have happened? The Rockingham Whigs stay in power and Lord North isn't able to form a government. At a later stage, Major Andre pulls it off and Arnold delivers a fatal blow or after Yorktown, the Tories are able to form an adminstration that wants to carry on the war.

The consequences? Robert Sobel's For want of a nail gives one scenario and there is Harry Harrison's a Transatlantic Tunnel hurrah hurrah! Australia would still be a dumping ground for convicts as the 13 colonies would object to being one. There may well have been no Sierra Leone as there may not have been black loyalists or they may have been returned to the plantations although Howe and Sir Henry Clinton would have objected. Rebellion may have come with the abolition of slavery in the British Empire or maybe dominion status would have come with a British North America as in Turteldove's the Two Georges.

The war of 1812 was in British terms a sideshow rather than a war on two fronts once the war in Europe was over a large amount of resources would have been available which is why sanity prevailed and the peace treaty was signed
 
Is it just me or is Napoleon always destined to rise? Even after a failed ARW.

maybe not technically, but as far as this website and Ah in general are concerned, probably. He is such a focal point in history, and interesting enough to enough people, that he often included in AH rising to power in radically different circumstances. In addition to him rising in france, i've seen people on this site consider if he had been italian, or had moved to the ottoman empire, sets himself up in egypt, or other possibilities. Not to mention the host of novels and stories where the POD is him making a different decision (moving to America, say).

Now, with butterflies, his rise is unlikely if the POD is after his birth (although the french revolution does make room for a similar figure in the power vacumn). If the monarchy remains in power indefinitaly into the 19th century, then he retains all of his potential but lacks any opprotunity. And he was enough of a blunderer that he could easily destroy his future career at some point. But the french revolution makes it likely that eventually a strongman in his mold will rise.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I know this is NOT he place to ask but I often wonder how WW2 and the Cold war would've turned out had Britain had North America and Austrailia in it's hands? Would Britain have been the nation with the A And H bombs and not America? LOL but thats for the other board!!! However I've often wondered how History would've been had Britain had managed to Keep the 13 colonies!


Thanks

sissco

This question proceeds from a false assumption, namely that a massive alteration in the world's political and economic landscape two centuries before wouldn't cancel out almost everything that follows, like a World War starting in 1939.

In fact, the world would be so different that the possibilities are literally endless.
 
Without the ARW France dont go into debt, thus no need to call in the parliament, no voting against the king, perhaps enough bread for the paris population so no Bastille and no revolution at all so the rest of Europe dont go to war against France.

Prussia dont modernise their army after the collapse against France.

No french army in Egypt means that the Rosetta stone stays undknown.

No French revolution to anger him with swedish king Gustav IV isnt deposed off and jean babiste bernadotte dont rise over the rank of sergant major.
Sweden might retain Finland since Russia wouldnt have signed a treaty with France to give them a free hand up there.

In the UK the duke of Wellington dont rise high in the army without a war.
 
Actually , this topic has been touched upon several times on this forums. Secondly , the butterfly effects would almost certainly have rendered the world unrecognizable. The Napelonic Wars would almost certainly never had occured since the French Revolution might have been delayed ( because the French in TTL dig themselves in a larger financial hole by funding the Revolution , etc). Without the Napelonic Wars, the 19th Century would have been totally different , and let's not even talk about World War I , let alone II. While it is possible that some other analouge to these wars might occur , their nature , characteristics , belligrents involved and time would be unrecognizably different .

Finally , it depends on how , as suggested by previous posters , the British Empire suceeds in holding on to her posesssions.
 
Top