What if the USA lost the American Revolution?
- Thread starter AlternateHistorian1993
- Start date
America is still where most of the colonial cities (aka. work opportunities) and the good farmland are located. And plenty of Irish emigrants went to Britain too, to the point that Liverpool elected an Irish nationalist MP from 1885 until his death in 1929.
That doesn't remove the fact that the American colonies combined outweigh Britain. As long as New Englanders, Yankees and Carolinians all vote in a common imperial Parliament, their interests will be as important as Britain's. Contrast this to the 19th century IOTL, when Britain's white colonies never added up to more than a quarter of the home islands' population and could thus be treated as appendages of Britain and not as competitors inside the empire.
Why not? Until the Napoleonic Wars, they'd crushed all rebellions and had a stable political system at home and in the colonies, so I doubt they'd lose to a colonial rebellion, at least not until the late 19th century.
Spain's industry wasn't ravaged by the Peninsular War and it probably doesn't undergo three civil wars during the 19th century, so it doesn't lag behind other European nations in industrial advances. It also doesn't lose its colonies, so it still maintains the world's second or third largest navy behind Great Britain's. It is also a French ally, and their navies combined are a big problem for Britain - enough that Britain wouldn't just pick a fight with them willy-nilly.
Louisiana will probably just be purchased. Very few Spaniards living north of New Orleans anyway.
Texas and California - possible.
Mexico - lolwut? What parts of Mexico are open for that?
Last edited:
Derek Pullem
Donor
Your definition of gerrymandering seems unambitious - I suspect the voting rights for immigrants in any alt-BNA empire will be much slower to accrue than in the USA. UK has prepared to see "foreign" influence in the Westminster Parliament - the Irish bloc held significant influence in late 19th century. Besides I suspect the BNA colonies will have wildly differing priorities which will only be exacerbated by their separate status - the Civil War IOTL you know? Getting them to vote as a bloc is going to be difficult especially if the idea of BNA rather than USA is pre-eminent.
Spain didn't really have a stable colonial system in the American colonies - there were four major revolts between 1765 and 1810 which were not directly linked to Spanish government collapse - Quito 1765, Peru 1780-1782, New Granada 1781 and Mexico 1810. Spain was struggling with Charles IV and Godoy after the relatively successful Charles III regime irrespective of whether France enters revolution or not . Charles IV and his son Ferdinand were on a political collision course in any event
As for what parts of Mexico and Latin America are "open" to BNA filibusters (sorry - used completely the wrong terminology when I mentioned carpetbaggers) then OTL adventures in Mexico, Nicaragua, Honduras, and Cuba could easily fall into the Rhodes / Boer war analogues in a BNA scenario.
Don't forget Louisiana. Bloody O'Reilly cracked down on that one.
Really not true .if the colonies have Canadian style self govern!many why would there be a need for a bloody rvolution whilst it is not entirely impossible if the UK screws up it is actually quite unlikely once a compromise has been reached and frankly that is the likely outcome. Uncertain but likely
Probably gets independence in like 1820 but with a salute and handshake like Canada OTL. Maybe given no US revolutionary precedent they stick some extra hanoverian in the throne in kingston[1].
[1] ATL subsitute for washington DC
[1] ATL subsitute for washington DC
Major cultural differences. Kraut, on YouTube, has a video chronicling the way American culture developed to explain the origins of gun culture. In essence, as long as that remains, America will not submit to Britain.
Edit;
The video.
Last edited:
unprincipled peter
Donor
Spain was NOT in any danger of losing their empire as of 1800, short term, anyhow. The Bourbon Reforms put New Spain on a long term shaky ground, but that was no where near boiling over sans the French Revolution, and especially the Napoleon Era. Most, if not all, of the serious revolutions were native revolts, not colonial. 1810 had colonial roots, but it happened due to circumstances surrounding the Peninsular War.
Carlos IV and son Ferdinand would NOT have been on severe collision course sans FR/Nap Wars. They aren't likely to be best pals, but in a time of continuing peace, Ferd has no traction for creating problems.
That said, I'm leery of long term prospects, simply because Carlos IV and Ferdinand were complete dunderheads. With massive PODs, though, Ferdinand could have different brides and/or children. IF Spain can muddle through that timeframe, and without outside pressure, they should be able to, future generations can do the same. History shows that Spain endured several centuries of uninspired gov't before/after 1800. Carlos III was only 'good' in comparison to those before/after.
Merely due to natural growth, I don't think North/South American colonial system (both British and Spanish) can survive for another century or so. British NA, particularly, is already at a boiling point. Things can be soothed over for a bit, but I think the USAmericans aren't going to be sated long term with anything less than independence.
As for Louisiana, Britain could have had it if they wanted it, but chose to let Spain have it. There's a long while to go before they'll have any inclination to take it, or cause trouble there. With Britain on the east bank of the Mississippi, Spain will not cause trouble with river transit. Meanwhile, Spanish Louisiana was growing, and picking up steam. The bigger the British presence got on the east bank, the more Spain will be motivated to develop the west. On the other side of Louisiana is Spain's crown jewel, Mexico. Spain wants a buffer region between British NA and the core of Mexico. They aren't willingly selling it to their main colonial rival.
Carlos IV and son Ferdinand would NOT have been on severe collision course sans FR/Nap Wars. They aren't likely to be best pals, but in a time of continuing peace, Ferd has no traction for creating problems.
That said, I'm leery of long term prospects, simply because Carlos IV and Ferdinand were complete dunderheads. With massive PODs, though, Ferdinand could have different brides and/or children. IF Spain can muddle through that timeframe, and without outside pressure, they should be able to, future generations can do the same. History shows that Spain endured several centuries of uninspired gov't before/after 1800. Carlos III was only 'good' in comparison to those before/after.
Merely due to natural growth, I don't think North/South American colonial system (both British and Spanish) can survive for another century or so. British NA, particularly, is already at a boiling point. Things can be soothed over for a bit, but I think the USAmericans aren't going to be sated long term with anything less than independence.
As for Louisiana, Britain could have had it if they wanted it, but chose to let Spain have it. There's a long while to go before they'll have any inclination to take it, or cause trouble there. With Britain on the east bank of the Mississippi, Spain will not cause trouble with river transit. Meanwhile, Spanish Louisiana was growing, and picking up steam. The bigger the British presence got on the east bank, the more Spain will be motivated to develop the west. On the other side of Louisiana is Spain's crown jewel, Mexico. Spain wants a buffer region between British NA and the core of Mexico. They aren't willingly selling it to their main colonial rival.
unprincipled peter
Donor
wagging what dog? and what tail?
USA being smaller/non existent doesn't make Brazil stronger.
Or maybe I am not understanding what you're getting at.
IF no French Revolution/Nap Wars is a butterfly, you likely don't have a Brazil as we know it. Quite likely a lesser Brazil, maybe balkanized. At minimal, no reason to think it is any better/stronger regardless of what happens in North America.
It's very likely Brazil just remains a part of Portugal, it only became independent IOTL due to the Napoleonic Wars and Portugal doing everything it could to worsen their relationship with its main colony.
A Portugal which still has Brazil would have massive consequences, with the Portuguese having easier access to Angola through its American holding.
Wasn't most of this growth primarily of the population of enslaved Africans? That doesn't seem sustainable in the long-run, as the Haitian Revolution could very well still happen, even with no ideological baggage from the French
unprincipled peter
Donor
Yes to the first part. Sort of with the second part.
A continued Angola-Brazil connection does change the economics of Angola. Not sure this amounts to much overall, in comparison to the loss of Brazil. I don't foresee a major increase in development of Angola. The interior wasn't all that hospitable to whites, and that wasn't really the Portuguese MO. They mostly stuck to coastal trade zones.
A continued Brazilian connection, especially with Brazil remaining colonially under-developed (thus not getting the idea they were equals to Portugal, nor ready for independence), improves Portugal's fortunes. Combine this with the likely butterflying of destruction and civil wars, and Portugal is in better shape. I doubt they rise in the ranks of international standing. South American history is rewritten, but likely doesn't really change much on the world stage. A world with no French Revolution/Nap Wars is most unrecognizable, so it'll be hard to tell.
unprincipled peter
Donor
A lot of the growth was from an increase of African slaves, but Spain also took steps to increase white migration from Spain and from non Spanish sources. For example, migration from USA was encouraged. This source may dry up with British control of USA, or it might not if 'USA' gains home rule. From what I know, both the white and nonwhite population doubled/tripled.
Spain also enacted laws that made it easier for slaves to gain freedom as compared to French or British colonies. Spanish colonial culture made for much mixing of blood. Sans outside pressure, ala the Napoleon period, I see no reason Louisiana couldn't be held on to for the foreseeable future, even with the less than stellar Spanish governing competence.
Only if the British give them a reason to rebel again as they did in Ireland.
They would, there would still be hard feelings from the revolution not to mention the Abolitionist movement in England would be too popular in the American South.
unprincipled peter
Donor
A lot depends on the peace. I doubt Britain is going to be able to impose a complete curbstomp on the Patriots. This means some sort of compromise peace, which is a big gray area. Compromise usually means neither side is totally satisfied. Britain's position is to give up as little as possible, and if they win enough to impose a deal which reflects that position, the Patriots will accept it begrudgingly until the time is right to contest it. If the Patriots win enough to have a better outcome, they are going to look to have an even better situation. The odds of both sides accepting a lasting compromise are low, IMO. The Patriots will look to circumvent any restrictions, and the Brits will look to enforce any restrictions.
That said, different regions of British North America could be more accepting of a peace, so it may not be all or none of the colonies.
That said, different regions of British North America could be more accepting of a peace, so it may not be all or none of the colonies.