What if the USA lost the American Revolution?

[SlickerVyn]

I can’t see Britain not eventually losing the colonies to Revolutionaries. America always had this spark of independence and a desire for self-governance (not just because of Puritan pilgrims) that was a powerful motivator in establishing this country; not race or religion but a desire for self-governance. This desire will likely be reflected in other colonial holdings outside of just Britain, like Mexico and Latin America.

End result, however, is things get far more bloody down the line.

 

[Beatriz]

If no American independence equals no French Revolution equals no Napoleonic War, then South Africa remains Dutch, which means a Boer/Afrikaaner ascendancy in Southern Africa without the amelioration of British settlers which served to dampen the largely Afrikaaner influenced pro Apartheid tendency that occurred IOTL.

Which on other words, means Apartheid South Africa x10, probably earlier

But you discount 1) the effects of the Enlightenment including the abolition of slavery and 2) stronger resistance by native/Coloured polities/slower expansion for various reasons

 

[dcharles]

Britain would be unlikely to take massive retaliatory action because if they did the premise of the UK winning in any meaningful sense goes out of the window, and the revolution would be victorious a few years later. In a situation like BNA in the period Government in the end could not be secured except by consent . .

That's actually a really cool premise for a story.

American Revolution fails, British get draconian in the colonies... Leading to a new rebellion oh, about 1810 or so. Led by, say, Aaron Burr?

That's got potential.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

The French and possibly the Spanish will retain certain North American possessions, because its very possible that there is not going to be a French revolution, if the American revolution fails (The American revolution had a large influence on the French revolution). Consequently, there is no guarantee that the Spanish will sign over Louisiana to France, or that France will sell it to anyone-there wont be a US to sell it too, and the French are never very likely to sell such a large territory to their mortal enemies, the British.

Britain had already acquired large swathes of French America and they didn't even have to pay them for it, at the end of the day the British colonists are militarily more powerful than what's left of the French presence in North America.

Slavery in the Americas is doomed. Remaining linked to the UK, means remaining linked to the burgeoning British Abolitionist cause, which resulted in the UK abolishing the slave trade not many years after the OTL US achieved its independence, and long before the US.

Slavery is doomed in the long run, but in the short term the pro-slavery British lords will have all the more reason to preserve the institution and the abolitionist American politicians that got slavery abolished in the northern states before it was ever abolished in the British colonies will mostly either be dead or otherwise persecuted for their role in the rebellion. Also, the US IOTL abolished the importation of slaves within a year of the British doing the same.

However, maybe the growth of the OTL US would be retarded. Immigration would be unlikely to occur at the same levels. British North America would not be nearly as attractive to the Germans who went to the US in the wake of the European Spring. British and Protestant people would probably be favoured, which in turn means fewer colonists for Australia, NZ and Canada.

The Germans were already going to the American colonies in the 1700's IOTL, to the point where large swathes of Pennsylvania (and bits of other colonies) were dominated by German-speakers. And if there's an ATL version of the European Spring that still somehow sees a mass exodus of Germans then where else are they going to go if not the American colonies where there's as much land as one can take?

 

[sarahz]

Oh and if anything I can see slavery lasting longer and becoming ingrained not just in the Southern colonies but the Middle colonies too (particularly New Jersey and New York which were known as slave trade hubs and as hotbeds of Loyalism in the Revolution) since the soil was healthy there and the Crown was highly connected with the slave trade. Severing with the Crown OTL caused America to lose much of its connection with the trade. And in spite of that, more slaves were imported from the American Revolution to OTL’s abolition of the slave trade in 1807 inh and if anything I can see slavery lasting longer and becoming ingrained not just in the Southern colonies but the Middle colonies too (particularly New Jersey and New York which were known as slave trade hubs and as hotbeds of Loyalism in the Revolution) since the soil was healthy there and the Crown was highly connected with the slave trade. Severing with the Crown OTL caused America to lose much of its connection with the trade. And in spite of that, more slaves were imported from the American Revolution to OTL’s abolition of the slave trade in 1807 in the USA than in any other time in American history. So I expect the future of slavery to be more ambiguous than many people would thing
n many people would think.

Britain had already acquired large swathes of French America and they didn't even have to pay them for it, at the end of the day the British colonists are militarily more powerful than what's left of the French presence in North America.

Slavery is doomed in the long run, but in the short term the pro-slavery British lords will have all the more reason to preserve the institution and the abolitionist American politicians that got slavery abolished in the northern states before it was ever abolished in the British colonies will mostly either be dead or otherwise persecuted for their role in the rebellion. Also, the US IOTL abolished the importation of slaves within a year of the British doing the same.

The Germans were already going to the American colonies in the 1700's IOTL, to the point where large swathes of Pennsylvania (and bits of other colonies) were dominated by German-speakers. And if there's an ATL version of the European Spring that still somehow sees a mass exodus of Germans then where else are they going to go if not the American colonies where there's as much land as one can take?

if th e British want to win the peace you c and lock up or kill. Very ma ny. One needs to be magnaminous. The public in Britain and the North constitute a large political majority. unless the growth of the middle class non conformist religious conscience is somehow prevented slavery will not endure my h longer than otl and maybe go even quicker. Without the French revolution one willr not get the reaction to it and refomr. In Britain may even happen earlier. This is where the 2 George's was odd. It had a compromise in the colonies that entrenched reptesntative government that somehow led to a more conservative and non representative Britain if I a. Revolution can influence events surelly a grand compromise should also influence events

 

[Don Corleone]

I always like to speculate on who would fly the Betsy Ross flag today.

Anti-monarchists
Irish Catholics
Descendants of freedmen (there was never a US to commit its own sins, so England would get the full blame for slavery).
New Englanders and Pennsylvanians

 

[Beatriz]

What’s the long term effects of British America on Asia?

 

[Discernible]

What happened after the Regulators revolt will probably happen to the revolutionaries after losing the ARW. Some executions for treason, some death sentences followed by pardons or imprisonment, requirement for oaths of loyalty, and those who escape going west.

Colonies will develop along lines similar to what happened in Canada and Australia. So maybe some form of con/federation at some point unless there are differences too wide to accommodate such an association.

Slavery will probably have a bigger lobby compared to OTL so that may delay anti-slavery legislation. OTL there were 800k in the British Empire. Add American colonies at this time and it's close to 3m.

 

[Zardust]

US to commit its own sins, so England would get the full blame for slavery).

Which is ironic in the extreme, considering Britain was neither the first practitioner of slavery, the worst practitioner of slavery, yet it was the first major country to abolish slavery

 

[Don Corleone]

Which is ironic in the extreme, considering Britain was neither the first practitioner of slavery, the worst practitioner of slavery, yet it was the first major country to abolish slavery

True, but they were the perpetrators in the colonies that became the US, and you could argue them as the worst because of the over the top brutality of slavery in the British colonies and later (in OTL) the American South.

I doubt people in the Anglophone world of TTL would have the past sins of France and Spain on their radar.

 

[Beatriz]

Would there be immigration from British Africa* and India after racial laws against nonwhite immigration (see White Australia IOTL) are lifted?
*assuming it is more than a few outposts

 

[Pugzley]

Canada and USA could form a super country like the pro-independence Americans dreamed of.

 

[Sacer Bubonicus]

Because this has seemingly become my specialty lately, let's talk about the effects this will have on the Qing.

What’s the long term effects of British America on Asia?

American merchants will be clamoring for the revocation of the BEIC's monopoly on British trade in India and China. IOTL, there was already pressure in the empire from independent merchants for the government to revoke the BEIC's monopolies, and the India monopoly was revoked when the BEIC's charter was renewed in 1813, and the China monopoly was revoked when it was renewed again in 1833. The result was a huge flood of opium into the Chinese market by hundreds of independent merchants, which forced the previously unattentive Chinese government to make a formal response, which provoked the First Opium War.

IOTL, American merchants accounted for around 10% of the opium smuggled into China by 1813, so they'll certainly put additional pressure on the British government to break the BEIC's monopoly ITTL. In fact, it's entirely possible that the BEIC's monopolies will be repealed in the 1793 and 1813 charters instead of the 1813 and 1833 charters. Hell, they might even repeal both the India and China monopolies in the same charter in 1793, which would cause the flood of opium and the resulting response to come 3-4 decades earlier than IOTL. This would also have huge effects on India and Burma, but I won't go into them here.

Effects:

1. Opium smuggling into Canton rises earlier, forcing the opium issue to the top of the Qing list of priorities 20 years earlier than IOTL. This has major implications, because this gets the opium crisis started before the Spanish New World colonies declare independence and indirectly cause an economic crisis in China lasting from the mid-20s to the mid-40s. Besides the obvious potential for an earlier Opium War, this has a major effect on how the Qing government thinks of the crises befalling it and how it constructs its response.

2. IOTL, the Qing government believed that the cause of the economic issues was government corruption. This wasn't actually the case, but it was an interpretation the emperor and the court faction built up around him were predisposed to because of the corruption scandal with Heshen and the inflation that had been going on since the 1790s.

When the opium issue became really prominent in the 1830s, the government seized on it as yet another reason for the problem, with Qing officials estimating that 50% of Qing yearly revenue was bleeding away due to opium smuggling, when in reality the figure was closer to 20% -- and of course, they completely failed to factor in the main reason for the economic crisis: no new silver coming in from Mexico. Because of this misinterpretation of events, the Qing government's response to the two crises was to further double down on its anti-corruption policies, which didn't work because it wasn't addressing the real reason for the economic crisis. In fact, the Qing economic crisis wouldn't end until Mexico finally stabilized and began exporting reliable silver dollars to China again in the 1840s.​

In the decades leading up to the Opium War, there were government officials who were concerned about Britain's technological superiority, but the emperor's faction always responded to their concerns by saying that even if the British were technologically superior (which the emperor finally acknowledged in 1842), they could only be dealt with after the horrific corruption they believed was plaguing the government was rooted out first. In reality, there was a certain low level of corruption endemic to the Qing bureaucracy, but it was nowhere near as acute as the imperial court were convinced it was.​

3. ITTL, the opium issue comes up in the late 1810s and early 1820s, before the economic crisis becomes a major concern for the Qing government. This means that instead of associating the opium issue with internal corruption, the Qing instead associate it with foreign encroachment on China and the need to catch up with the foreigners. If the Opium War starts a decade or two earlier than IOTL, the need to catch up with the British will take precedence, especially if a Second Opium War happens 14 years later, like IOTL, and reinforces that idea. This will, among other things, massively improve Qing performance against the revolts of the 1850s-70s that popped up IOTL.

And if the Thirteen Colonies staying in the British Empire results in the Spanish American colonies not rebelling in the 1810s-1820s, the Qing economic crisis will either be prevented or delayed by several decades, meaning that the different crises that came together in the early 19th century will be even more separated in time, allowing the Qing government to focus on one at a time and to start catching up with Europe early.​

 

[Sacer Bubonicus]

Here's a handy little chart I made of some of the obvious effects of the American Revolution not happening.

---

America stays in the British Empire.

​

↳ The British East India Company's monopolies are revoked earlier.

↳The Qing are faced with the need to modernize earlier, due to earlier conflict with Britain. No Cixi to mess things up this time.​

↳ China isn't the Sick Man of Asia in the 19th century.​

↳ Russia doesn't take the Trans-Amur region.​

↳ Japan doesn't see China as an easy victim to attack in the late 19th / early 20th century.​

↳ Tokugawa Japan probably modernizes based off of China's example.​

↳ The shogunate doesn't solicit advice from the daimyos like IOTL, so it doesn't make itself look weak and overthrowable.​

↳ The Kobu Gattai relationship between shogun and emperor continues, and the Tokugawa Shogunate isn't overthrown by an alliance of disaffected daimyos and radical emperor-worshipers.​

​

↳The British East India Company's finances are in a worse position for the First Anglo-Burmese War.​

↳ The BEIC potentially goes bankrupt after the First Anglo-Burmese War, and possibly even loses the war.​

↳ The BEIC gets taken over by the British government and turned into the British Raj three decades early.​

↳ The Great Game heats up quicker.​

↳ If America is still in the British Empire when a Crimean War equivalent happens, Alaska isn't sold to America.​

↳ France didn't help the Americans, so it doesn't deepen its debt by doing so. The French Revolution still may or may not happen.

↳ What if France has a Revolution?​

↳ The Napoleonic Wars don't happen.​

↳ France doesn't invade Spain and cause collapse of Spanish control over its colonies.​

↳ Spanish colonies don't revolt until decades later, and possibly never revolt.​

↳ No Monroe Doctrine in America.​

↳ The Qing economic crisis of the 1820s-40s doesn't happen or is delayed.​

↳ The Third Polish Partition either doesn't happen at all or is significantly delayed.​

​

↳ What if France doesn't have a Revolution?​

↳ The Third Polish Partition still happens like IOTL, leaving most of Poland under Prussian and Austrian control.​

↳ If the borders aren't redrawn later, maybe te Russians support pan-Slavism in Poland in order to weaken Prussia and/or Austria?​

↳ Napoleon or one of the other good French generals probably takes over after a while.​

↳ The Napoleonic Wars (or some equivalent of them) happen.​

 

[Sacer Bubonicus]

An addition to the previous chart:

---

America stays in the British Empire.

↳ By the 1850s, it's clear that the long-term future of the British Empire is to really be an American empire with a colony in the British isles, as America's economy is starting to catch up with the home islands'.

↳ The government in London says "Nope, fuck that!" and gives most or all of the Thirteen Colonies independence, probably spinning the slave states off as their own separate nation. If the Imperial Federation project fell apart IOTL because of India's population, it would fall apart ITTL because of America's population.​

↳ America becomes an independent country peacefully, which has big implications for how it sees itself. It also probably has a number of Indian states included in it.​

↳ The South becomes its own country, and it too probably has Indian states, ala Oklahoma back when it was called Indian Territory.​

↳ Canada, as the least populous territory, probably remains with the British Empire.​

↳Manifest Destiny not being a thing until after America becomes independent means that America doesn't expand eastward as far as IOTL. It will still expand rapidly, but its expansion will have been somewhat limited by the British government until America became independent.

↳ The Mexican-American War doesn't happen or is delayed by several decades.​

↳ Mexico probably keeps the northern territories.​

↳ Alternatively, California and Texas become independent nations.​

↳ Britain comfortably takes the part of the Oregon Territory north of the Columbia River as part of Canada.​

↳ Who will Russia sell Alaska to ITTL? Will they even sell it to anyone?

↳ If America becomes a rival of Britain, probably to them.​

↳ If not America, maybe Mexico?​

↳ For a wilder idea, perhaps Japan or China? ITTL, China most likely still holds Outer Manchuria, so Russia isn't a rival of Japan -- if anything, it's probably allied with Japan against the Chinese.​

 

[TheEmperorYT]

The most important question is how the Americans lose the war. There's no shortage of ways this is possible, as the essay "Unlikely Victory" in What If? The World's Foremost Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been makes abundantly clear. When and how the British win have their own respective butterflies (for example, a scenario where France fails to save the revolution compared to a scenario where France never joins the war and a scenario where the war ends in 1775) and this will influence what the world would look like in 2023.

 

[Beatriz]

With no Spanish-American War, could the Philippines (under anticolonial ideals, and metropolitan anti-imperialism on cost, free trade and anti-domination grounds e.g Jeremy Bentham’s Emancipate Your Colonies! ) just become independent like any other Latin American state?

 

[ramones1986]

With no Spanish-American War, could the Philippines (under anticolonial ideals, and metropolitan anti-imperialism on cost, free trade and anti-domination grounds e.g Jeremy Bentham’s Emancipate Your Colonies! ) just become independent like any other Latin American state?

It would end up under Great Britain, but with one variation: Active involvement of high-profile British Roman Catholics in managing the archipelago.

 

[Ogrebear]

I saw a show where the lead historian (Simon xxxx) said that if Britain had retained the American colonies the focus would be on them and westwards expansion and not India and Africa. This seems plausible as the size and richness of America becomes known.

Thus I could see Britain leaving India to its fate under the BEIC- if they fail the govt is not stepping in. In Africa Britain will influence and possibly pick up dependencies but not the scramble as they won’t have the people free since they will be in America.

The Caribbean will be British as muc as possible. The French/Spanish territories in N America will be Britains.

I could still see a French Revolution happening- just cos America’s failed does not mean the French are not influenced by it and the belief they can do better. The underlying causes have not gone away.

 

[Sacer Bubonicus]

I saw a show where the lead historian (Simon xxxx) said that if Britain had retained the American colonies the focus would be on them and westwards expansion

Precisely, which is why Britain would jettison them the moment they start overpowering it in importance and demographics.
Either you have British democracy or Britain becomes a colony in its own empire. You can't have both after 1850.

Beyond that, all the colonies were originally founded on criminally generous grants that allowed them to pay almost no taxes, pay no upkeep, maintain no troops to the defense of the empire while relying wholly on the British military for protection, while having complete access to the empire's internal markets, and basically act like parasites on Britain's breast because they had been founded as an attractive location for religious dissenters or as rewards for the king's friends. Initially, this lopsided state of things was simply accepted as the cost of doing business, but once the colonies actually became populous, the government became interested in revising the relationship and standardizing colonial administration with the home isles. And the colonials' response was to pitch a bitch-fit and leave the empire.

The British government can certainly delay the issue for a time, but they can't avoid it for too long. Eventually, the colonies will comprise the demographic majority of the British Empire's voting population, yet they will still contribute a disproportionately small part of the tax revenue. Eventually, either Britain gets fed up with all the privileges they've given to the Americans and try to revise them, at which point the Americans leave -- or the British, tired of shouldering all the burdens of the empire and faced with the threat of being marginalized inside their own empire as time goes on, tell the colonies to go take a hike.

and not India and Africa. This seems plausible as the size and richness of America becomes known.

Richness? Compared to India, it's a barren wasteland. Profits from beaver pelts and gold are paltry compared to the profits made from taxing salt in India or smuggling opium into China.

Thus I could see Britain leaving India to its fate under the BEIC- if they fail the govt is not stepping in.

Utterly impossible. India and the commerce therein were Britain's biggest source of revenue.
India was, after all, the second-largest share of the global economy behind China.

In Africa Britain will influence and possibly pick up dependencies but not the scramble as they won’t have the people free since they will be in America.

1. West Africa is still on Britain's agenda, sooner or later. Yes, the American South will still be part of the empire, but for how long?
2. South Africa is a vital hub for maritime traffic between Britain and India.

Everything else, besides Egypt & the Suez Canal, is basically just padding for imperial prestige.

The French/Spanish territories in N America will be Britains.

Why and how? All France has left are a few Caribbean islands, so that's definitely possible, but what the hell is this about taking Mexico or South America?

just cos America’s failed does not mean the French are not influenced by it and the belief they can do better. The underlying causes have not gone away.

The important thing is that the French are 1.3 billion livres richer in 1783 than IOTL.