What might the government of a united British North America look like with no Revolution?

Maybe not the brits could flood the area with colonists, from the colonies and outnumber them easily.
Also to add on if the French revolution does happen this makes the Napoleonic wars more interesting, Westminster could give the go ahead to the americans to attack and take any enemy land, if they can do it. To american expansionist this would be a blessing they will just manifest destiny everyone, and go on a made dash to annax everything. Brits are to busy with europe tp stop it and if the americans succeed i doubt the brits will care strongly enough to tell them to give up the land.
If there's recently been an attempted revolt, there's no way in Hell that Westminster would allow the unruly colonists to arm themselves and seize territory, doubtlessly pissing off the native nations that the Crown had been trying to cultivate friendly relationships with. And while there'd certainly be strong reasons to settle English speakers or Scots in the less populated upper Mississippi valley, they would be unlikely to try in the area of New Orleans or anywhere else with a large French population to avoid triggering a nationalist backlash. By retaining the French language and French Civil Law in the heavily French settled areas Whitehall can position itself as a safe bet that won't overthrow tradition like the revolutionaries in Paris.
 
If there's recently been an attempted revolt, there's no way in Hell that Westminster would allow the unruly colonists to arm themselves and seize territory, doubtlessly pissing off the native nations that the Crown had been trying to cultivate friendly relationships with. And while there'd certainly be strong reasons to settle English speakers or Scots in the less populated upper Mississippi valley, they would be unlikely to try in the area of New Orleans or anywhere else with a large French population to avoid triggering a nationalist backlash. By retaining the French language and French Civil Law in the heavily French settled areas Whitehall can position itself as a safe bet that won't overthrow tradition like the revolutionaries in Paris.
Sorry i don't mean native land i mean french and spanish, also im going off if their was no revolution also if their was allow the loyalists to go and take it they can be trusted also this would bring rebels loyalty as now they can expand getting ride of one of the main reasons for the revolt.
 
I'm rather fond of Franklin's Albany Plan, partly because of his influence during the late 18th century and partly because it has a lot of the seeds of the US Constitution (PRESIDENT-General, Grand Council chosen by the colonial legislatures like the US Senate and the Confederation Congress). Though it would take several changes in our timeline for a 'Union of Colonies' to happen, especially for a large one (all 13 Original Colonies, for example). War with France and/or Spain was looming again, better conciliatory initiative from London, and a stronger desire of the colonies to unite earlier for their benefit and for negotiating with London. The second point must happen before the third point, however.

Are we talking Rupert's Land, Quebec, and everything east of the Mississippi as United BNA as the end result, or something like Two Georges' (Turtledove) North American Union, a mare usque ad mare? The latter would require the Union government to have pretty much a free hand from London, or London encouraging it (Britain did think about taking some of the West Coast in that time period).

After talking with Skallagrim on a similar thread about this some time ago, I was inspired for these ideas in my ATL of having no ARW:

Perhaps a larger union (more members in one Union rather than several smaller Unions; Franklin preferred one union of colonies) if the Provinces/colonies had more of the taxation burden (or London had competitions for tax reduction if the colonies did this or that, or some negotiated plan with the Union and colonies for paying off the war debts and the Union was for presenting a united front for negotiating with London among other things) while the federal/Union government had less of the taxation powers and had small but significant subsidies from London for some crucial matters like intercolonial defense during wartime (peacetime you could scale back London's funding or shift to Union taxation more), and things like negotiating and trading with the Native Americans on behalf of the entire Union and regulating settlements/territories beyond the Appalachian Mountains would have a lot of British advisers with such settlements and negotiations and being on the ground to help mediate disputes and slow down somewhat westward expansion? There was an Indian Department created during the F&I War to handle British-Native relations, perhaps have more negotiators and advisers (and colonial willingness to accept such negotiations) in exchange for more protected and devolved control of provincial taxation and gradual westward settlement?

The colonies would have some of their own interests accounted for by encouraging provincialism and relegating most taxation with them ('closer to the people/colony' as they were initially suspicious of the Albany Plan and rejected it), and the British have some taxation power division in the Union to help curtail power centralization in the Union and control it better (London also rejected the Plan), along with some small but crucial London subsidies and watchmen to influence behavior. The advisers could be ignored, but they would inform Philadelphia (the proposed seat for the PG and Grand Council) and London about developments? We also need to see who will be the first Presidents-General of the Union as they will be the face of the Union for London and the face of London for the Union.

London would also try to shift defense costs to the colonies, so over time the Union frontier army and Union marine (the Albany Plan allowed for Union military forces) would take over some posts from British regular army units stationed in NA and help the RN guard the East Coast and Gulf of Mexico, and the colonial militias would also play a big role in this too. Nobody in this arrangement would go for a large standing Union ground force. Mounties anyone?

For long-term imperial unity, London needs to have the realization of A) America is getting powerful and restless on its own, B) need to recognize more serious levels of autonomy after 1820-30 when BNA demographics catch up to Britain's (like Dominion status or like colonial Canada's 1840 Act of Union and its development of responsible government prior to becoming a Dominion), and C) willing to have NA as a significant partner in the Empire, economically and politically.

Now, the above is just getting us there to a united BNA over the long run. For more academic political science aspects, would the united BNA in the end be more like the Westminster system under a federal system and the President-General being a ceremonial figurehead (assuming the Grand Council changes from being a congress of delegates selected by colonial legislatures to something like the directly elected House of Commons and appointed/provincially chosen Upper House), or would the President-General have real power like the colonial governors had, or like the Viceroy of India, and deal with an adversarial Union parliament over things like naming ministers and passing laws and budgets? The country would be huge, populous, and diverse, factors that would impact representativeness and efficiency.
 
Top