What would a hypothetical central government of the 13 Colonies look like?

If I am remembering correctly a proposal was made in the 1750's or 1760's in London, but it was refused.

I'm curious on how this central government would work out, would it be like Canada's, or just be a mere rubber stamp for London?
 
Depends who you ask. Franklin saw it working arm in arm with London, but the British recognized the problem with united colonies is that it would be easy for them to unite against Britain...

Interestingly, the Connecticut Assembly feared that the Albany Union would have concentrated power against the king, which hahaha, silly, right?
 

Infinity

Banned
Perhaps a continental parliament would be palatable. A second monarchy would be out of the question. A democratic republic would be unfathomable. Westward expansion would likely be slower. Napoleon would never happen. Russia becomes a more significant player in the American Pacific.

Since the American revolution would never happen, France will have to get revenge for losing Canada by other means. Yet, France will have to have some compensation. France will either have to take other British colonies (India? Somewhere in the Pacific?), or pick on an either opponent (Spain) like Great Britain and France did in the early 19th century otl.

China would likely fare better. Japan would be isolated for a longer period of time. As for Europe, they would either have more petty kingdoms, or France would find another way (apart from Napoleon) to crush their weaker continental neighbors. After losing Canada, France need not express their power through colonial means.

Prussia would likely need attain the significance they did in the otl. Vienna may become more significant. Perhaps antiseptic procedures are discovered prior to Ignaz Semmelweis. Other potential winners are the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth and the Ottoman Turks. Yet, Great Britain will likely still remain the most powerful, and France will still be second place.

Colonies are dependent on cash crops. America's cities are much smaller. The scramble for Africa never happens. Although, France does colonize Algeria. The keeps South Africa and the east Indies, unless France takes an interest in them. Although, if France gains European territory, then colonies become less significant. I give it a 50/50 chance either way.

Spain gets the Philippines. Although, the Dutch could potentially take it from them earlier than in the otl. Again, France is the most significant variable. Even though Great Britain is the most powerful, they're more concerned with gradual westward expansion, and trade with heavily populated countries i.e India and later China.

At some point, Great Britain will colonize the American pacific. Russia and Spain will be dislodged from the coast. Initially, Great Britain will focus than otl United States. Great Britain will likely capture areas from Oregon to Vancouver before California. Spanish American revolutions will occur much later. Russia retains Alaska and parts of Canada.
 
I suspect regional parliaments (of multiple colonies) of the entire new world territories are more likely than a single parliament.
It would remove fear of union against the UK (which eventually happened for most of the colonies) and allow the UK "overparliament" to play them off against each other.
 
Why would a central colonial government butterfly the American Revolution? They would still shoot down TTL equivalent of the Townshed Acts and they wouldn't make any taxes to confirtube to the British financial problem at all
 
Probably a governor with some kind of council drawn from the various colonies. Not a parliament, but something that could evolve into one.
 
Why would a central colonial government butterfly the American Revolution? They would still shoot down TTL equivalent of the Townshed Acts and they wouldn't make any taxes to confirtube to the British financial problem at all

Because if there is going to be a Parliament, then they'd HAVE to make some sort of contribution. They have representation, the whole Taxation without Representation argument is moot, and the British would NEVER establish a united Colonial Parliament that wasn't providing some sort of revenue. It'd be tantamount to releasing them as an independent nation.

Likelihood is that the Parliament would be required to owe a debt to Westminster/The Crown equivalent to a greater part of the costs of fighting in the Americas, and provide some sort of army for defense, and deployment outside of the territory of the Colonial Parliament, on top of a percentage of incomes being sent to Britain.

At this point Americans still thought of themselves as British in some way. If they get representation, but without taxation? They'd literally be insisting they are better than their Home Isles countrymen.

Personally, I've always felt that rather than have Westminster be above the 'Philadelphia' Parliament, they'd have to both be subservient to another political entity, probably a Crown Council of some sort with representatives of both Parliaments present (a bit like the US Senate), with governmental control pretty robustly outlined for both Parliaments (Westminster in the UK, Philadelphia within the Proclamation Line), with Crown Colonies somewhere outside both of their jurisdictions - later to become Parliaments of their own.

Cue essentially a Federal Constitutional Monarchy. Any less, and I don't believe it'd be accepted in the Colonies, any more - and Westminster would riot.
 
If they get representation, but without taxation? They'd literally be insisting they are better than their Home Isles countrymen.

Wouldn't surprise me if those whiny people who were Patriots in OTL do just that in TTL. And before you say that's the minority, remember a plurality of the colonists in the American revolution just wanted stability and prosperity and wasn't a die hard for the Patriot or Loyalist faction and yet the Patriots did revolt. They won too
 
It's worth noting that a lot of the Patriot backers were angry the British were cracking down on smuggling and the taxation issue was just the cherry on top that made for a better slogan than "we want to smuggle." The root cuase for the rabble rousers being dissatisfied with the central government isn't removed and since they thought they had an entitled right to smuggle, I'm sure they thought of themselves better than their Home Isles countrymen.
 
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and more others I forgot had a bit of an entitlement issue. Not that there wasn't any legitimate complaints about how Parliament handled the colonies, but honestly, those just add more reasons to the underlying reasons for discontent.
 
I suspect regional parliaments (of multiple colonies) of the entire new world territories are more likely than a single parliament. It would remove fear of union against the UK (which eventually happened for most of the colonies) and allow the UK "overparliament" to play them off against each other.
Pretty much what I was going to say. They tried creating a Dominion of New England in our timeline but that failed due to several factors such as the man they chose as governor being an arse; a second Dominion made up of the Middle Colonies of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and possibly Maryland, seems like another sensible grouping; and then drop the remaining Southern Colonies into a third Dominion. Those three are probably about as large as could be reasonably administered in that period, has them divided into broadly similar cultural groupings, and importantly for the British not too powerful.
 
Dominion of New England
Dk0imaz.png
 
That's the bunny. It was originally created without including New York, West Jersey, and East Jersey, and even when they were added a couple of years later they were found to really be too far removed from Boston and had to be administered by a Lieutenant Governor sitting in New York.
 
Top