WI: American Revolution is avoided

Let's say Britain makes more concessions to the colonists (decreasing tariffs, allowing westward expansion, decreasing or abolishing taxation in the colonies). What impact would this have on the global balance of power? Would the French Revolution be avoided or delayed? When would European colonies in the Americas gain independence, if at all?
 
The colonies would become an independent nation the way Canada did. The American Nation might be Canada plus the territory east of the Mississippi River. They might get the Oregon Territory. Florida, maybe. Slavery would be phased out in 1808, as it was in the Commonwealth. Texas and California would remain Spanish/Mexican. French Revolution, probably no change. Louisiana purchase, questionable, but then again Haiti lost, the French might not value the territory as much. As for balance of power, probably little change since the American Nation did not become influential until the late 19th century. Ontario would be another Great Lakes state (or province), making an industrial powerhouse.
 

Lusitania

Donor
It was set in the modern era. 200 years after the two Georges. King George and George Washington came to an agreement to settle colonists grievances and keep the colonies in the British empire.
 
I think northern New Spain still would have been taken if they allowed western expansion eventually they would have had wars with them and taken it as concessions Cuba and PR too. Here the Caribbean probably would too have eventually ended up British too. In this would the sun would truly never set on their empire London would the capital of the largest most democratic nation on Earth and they'd have toes in everyone's empire too.

All of North America probably would be theirs, and some of South America too.

They'd have large continental holdings in Europe too.
 
I think northern New Spain still would have been taken if they allowed western expansion eventually they would have had wars with them and taken it as concessions Cuba and PR too. Here the Caribbean probably would too have eventually ended up British too. In this would the sun would truly never set on their empire London would the capital of the largest most democratic nation on Earth and they'd have toes in everyone's empire too.

All of North America probably would be theirs, and some of South America too.

They'd have large continental holdings in Europe too.

Would the colonies even be able to gain independence in the 20th century if the British empire is so strong and there is no great power, except maybe Russia who would support their independence? I can't imagine any other power attempting to stand up to Britain in this timeline, especially if they still take over all of india.
 
The colonies would become an independent nation the way Canada did. The American Nation might be Canada plus the territory east of the Mississippi River. They might get the Oregon Territory. Florida, maybe. Slavery would be phased out in 1808, as it was in the Commonwealth. Texas and California would remain Spanish/Mexican. French Revolution, probably no change. Louisiana purchase, questionable, but then again Haiti lost, the French might not value the territory as much. As for balance of power, probably little change since the American Nation did not become influential until the late 19th century. Ontario would be another Great Lakes state (or province), making an industrial powerhouse.

Louisiana and Texas will cause the British a ton of headaches to settle the issues their subjects in America raise.

British North America will inevitably divide into several countries, so probably Maryland and south will form one "Confederation", New England (maybe with the Maritimes) will form one, and Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and New York will form the third. Not sure what might happen to the Canadians in this case, but we can assume that Canada as we know it won't exist. However, the concerns of British North America will increasingly dominate the British Empire. Slavery will abolished much later in the British Empire, for instance.
 

Lusitania

Donor
I think northern New Spain still would have been taken if they allowed western expansion eventually they would have had wars with them and taken it as concessions Cuba and PR too. Here the Caribbean probably would too have eventually ended up British too. In this would the sun would truly never set on their empire London would the capital of the largest most democratic nation on Earth and they'd have toes in everyone's empire too.

All of North America probably would be theirs, and some of South America too.

They'd have large continental holdings in Europe too.
But a more powerful British empire would result in other changes such as maubeva French -Spanish union to challenge the British.
 
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say Britain and the colonies came to a peaceful agreement - maybe the Olive Branch Petition actually works - granting the colonies individual *Responsible Government, then a dominion-style thing happening around the same time as the Constitution/Bill of Rights/Canada Act (1787/1791) since the concept of a united America was around since the Albany Plan (1754).

------

There will be some reactionary war in the 1770s-1780s by the Bourbons against British waxing of power, but here the Anglo-Americans are united. It'll likely be a stalemated war with some minor Bourbon gains in the Caribbean due to North America's mainland being now-impregnable with a united Anglo front. France's money scheme with or without an American Revolution or some sort of revenge-war in this timeframe will still cause the French Revolution to happen, give or take a couple years.

Louisiana would definitely fall during the French Revolutionary Wars both from demographic expansion but also specific military expeditions. However, northern New Spain - Texas, New Mexico, Upper California - would as well, for the same reasons. Anglos had already moved into Texas in small numbers and revolted as the Magee-Gutierrez Revolt proved, and a singular ship captured San Diego during the later period of the aforementioned war. The difference being that these expeditions by American filibusters will have the British Empire, including the American dominion, very likely supporting them in TTL. And America both colonial and independent focused entirely on North America straight up to 1898 in OTL, there's no reason for it not to be the same as a dominion, handling North America while Britain and its navy deals with Napoleon up front. Americans will slowly take control of domestic affairs during the fifteen years or so of warfare of the FR-Napoleonic Wars and gradually gain full independence in the coming decades as Canada and Australia did, just 50-80 years more early than them (IE, 1840s-1860s vs 1920s-1940s), but still remain in a firm alliance with the mother country.

Louisiana and Texas will cause the British a ton of headaches to settle the issues their subjects in America raise.

British North America will inevitably divide into several countries, so probably Maryland and south will form one "Confederation", New England (maybe with the Maritimes) will form one, and Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and New York will form the third. Not sure what might happen to the Canadians in this case, but we can assume that Canada as we know it won't exist. However, the concerns of British North America will increasingly dominate the British Empire. Slavery will abolished much later in the British Empire, for instance.

Well, Canadians moving west caused headaches with the Metis and local Amerindians.... but expansion still happened, so it will with a united Anglo-America.

Why is British America splitting up inevitable? Nobody ever ACTUALLY says why, just "because". Meanwhile, the concept of uniting the American colonies has been seriously considered since 1754 and the Continental Congress in both First and Second forms invited the Floridas, Canada, and the Maritimes to join it constantly. Even British North America proper - IE, Canada as we know it - had a number of unification schemes that involved all of the colonies at the time. To say nothing of all Australia uniting and expecting New Zealand to join in, even Fiji coming along for the ride. Heck, South Africa and the West Indies Federation, as well! British settler colonies being EXPECTED to unite as one big federation is the norm, even if certain colonies don't join up (IE, PEI with Canada at first, New Zealand vis-a-vis Australia, etc.).

I think northern New Spain still would have been taken if they allowed western expansion eventually they would have had wars with them and taken it as concessions Cuba and PR too. Here the Caribbean probably would too have eventually ended up British too. In this would the sun would truly never set on their empire London would the capital of the largest most democratic nation on Earth and they'd have toes in everyone's empire too.

All of North America probably would be theirs, and some of South America too.

They'd have large continental holdings in Europe too.

Britain already had the lesson of the ARW when it took over too much too fast, they had all of Europe against them openly or subtly (League of Armed Neutrality). There'd be a ton of concessions to the rival empires and returning of colonies. They already had enough land to settle in the *western USA and *western Canada alone. Tons. Spain would never rest if it lost Cuba and Puerto Rico.
 
The reason British America would become separate countries is a) separate colonies with citizen loyalties is the status quo, b) London has an interest in playing up divisions between them, c) there is no common enemy to give a push to unification d) many of the advantages of unification already exist from common membership of the British Empire and e) major sectional divisions are coming.
 
If Britain hangs onto North America then given the resources and focus required to support it lead to a diversion of attention, and focus from India? e.g some of the souls that went East to form the East India end up in British America instead, and the 'accident 'Jewel in the Crown' that was the Raj never happens?
 
If Britain hangs onto North America then given the resources and focus required to support it lead to a diversion of attention, and focus from India? e.g some of the souls that went East to form the East India end up in British America instead, and the 'accident 'Jewel in the Crown' that was the Raj never happens?

They were already in India for over a century by then and took their first true block of territory (via Bengal, Carnatic and Circars) in it as a result of the Seven Years' War, they'd continue to take over India for the extreme wealth it possessed. Meanwhile, America - especially in Dominion form - would likely be supplying a larger and larger chunk of its own troops and supplies for North American operations, especially with such regiments like the American Regiment already existing and entirely American-developed/led/supplied actions like the 1744 Louisbourg Expedition happening pre-ARW. Australia would still be settled by Britain both to deny it to rival powers for resources/operations and to get a penal colony going since convict settlement was REALLY unpopular in America by then. Probably the real kicker is both specific colonies returned to rival powers in return for expanded Dominion of America holdings (would Guyana and Malacca, being rich but not on prime sea routes like South Africa, likely stay Dutch? Trinidad stay Spanish as a slight concession to taking the American Southwest?) and possibly later on in the Scramble For Africa less British holdings overall (albeit a fully independent America may alleviate some of the resource focus).

I think a lot of what I'm trying to convey is that the broad macro-strokes of Anglo-American history seen in an Independent America will happen within a Loyalist America, especially since Canada followed the same broad strokes as Independent America in that sense - a governmental act forming the nation as we knew it (American Constitution, Canada Act) in the late 18th century, federal-local conflict in the 1830s (Nullification Act, the Canadian Rebellions), settler expansion against a slew of Amerindian tribes and minor European colonies in the early-mid 19th century, government expansion and centralization in the 1840s to 1860s (Federal supremacy in the Civil War, Canadian Responsible Government-to-Confederation 1848-1867), and a strike into the wider world presaging WW1 involvement (the Spanish-American War, Canada sending troops to the Boer War, both in 1898).
 
If Britain hangs onto North America then given the resources and focus required to support it lead to a diversion of attention, and focus from India? e.g some of the souls that went East to form the East India end up in British America instead, and the 'accident 'Jewel in the Crown' that was the Raj never happens?

The resources and focus to rule India came from India itself. A British America just provides more resources, troops and filibusters. It would likely mean the Brits do to Latin America what they did in Asia and Africa in OTL, only they keep doing it in Asia and Africa too. The William Walkers of this timeline will be backed up by British gunboats.
 
Could the British government afford to make the needed concessions to the Americans?

Before the Stamp Acts, the UK government collected no direct taxes from the American colonies, and the customs dues were largely unenforced; the customs officials lived in the UK and their positions were sinecures. Though the propaganda didn't make much of this because it could not be argued that the British government measures here were unconstitutional, the big American grievance was against the improvement in the enforcement of the customs revenue. The Exchequer was losing something like twenty million pounds a year (figure from memory) supporting the British military establishment in North America and taking in very little revenue.

In addition, the Patriots objected to UK government measures designed to improve the empire's position in Canada (by guaranteeing the role of the Catholic Church in Canada) and India (by bailing out the East India Company, in part by making it easier to sell the tea in their warehouses in the colonies). They also objected to measures to prevent more trouble with the Indians, though the British government maybe could have repealed or not done the Proclamation line and told the Americans they were on their own as far as defending against the Indians, withdrawing British army units from the frontier.

There also seems to have been the sense among colonial leaders that they could have a fine continental empire on their own and cut could loose from the British, so they started raising one excuse after another to do that. It might have been impossible to conciliate the colonies.

Given in to all the Patriot demands would have left the British government with a set of quasi-independent "colonies" that they couldn't legislate in or effectively raise revenue from, and would have complicated the empire's situation in both India and Canada. The OTL outcome was better for Britain than this situation would have been. They could have gone part way to meet the colonists' demands. But how far would have been sufficient?
 
I would have tightened customs collection, still done the Quebec Act, not tried direct taxation, and found some other way to bail out the EIC. I would have taken the OTL measures to have the salaries of British government officials in North America paid from London and not the colonial legislatures. I would have also provided that each colonial legislature would send two representatives to the House of Commons, though there was pretty much no interest in this on the Patriot side and about a dozen Americans sitting in the House of Commons, elected from boroughs in Britain, anyway. I would have also dropped plans to limit westward settlement and started withdrawing army units from North America. But I suspect this would not have been enough and some pretext would have been found for the revolt anyway.
 
If someone the financial and constitutional arguments are avoided, I can see some issues in the future that would lead to revolt:

1. At some point there is going to be a campaign in Britain to first end the slave trade, and then stop slavery.

2. A Tory PM or ministry will want to take steps to strengthen the Church of England, including in the colonies, and fund bishops and seminaries in the colonies.

3. If something like the French Revolution still happens, it would have sympathizers in America like it did in other places outside France. But the French Revolution itself is probably butterflied away. But no American War of Independence could butterfly into a revolution in Britain.
 
I would have tightened customs collection, still done the Quebec Act, not tried direct taxation, and found some other way to bail out the EIC. I would have taken the OTL measures to have the salaries of British government officials in North America paid from London and not the colonial legislatures. I would have also provided that each colonial legislature would send two representatives to the House of Commons, though there was pretty much no interest in this on the Patriot side and about a dozen Americans sitting in the House of Commons, elected from boroughs in Britain, anyway. I would have also dropped plans to limit westward settlement and started withdrawing army units from North America. But I suspect this would not have been enough and some pretext would have been found for the revolt anyway.

While the Patriot leaders had little interest in parliament, the very obvious act of expanding representation and political rights for the colonies would have strongly negated the rallying call that they were sliding into tyranny. It would not have got rid of the protest movement but, IMO, it would have pulled it back from the brink.
 
The resources and focus to rule India came from India itself. A British America just provides more resources, troops and filibusters. It would likely mean the Brits do to Latin America what they did in Asia and Africa in OTL, only they keep doing it in Asia and Africa too. The William Walkers of this timeline will be backed up by British gunboats.
The BEIC was constantly in debt because the money they used for armies, administration, and conquering, came from British loans that they never payed off.

Meanwhile keeping the Americans in the fold is tied to a strong American economy. Which means huge subsidies at the expense of Britain itself.

Sooner or later something is going to have to given Either at expense of the Americans or the British. And colonies weren't created for the benefit of the colonists.
 
Last edited:
Slavery was not abolished in the British Empire in 1808. The slave trade was, in concert with the United States, who banned it effective that same year.

Britain did ban slavery in 1833, but even then, India was under control of the East India Company until the 1850s, so it was not included. Only in 1843 with the passage of the Indian Slavery act was it banned within the EIC domain.

Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if Britain carved out an exception for the Southern colonies and let them keep slavery until the 1860s, even if it gradually was phased out. Never underestimate what the Empire would do to maintain harmony.
 
Top