WI: an early Commonwealth to prevent US independence?

Yes, the confederation I wanted to mean would be based on single territories, not America or Britain as packs.

By the 1770s it could feature these 25 members:

England
Scotland
Ireland
Wales
Isle of Man
Jersey
Guernsey
Bermuda
Newfoundland
Nova Scotia (including New Brunswick)
Saint John Island (Prince Edward)
Quebec (including Upper Canada)
Massachussetts Bay
Connecticut
Rhode Island and Providence
New Hampshire
New York
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Delaware
Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia

I don't know if other potential members were suitable, like Jamaica.

Don't forget about Florida, British territory since 1763. Assuming British interest continues in the regions, I would expecf Australia and New Zealand also to join after their colonization in the late 1700s.

Just how all this can work in an age of weeks long and dangerous sea transit and no means of distant communication I don't know. In 1867 when Canada was granted Dominion status, the British Empire was already communicating directly via undersea telegraph cables.
 
This is a bit of a misconception. Maryland was founded by a Catholic and his coreligionists were indeed allowed freedom of worship in its charter, but it was never specifically a Catholic colony. In fact, it seems to have always had a predominantly Protestant population.

Oh, it was absolutely a Protestant-heavy colony despite its original design (largely after IIRC the Glorious Revolution). However, it was also a proprietary colony like Pennsylvania (which the rest of the South was not), which IMO is one of the reasons why the state's "Dixieness" was relatively ephemeral, the other being the replacement of the once-overwhelming tobacco economy with a wheat-based one by the mid-18th. Century, a crop not that popular south of the Mason-Dixon Line for various reasons. And of course, Baltimore was always more closely tied to Philadelphia and the states to the Northeast of Maryland than the bulk of the state at that time was in terms of politics and economic links.
 
I couldn't resist to make a list of the potential members that a British Confederation could feature if they would have been created in the mid 1700s and it had lasted until today.

I have counted up to 218, even more than UN members! :D

1.Abu Dhabi, 2.Aden, 3.Ajman, 4.Alabama, 5.Alaska, 6.Alberta, 7.Andaman and Nicobar Islands, 8.Andhra Pradesh, 9.Anguilla, 10.Antigua and Barbuda, 11.Arizona, 12.Arkansas, 13.Arunachal Pradesh, 14.Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, 15.Assam, 16.Bahamas, 17.Bahrain, 18.Barbados, 19.Belize, 20.Bermuda, 21.Bihar, 22.Bhutan, 23.Botswana, 24.Brunei, 25.Burma, 26.California, 27.Cape of Good Hope, 28.Cayman Islands, 29.Chandigar, 30.Chattisgar, 31.Christmas and Cocos Islands, 32.Chuuk, 33.Colorado, 34.(British) Columbia, 35.Connecticut, 36.Cook Islands, 37.Cyprus, 38.Dadra and Nagar Haveli, 39.Daman and Diu, 40.Delaware, 41.Dominica, 42.Dubai, 43.East Bengal*, 44.England, 45.Falkland Islands, 46.Fiji, 47.Florida, 48.Fujairah, 49.(The) Gambia, 50.Georgia, 51.Ghana, 52.Gibraltar, 53.Goa, 54.Grenada, 55.Guam, 56.Guernsey, 57.Gujarat, 58.Guyana, 59.Haryana, 60.Hawaii, 61.Himachal Pradesh, 62.Hong Kong, 63.Idaho, 64.Illinois, 65.Indiana, 66.Iowa, 67.Ireland*, 68.Isle of Man, 69.Jamaica, 70.Jarkhand, 71.Jersey, 72.Johor, 73.Kansas, 74.Karnataka, 75.Kashmir*, 76.Kedah, 77.Kelantan, 78.Kentucky, 79.Kenya, 80.Kerala, 81.Kiribati, 82.Kosrae, 83.Kuwait, 84.Laccadive Islands, 85.Lesotho, 86.Liberia, 87.Louisiana, 88.Madhya Pradesh, 89.Maharashtra, 90.Maine, 91.Malacca, 92.Malawi, 93.Maldives, 94.Malta, 95.Manipur, 96.Manitoba, 97.Marshall Islands, 98.Maryland, 99.Massachusetts, 100.Mauritius*, 101.Meghalaya, 102.Michigan, 103.Minnesota, 104.Mississippi, 105.Missouri, 106.Mizaram, 107.Montana, 108.Montserrat, 109.Nagaland, 110.Namibia, 111.Natal, 112.Nauru, 113.Nebraska, 114.Negeri Sembilan, 115.Nevada, 116.New Brunswick, 117.New Hampshire, 118.New South Wales, 119.New Jersey, 120.New Mexico, 121.New York, 122.New Zealand, 123.Newfoundland and Labrador, 124.Nigeria*, 125.Niue, 126.Norfolk Island, 127.North Australia, 128.North Carolina, 129.North Dakota, 130.Northern Cameroons*, 131.Northern Mariana Islands, 132.Nova Scotia, 133.Nunavut*, 134.Ohio, 135.Oklahoma, 136.Oman, 137.Ontario, 138.Orange River, 139.Oregon, 140.Orissa, 141.Pahang, 142.Pakistan, 143.Palau, 144.Papua New Guinea, 145.Perak, 146.Perlis, 147.Penang, 148.Pennsylvania, 149.Pitcairn Islands, 150.Pohnpei, 151.Pondicherry, 152.Prince Edward Island, 153.Puerto Rico, 154.Punjab, 155.Qatar, 156.Quebec, 157.Queensland, 158.Rajasthan, 159.Ras al-Khaima, 160.Rhode Island, 161.Sabah, 162.Saint Helena, 163.Saint Kitts and Nevis, 164.Saint Lucia, 165.Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, 166.Samoa*, 167.Sarawak, 168.Saskatchewan, 169.Scotland, 170.Selangor, 171.Seychelles, 172.Sharjah, 173.Sierra Leone, 174.Sikkim, 175.Singapore, 176.Socotra, 177.Solomon Islands, 178.Somaliland, 179.South Australia, 180.South Carolina, 181.South Dakota, 182.Southern Cameroons*, 183.Sri Lanka, 184.Swaziland, 185.Tamil Nadu, 186.Tanganyka, 187.Tasmania, 188.Telangana, 189.Tennessee, 190.Terengganu, 191.Texas, 192.Tonga, 193.Transvaal, 194.Trinidad and Tobago, 195.Tripura, 196.Turks and Caicos, 197.Tuvalu, 198.Uganda, 199.Umm al-Quwain, 200.Utah, 201.Uttar Pradesh, 202.Uttarakhand, 203.Vanuatu, 204.Vermont, 205.Victoria, 206.Virgin Islands*, 207.Virginia*, 208.Wales, 209.Washington, 210.West Bengal, 211.Western Australia, 212.Wisconsin, 213.Wyoming, 214.Yap, 215.Yukon, 216.Zambia, 217.Zanzibar and 218.Zimbabwe.

* Countries/ territories that due to the confederation would be different today:

- East Bengal (more or less Bangla Desh)
- Ireland (would be unified)
- Kashmir (would be unified)
- Mauritius (would include the Chagos islands)
- Nigeria (not divided in states)
- Northern Cameroons (separated from Nigeria, as it's not federalized)
- Nunavut (would include all the former Northern territories of Canada)
- Samoa (would be unified)
- Southern Cameroons (separated from both Nigeria and Cameroon)
- Virgin Islands (would be unified)
- Virginia (would be unified; Civil War intended to not happening in this scenario)

NOTE: the South African states are kept as in the 1910 Union, not provincialization likely in this scenario.
 
I couldn't resist to make a list of the potential members that a British Confederation could feature if they would have been created in the mid 1700s and it had lasted until today.

I have counted up to 218, even more than UN members! :D

*a really long list*
why places like Alaska, California, and Arizona? Alaska was Russian and the other two were Spanish.
 

Cryostorm

Monthly Donor
Likely because the North American Dominions and British colonists will keep going west, especially if more colonial wars happen since the European revolutions will likely not happen for a while, which with the more North American focused Britain, since it still has all those lucrative colonies that can support themselves, may mean even more of North America, and less Asia and Africa might come under British dominion. Think Anglosphere under one nation ( 500,000,000+ population, most of two continents, and a quarter of the world's gdp).
 
Self governing Dominions in personal union with the monarch, as the Commonwealth Realms of today are, would be the easiest method. After all, in the 1770's, it was the United Kingdom of Great Britain AND the Kingdom of Ireland. An Imperial Council could be formed to handle things like foreign affairs and settle internal disputes.

Major sticking points would be westward expansion, as the Crown was serious about honouring the treaties with the native Nations, the status of Quebec and slavery.

Alaska would probably fall into British hands, in part because they'll want Russia out of North America and partly because even the Russian thought it was a step too far. Also see Florida returning to British control.

Mexico would probably remain much larger, as I see it keeping Tejas & it's northwest territories, with some adjustments along the border.

Still expect France to erupt in revolution and losing Louisiana in the process. Say split between Spain (Mexico) & Britain.

I think Australia could remain Dutch in this scenario, although I think the Maori would still opt for joining the British Empire rather than the French.
 
Last edited:
Major sticking points would be westward expansion, as the Crown was serious about honouring the treaties with the native Nations, the status of Quebec and slavery.

Give it about thirty or so years, I guarantee this will change. Look at South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and yes even Canada (1857 Gradual Civilization Act, anyone, or the 1874 Indian Act?), all of which were countries where immigration/birth-rates and Anglicization were high relative to the crown colonies and all of which adopted brutal suppression and subjugation tactics against the local peoples that happened to stand in the way of white settlement. The British Empire was probably the best out of a bad bunch in terms of European colonial empires, but that's a matter of minor degree, nothing more. Given Commonwealth status within the empire, westward *American expansion might be slower or different in mechanism, but it's gonna happen for multiple reasons (leaving aside cultural and racial chauvinism, once the population's density gets to a certain point there's gonna have to be a release somewhere, and west is the only real way to go).

Now Mexico might not lose their upper territory under such conditions, since the Brits were IIRC mostly ambivalent to them throughout much of their history. Quebec I don't see factoring much into the issue of westward expansion if such a setup is created, especially since Anglo *Americans will end up outstripping the Quebeckers in numbers within a generation or two and be able to out-compete them for land. Slavery I agree would likely go (although a different set of circumstances in the 1780s-1820s timeframe might see attitudes for or against emancipation differ, it would certainly be interesting).
 
Give it about thirty or so years, I guarantee this will change. Look at South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and yes even Canada (1857 Gradual Civilization Act, anyone, or the 1874 Indian Act?), all of which were countries where immigration/birth-rates and Anglicization were high relative to the crown colonies and all of which adopted brutal suppression and subjugation tactics against the local peoples that happened to stand in the way of white settlement. The British Empire was probably the best out of a bad bunch in terms of European colonial empires, but that's a matter of minor degree, nothing more. Given Commonwealth status within the empire, westward *American expansion might be slower or different in mechanism, but it's gonna happen for multiple reasons (leaving aside cultural and racial chauvinism, once the population's density gets to a certain point there's gonna have to be a release somewhere, and west is the only real way to go).

Now Mexico might not lose their upper territory under such conditions, since the Brits were IIRC mostly ambivalent to them throughout much of their history. Quebec I don't see factoring much into the issue of westward expansion if such a setup is created, especially since Anglo *Americans will end up outstripping the Quebeckers in numbers within a generation or two and be able to out-compete them for land. Slavery I agree would likely go (although a different set of circumstances in the 1780s-1820s timeframe might see attitudes for or against emancipation differ, it would certainly be interesting).

The 13 colonies were expanding west via treaty right up until 1775, and half those treaties were shams signed with British allies, the Iroquois, at the expense of nominal Iroquois vassals who were the actual inhabitants of most of the land transferred over to colonial settlement.

The lack of a massive 8-year war between white settlers and numerous Indian tribes, as well as the lack of an Iroquois civil war might have improved things pretty well on its own, though.
 
Indeed, much depends on how the Ohio Country shakes out WRT westward settlement and interactions with the tribes. I just like pointing out that, whenever anybody brings up the Proclamation Line as a guarantee of cooperation with the Natives, historically recorded British policy as a whole towards native peoples in lands they settle tends to say quite the opposite. Which doesn't mean they will necessarily will savage the tribes like OTL America did, but it doesn't mean they'll end up any better off either.
 
May you live in interesting times

Yes, the confederation I wanted to mean would be based on single territories, not America or Britain as packs.

By the 1770s it could feature these 25 members:

England
Scotland
Ireland
Wales
Isle of Man
Jersey
Guernsey
Bermuda
Newfoundland
Nova Scotia (including New Brunswick)
Saint John Island (Prince Edward)
Quebec (including Upper Canada)
Massachussetts Bay
Connecticut
Rhode Island and Providence
New Hampshire
New York
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Delaware
Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia

I don't know if other potential members were suitable, like Jamaica.

Racism is likely to disqualify Jamaica for awhile, despite their population levels, but that won't last forever.

Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, Bermuda, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, and even Georgia are likely to be too population poor to warrant individual representation by the 1770s at least.

England and Scotland being represented solely would give Parliament a collective coronary if I understand you correctly.

That's New Jersey(or Maryland, that's actually south of Pennsylvania). Maryland is more like a northern state now, but it was considered one of the Southern Colonies at the time. New England is/was Connecticut, Massachusetts(+Maine), Rhode Island and New Hampshire(+Vermont?). The Middle Colonies(what is today the Mid-Atlantic) were New York(+Vermont?), New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware, while the Southern Colonies were Virginia(+West Virginia and Kentucky), North Carolina(+Tennessee), South Carolina and George(+Alabama and Mississippi).

Maryland was still very much a Slave State at the time, and the invention of the Cotton Gin would only make that status worse.

In 1770, there were still a *number* of rotten boroughs in the British Parliament. Any change which allowed a parliamentary seat from Virginia would have to be part of a *massive* change which would probably have to get rid of the Pocket and Rotten Boroughs and the William Pitt the Younger couldn't even accomplish that in the 1770s. No significant change would occur until 1832 (60 years later!)

This would be a HUGE issue for Parliament. There were good reasons why these boroughs were called rotten, and the fact that they went generations and even centuries without being abolished clearly showed that the mercantilist and aristocratic interests in the UK had zero interest in democratic reform before the 19th century. I recall at least one borough so rotten that the constituency had actually washed away into the Atlantic Ocean since its establishment in the early 13th century!

Along these lines, don't forget, this is a pretty autocratic age, and so far from pluralism it is almost unimaginable. Suffrage, even when limited to white men, was still greater in the American colonies than it was in the UK...don't forget that Catholics weren't emancipated in the UK until the 1820s...

I think you'd have to go back to the English Civil War/War of Three Kingdons/etc era of the previous century to get anything resembling a transatlantic federal democracy with anything close to potential historicity... (1)

Have the Commonwealth develop into something resembling a democracy (using the Agreement of the People as a basis for a written constitution) and maybe it could ripple away the realities that led to the Revolution. (2)

Best,

1) Maybe have Cromwell's Commonwealth last longer, perhaps generating longer lasting reforms within Parliament?

2) It would certainly help, though that would not be a panacea.

This is a very modern attitude that has just arisen in the last several decades due to the increased urbanization of Maryland. Before it stayed with the Union during the Civil War, it was considered as Southern as Virginia, and during the pre-independence period, was closer to Virginia than Virginia was to South Carolina or Georgia. If anything, Virginia would not be part of the "Dixie Land" (a name which would never be used for a country or dominion) and be part of some "Chesapeake" dominion alongside Maryland and maybe Delaware.

Yep. In those days Slavery was dying in the North, but it wasn't dead. And while there were doubts in the South (until the Cotton Gin), Jefferson's attempt to insert abolitionist language into the Declaration of Independence still effected a walkout by the Southern delegations.

To throw things another monkey wrench, in 1786 the 'Essex Junto' talked on splitting the ENTIRE north/eventual Union from the rest - all the states north of the Mason-Dixon Line. They kept this hope up to and including their 1803-1804 talk to split off a Northern Confederacy. This is due to the Mid-Atlantic having a commercial-industrial-urban-middle class culture like New England itself.

So in this topic discussing keeping the thirteen colonies during the 1770s, it's only ten years behind the Junto and any separate dominions could have (perhaps even likely) the Mid-Atlantic and New England together, the way the Chesapeake and Deep South colonies are lumped together simply as the 'South.' You could ultimately have a great northern dominion and a southern one.

Factor in as well poor lines of communication even between the individual colonies, and the worse that they became the further south you went (space).

Speaking of "splitting up" the 13 Colonies is anachronistic - they were never politically united until they declared independence together. If they have Parliamentary representation, it would surely be as 13 separate colonies. (3)

Being together in the Commonwealth Parliament (or whatever it's called) would probably cause them to find common cause, though, and eventually they'd almost certainly declare independence (4) (possibly also including Nova Scotia and other colonies (5)). America and Britain are ultimately on a collision course because the population of the former is going to surpass that of the latter, and any arrangement for Parliamentary representation made in 1776 is going to quickly become outdated and viewed in the colonies as unjust. (6)



This is a bit of a misconception. Maryland was founded by a Catholic and his coreligionists were indeed allowed freedom of worship in its charter, but it was never specifically a Catholic colony. In fact, it seems to have always had a predominantly Protestant population.

3) One could argue that colonial integration was part of the natural evolution of a land in which population density continued to grow and grow.

4) Absolutely

5) Strongly disagree here. The LOCs between Canada and the American Colonies to the South were horrible (7)

6) This was no secret to Parliament either, as debates in the 1760s/70s between Tories and Whigs clearly expressed Tory fears of being "overwhelmed", and Whig fears of the possible loss of an eventual (late 19th century by their own estimates) Super British Empire should Westminster continue to drive the Colonists away.

7) Johnny Burgoyne didn't lose solely due to his poor generalship and facing superior numbers. It was also because once he broke loose from Lake Champlain he was totally committed to a drive on Albany and a linkup with a British army that never arrived. Trying to turn back to Canada by that time would have been worse than suicide. At least at Saratoga he had the option of surrender, rather than being slowly run into the ground and annihilated piecemeal by undisciplined vengeful militia had he tried to return up the howling wilderness that was Upstate New York in 1777.

I recommend this book, as it covers Franklin's trip to the UK http://www.amazon.com/Few-Bloody-Noses-Mythologies-Revolution/dp/1585672734 (8)

What about Britain's promises to their Indian allies from the war with France, re. the Proclomation Line? (9)

True Dominion status, like here in Canada until 1982 gives a lot of freedom except for military and foreign affairs. Provided a similar status, I can see many Americans being favorable. (10)

8) Without reading it, I can imagine its about Franklin spending years banging his head into a wall over the refusal by Tory governments (and some Whigs as well) to consider ameliorating the worst effects of mercantilism.

9) As an Empire, Britain was constrained by the need to honor her treaty commitments, or else how could nations and tribes in Europe, Africa, and Asia be expected to trust them. Unfortunately, by quartering British troops in American cities on the post-1763 unthreatened coastline, they inadvertently wound up uniting Americans in the developed areas with those on the interior.

10) Unfortunately in an era where London refused to grant the Americans the right to have a single iron forge, much less factories, granting a Dominion level of independence is over the moon territory.

Self governing Dominions in personal union with the monarch, as the Commonwealth Realms of today are, would be the easiest method. After all, in the 1770's, it was the United Kingdom of Great Britain AND the Kingdom of Ireland. An Imperial Council could be formed to handle things like foreign affairs and settle internal disputes. (11)

11) In more developed areas, yes. But Britain's sheer size is going to dictate that they will see most settlements end up in their own favor anyway, by the force of $$$ and lobbying.

OTOH, Ireland lacked the power to enact Free Trade on their own. During the ARW, post-French entry, Dublin erupted in public demonstrations (NOT riots, NOT a revolt) demanding Free Trade (One of the American's original complaints BTW). Since "crushing the Irish rebels":rolleyes: would have required sending in the Militia and thereby stripping Southern England of her defenses while the Franco-Spanish were massing for a possible invasion, for once London gave in to the Irish.:eek::p

Major sticking points would be westward expansion, as the Crown was serious about honouring the treaties with the native Nations, the status of Quebec (12) and slavery (13)

I suspect osmosis is going to force London's hands to look the other way regarding the poor Natives, it just won't be the unrelenting genocide seen OTL. At the very least, the Red Man won't have to face Roger Taney's "White Man's Justice".:mad:

Probably something more like halfway between what happened in Canada versus the USA, leaning more to the fate of Natives at the hands of Americans.:( One reason Canada WAS able to be more merciful and just was the threat of Yankee aggression and the need for White Canadians to link arms with Natives against the Americans, especially on the frontier.

12) That will fall by the wayside once population levels in the Trans-Appalachia reach levels that render any questions of Quebec as superfluous as territorial claims in the same territories by the colony of Connecticut.

13) THAT, IMO, is an issue far far thornier to solve than it seems some posters think in these "America stays in the Empire" threads. Just look at how impossible the odds were against the South in the ACW, or the Boers in the Boer War. Didn't stop THEM from fighting.

Alaska would probably fall into British hands, in part because they'll want Russia out of North America and partly because even the Russian thought it was a step too far. Also see Florida returning to British control.

Agreed. Florida in particular becomes indefensible once Georgia becomes fully settled.

Mexico would probably remain much larger, as I see it keeping Tejas & it's northwest territories, with some adjustments along the border.

I MUST disagree here. Mexico geographically and militarily has always been militarily indefensible from the north (not so from the other points of the compass). Between farmland, pastureland, gold, silver, timber (very short of in this era) and eventually oil in an age before and during an era that led to wars in Zululand, South Africa, Afghanistan, the Opium Wars in China...and those are just the ones that come off the top of my head...its impossible to imagine that in a world with Anglo-America still within the Empire that between the tidal forces of new found wealth, settlers coming in across the Great Plains and Eastern Texas, even from Western Canada/Vancouver, into areas of the present day US that at the time was either empty of anyone but Natives, very lightly settled by Mexicans (Santa Fe and a few missions between South-Central Texas and an often rebellious California), that the Empire wouldn't wind up ruling an area of territory not far removed from what the USA eventually attained.

The regions of Mexico the USA conquered were much determined not only by desired wealth (much of it undiscovered by the time of the Mexican Cessation, including even California's gold fields), but also the need for a west coast and the LOCs required to reach it (one reason for the Gadsden Purchase, a lot of $$$ for mostly worthless desert land just for the LOCs to reach Southern California more easily).

What Americans coming across the American West were heading for in California was the same thing Canadians sought in British Columbia: An open route to and accessway to the Pacific.

Still expect France to erupt in revolution and losing Louisiana in the process. Say split between Spain (Mexico) & Britain.

I imagine Mexico will no longer be a matter of Spain's say so should ITTL Napoleon turn on the Spaniards.

I think Australia could remain Dutch in this scenario, although I think the Maori would still opt for joining the British Empire rather than the French.

I doubt with America being in the status of a Dominion(s) that they will tolerate being a dumping ground for Britain's criminal elements. Since an entire continent is still open for development, I doubt the Dutch will have a say ITTL. Oz still goes British IMO.

Give it about thirty or so years, I guarantee this will change. Look at South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and yes even Canada (1857 Gradual Civilization Act, anyone, or the 1874 Indian Act?), all of which were countries where immigration/birth-rates and Anglicization were high relative to the crown colonies and all of which adopted brutal suppression and subjugation tactics against the local peoples that happened to stand in the way of white settlement.

Sadly, this is true. The veritable land of milk and honey descriptions implied by some of our more...um...dynamically nostalgic British members really do not past the smell test.

The British Empire was probably the best out of a bad bunch in terms of European colonial empires, but that's a matter of minor degree, nothing more. Given Commonwealth status within the empire, westward *American expansion might be slower or different in mechanism, but it's gonna happen for multiple reasons (leaving aside cultural and racial chauvinism, once the population's density gets to a certain point there's gonna have to be a release somewhere, and west is the only real way to go).

Stop confusing me with facts! Sorry facts though they are...:(:(:(

Now Mexico might not lose their upper territory under such conditions, since the Brits were IIRC mostly ambivalent to them throughout much of their history.

See above about British history in the 19th century regarding when circumstances changed and suddenly $$$ came into the issue. The Mexico of TODAY may have problems of corruption, overpopulation, and poverty, but the regions in the (far) north (of the present day Midwestern, Southwestern, and Western USA) were wide open to conquest.

OTL history doesn't matter, as "New Spain" was protected by alliances with France pre-1763, the British had too much to handle swallowing up what they'd gained in the 7YW, lost the ARW, was allied to Spain for much of the Napoleonic Wars, and had the Monroe Doctrine (which the British supported) to consider afterwards. So British meddling in Mexico really never was an issue. Even with Napoleon III's invasion, the British could see that the Mexico of 1861 didn't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of, and promptly sailed home.

Quebec I don't see factoring much into the issue of westward expansion if such a setup is created, especially since Anglo *Americans will end up outstripping the Quebecois (14) in numbers within a generation or two and be able to out-compete them for land. (15) Slavery I agree would likely go (although a different set of circumstances in the 1780s-1820s timeframe might see attitudes for or against emancipation differ, it would certainly be interesting (16)).

14) Fixed it for you. Quebeckers is very un-PC.:mad::p

15) LOCs (Lines-Of-Communications) make Quebec's competition with American Commonwealth states a non-factor.

16) See above on my opinions on TTL's abolition of Slavery. May you live in interesting times...:eek:
 
Last edited:

TFSmith121

Banned
Nice post

Quote:
Originally Posted by TFSmith121
Along these lines, don't forget, this is a pretty autocratic age, and so far from pluralism it is almost unimaginable. Suffrage, even when limited to white men, was still greater in the American colonies than it was in the UK...don't forget that Catholics weren't emancipated in the UK until the 1820s...

I think you'd have to go back to the English Civil War/War of Three Kingdons/etc era of the previous century to get anything resembling a transatlantic federal democracy with anything close to potential historicity... (1)

Have the Commonwealth develop into something resembling a democracy (using the Agreement of the People as a basis for a written constitution) and maybe it could ripple away the realities that led to the Revolution. (2)

Best,


1) Maybe have Cromwell's Commonwealth last longer, perhaps generating longer lasting reforms within Parliament?

2) It would certainly help, though that would not be a panacea.


Yep; I think you need at least a few decades of truly representative government and peace in the UK (even with the obviously limited suffrage) starting in the 1600s before you're going to get any agreement on a transtlantic federal democracy in the 1700s; it's just way to great a leap in terms of human nature, standard practice, and economic interests.

Best,
 
Is it possible that, if London would have accepted the idea of giving proper representation to the American colonies, the British Empire could have evolved in a sort of confederation of different 'realms' worldwide?

Not like OTL Commonwealth, a confederation with a proper Parliament and institutions, with proportional representation of the different territories (England, Scotland, New York, Queensland etc.), sharing crown, army and currency, but independent in any other domestic questions?

No. Reasons are as follows:

Anachronistic democracy
Your required solution would require:
13 local parliaments, one for each US colony
13 locally-elected First Minsters, one for each US colony
X MPs from the 13 colonies to the Imperial Parliament by the Thames

This is is one hell of a jump from the prevailing Imperial structure at the time. It's unlikely, in the same way that steam engines were unlikely in Ancient Greece even tho' the principles were understood. It would require a committment to democratic government that was simply implausible in this age of rotten boroughs and democracy for rich landowners only.

Logistics
You're sending X MP's from the 13 colonies to the Imperial Parliament by the Thames. In the 1770's. Seventy years before transatlantic steam ships. Ninety years before transatlantic telegraph. Communication in this era took weeks. Effective representation at such a remove is difficult. The concept would collapse

Instead of pursuing this option, may I suggest the obvious one: the Dominion concept. Make each colony self-governing with a powerful Governor-General, taking only loyalty (i.e. soldiers) and trade from each colony. The Crown remains supreme, the House of Lords remains the supreme law court, but everything else gets devolved. This concept worked everywhere it was applied (Canada, Australia, NZ) and everywhere it was omitted (US, India, Ireland) there was violence and revolution. It's admittedly anachronistic but it would work.
 
Not that it would be politically viable in the 18th century, but would the Ameican colonies have accepted something to the effect of the OTL Scotland Act 1998? That is an American Parliament, plus MPs in Westminster, with the Ameerican Parliament having broad range of powers but leaving certain "reserve" powers (defence etc.) to Westminster.
 
Top