WI England never lost America, Portugal never lost Brazil etc.

the american colonies would fight for independece another time...


to avoid this you have to change so many things that it is true asb.

only chance (but i think, even asb as above) is, to let the french win the war and in another war later on, beat the brits big time. with that they could get a part of the colonies - the rest will be near the crown.

But with this you could even think about a french america... because if france is so strong, great britain isn´t dominating the sea and so will have no empire. without this, america will be french or - again - independent.
 
Why would Britain's American colonies necessary want to fight for independence?

I mean, if they get treated as Englishmen and Free Men, there's no more reason for them to violently rebel than Canada.
 
Why would Britain's American colonies necessary want to fight for independence?

There were significant cultural differences between Britain and the 13 colonies by the time of the revolution. Even with a compromise or a failed revolution, they would not go away. Consider what would happen to the southern colonies when the British finally got around to outlawing slavery or when British North America finally surpassed the UK economically. Throughout history a colony eventually wanted independence for one reason or another, it is one of the reasons why the enternal empire ATL is ASB.

Plus Canada is a bad example since they are independent OTL and this discussion is about maintaining the European empires. Also there were violent rebellions in Canada's history against British rule.
 
The only rebellion I can think of off the top of my head (mind, my knowledge of Canadian history is fairly limited) is with the Metis, which are a special sort of problem not found in the not-US colonies. What else happened between the British gain of Canada and Canada becoming independent? And why?

So I used "fight" specifically. The Thirteen Colonies forming a Dominion of Lower North America (or something - they don't have something like how Canada is one colony, and even with some kind of sense of internal unity there's also lots of rivalry between them) and part of an alt-Commonwealth wouldn't surprise me, inevitable war would.

And British North America, unless much greater than the Thirteen, is not going to surpass Britain economically.
 
The only rebellion I can think of off the top of my head (mind, my knowledge of Canadian history is fairly limited) is with the Metis, which are a special sort of problem not found in the not-US colonies.

See Rebellions of 1837.

What else happened between the British gain of Canada and Canada becoming independent? And why?

A sense of identity for one thing. Its hard to force a colony far away from the homeland to keep the culture of the empire.

So I used "fight" specifically. The Thirteen Colonies forming a Dominion of Lower North America (or something - they don't have something like how Canada is one colony, and even with some kind of sense of internal unity there's also lots of rivalry between them) and part of an alt-Commonwealth wouldn't surprise me, inevitable war would.

Canada was more of a confederation than a single, united colony. Also I never said that war was inevitable, only that independence was inevitable. And being part of alt-Commonwealth would not be the same as still being part of the British Empire.

And British North America, unless much greater than the Thirteen, is not going to surpass Britain economically.

Well that depends on how the alt hist plays out this thread is focusing on plays out. Certainly if British North America is economically weak it would stay will the mother country longer. But even if we ignore Canada and just consider all of the US east of the Mississippi, than we could potentially see a colony/country with an economy in the top 10 of the world. I would have to do some more serious math that I just don't have time for at the moment to get something clearer.
 
There were significant cultural differences between Britain and the 13 colonies by the time of the revolution. Even with a compromise or a failed revolution, they would not go away. Consider what would happen to the southern colonies when the British finally got around to outlawing slavery or when British North America finally surpassed the UK economically.

But you're acting like there has to be a POD after 1776. Why? The OP never stated any POD at all. Why can't the POD be back before the Britain-Colonies tension? In fact, with the OP specifying that the French have to keep their American empire, there are reasons for any tensions between the Americans and Britain taking a lot longer to even gestate given an early POD, let alone flare into conflict, especially if the French actually start properly planting colonists rather than letting their colonies sit on barely 100,000 total population.

I say it again. Why can we not use an early POD which butterflies the early self-determination writers such as Samuel Penn?

Throughout history a colony eventually wanted independence for one reason or another, it is one of the reasons why the enternal empire ATL is ASB.

Nonsense. Malta and Djibouti both petitioned their respectively motherlands for annexation in the 1960s. In Malta's case, the British Home Minister ruined their economy right after their petition, meaning they were forced to retract it or the government would have lost power. In Djibouti's case, France were the ones who said no. France still has a number of colonies which have never become independent - French Guiana, mostly notably. So, for that matter, does the Netherlands. Without the US becoming involved in the two world wars, there could have been little-to-no pressure for decolonisation, and consequently OTL could still see the European states owning African colonies and certain Asian colonies. The only reason eternal empires are ASB is because countries keeping the same national borders forever is also ASB.
 

Interesting little spat there.

A sense of identity for one thing. Its hard to force a colony far away from the homeland to keep the culture of the empire.

You don't need to have exactly the same culture in all parts of the empire for it to hold together, though.

Canada was more of a confederation than a single, united colony. Also I never said that war was inevitable, only that independence was inevitable. And being part of alt-Commonwealth would not be the same as still being part of the British Empire.
How so? On Canada's unity or lack thereof.

Fair enough. The fight is in response to informationfan's comment and your (when I first read your post) apparent not-so-disagreement.

But yeah, the Commonwealth is not the Empire. I'm not sure a sufficient


Well that depends on how the alt hist plays out this thread is focusing on plays out. Certainly if British North America is economically weak it would stay will the mother country longer. But even if we ignore Canada and just consider all of the US east of the Mississippi, than we could potentially see a colony/country with an economy in the top 10 of the world. I would have to do some more serious math that I just don't have time for at the moment to get something clearer.
We could, potentially. But I think that would require the Lower North American Colonies (Anyone have a better term for the not-US?) to grow immensely, which is not necessarily going to happen to the extent of OTL.

Incidentally, just for a convenient comparison, the US in the mid 19th century OTL had a slightly lower share of world manufacturing output (7.2 vs. 7.9) than France in 1860 - but Britain is 19.9.

1880 is 22.9 for the UK vs. 14.7 and 1900 is 18.5 vs. 23.6 percent.

So it wouldn't be impossible for the LNAC to grow beyond the motherland, but I think OTL is not a good sign for how it would look - even if the LNAC means "North America except for Canada up to the Mississippi".
 

MAlexMatt

Banned
We could, potentially. But I think that would require the Lower North American Colonies (Anyone have a better term for the not-US?) to grow immensely, which is not necessarily going to happen to the extent of OTL.

We're talking about an area the size of all of Western Europe.

It's going to happen under any policy regime that the Americans won't rebel against.

How crazy do you have to be to think that the UK alone will keep a larger economy than the entirety of the US east of the Mississippi indefinitely?

By the end of the 19th century the US will represent the majority of the economy and population of the British Empire. How that works out is probably up for debate, but whether or not it will happen isn't.

EDIT: The majority if the English speaking population, that is.
 
Last edited:
If New France still live, I shall note a Canadien national identity and culture was slowly in the making and appearing, as quoted by a french officier by the18th century, bemoaning my ancestors's 'disorganisation and individualism', if I remember well.


i wonder how would have evolved New France, if the French Revolution happened - or not, and with passing time... Would there be a Révolution Canadienne for our independance? :eek:
 
We're talking about an area the size of all of Western Europe.

For the LBNA colony (colonies?)? And how you are defining Western Europe? Portugal to (and including) Germany?

And the land area between the Atlantic and the Mississippi is the least relevant possible statistic to demonstrating anything about how the Noncanadian colonies will grow.

It's going to happen under any policy regime that the Americans won't rebel against.

How crazy do you have to be to think that the UK alone will keep a larger economy than the entirety of the US east of the Mississippi indefinitely?
How do you figure that LBNA (Lower British North America) will cover the same area as the eastern half or so of the US as one, for want of a better word, territory?

As for indefinitely: Look at the figures below. The Eastern US, for something "larger than Western Europe", is relatively unimpressive. Note the word "relatively" here. France+Germany figures given for comparison along with Britain/the UK alone.

By the end of the 19th century the US will represent the majority of the economy and population of the British Empire. How that works out is probably up for debate, but whether or not it will happen isn't.

EDIT: The majority if the English speaking population, that is.
This is assuming a great deal about OTL applying in a rather different scenario:

For OTL, with the west coast included obviously: 23.6% of world manufacturing output, vs. the UK's 18.5%. Population 75.9 million vs. 41.1 million. Industrial potential relative to the UK in 1900 (as 100) for the US 127.8.

So this is without granting the UK any taxes or otherwise being a gain to the UK, and with not inconsiderable British investments. That alone is rather different than merely a Thirteen plus granted some measure of equality.

For comparison, since something the size of "all of Western Europe" needs to be compared to...well, Western Europe:

France+Germany: 94.9 million. 108 Total Industrial Potential (again relative to the UK as arbitrarily 100). 20% of the world's manufacturing output.

Obviously this greatly increases post 1900 in the US's favor, but it become increasingly impossible to use that as basis for guesstimating of the eastern half alone, and probably already is by 1900.

I'm not saying that Lower British North America will remain a colony forever, but it seems more likely to be like Canada than like OTL in terms of British possession or lack of it.
 

MAlexMatt

Banned
For the LBNA colony (colonies?)? And how you are defining Western Europe? Portugal to (and including) Germany?

Iberia, France, the Low Countries, and the British Isles. The US east of the Mississippi is actually about 100,000 square miles larger than this group of countries.

And the land area between the Atlantic and the Mississippi is the least relevant possible statistic to demonstrating anything about how the Noncanadian colonies will grow.

You are correct, of course. The more relevant statistic is arable land, rather than just land:

According to this , the US as a whole has about 1.6 million square kilometers of arable land. As a rough estimate, let's say one fifth of that is east of the Mississippi, that being the rough percentage of the total land area of the US that that same region represents (actually kind of generous to Western Europe considering the land east of the Mississippi is some of the most consistently arable in the entire country -- large swathes of other regions are either mountainous [the Rockies], very cold [Alaska], or desert [the Southwest] ) that brings us to 350,000 square kilometers of arable land.

Western Europe has a bit more as a whole of that total, at about 405,000 square kilometers. And remember, this is with what is likely an under-estimate of the arable land in the *US east of the Mississippi.

Another relevant statistic is population.

According to wikipedia, the population of the area that would become the US was doubling itself about every 25 years and most of this was native growth, rather than immigration. This trend continued through to the 1850's, when significant foreign immigration picked up.

I see no reason these trends shouldn't continue without the Revolution. The Alt-US would rapidly catch up with and surpass the UK in population and, with the much, much larger amount of arable land, would quickly grow wealthier.

How do you figure that LBNA (Lower British North America) will cover the same area as the eastern half or so of the US as one, for want of a better word, territory?

The very rapidly expanding population of the Alt-US has to go somewhere.

As for indefinitely: Look at the figures below. The Eastern US, for something "larger than Western Europe", is relatively unimpressive. Note the word "relatively" here. France+Germany figures given for comparison along with Britain/the UK alone.

This is assuming a great deal about OTL applying in a rather different scenario:

For OTL, with the west coast included obviously: 23.6% of world manufacturing output, vs. the UK's 18.5%. Population 75.9 million vs. 41.1 million. Industrial potential relative to the UK in 1900 (as 100) for the US 127.8.

So this is without granting the UK any taxes or otherwise being a gain to the UK, and with not inconsiderable British investments. That alone is rather different than merely a Thirteen plus granted some measure of equality.

For comparison, since something the size of "all of Western Europe" needs to be compared to...well, Western Europe:

France+Germany: 94.9 million. 108 Total Industrial Potential (again relative to the UK as arbitrarily 100). 20% of the world's manufacturing output.

Obviously this greatly increases post 1900 in the US's favor, but it become increasingly impossible to use that as basis for guesstimating of the eastern half alone, and probably already is by 1900.

I'm not saying that Lower British North America will remain a colony forever, but it seems more likely to be like Canada than like OTL in terms of British possession or lack of it.

Why are you concentrating on industrial production? In 1900 the US was still mostly agricultural, but in terms of overall out US GDP actually exceeded UK GDP in 1870. Without the (under-developed, under-settled) West, it's not too much to expect the alt-US to surpass alt-UK by 1900. When you consider that a United Empire US would probably avoid some of the wealth destroying policies they followed IOTL, such as the ruinous tariffs of the middle and late 19th century, I would even expect this alt US to be wealthier in per capita terms.

The *US may indeed end something like Canada, but that's a good thing in terms of surpassing the UK. Canada is, today, wealthier per capita than the UK, and this *US would have access to more usable land area and resources than OTL Canada, so is going to be wealthier in absolute terms, as well.
 
Iberia, France, the Low Countries, and the British Isles. The US east of the Mississippi is actually about 100,000 square miles larger than this group of countries.

Gotcha.

You are correct, of course. The more relevant statistic is arable land, rather than just land:

According to this , the US as a whole has about 1.6 million square kilometers of arable land. As a rough estimate, let's say one fifth of that is east of the Mississippi, that being the rough percentage of the total land area of the US that that same region represents (actually kind of generous to Western Europe considering the land east of the Mississippi is some of the most consistently arable in the entire country -- large swathes of other regions are either mountainous [the Rockies], very cold [Alaska], or desert [the Southwest] ) that brings us to 350,000 square kilometers of arable land.

Western Europe has a bit more as a whole of that total, at about 405,000 square kilometers. And remember, this is with what is likely an under-estimate of the arable land in the *US east of the Mississippi.
Even arable land is not really answering the question. Otherwise, Britain would be a pygmy power instead of what it was in this period (18th century to around WWI).

Another relevant statistic is population.

According to wikipedia, the population of the area that would become the US was doubling itself about every 25 years and most of this was native growth, rather than immigration. This trend continued through to the 1850's, when significant foreign immigration picked up.

I see no reason these trends shouldn't continue without the Revolution. The Alt-US would rapidly catch up with and surpass the UK in population and, with the much, much larger amount of arable land, would quickly grow wealthier.
Annoyingly, Kennedy (all quotes here from The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers except as stated) does not give population figures. But Britain went from 10.5 to 16.0 million from 1750 to 1800.

The US has gone from 2 million to four million from 1750 to 1800.

A long way to go to catch up.

By 1900, in a world where the US has become much more than the East of the Mississippi: British population as a percentage of US population in 1900:

54%.

The very rapidly expanding population of the Alt-US has to go somewhere.
It doesn't need to go "somewhere". Nor is it at a size beyond what can be supported in less than the full extent of the Atlantic-to-the-Mississippi.

Certainly if the opportunity exists people will take it, but people wanting more land is not the same as needing more land.

Why are you concentrating on industrial production? In 1900 the US was still mostly agricultural, but in terms of overall out US GDP actually exceeded UK GDP in 1870. Without the (under-developed, under-settled) West, it's not too much to expect the alt-US to surpass alt-UK by 1900. When you consider that a United Empire US would probably avoid some of the wealth destroying policies they followed IOTL, such as the ruinous tariffs of the middle and late 19th century, I would even expect this alt US to be wealthier in per capita terms.
I am concentrating on industrial production because that was a greater source of national wealth over the course of the 19th century.

And (I'm presuming this is as true for GDP): A higher total GNP is not the same as a wealthier nation. Russia is a perfect example = high total, but little "surplus" produced from it.

As for ignoring the West: Let's ignore all the benefits of Western gold and silver when it came to the US, among other things.

And lets forget that the British are collecting wealth from the not-US in the form of that dreadful T word among other things, so it is better off than OTL and the not-US is losing that much. And the US is probably importing more from the UK than OTL (even if it has its own industrial development), which is more wealth to the UK and away from the US.

The *US may indeed end something like Canada, but that's a good thing in terms of surpassing the UK. Canada is, today, wealthier per capita than the UK, and this *US would have access to more usable land area and resources than OTL Canada, so is going to be wealthier in absolute terms, as well.
A good thing in the sense of "Eventually"? Probably. In the sense of "by the end of the 19th century"? No.

It is not unreasonable to say that the not-US will be prosperous. It is far less reasonable to have it shooting ahead of the UK, when the UK is in a more favorable situation and the colonies are in a less favorable situation.
 
Last edited:

MAlexMatt

Banned
Even arable land is not really answering the question. Otherwise, Britain would be a pygmy power instead of what it was in this period (18th century to around WWI).

There are other factors, too: The extent of the trading area is important. France suffered from high internal tariffs and duties during the 17th and 18th centuries, so even though she had a lot more population and arable land, she was overall poorer than the UK, which was one big free trade area. Political stability and the rule of law are vital. China had a very large internal free trade area with a lot of arable land and a large population, but as the 19th century went on her political stability fragmented and eventually disappeared.

Thing is, the alt-US will benefit from all the same things the UK does: It will be a gigantic free trade area, it will have access to the markets of the largest, wealthiest empire on the planet. Political stability and a strong rule of law are almost givens, if you look at other British settlement colonies.

Development is a guarantee and the extent to which a given place will develop is dictated by the supply of primary resources, which means arable land, mineral, and wildlife resources. The US east of the Mississippi has a vast amount of arable land, abundant mineral resources, and is extremely heavily forested in comparison to the Old World.

Annoyingly, Kennedy (all quotes here from The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers except as stated) does not give population figures. But Britain went from 10.5 to 16.0 million from 1750 to 1800.

The US has gone from 2 million to four million from 1750 to 1800.

A long way to go to catch up.

By 1900, in a world where the US has become much more than the East of the Mississippi: British population as a percentage of US population in 1900:

54%.

By 1900 the West represented a very small percentage of the overall American population and physical wealth. California had a scant 1.5 million residents in a time when the far smaller (in terms of land area) eastern coastal states of New York and Pennsylvania had ten times that much between the two of them.

The West, coincidentally for your argument, makes a far greater difference during the 20th century, as most of the Western states underwent very rapid development from 1900 onward while Eastern growth was comparatively more normalized.

The states east of the Mississippi, in 1900, had a population comparable to the UK's population today. The UK population in 1900, on the other hand, was more like 38 million, versus the 54 million of the eastern US at the same time. So yeah, a lot of catching up to do, but they did it. Even if we assume the US gets no immigration over the course of the latter 19th century (a hilarious, totally un-realistic assumption), it's more than easy to posit that this is made up for by the lack of emigration of United Empire Loyalists after the Revolution and lives lost during the American Civil War, not to mention migration from Britain itself that would have gone to Australia, Africa, India, and Canada IOTL which instead goes to the *US. An eastern *US population of 45-50 million in 1900 is perfectly plausible. Anything less is implausible.

It doesn't need to go "somewhere". Nor is it at a size beyond what can be supported in less than the full extent of the Atlantic-to-the-Mississippi.

Certainly if the opportunity exists people will take it, but people wanting more land is not the same as needing more land.

And the opportunity did exist.

What possible, realistic reason can you think of for the *US not settling the old Northwest and Southwest? If the Proclamation Line and the Indian Reserve are kept in existence, you can bet your ass there's still going to be a Revolution. This is really the essence of my point: Under any conceivable policy regime that keeps the American colonies from revolting and leaving the Empire, the *US is going to develop very rapidly and outgrow the metropole by the end of the 19th century.

I suppose it's possible that you could say the *UK in this TL actively keeps the *US down, keeping the colonies in the Empire by force, but being forced to occupy the *US in this timeline would make the *UK itself poorer and less powerful in the long run.

I am concentrating on industrial production because that was a greater source of national wealth over the course of the 19th century.

This is factually incorrect. No large country in history has ever had the secondary sector making up a majority of output. In the US, for instance, manufacturing as a percentage of GDP peaked in the 1930's at about 30% of output. The hand-off wasn't from agriculture to manufacturing, but instead from agriculture to the service sector.

What's really happening is you're falling for the same illusion that kept many third world countries drastically underdeveloped during the 20th century: They assumed fostering a large manufacturing sector would maximize national wealth, when in reality the tariff and internal industrial policies they followed in order to pursue that goal impoverished them.

The growth of manufacturing is something that happens after population density on the land has reached a point where there's no longer enough open land for settlement, the agricultural labor market is saturated, and wage laborers start seeking alternatives. You need a healthy, wealthy primary sector in order to support and sustain a growing secondary sector.

And (I'm presuming this is as true for GDP): A higher total GNP is not the same as a wealthier nation. Russia is a perfect example = high total, but little "surplus" produced from it.

Russia actually would have been fairly wealthy if it weren't for the Tsarist tyranny on top. When the Russian Revolution toppled him, Tsar Nicholas was the wealthiest man in the world by far. Had the Russian peasantry been free to keep more of their surplus, they would have been some of the richest agriculturalists around at the time.

As an aside, however, the UK actually did surpass Russian GDP sometime in the late 19th century (1880's IIRC).

The only difference between GDP and GNP is the inclusion of an import-export balancing measure.

And lets forget that the British are collecting wealth from the not-US in the form of that dreadful T word among other things, so it is better off than OTL and the not-US is losing that much.

Any situation in which the *US decides to stay in the Empire isn't going to involve the British government taxing the *US for any benefits that accrue purely to the British Isles.

And the US is probably importing more from the UK than OTL (even if it has its own industrial development), which is more wealth to the UK and away from the US.

Trade is not a zero sum game. If the US is importing from UK, it's also exporting to the UK. IOTL, the US essentially fed the UK workforce, and I see no reason this won't be true ITTL. American farmers are going to be some of the wealthiest members of the Imperial middle class, American planters some of the wealthiest members of the Imperial upper class. Importantly, both of these groups are going to be far more numerous than their counterparts in Britain.

A good thing in the sense of "Eventually"? Probably. In the sense of "by the end of the 19th century"? No.

It is not unreasonable to say that the not-US will be prosperous. It is far less reasonable to have it shooting ahead of the UK, when the UK is in a more favorable situation and the colonies are in a less favorable situation.

Thing is, I think it's ASB to have a situation where the US stays in the Empire and accepts a less favorable deal than they got IOTL. I know this point seems to fly over your head, but people don't just put up with being the oppressed appendage of an overseas empire, especially the comparatively well off descendents of a group of immigrants from that Empire's metropole.

The *US will only still be in the Empire because the British government gave some kind of concessions to cool down the rising tempers of the late 18th century. A deal mildly similar to that Canada got 90 years later is likely, and that kind of deal is exactly what is necessary to allow the colonial economy to boom and eventually surpass that of the mother country.
 
I don't think the Americans would have accepted representation in Parliament. London is three or four months away from the colonies and preservation of local government was one of the things the whole Revolution was about.

Several plans of colonial union had been put forward over the years that assumed continued membership in the Empire, the most recent at the time of the Declaration being the Galloway Plan.

The original purpose of the war was for representation in parliament hence "no taxation without representation". It wasn't largely thought of as a war for independence until Common Sense was publish.
 

MAlexMatt

Banned
The original purpose of the war was for representation in parliament hence "no taxation without representation". It wasn't largely thought of as a war for independence until Common Sense was publish.

The 'original purposes' of the war were about as varied as the people fighting.

The ultimate common cause between all of them was that they felt the government in Britain wasn't acting in their interests anymore, but instead in its own interests. Whether that meant taxing them without their consent, using the colonial market as a dumping ground for EIC tea surpluses, or a number of other complaints. Independence was just the solution that people eventually came up with. As long as this perception persists in whatever form, people will keep arriving at that solution.
 
There are other factors, too: The extent of the trading area is important. France suffered from high internal tariffs and duties during the 17th and 18th centuries, so even though she had a lot more population and arable land, she was overall poorer than the UK, which was one big free trade area. Political stability and the rule of law are vital. China had a very large internal free trade area with a lot of arable land and a large population, but as the 19th century went on her political stability fragmented and eventually disappeared.

Thing is, the alt-US will benefit from all the same things the UK does: It will be a gigantic free trade area, it will have access to the markets of the largest, wealthiest empire on the planet. Political stability and a strong rule of law are almost givens, if you look at other British settlement colonies.

Development is a guarantee and the extent to which a given place will develop is dictated by the supply of primary resources, which means arable land, mineral, and wildlife resources. The US east of the Mississippi has a vast amount of arable land, abundant mineral resources, and is extremely heavily forested in comparison to the Old World.

The problem is that the UK is benefiting from a not-US colony in a way that it didn't benefit from an American (and I use this word in absence of better ) rival. Even assuming the most lenient policy, more American money is leaving than OTL, more development is favoring British investors rather than American ones.

Is that to say that the US will not benefit at all? No. But there's a huge difference between a prosperous colony and a prosperous rival.

By 1900 the West represented a very small percentage of the overall American population and physical wealth. California had a scant 1.5 million residents in a time when the far smaller (in terms of land area) eastern coastal states of New York and Pennsylvania had ten times that much between the two of them.

The West, coincidentally for your argument, makes a far greater difference during the 20th century, as most of the Western states underwent very rapid development from 1900 onward while Eastern growth was comparatively more normalized.
Note to self: Dig up (pun not intended) figures on gold and silver production of California, Nevada, and Colorado. Same with any wealth from logging in California.

And then there's the Oregon territory and other things.

It would not be hard for North America to have more than two British colonies, even if we assume the Thirteen are one unit. Sticking this here for want of a better place to put it.

The states east of the Mississippi, in 1900, had a population comparable to the UK's population today. The UK population in 1900, on the other hand, was more like 38 million, versus the 54 million of the eastern US at the same time. So yeah, a lot of catching up to do, but they did it. Even if we assume the US gets no immigration over the course of the latter 19th century (a hilarious, totally un-realistic assumption), it's more than easy to posit that this is made up for by the lack of emigration of United Empire Loyalists after the Revolution and lives lost during the American Civil War, not to mention migration from Britain itself that would have gone to Australia, Africa, India, and Canada IOTL which instead goes to the *US. An eastern *US population of 45-50 million in 1900 is perfectly plausible. Anything less is implausible.
The US is somewhat less likely to be as attractive to say, Irish immigrants after the Famine in TTL. Possibly the same with others - it won't be that much different than Canada, so why go to the US? What makes it have more opportunities? Not much (looking at it from the "I've heard of, but never visited" view, where the US is known for being a place with British laws and liberties).

Nor is there any particular reason to go the US instead of Australia, Africa, India, and Canada vs. OTL.

Why are you assuming people flock to the not-US more than any other British territories (in North America or elsewhere)?

41.1 million, not 38.

And the opportunity did exist.
Assuming Britain a) treats "nonCanada" as one territory where "Americans" (we really, really need a better term here...help, someone...) are free to settle, among other things.

That issue of "the area being one colony" is more disputable than that there will be Anglophone settlement on both sides of the mountains, at least to me, but even the latter is not an absolute given.

What possible, realistic reason can you think of for the *US not settling the old Northwest and Southwest? If the Proclamation Line and the Indian Reserve are kept in existence, you can bet your ass there's still going to be a Revolution. This is really the essence of my point: Under any conceivable policy regime that keeps the American colonies from revolting and leaving the Empire, the *US is going to develop very rapidly and outgrow the metropole by the end of the 19th century.
Well, when your define "any conceivable policy regime that keeps the American colonies from revolting" based on "Any regime that doesn't treat the Americans with all the perks and none of the responsibilities of Englishmen within England", then its pretty hard. It is very doubtful that the Proclamation Line and the like are going to inspire a revolution on their own compared to for instance mishandling of the taxation issue, and this won't change significantly over time.

Grumbling and irritation amongst some? Yes. Every imperial policy on anything has inspired that. I don't think its possible to have a empire that doesn't have some people grumbling that the center takes no account of how their region is Speshul and needs to be given more priviligies and less taxes and other demands. Colonial or otherwise.

"They deny us land in the West! Restrictions on land ownership without representation is tyranny!" is...not going to go very far.

I suppose it's possible that you could say the *UK in this TL actively keeps the *US down, keeping the colonies in the Empire by force, but being forced to occupy the *US in this timeline would make the *UK itself poorer and less powerful in the long run.
The not-US doesn't have to be kept down by force, in the sense of a permanent military occupation on levels beyond (relative to what's being governed) India in order for British restrictions to influence how it develops.

Especially if the British (and settlers) treat the Eastern Thirteen as different than the Ohio territory (and later additions, if any).

This is factually incorrect. No large country in history has ever had the secondary sector making up a majority of output. In the US, for instance, manufacturing as a percentage of GDP peaked in the 1930's at about 30% of output. The hand-off wasn't from agriculture to manufacturing, but instead from agriculture to the service sector.
"Still, 'by itself the volume of total GNP has no important significance,', the physical product of hundreds of millions of peasants may dwarf that of five million factory workers, but since most of it is immediately consumed, it is far less likely to lead to surplus wealth or decisive military striking power. Where Britain was strong, indeed unchallenged, in 1850 was in modern, wealth-producing industry, with all the benefits which flowed from it."

That strongly indicates that growing industrialization and growing national wealth went together, in these circumstances.

What's really happening is you're falling for the same illusion that kept many third world countries drastically underdeveloped during the 20th century: They assumed fostering a large manufacturing sector would maximize national wealth, when in reality the tariff and internal industrial policies they followed in order to pursue that goal impoverished them.
No, what's really happening is that the "workshop of the world" is growing as fast and prosperously as it did because of increasing industrial development and things like the vast export of cotton goods.

That is increasing national wealth far more than say, what wheat is grown on the island.

The growth of manufacturing is something that happens after population density on the land has reached a point where there's no longer enough open land for settlement, the agricultural labor market is saturated, and wage laborers start seeking alternatives. You need a healthy, wealthy primary sector in order to support and sustain a growing secondary sector.
And Britain is already there, and making money hand over fist accordingly.

Russia actually would have been fairly wealthy if it weren't for the Tsarist tyranny on top. When the Russian Revolution toppled him, Tsar Nicholas was the wealthiest man in the world by far. Had the Russian peasantry been free to keep more of their surplus, they would have been some of the richest agriculturalists around at the time.
Russia's per capita GNP is terrible. In 1870 (the best year between 1830-1890), it is tied with the Habsburg Empire's figure for 1830. And 40% of the UK's. Despite a total GNP a bit over three times that of the Habsburg Empire in 1830.

Britain is two and a half times as rich, despite the total GNP being a little behind Russia (22.9 billion in 1960 US dollars and prices vs. Brtain's 19.6).

No matter how you distribute the tsar's personal wealth, Russia is (relatively) unproductive -and Britain very productive.

As an aside, however, the UK actually did surpass Russian GDP sometime in the late 19th century (1880's IIRC).
1880: 23.5 vs. 23.2. (UK vs. Russia)

1890: 29.1 vs. 21.1.

Any situation in which the *US decides to stay in the Empire isn't going to involve the British government taxing the *US for any benefits that accrue purely to the British Isles.
So, a scenario unlike OTL (where the taxation of the colonies was part of paying the expenses related to them) is unlikely to see the British Empire to retain the Thirteen. No one is disputing that.

But the British government taxing the colonies means wealth leaving said colonies and going to Britain for its purposes, even if "its purposes" include maintaining empire-wide defenses and such, its more money for Britain's spending.

Trade is not a zero sum game. If the US is importing from UK, it's also exporting to the UK. IOTL, the US essentially fed the UK workforce, and I see no reason this won't be true ITTL. American farmers are going to be some of the wealthiest members of the Imperial middle class, American planters some of the wealthiest members of the Imperial upper class. Importantly, both of these groups are going to be far more numerous than their counterparts in Britain.
Zero sum game isn't the point. The benefit of being the one selling steam locomotives and such products over the one selling corn or even cotton is another issue.


Thing is, I think it's ASB to have a situation where the US stays in the Empire and accepts a less favorable deal than they got IOTL. I know this point seems to fly over your head, but people don't just put up with being the oppressed appendage of an overseas empire, especially the comparatively well off descendents of a group of immigrants from that Empire's metropole.
I know that accepting that not everyone agrees that the colonists were oppressed is ideologically impossible, but that's not a reason to be rude. Nor are they getting a particularly unfavorable deal as a colony - just "suffering" from the fact colonies produce more wealth for the motherland vs. independent countries producing it for other independent countries, plus any British policies that lead to the not-US being smaller and poorer than OTL.

Its not as if people from TTL can say "Hey, Americans in the alternate world where we achieved independence are doing better than we are."

The *US will only still be in the Empire because the British government gave some kind of concessions to cool down the rising tempers of the late 18th century. A deal mildly similar to that Canada got 90 years later is likely, and that kind of deal is exactly what is necessary to allow the colonial economy to boom and eventually surpass that of the mother country.
Or if the British empire defeats the rebellion or handles the policies it did intend in a way less twistable by propaganda.

The colonial economy prospering and the colonial economy shooting ahead of Britain are two different things. It is much easier for the not-US to be the former than the latter.


P.S. Trying to make a point on the ideological comment. I'm trying not to say stuff like "You're incapable of accepting the legitimacy of the British government enforcing taxes" on the hopes that it means that we don't get bogged down in arguing that in this thread too, but your comment is really not a step in that direction.

Whether or not we agree on the justice of those taxes isn't the point, the point is that there were supporters of the British government within the colonies, as well as the "sons of Liberty" and other rebel-types. And their view prevailing would not take alien space bats or even an army of occupation.
 
Most of this discussion also ignores the huge loyalist support during the Revolution - when the british Government had ignored all the good advice and made bad decision after bad decision.

Historian Robert Calhoon wrote in 2000, concerning the proportion of Loyalists to Patriots in the Thirteen Colonies:

"Historians' best estimates put the proportion of adult white male loyalists somewhere between 15 and 20 percent. Approximately half the colonists of European ancestry tried to avoid involvement in the struggle — some of them deliberate pacifists, others recent immigrants, and many more simple apolitical folk. The patriots received active support from perhaps 40 to 45 percent of the white populace, and at most no more than a bare majority" A Companion to the Revolution.

Any POD that improves the decisions of Parliament, sees further participation by Amercian politicians in local and national government is going to increase this.

There is a sense of retrospective inevitability about the American Revolution (particularly among Americans understandibly). But it is simply not the case. This was a watershed moment, and as a result of parliment flunking the test, the nature of "revolts/revolutions" would change dramatically in the future.

I should also add that it is perfectly possible for the British to win a purely military victory in the War. Any POD that has William Howe anywhere else but at the head of a British Army makes victory more likely. In truth the Americans did not win the war (and neither did the French), the British lost it due to mismanagement.

Now the Americans can start shouting at me (but please bare in mind I'm Irish not English so I am not particularly biased either way)...
 
Speaking as an American (if a Loyalist-leaning one), that seems to be a pretty fair and balanced description actually.

Shouldn't an Irishman be biased against England though? :p Instead of...well, if there's any bias there I swear I cannot detect it.

More to the point, those figures on the percentage of support look right for what happened - a solid enough group of "Patriots" to build a Revolution, the majority one form or another of neutral and swayed by circumstances and events rather than preferences, and a not insignificant (statistically) minority of loyalists.

But said group being too small to build any meaningful support base on once it came down to war.

The one thing I would say on the war issue is that while defeating American armies is fairly easy, the "and occupying the colonies" part is relatively difficult.

That being said, if the Continental Army is virtually wiped out (including the cadre Washington managed to preserve, and the top officers), there's not much to rebuild an army from - and the revolution will collapse by default.

Not necessarily immediately, but it would be hard for the rebels to offer any real opposition to re-asserted British control in those circumstances.
 

MAlexMatt

Banned
Most of this discussion also ignores the huge loyalist support during the Revolution - when the british Government had ignored all the good advice and made bad decision after bad decision.

Historian Robert Calhoon wrote in 2000, concerning the proportion of Loyalists to Patriots in the Thirteen Colonies:

"Historians' best estimates put the proportion of adult white male loyalists somewhere between 15 and 20 percent. Approximately half the colonists of European ancestry tried to avoid involvement in the struggle — some of them deliberate pacifists, others recent immigrants, and many more simple apolitical folk. The patriots received active support from perhaps 40 to 45 percent of the white populace, and at most no more than a bare majority" A Companion to the Revolution.

Any POD that improves the decisions of Parliament, sees further participation by Amercian politicians in local and national government is going to increase this.

There is a sense of retrospective inevitability about the American Revolution (particularly among Americans understandibly). But it is simply not the case. This was a watershed moment, and as a result of parliment flunking the test, the nature of "revolts/revolutions" would change dramatically in the future.

I should also add that it is perfectly possible for the British to win a purely military victory in the War. Any POD that has William Howe anywhere else but at the head of a British Army makes victory more likely. In truth the Americans did not win the war (and neither did the French), the British lost it due to mismanagement.

Now the Americans can start shouting at me (but please bare in mind I'm Irish not English so I am not particularly biased either way)...

This is, of course, perfectly consistent with what I've been saying: If the British follow the right set of policies, there's no reason at all for them to lose the colonies.

However, it's worth bearing in mind that those percentages are for the beginning of the war (and I've seen them split into thirds more often than not -- a third loyal, a third neutral, and a third patriot): As the war progressed many loyalists left or were driven out and many neutrals joined the patriot cause. By the end of the war the vast majority was in favor and, as time went on, pretty much everybody ended up subscribing to the revolutionary mythology. Gordon Wood has several good books on the cultural follow-ons from the Revolution.
 
The British were very close to giving into some of the Colonists demands, and there was a plan to make the Continental Congress a sister institution to Parliment. This plan fell by the wayside when the French decided to help the Colonies.
 
Top