WI there was no American Revolution?
- Thread starter nosajpoet1
- Start date
Something like this (from another site)?
In the run up to the AmRev, late 1774, Lord Chatham, better known as William Pitt, the man who won the Seven Years War for Great Britain, proposed to the House of Lords a plan that would permit Parliament to regulate imperial trade with the American colonies and to send troops to be quartered there. Furthermore the plan proposed that only the colonial legislatures would have the power to levy taxes and that the 1st Continental Congress, which was then sitting in Philadelphia would be given official and permanent standing.
I'd imagine that the British and northern loyalists would put it down fairly quickly....who knows, maybe such a revolt ("Calhoun's Rebellion", anyone?) would become a North American version of Guy Fawkes night.....
Does anyone have a copy of this map? I've not read the Two Georges, and can't find a map anywhere
.True, yet given massive immigration of people with non-British ancestry, I think tensions between the motherland and the colonies would rise with time - at least after say 1870. And then you'd quickly get your "colonial common sense": a number of colonies, with similar problems, on the same continent, governed by Britain...
Of course, this is assuming that borders evolve as OTL. However, we might see Virginia or New York reaching farther west, thus maybe becoming larger than England.
However, this would not lead to a revolution, I think, I'd rather say that the north american colonies get more autonomy than OTL Canadian provinces and get independent earlier.
The problem is that the British dominiions are not really a good example for what could happen, since they were significantly less populated and weaker than the north american colonies of TTL as a whole. I'd say that the north american colonies become fully independent dominions quite early, probably after forming a commonwealth. And I'd say that this would happen peacefully. However, the British might grant representation to hold the grip on these provinces, since especially in the western parts there would be less loyalty due to non-British ancestry of the immigrants.
Xen
Banned
By the 1870's the American colonies would have a greater degree of self government, probably almost to the point of being independent while still being part of the Empire.
Also youre assuming there will be massive foreign immigration , I doubt it will come in the waves it came in OTL. Perhaps alot of Irish and Germans, and they likely won't create too many problems, they didnt as they immigrated to Canada in OTL. That said I can see other "Republics" never part of the British Empire that might rise as likely choices for mass immigration for the disgruntled European. After the discovery of gold in California (lets say in 1852) there is massive immigration there, however the Mexican government is unable to handle the influx of immigration and is highly corrupt with its taxation. Eventually there is a Californian Revolution which successfully secedes from Mexico. This new California Republic becomes the target for mass immigration from Europe and China. Whether its committed to democracy or not is something else and could end up looking like a very diverse nation that suffers from ethnic, idealogical and religous conflicts, however so long as there is wealth to be made....
Argentina is another choice, a lot of prime farmland, and the British had an interest in it without conquering it. Its closer than California too, during the Industrial Revolution the Brits invest heavily in Argentina, creating thousands of jobs which creates a large middle class, which in turn draws people from Europe.
Theres also Australia, right off bat it might not be as appealing as the other two, and the British had a presence here, but with the colonies in North America remaining loyal (or at least failng in their rebellion) a lot of people who went to Australia might decide to go to North America instead, settling in the Ohio Valley may hold some appeal. Eventually foreginers and prisoners (or their decendents) out number loyalists and Australia elects for independence.
Assuming Britain allows hordes of Europeans to emigrate to whatever North America gets called - what if most of that movement was from Britain itself - would drain Britain of people a bit but, call the continent 'New Britain' and leave 'old Britain' as an 'overseas possession'.
Too say that the centre of government for the Brit Emp would shift to N. America sounds like seeing the world through red-white-and-blue tinted glasses... the Queen is still Head of State for Canada and Australia (S. Africa? don't know) in OTL, even though she's 'far away'.
If the Imperial Parliment recognizes the Continental Congress as having 'areas of soveriegnty' regarding taxation, interal trade, and the like, then this could set the model for other Continental Congresses - India, Australia, Africa could all have representation locally for internal matters, with Imperial representation in London for matters 'of the Empire'.
If the Imperial Parliment recognizes the Continental Congress as having 'areas of soveriegnty' regarding taxation, interal trade, and the like, then this could set the model for other Continental Congresses - India, Australia, Africa could all have representation locally for internal matters, with Imperial representation in London for matters 'of the Empire'.
At first, I contemplated this scenario along with a similar discussion once of "What would have happened if America had lost the war for independence?" as it nearly did on several occasions in 1776 alone. (Thank you Gen. Howe) But upon reflection they are two distinct alternate forks in history.
For this discussion however I suspect that eventually the issue of slavery in the southern colonies (if not westward expansionism) would have eventually forced a heavy hand by the mother country certainly by 1833. Then it becomes of issue of northern colonies and the "Southern United States".
No one's saying the capital/government will move to America, however the center of political and economic power would.
D.C. hasn't moved since 1789 but the centers of political and economic have certainly shifted a great deal since then.
Maybe with a big part of the Empire so reliant on the slave economy, slavery is not abolished? The slave trade may still be, but keeping and employing slaves may be permissable for a lot longer time, given the economic incentives - there would now be a larger pro-slavery block in parliament, with the cotton plantation owners allying with the sugar-cane plantation owners in the Caribbean (who fiercly resisted the change OTL).
Without the disagreements of how to organize their 'New Republic' (centralized vs. decentralized), all the colonies may continue as before, and avoid the North/South schism that led to the ACW.
Kaptin Kurk
Banned
This was a question I had, so Bump. Would the British Empire have been more hesitant to outlaw slavery had the AR failed, and the Southern 'Colonies' still been a part of it?
KK
I would say it would delay the outlawing of slavery, especially if the development of plantation slavery occurred as OTL line the southern colonies. That gives a lot of economic power to the opposition to abolition. However while political control was centred in Britain then abolition would almost certainly come as pressure was already building up in the mid-18thC. It probably would not be delayed more than a decade over the 1833 historical point, although with the greater wealth of a combined empire and more legalistic nature of Britain its more likely that slave owners would be mollified by compensation. [At least unless they try armed rebellion]. What would probably be the key point would be the reaction of the central and northern colonies. If they side with the south you could see a new civil war [as the 1770-80's conflict would be seen] as the balance of power could prevent a quick solution. At the worst you might see slavery have an extended life in an independent south/central US where it was a matter of principle to support slavery. If they side with the home government it would almost certainly be over very quickly.
Steve
The colonies didn't all rebel in TTL. The concept of the "13 Colonies" is actually a misnomer, as there were 16, with the three northernmost ones remaining loyal, which is the reason why Canada exists today.
Does anyone have a copy of this map? I've not read the Two Georges, and can't find a map anywhere
I'll second this, even if it's been nearly a year since this particular post.
Actually there were 18, if you count East and West Florida...
Economic and immigration issues aside, how would the lack-of-a-revolution have affected the rest of the world. The French would have been less likely to have one of their own, yet even if they did it would probably not be quite so large. Putting all of that aside, would the extra support from the American Colonies have shortened the Napoleonic Wars, if only just a little, or would it have simply allowed for a more efficient war on part of the British? Louisiana and the remains of New France would have been captured by the British colonies. But I find it interesting to ponder what might happen to Spanish Mexco. The British launched a small invasion of modern day Uruguay during the Napoleonic Wars as the Spanish government aligned themselves with Napoleon. Why not Mexico? In this timeline they would border it, and have a larger force in the region to put to good use than they did for the aforementioned South American Invasion.
Also, I have to wonder what would have happened to our great men? Franklin has ben discussed, but what of Washington and Jefferson. "Nothing" seems the most likely answer, yet that seems strange to me, simply because they were the dominant American figures of the day in OTL, but perhaps it is not important.
Back to immigration, where might the disgruntled Irish go after the potato famine if not America?
Any ideas?
Also, I have to wonder what would have happened to our great men? Franklin has ben discussed, but what of Washington and Jefferson. "Nothing" seems the most likely answer, yet that seems strange to me, simply because they were the dominant American figures of the day in OTL, but perhaps it is not important.
Back to immigration, where might the disgruntled Irish go after the potato famine if not America?
Any ideas?
Glen
Moderator
Well, the British Americans would still be likely to seize the Louisiana territories during the Napoleonic period, and with its ownership disputed between a newly independent Mexico, Spain, and France it probably will stay in British hands. With the increasing Anglo immigration into Texas, there's bound to be friction at some point, with the British moving harshly to defend her American subjects...Santa Anna is still likely to lead his country to ruinous confrontations with the Collosus of the North, and the Union Jack will fly in Veracruz!
Also more from British Imperial holdings rather than that riff-raff from the continent.
True. It would be a separate British protectorate, especially after the New England interests petition the crown to take over.
Actually, I would imagine that Alaska might still be governed under the main British North American government, if its not maintained by Russia.