I'd expect BNA ITTL to be a bit like the Empire of North America in Thande's Look to the West... Although, the colonies might not be intergrated into a single monolithic federation...
WI there was no American Revolution?
- Thread starter nosajpoet1
- Start date
Quebec, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia were the three northern colonies...
That's right, NB & PEI were not founded until later.
I dunno.
One benefit of thinking of yourself as a group is that it's harder to ride roughshod over the colonies than it is over Virginia.
And, of course, the fact that the colonies themselves joined together to protest the stamp act and such suggests that there was an American identity.
Glen
Moderator
True enough. But it could be a looser association rather than an actual additional layer of governance.
Burton K Wheeler
Moderator
With Turtledove, it's best not to read too much into parellels with OTL. He gave his British North America borders almost identical to OTL because he's uncreative, not because he had some intricately plotted TL.
Glen
Moderator
Hmmm....maybe a rule that no one colony can be larger than Great Britain?
Ah yes, assumptions, assumptions....
But even a loose assortment would overpower Britain. Eventually, and whether this is 1850 or 1950 , Britain would fall from its role as undisputed master an become a political minority in its own empire, unless it shoved parts off.
Bear in mind that The Two Georges it just a comedy in which Turtledove draws a world in which everything is the same but whith a thin sheed of the contrary over it. The development of that world doesn't make sense, yet making sense wasn't part of the author's intentions.
On Louisiana - that will partly depend on how the French revolution goes in TTL. As was said before, it was inspired by the AR, and so it's not clear whether it would happen the same way and at the same time. But even if we assume that it happns exactly the same way, would Napoleon retake Lousiana from Spain in order to resurrect the French colonial empire in North America as in OTL if the neighbour would be a hostile British North America instead of a neutral (and partially sympathetic) USA? He might as well donate the area to the British directly. And if Napoleon doesn't retake Louisiana from Spain, perhaps the British would occupy parts of it (e.g. New Orleans) during the Napoleonic wars, but it's quite probable that they would return it to Spain at the Vienna congress.
And without the example of an independent USA, it's also possible that the Spanish colonies will demand and gain independence only later, so whether Louisiana gets annexed to British North America would depend on how the British-Spanish relationship would develop during the 19th century.
I still assume that parts of the areas West of the Mississippi woul end up belonging to British North America; the Spanish wouldn't be able to control the area and settlers and adventurers from the British areas would flood in, creating a situation in which Britain would have to annex it in order to avoid chaos on its frontier in North America. But this would be a step-by-step process, perhaps resulting in wars or land-swaps with Spain, not a great bargain like the Louisiana purchase. And probably, as somebody said, this would not include California and the New Mexico territories, and perhaps also not Texas.
And without the example of an independent USA, it's also possible that the Spanish colonies will demand and gain independence only later, so whether Louisiana gets annexed to British North America would depend on how the British-Spanish relationship would develop during the 19th century.
I still assume that parts of the areas West of the Mississippi woul end up belonging to British North America; the Spanish wouldn't be able to control the area and settlers and adventurers from the British areas would flood in, creating a situation in which Britain would have to annex it in order to avoid chaos on its frontier in North America. But this would be a step-by-step process, perhaps resulting in wars or land-swaps with Spain, not a great bargain like the Louisiana purchase. And probably, as somebody said, this would not include California and the New Mexico territories, and perhaps also not Texas.
Wannis has a good point, particularly as regards the question of whether the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars occur on schedule. However, I think it's safe to say that some kind of war will break out. And France does seem fairly rife for Revolution anyway, so a war might prompt a revolt.
In any case, it's probably good for the solidarity of BNA with the crown that the colonists get to take land from whatever European country the crown is at war with in Europe, just as the wars between Britain and Burbon France in the early to mid 18th century actually stoked the colonist's fervor for Empire because they all got to fight the "Papist Frogs" together.
In any case, it's probably good for the solidarity of BNA with the crown that the colonists get to take land from whatever European country the crown is at war with in Europe, just as the wars between Britain and Burbon France in the early to mid 18th century actually stoked the colonist's fervor for Empire because they all got to fight the "Papist Frogs" together.
The best (and perhaps only) way to avoid 'American' revolution at some point is to keep the cultural links with Britain strong. Sure you can be an 'American' by geography, but you are a 'Briton' and member of the world-spanning 'British Empire'. You wouldn't want to be independent, the very idea is quite abhorrent.
Britain can easilly remain the center of such an Empire. You just draw the map that way. More seriously you build institutions in London that don't need to move. You have a federal imperial government, London remains the center for global finance, the nominal residence of the Royals, although they spend most of their time touring across the far-flung Empire etc etc.
What is meant by the idea that Britain would be a political minority? Presumerably the Empire would have to be a federal structure if it is to last. Britain would retain more individual votes (larger population for a start) than any individual state. Sure Britain wouldn't be able to go against the entire Empire, but odds are she wouldn't want to do so.
Britain can easilly remain the center of such an Empire. You just draw the map that way
. More seriously you build institutions in London that don't need to move. You have a federal imperial government, London remains the center for global finance, the nominal residence of the Royals, although they spend most of their time touring across the far-flung Empire etc etc.What is meant by the idea that Britain would be a political minority? Presumerably the Empire would have to be a federal structure if it is to last. Britain would retain more individual votes (larger population for a start) than any individual state. Sure Britain wouldn't be able to go against the entire Empire, but odds are she wouldn't want to do so.
But then, no single British white colony outweighed Britain to the extent that BNA would, and many of the threats that kept the colonies aligned with Britain herself (the US for Canada, other European nations for Australia, etc.) would be an entirely different state of affairs. The Royal Navy could/would be supportable by American shipyards of the NE, which would weaken one of Britain's key strengths (the RN).Ah, as the rest of the Empire overpowered Britain in OTL....
1) The North American colonies, both the rebelious 13 and the Canadian provinces, had an extremely hard time getting along with each other in their respective early histories, thus the difficult of acheiving (and preserving) the Union and the Confederation respectively.
2) If the colonies only really unite within the Empire, than the whole notion of Britain being outweighed may not enter into people's thinking. NE shipyards are important to the RN, but so too are coal reserves from Virginia, the bread basket of the Midwest, the oil and minerals of the Rockies and sundry provinces.
There's a good TL out there somewhere in which a succesful Dardenelles campaign in 1916 leads to the formation of governing council for the British Empire as an actual political federation, with seats allocated in proportion to vague importance (which allows Britain to retain a plurality even as India is incorporated into the Empire). If BNA remains in the Empire, I'd imagine something similar might happen: a key point though is the separation of the Imperial Parliament from the Parliament at Westminster (that of the UK).
But they also managed to do so; ie, the Continental Assemblies, and later the Constitutional Convention to reform the Articles. "Difficult" does not mean "impossible," especially when "difficult" has been seen to have been achieved OTL.
Counterpoint: The Conventions in response to the Stamp Act and other British legislation. North America already was forming a collective bargaining position. Its also proven with Unions; Unions can include many types of jobs, but they all can work together for the greater part of the whole, with the knowledge that that will work for them in the future. Sometimes collective bargaining breaks down when proposals to certain key groups are sweet enough, but it doesn't mean an end to the Union or collective action.
And here's the problem I have; the assumption that the Isles will be able to maintain a plurality indefinitely. "Vague" systems of allocation rarely last for long, but collective action is a self-reinforcing cycle as soon as it succeeds. Britain may be able to remain dominant for a while, but eventually it will trade autonomy/responsibility for immediate benefits, and eventually it won't have the power to call upon.
That's right, but in OTL the pressure to cooperate was much higher - first, there was a war of independence to win (which also contributed to a feeling of shared interests) and even after that relationships with Britain remained hostile. In a TL where some kind of accomodation is reached, the pressure to unite against London would be much lower.
That depends on how exactly the accomodation would look like that would be reached between London and the colonies. The more freedom it would give to the colonies and the less taxes it would demand, the less reason they would have to gang up against London. Also, even if there are things to bargain about, some colonies may be convinced that they could get a better deal for themselves by breaking rank with the others.
Rockingham
Banned
I suspec that if a "United states of the Britonnic Empire" or whatever you wish to call it were to occur, that very much the same thing would happen to Britain that happened to the Dutch when the British opened up to them....
Granted, that happened OTL, but it would happen earlier.
Granted, that happened OTL, but it would happen earlier.
Conversely, 90 years later the successor states to the colonies split into two factions and had a rather large war.
In 1812 New England sat out a war not to their advantage.
Even during the ARW the New England states sent virtually no aid to the South and a number of northerners were pushing for a 10 colony solution (leaving Georgia and the Carolinas to the British).
The American colonies could react to legislation against them collectively in a collective manner (although they couldn't always manage that) but that simply means Britain has to avoid "Us against Them" creeping in.