WI there was no American Revolution?

[Dean_the_Young]

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.

Yes and no. There would be less to worktogether against, but now there has already been an example of collaborative bargaining working. It might fade for awhile, but it will come again and again. Indians holding lands that the colonists want? Breaking out across the Appalachians into the rich lands beyond? Defense with Spanish-incited indians in Florida and Louisiana? The after effects of those? These are all matters that the colonies are going to be concerned about, and the moment you have an assembly of NA, there's going to be horse trading for support here in exchange for support there. New York may not care much about Spanish Florida, but it does care about support to get into the Iriqouis Confederacy.

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.

And this is the nature of all collective bargaining. But the thing is, even as people jump ranks occasionally, progress is made. The US Senate makes a good demonstration: each senator has the ability to stop all action unless overridden by a vast majority, and once a party beats that number it can freeze all business whenever it wants. But deals are constantly made, and though people disagree and have counter-interests, the legislation is still passed with a majority.

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).

Actually, New England didn't sit out the war of 1812. There was anti-war sentiment embodied by the Copperheads (who still don't make up a majority of the politcos), but New England fought as much/more than the South. The invasion of Canada wasn't fought from Virgina or South Carolina, after all, and the National Anthem wasn't penned overlooking Charleston Harbor.

And of course, the ARW lack of aid was in no part due to how NE itself was constantly at threat by the British, who were qualitatively and quantitatively superior.

You're making a few leaps of faith here, mate. But as for the Civil War, that actually supports my point more than yours: a collective action by a group of states that didn't even outweigh the ruling force was able to throw its weight around for years before the first shell was fired. It was only when the fighting started that they were put down, but for decades beforehand the South had assumed a collective bargaining position despite ranging interests. Now remember that Britain would be the authority faction, and that colonies could find their own common causes despite ranging interests, and...

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.

It's hardly "simple," because it's not "Us against Them." A legislature works by the members making deals and supporting eachother's proposals, a process called "logrolling" or "horsetrading" in the US. It's a natural process in Representation-based societies like NA was and is. You are, in effect, arguing against game theory here.

 

[Nicomacheus]

It's hardly "simple," because it's not "Us against Them." A legislature works by the members making deals and supporting eachother's proposals, a process called "logrolling" or "horsetrading" in the US. It's a natural process in Representation-based societies like NA was and is. You are, in effect, arguing against game theory here.

Okay, I think Dean makes good points. But I think the difference here is the difference between sectionalism of the North and South and that of the West and East. To wit: in OTL US history, tensions between North and South per se are much, much stronger than tensions between the East (as a whole) and the West. I recall a thread about a Civil War between East and West a few days back on the forums. The notion of such a conflict seems strange, to me at least. Now there is of course a great diffence in that the East has had for much of US history a far greater population than the West. And yet the West has certain cultural motifs that resent those folks "back east." The emergence of California in the late 20th century changed that idea as has the resent converegence of the two coasts against the center.

Now it seems to me that Dean's argument is that sectionalism in *BNA will develop along the West-East line: i.e. relatively minor, mostly cultural differences, that do not create political emnities or disincentives to mutual cooperation. If the confederations are North-South then I think this assumption may be somewhat flawed.

I also think that the nature of the coopeartion and thus the nature of the games to be theorized depends 1) on what kind of entities we're talking about and 2) when they're created. Dean's points seem very valid for a BNA that has a POD after (roughly) 1763 or 1776, one that includes a history of Stamp Act Congresses and the Seven Years' War (the Great War for Empire so called by some).

In a POD such I outlined, pre-1763, that history never emerges and the sense of a budding American nation very quiescent. For example, the organization between separate confederations of colonies would be very different than that of states in the US: essentially, the confederations would begin to function along the lines of the US under the 1787 Constitution but the organization between the confederations would be very loose, if at all formal.

Now, I agree that once one creates formal organization for the entirety, Britain can be outvoted, but I don't think this means the American entities want out of the Empire. In fact, I think the question is whether Britain really wants in, rather than wanting to control everything. In this case, whether a unified BE or a group of independent states results is largely a question of timing, circumstances, and events, which in my mind can overcome the tendcies outlined above.

 

[Darkling]

Actually, New England didn't sit out the war of 1812. There was anti-war sentiment embodied by the Copperheads (who still don't make up a majority of the politcos), but New England fought as much/more than the South. The invasion of Canada wasn't fought from Virgina or South Carolina, after all, and the National Anthem wasn't penned overlooking Charleston Harbor.

No it was Baltimore and unless somebody moved Maryland it isn't in the North and sure as hell isn't in New England.

I really suggest you go and do some reading on the war of 1812 if you don't think New England was extremely disinterested in the war of 1812.

Start with the Britsih Army being supplied from Vermont, look at Dearborne exceeding his orders and trying to cancel the war, the Peninsula army being supplied with food via New England ships, Maine being surrendered with no aid being sent from the rest of New England, New York militia refusing to cross the frontier etc etc.

The major (successful) prong of advance against Canada was directed from Ohio/Kentucky with the other axis of advance being from New York.

And of course, the ARW lack of aid was in no part due to how NE itself was constantly at threat by the British, who were qualitatively and quantitatively superior.

Beyond Newport and "Maine" the British did very little in New England compared to elsewhere.

You're making a few leaps of faith here, mate.

Prove, don't state.

But as for the Civil War, that actually supports my point more than yours: a collective action by a group of states that didn't even outweigh the ruling force was able to throw its weight around for years before the first shell was fired. It was only when the fighting started that they were put down, but for decades beforehand the South had assumed a collective bargaining position despite ranging interests. Now remember that Britain would be the authority faction, and that colonies could find their own common causes despite ranging interests, and...

The point would be that the states you expect to make a steadfast bloc had such diverging world views that they fought each other in a bloody war almost a century later.

Let us look at tariffs for example, is the South going to sacrifice their interest to side with the North just because they are the same continent?

No, they are going to jump on the free trade bandwagon with Britain.

Is the west going to be happy with trade distorting measures to benefit each "country" individually? No, they are going to want their corn to spread throughout the Empire and supplant the local produce.

Even things like voting rights won't see agreements between states, is Rhode Island really going to be that eager to push for a a system based upon population size?

The colonies will probably agree on trying to be cheap parasites and getting Britain to do all the heavy lifting but they could easily be forced to compromise such positions with pandering to their individual concerns.

Eventually they would come to see it as their Empire and be as interested in protecting it as anybody else.

It's hardly "simple," because it's not "Us against Them." A legislature works by the members making deals and supporting eachother's proposals, a process called "logrolling" or "horsetrading" in the US. It's a natural process in Representation-based societies like NA was and is. You are, in effect, arguing against game theory here.

Not at all, my very point is that the colonies will not be defined by their common bond.

You are assuming they all get together in some smoke filled run and agree to support one another against Britain (sure we will vote against ending slavery if you guys vote in favour of high tariffs) when it is quite conceivable that Britain can play divide and rule by recruiting colonies on a case by case basis (you guys hate slavery right? well vote for this, you guys subscribe to the magic of free trade? This is the bill for you).

Your assumption that geographic proximity equals common cause simply isn't realistic.
The colonies will have common ground to be sure but they will also find it with Britain and they will find a far easier method of pushing their agenda by aligning themselves with a single kingmaker than a coalition of disparate colonies who have to be bribed and cajoled with varying payments.

Not to mention the fact that we don't necessarily see regional groupings in the legislature rather than parties simply covering the entire Empire (Manchester and Detroit vote Labour, Georgia and the home counties vote Tory etc).